Llano vs Sandy Bridge Compute Capacity

[[XC] hipno650]

Wasn't AMD the "king of smootheness"? Now Intel is faster and smoother? AMD is doomed...

Anyway, numbers/benches or it didn't happen...

I was never one to believe the "AMD is smoother stuff" ever since C2D I have always felt that Intel Systems have "seemed" faster. also I'm sure we both know that it's impossible to benchmark "smoothness"

So you are saying you can tell that your browser loads pages faster on your 2600k at 4.5 than an X6 1100T at 4.4?

Browser responsiveness is dependent on HDD speed, latency and throughput. Maybe you are seeing the difference between two different HDD's or ICH10 vs SB850, in which we all already know ICH10 beats the out of.

The majority of people I know are still on P4 and A64...some have Core 2 Duo and only a few people I know have bought PC's in the last year have a stock 920 or similar.

Anyone looked at that video closely in 720p?
SPi finishes Loop 1 on Llano at 2m 00.493s @ 1.8-2.5 Ghz
SPi finishes Loop 1 on Sandy Bridge at 1m 26.287s @ 3.4-3.8 Ghz

...thats slower, but the Llano chip has a 45w TDP and only 4MB L2

Either one of two things are going on -
1. AMD has MUCH faster cache at 32M and or K10.5 cores respond much better without being starved of cache (1MB per core vs 512KB for Deneb/Thuban)
2. i7 is crippled by having 8 HyperPi vs 4 running at once, despite it bouncing off of 100% load every few seconds.

thats an extreme comparison. of course a 4.4ghz 1100T system is going to seem as fast as anything because it is has a massive single threaded boost over stock. I was referring to consumer grade stuff as in like core i3/i5 stuff and lower end Phenom and Athlon quads... i'm not saying the difference is massive or anything and as many people have pointed out it might be placebo.... totally possible but I also notice a small diff between my 2600k at stock and OCed to 5GHZ... the differene however is MASSIVE on say something like a netbook compared to say even a normal laptop (CPU usage over 70% opening IE or anything) you might be right about the chipset difference as well though. put it's part of the whole AMD vs Intel package...

placebo, when intel went away from their old FSB there was no difference at all between amd and intel in terms of resposiveness

in everyday usage i noticed no difference at all between my old Xeon W3520 @ 4ghz; the 1055t @ 4ghz and my current stop-gap i7 860 @ 2.8ghz
everything with 2 128gb raid 0 Ultradrive GX SSDs

(i got the 1055T for rendering so it was an upgrade from the W3520 )


i'm sure that my new i7 2600 is going to feel just the same in non-work related usage

you might be right but I'm talking mostly on lower end and lower clock speed CPU's

Youre probably right again ,about this generation.Thing is, pc`s and laptops are being used 3-5 years on average, so if its going to get pushed 2-3 years down the line, hardware must be here NOW.And i have to tell, that really most people doesnt need MUCH cpu power, they need ENOUGH, especially on laptops/netbooks.Same thing goes for GPU, its just that no integrated gfx up until Llano had something thats enough.Everytime i have to explain friends/family/clients WHY their brand new notebook with newest intel stuff "just aint enough" to play a game i get so frustrated over this.And they dont understand why they "have to" have discret gfx...
But it looks this combo is not going to be fast, but enough to do most stuff normal people do.
As for the GPGPU, i believe CUDA will go the way of the glide, theres really no place for it in the desktop segment.Its directcompute and opencl in the future.
As for the UI, i was talking about the future, not vista`s aero.
As for the smoothness, its kinda difficult.Im SURE that XP64 UI is damn much faster than 7`s .Especially when im using NET based software under 7, i literally can see the window be "drawn" .My friends tell me im not well tho :P .
Anyhow, there were tests made, that made clear that in some instances, human eye can "kind of" see up to 500FPS, in short bursts and not whole detail.

for most of the customers I deal with I will always recommend a faster CPU over a faster GPU every day of the week as they are far more likely to boot up movie maker or photoshop then WoW or any other game for that matter. for any one with ANY inkling of gaming usage I ALWAYS recommend a dedicated GPU. this may change with Lano but the trouble is that most more casual games that people may play on a laptop are going to be more CPU bound as far a simulation time is concerned. For example, two of the most popular games for PC right now, WoW and Starcraft 2 are both fairly CPU bound. in which case the Lano GPU might cut it for say meduim/high settings in StarCraft 2 but once a ton of units get going the CPU will die. In which case they are better off spending the extra $100 to get an i7 lappy with a dedicated GPU. I will agree however in saying that for gaming all of the Intel IGP's are total trash...

I do 100% agree that opencl is the future but I see that future as being much farther off then you may think. while it is a "better" solution than CUDA it is newer to market and has a much smaller current dev base than CUDA. also I have heard it is harder to create an OpenCL app compared to a CUDA one. I think more and more people will develop for CUDA and in a few years decide to switch to OpenCL. Software moves pretty slow. Look how long 64bit OSes and 64bit CPU's have been around for, yet still 90% of apps don't natively support 64bit operations...