Phenom II 920 goodness thread

[informal]

zif33rs ,take a look at 64bit cine10 score @ 3.2Ghz from iocedmyself here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=250


He has got a lot better score than you,considering the frequency delta between the two runs.What OS are you running?

[demonkevy666]

zif33rs ,take a look at 64bit cine10 score @ 3.2Ghz from iocedmyself here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=250


He has got a lot better score than you,considering the frequency delta between the two runs.What OS are you running?

are they using the same board with the same bios ????

running using vista 64 bit(windows646.000.60) in those and the scores aren't near eachother t all.

[Titan7171]

Cinebench R10 64bit



Sure Titan..give me a few to download it and install...

cool can you run it at 1680x1050?

Set up should be:
Benchmark
Graphics settings:
Full screen
8x Antialiasing
16x Aniosotropic Texture Filtering
Glow enabled
More Dynamic light sorces enabled
Ship Color Variations enabled
Texture quality High
Shader quality High

[zif33rs]

gigabyte MA790GP-DS4H with bios F3h with Vista 64bit as well. Im not sure but look at the single cpu scores. mine is a few hundred points higher...seems that the multi cpu test isnt scaling very well.


I already ran it at 1920x1200 32bit I will re run it at that res.. what other settings would you like?

[HondaGuy]

your 3.6 to my 3.7......see if you can get your cpu to 3.7....I just changed my Multi.....one running 1Gb Crucial here

[nunchucka]

Hadn't seen that. But it's clear that a 3,6GHz Phenom II will beat a 3,2GHz Kentsfield if you look at all of those numbers too. Considering that the Q6600 beats the Yorkfield and Nehalem in several benchmarks too makes it quite obvious that not even Intel has progressed all that much. I knew Kentsfield was great but wasn't aware of that it still beats Intels own top processors at same speed (in some benchmarks). This rather shows that Kentsfield is "one of a kind" rather than Deneb being bad.

(BTW, have a Q6600 myself and no AMD systems for now.)

or it shows that review to be complete horse...


(BTW, have a QX6700 myself and AMD systems.)

[zif33rs]

your still scoring higher..probably memory timings? is that 1 stick or 2? ganged or unganged?


My temps seems to be working now too.

[HondaGuy]

Just 1 stick,,,,,I have it Ganged in the BIOS, but not showing in CPU , must need 2 sticks

[informal]

Guys,it has to be the bios then since memory doesn't affect cine10 that much.

[Demo]

Hadn't seen that. But it's clear that a 3,6GHz Phenom II will beat a 3,2GHz Kentsfield if you look at all of those numbers too. Considering that the Q6600 beats the Yorkfield and Nehalem in several benchmarks too makes it quite obvious that not even Intel has progressed all that much. I knew Kentsfield was great but wasn't aware of that it still beats Intels own top processors at same speed (in some benchmarks). This rather shows that Kentsfield is "one of a kind" rather than Deneb being bad.

(BTW, have a Q6600 myself and no AMD systems for now.)

Theres no need for intel to progress that much since AMD is leaps behind in their technology even with PhenomII, but atleast they are starting to catch up now, this might give intel enough motivation to crush AMD yet again. Competition is great for us consumers.

EDIT:

For the record, i have owned more AMD processors than Intel upto today.

[rk7p5]

Theres no need for intel to progress that much since AMD is leaps behind in their technology even with PhenomII, but atleast they are starting to catch up now, this might give intel enough motivation to crush AMD yet again. Competition is great for us consumers.

EDIT:

For the record, i have owned more AMD processors than Intel upto today.

AMD may be slightly behind in performance, but how can you say they are leaps behind in technology? 1st with imc, true dual cores, native quads...

[rockfella]

Water does the deed still very impressive!

Now this...this is really amazing...



still at default on all voltages. and Justapost im on water

[Macadamia]

ziff, can you lower your NB and HT multipliers?

You probably can get over 300Mhz HTT like that.

[TL1000S]

AMD may be slightly behind in performance, but how can you say they are leaps behind in technology? 1st with imc, true dual cores, native quads...

Unfortunately none of these technical benefits gave any significant boost in performance over contemporary Intel CPU's. It was AMD's CPU archithecture that made them superiour to Intel's netburst.
Actuallly, Intel technically "inferiour" products blew AMD out of the competition. Likewise it was the *architecture" (PIII/Dothan based) that was the critical success factor.
Only the "green team" can be blind for these facts.
BTW.
Intel's first imc CPU's (Nehamlem) do not benefit that much of this technology either.
On desktop ecpecially.
PII "goodness" depends on better power consumtion compared to Agena, *AND* excellent OC-ability compared to its predecessor (for the enthusiasts).
EOS.

[diekul]

hey zif33rs can you run GTAIV on 1680x1050 on highest possible settings @ 3.6ghz? If you have the game ofcourse.

[gosh]

Only the "green team" can be blind for these facts.

