SIX is Sexy! (Unboxed)

[Manicdan]

Ah, ok now it's clear, tnx.

So 22K at just 3870? Can anyone say 24K on water?

im actually a little worried that 3870mhz x6 is a little low, think u can give us 4ghz on all cores with your setup? or is that the max cinebench run u got?

[informal]

Thanks for the explanation Ridney and AMD-C.

That cinebench is awesome, almost 22K!

So, allow me to do a little math: your're runnning 14x270= 3780 and once turbo kicks in 3 cores go to 2.5x270=675+3780=4455MHz?

Basically you ran that bench with 3 cores at 3780 and 3 cores randomly switching to 4455MHz, right?

If you are referring to C10 test ,no,he ran it @ 3.7Ghz since all cores were used.IF on the other hand you meant Spi,then 3 active cores(all being used 33% each) were OCed to the Turboed clock and the SPi thread ran on them(effectively the same as having SPi bound to one core that worked @ Turboed clock).

[crazydiamond]

manicdan i think most of the programs/games that work for quadcore will work for even more cores. and also i think we will be able to clock these as high as c3 quads so if there is something that is only coded to work w/ 4 cores no more, then they should still have same if not better clocks than deneb. if people that move from deneb to x6 use the same vcore on the new cpu, i dont think there will be many instances that the quad will beat the x6

[Manicdan]

manicdan i think most of the programs/games that work for quadcore will work for even more cores. and also i think we will be able to clock these as high as c3 quads so if there is something that is only coded to work w/ 4 cores no more, then they should still have same if not better clocks than deneb. if people that move from deneb to x6 use the same vcore on the new cpu, i dont think there will be many instances that the quad will beat the x6

theres a review shown in the news section showing the 1055T loosing to the x4 965 in a few games, due to using all 4 cores, but nothing beyond that. programs should have no problems scaling past 4 most of the time, but games i think were built for 2 or 4 or other set numbers, instead of being dynamic, but hopefully if they got to 4, it should be very easy for a patch to get to 6 or so

im still freaking annoyed at WoW using just 2 cores. 3.4ghz with game setting at minimum, should not result in 30fps, at max its like 25fps. so i have no clue how they could have such crappy programming.

[ridney]

HA! you would be suprised to what i have just found!

i ran 3dmark06 with an extended display to see how turbo was picking up





AND GUESS WHAT?



Turbo ran on FOUR cores!!!


here's the result

[crazydiamond]

hmm interesting to say the least! did you notice that they were switching around very frequently & staying w/ 4 cores? sometimes when i change clockspeed cpuz takes a bit to update it so i was wondering if they just hadnt quite updated enough, but hoping it really uses 4 cores that would be amazing! i will def keep turbo on if thats the case im guessing it it runs x6 for cpu tests & uses turbo for 3d tests?

[charged3800z24]

HA! you would be suprised to what i have just found!

i ran 3dmark06 with an extended display to see how turbo was picking up


AND GUESS WHAT?


Turbo ran on FOUR cores!!!


here's the result

That is awsome stuff right there. Dang USA and there slow to get new stuff, crap... LOL

[charged3800z24]

hmm interesting to say the least! did you notice that they were switching around very frequently & staying w/ 4 cores? sometimes when i change clockspeed cpuz takes a bit to update it so i was wondering if they just hadnt quite updated enough, but hoping it really uses 4 cores that would be amazing! i will def keep turbo on if thats the case im guessing it it runs x6 for cpu tests & uses turbo for 3d tests?

Good point, When is the new AOD coming? This has live data and will be better for testing this thoery.

[crazydiamond]

That is awsome stuff right there. Dang USA and there slow to get new stuff, crap... LOL

yes its been torture! ive been living vicariously through our friends around the world this week! cant stay off XS but thats nothing new

[charged3800z24]

yes its been torture! ive been living vicariously through our friends around the world this week! cant stay off XS but thats nothing new

Ah, so it's not just me

I can't wait to get one. My wife will probably make a perminent place on the couch for me when I do get one.

[ridney]

they were switching but i am sure they were running on four cores for a reasonable amount of time, a couple of seconds maybe 4 or 5. It happens quite a lot during GT1 and GT2 tests and i had ran the bench 3 times and is showing similar behavior so i can say it really ran on four cores and two extra cores are always on idle.

from what i can see during the cpu test, turbo didn't kick-in frequently and a lot of cores where idle. it wasn't showing the same behavior with those graphics tests

[jcmarfilph]

OMG 4 cores on Turbo... Very nice ^_^

[crazydiamond]

they were switching but i am sure they were running on four cores for a reasonable amount of time, a couple of seconds maybe 4 or 5. It happens quite a lot during GT1 and GT2 tests and i had ran the bench 3 times and is showing similar behavior so i can say it really ran on four cores and two extra cores are always on idle.

from what i can see during the cpu test, turbo didn't kick-in frequently and a lot of cores where idle. it wasn't showing the same behavior with those graphics tests

thats good to hear

about the cpu tests, it was showing some cores as idle? i think the score is reflective of x6@ 3780mhz

[Zeus]

Great! Wondering why the cpu score is still lowish though. Mad222 got 8K cpu score at 4.3GHz, then again, he had all 6 cores running at that speed plus he was running Windows XP.

Thanks for showing your results Ridney! Keep pushing.

[[XC] Oj101]

4455MHz + 4455MHz + 4455MHz + 4455MHz + 1080MHz + 1080MHz / 6 cores gives an average speed of 3330MHz, could you rerun at that speed with Turbo off? I'm interested in scaling with cores.

[Manicdan]

4455MHz + 4455MHz + 4455MHz + 4455MHz + 1080MHz + 1080MHz / 6 cores gives an average speed of 3330MHz, could you rerun at that speed with Turbo off? I'm interested in scaling with cores.

its switching cores constantly, it would be better shown if an app could track what the cpu speed is multiple times per second for every core. the app should only be using 2 cores (i think the games in 3Dmark06 are duel optimized and the cpu tests are much higher), so 2 of them should be at 4.4ghz, and the other 4 should actually be idle. but due to how and when cpuz reads them, i think its just an optical illusion.

and hes having trouble turning off turbo, which makes it a real pain to know how well its working, lol

[AMD-C]

theres a review shown in the news section showing the 1055T loosing to the x4 965 in a few games, due to using all 4 cores, but nothing beyond that. programs should have no problems scaling past 4 most of the time, but games i think were built for 2 or 4 or other set numbers, instead of being dynamic, but hopefully if they got to 4, it should be very easy for a patch to get to 6 or so

im still freaking annoyed at WoW using just 2 cores. 3.4ghz with game setting at minimum, should not result in 30fps, at max its like 25fps. so i have no clue how they could have such crappy programming.

Well, WOW is 5+ years in release at this point. I imagine that when it was primarily being coded, duals weren't even common yet.

Rendering is ideal for parallelizing, games not so much.

For example, BioWare figured out to do a great job of coding Dragon Age to benefit from 4 cores as it scales by 60%+, but it doesn't gain much of anything with the jump to 6.

I'd imagine there's a lot more to threading a game for multiple cores than just flipping a switch to spawn more workers.

The developers are going to have to figure it out though. It's clear that we're looking at far more growth in cores than Mhz for the foreseeable future.

[Manicdan]

Well, WOW is 5+ years in release at this point. I imagine that when it was primarily being coded, duals weren't even common yet.

Rendering is ideal for parallelizing, games not so much.

well the issue is that something has changed or been added so the cpu needs to be stronger, but cant be much stronger. when wow was new, my gpu was a 9800, and my cpu was a single core, and i got 60fps back then even with 40man groups. when they first introduced shadows, my cpu was killed, so i kept it off, then they modified it and now its 10x better and no where near as taxing. so i know, its not a graphics setting since when minimized it still exists. so something weird thats causing low fps that your stuck with, and it seems to be around data movements, so when your around alot of people doing nothing, or a few people doing alot. same number of polys, but animations, or spell effects, or combat logs, and other crap seem to be related to this.

for a game that brings in 150 million dollars a month, hopefully they have a team working on spitting off more of the workload to new threads.

[ridney]

but due to how and when cpuz reads them, i think its just an optical illusion.

i would have seen the same when i was benching with cinebench single thread run, but i didn't with 3dmark06 you can blink 10 times and turbo is still running on those same four sexy cores

okay i think it's time to ZZZZzzzzzzz

[FlanK3r]

ridney: OMG, this is awesome and crazy! Air? What ambient temps? Can u ran CInebench at 4 GHz (without turbo)? Superpi, omg, omg, omg I want it.

[ridney]

ridney: OMG, this is awesome and crazy! Air? What ambient temps? Can u ran CInebench at 4 GHz (without turbo)? Superpi, omg, omg, omg I want it.

whau flank3r! i'm running on water (see my sig), the problem with my mobo is that it can't disable turbo (yet) so i'm stuck

anyways, say hello to my new "on-the-fly" best friend

[AMD-C]

well the issue is that something has changed or been added so the cpu needs to be stronger, but cant be much stronger.

Interesting.

When I played WOW (early '05), the game ran great on just about anything.

After taking a look around the web it sounds like the game has become unplayable for a lot of people.

I'm thinking there must be something positively rotten with the game's infrastructure. It's hard to imagine that even the worst client code would cause the game performance to decrease so drastically in spite of 2 CPU generations passing by underneath it.

[Manicdan]

Interesting.

When I played WOW (early '05), the game ran great on just about anything.

After taking a look around the web it sounds like the game has become unplayable for a lot of people.

I'm thinking there must be something positively rotten with the game's infrastructure. It's hard to imagine that even the worst client code would cause the game performance to decrease so drastically in spite of 2 CPU generations passing by underneath it.

see the issue is WoW is backed by intel, and intel promised us 10ghz with netburst, and i rest my case, lol.

seriously though, i have no clue, and its no fun

@ridney, with cinebench u only have 1 thread, so maybe you see 1-2 cores in turbo mode, with 3dmark06 its built for 2 threads, so maybe u see 2-4 cores in turbo. the only true way to tell is to fix that damn un-turbo button, lol

[FlanK3r]

ridney: its beter for OC than C3 Denebs, right? Hope, with refresh BIOS u will can turbo disabled for testing. But u are lucky man . What about wprime benchmarks?

[zir_blazer]

I'm very interesed on looking at the isolated power consumption of the Processor, X-Bit Labs style. Is actually impressive than these Processors can scale over the average attainable Frequencies of the Deneb RB-C3 when you are actually pushing 6 Cores instead of 4. While I didn't doubt that they could attain the same Frequencies, the real issue would be if the Motherboards VRM would also be capable of as you are indeed consuming more power for having more Cores, at the same Frequencies.
Besides, how that Turbo thing scales? There is a practical limit on how much you can raise the Frequency after a given point. If Turbo raises a fixed 2.5x Multiplier, there should be a bunch of overclocks that borderlines the maximum Frequencies that those Rev. E Cores are capable of without Voltage increase that would make them to become unstable, freeze or crash as soon as the Processor enables Turbo. I mean, if the transistors can't be consistently pushed above, for example, 4 GHz, and Turbo attempts to run a Core at 4.25 GHz just because the other 5 Cores are in Idle, you are going to have issues anyways because you aren't limited by power consumption but by the a physical limit of the transistors themselves.