AMD created one processor that was good for multataskers. People that work with different applications and wants good flow. If they do one lengthy operation in one application they switch to other applications and works with that. This is a much more productive way to work if you compare with those who just sit an stare at the monitor while the application is processing the lengthy command.
The problem is that there are a lot of users that don't use the processor as a working tool or that they want the fastest, they just look at how fast one processor can process one command without running other applications.

There are also a lot of people that has many running instances for one application. Working with one project could mean that you need to work with three different documents. You constantly switch between those documents, this need to be fast.

What AMD did was to create a good processor for actual work.
Intel has focused to create a processor that performs good on CPU tests.

[Zeus]

I've been on Intel ever since i went from S939 Opteron to Conroe but i'm wondering why you running such rediculous slack timings?

Maybe i'm missing something but 520 4-4-4 should be too hard for decent DDR2?

[TL1000S]

AMD created one processor that was good for multataskers. People that work with different applications and wants good flow. If they do one lengthy operation in one application they switch to other applications and works with that. This is a much more productive way to work if you compare with those who just sit an stare at the monitor while the application is processing the lengthy command.
The problem is that there are a lot of users that don't use the processor as a working tool or that they want the fastest, they just look at how fast one processor can process one command without running other applications.

There are also a lot of people that has many running instances for one application. Working with one project could mean that you need to work with three different documents. You constantly switch between those documents, this need to be fast.

What AMD did was to create a good processor for actual work.
Intel has focused to create a processor that performs good on CPU tests.

Gosh, your avatar is like "throwing stones in a house of glass".

What you describe is nothing special for AMD CPU's.
It is a product of hardware and software regardless of CPU.
Which means:
If the OS/drivers do not utilize cores/threads (yes - HT do work) you can have a single core/thread unresponsive system.
Since I use 50/50 (always have) rigs from both "camps" there are no big difference regarding multitasking given same amount of cores/threads available/used by the OS. That is *my* view anyhow.
"Smoothness"/responsiveness do vary between platform/rigs, but my experience do not favour any of rigs from Intel/AMD.
As other have discovered, sometimes a "crappy" Sempron/Celeron based rig may feel quicker to boot/use/switch task than a "high end" C2D/K8/K10 rig.
This is mainly due to other hardware/drivers/OS.

[gosh]

Gosh, your avatar is like "throwing stones in a house of glass".

What you describe is nothing special for AMD CPU's.

All intel computers that I have tested has not been that good to work with compared to amd. I have friends that has noticed the same pattern so I don't think it is ghosts in my head.
I have never seen anyone say that the Intel felt more responsive compared to amd.

[Sparky]

I have never seen anyone say that the Intel felt more responsive compared to amd.

Well here is one. My intel q6600 is much more responsive than my AMD 3200+

OK guys lighten up a little and let's not clutter the OPs thread with yet another AMD vs Intel faster/smoother/snappier/etc stuff

[rk7p5]

Unfortunately none of these technical benefits gave any significant boost in performance over contemporary Intel CPU's. It was AMD's CPU archithecture that made them superiour to Intel's netburst.
Actuallly, Intel technically "inferiour" products blew AMD out of the competition. Likewise it was the *architecture" (PIII/Dothan based) that was the critical success factor.
Only the "green team" can be blind for these facts.
BTW.
Intel's first imc CPU's (Nehamlem) do not benefit that much of this technology either.
On desktop ecpecially.
PII "goodness" depends on better power consumtion compared to Agena, *AND* excellent OC-ability compared to its predecessor (for the enthusiasts).
EOS.

I don't know what you're talking about, the guy said amd is leaps behind intel technology wise and that's just not true. Now that amd is bringing deneb out, intel is gonna have alot of competition. I expect amd to take the performance lead once they release their 6 and 8 core cpu's later this year.

[Olivon]

All intel computers that I have tested has not been that good to work with compared to amd. I have friends that has noticed the same pattern so I don't think it is ghosts in my head.
I have never seen anyone say that the Intel felt more responsive compared to amd.

Drugs 'R Bad !!!

[gosh]

Drugs'r Bad !!!

why do you write that to me?

[Particle]

I'm guessing he doesn't buy the whole responsiveness and smoothness thing that you, I, and many others have noticed. I wouldn't let it get to you. Him believing it or not is irrelevant to how your system performs for you.

[TL1000S]

I don't know what you're talking about, the guy said amd is leaps behind intel technology wise and that's just not true. Now that amd is bringing deneb out, intel is gonna have alot of competition. I expect amd to take the performance lead once they release their 6 and 8 core cpu's later this year.

What is wrong with some of you worst case blind fanbois?

Where did I write something that disagree with your belief in your favorite product?

What AMD may release in the future is as interesting as your dinner, this is a thread about PHII 920 and its goodness *now*.
If this model clocks half as good as those samples we have seen "leaked" int his and other forums, this is reason enough to buy one for any *CPU* enthusiast (NOT only batblind fanbois).