YONAH CROSSFIRE VS ATHLON X2 CROSSFIRE

[rettihSlluB]

As you guys can see in the link, yonah gets it deep in the @ss by X2 in 3D mark and gaming tests.
http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/yonah-crossfire-3.htm

 

[ltcommander_data]

The reason why the Crossfire results on Yonah were lower than the X2 was because although the i975 chipset itself supports Crossfire, it was never designed to support Yonah. Somewhere in the modification to support Yonah, the Crossfire support was effected.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=coreduo

Here is a more complete review of Yonah that includes things other than just games.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=coreduo

They specifically address the Crossfire issues.

The motherboard does officially support ATI’s “Crossfire” multi-GPU technology, Just as many other Intel 975X are certified for this multi-GPU scenario as well. However, in practice, we were not able to set up a Radeon X1900 XT Crossfire configuration on this motherboard, as Windows would lock up any time the second card was added to the mix. We were able to get two individual graphics cards working on this motherboard, but there appears to be some sort of driver glitch preventing Crossfire operation at this time.

Overall, the 2.16GHz Yonah matches or exceeds the 2.2GHz X2 4400+.

 

[Caboose-1]

The reason why the Crossfire results on Yonah were lower than the X2 was because although the i975 chipset itself supports Crossfire, it was never designed to support Yonah. Somewhere in the modification to support Yonah, the Crossfire support was effected.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=coreduo

Here is a more complete review of Yonah that includes things other than just games.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=coreduo

They specifically address the Crossfire issues.

The motherboard does officially support ATI’s “Crossfire” multi-GPU technology, Just as many other Intel 975X are certified for this multi-GPU scenario as well. However, in practice, we were not able to set up a Radeon X1900 XT Crossfire configuration on this motherboard, as Windows would lock up any time the second card was added to the mix. We were able to get two individual graphics cards working on this motherboard, but there appears to be some sort of driver glitch preventing Crossfire operation at this time.

Overall, the 2.16GHz Yonah matches or exceeds the 2.2GHz X2 4400+. Owned.

 

[gr8mikey]

Hey, rettihSlluB my fecal comrade -- I noted in prior discussions that you and 9-Inch seem to be the intellectual equivalents of Schroedinger and de Broglie (two of the fathers of mondern physics).

I was wondering if you could help me get past a quandary....

I do not completely understand the concept salicides and their roles in reducing the Schottky barrier, could you explain for me and the rest of the forum readers?

I am sure we all could use a lesson from you in this regard....it could be very educational..... with utmost urgency I request the grace of your attention to give this matter an appropriate review so that we may all be blessed by your extremely accute intellectual powers.

Yours truly,
Jack.

Dude you are a riot! Can't stop laughing!

 

[rettihSlluB]

Overall, the 2.16GHz Yonah matches or exceeds the 2.2GHz X2 4400+.

I suggest you read the benchmarks again. Anyhow, I'll do it for you:

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Arithmetic Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->1
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->0

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Multimedia Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->2
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->0

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - Memory Bandwidth Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->3
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->0

FEAR - Average FPS - 1024 x 768
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->3
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->1

Half Life 2 : Lost Coast - 1024 x 768
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->4
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->1

Alias Maya 7.0 - High Definition Render
Let's call this one a tie.

3D Studio Max 7.0 - Radiosity Render
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->4
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->2

Windows Media Encoder 9.0 - MPG to WMV Encode
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->2

LAME MT - WAV to MP3 Encode
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->3

Adobe Photoshop CS2 - Filter Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->4

Macromedia Flash MX - MPEG Import
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

WinRAR 6.3 Multi-Threaded RAR Compression
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->6
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Acrobat 7.0 Pro - 5000 Page Word to PDF Creation
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->7
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Apache Benchmark - 10,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 2
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->8
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Apache Benchmark - 50,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 10
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->9
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Conclusion:
X2-4400--->9
core duo--->5
Tie--------->1

Now, who's the one that got owned?? 8)

 

[chime]

Probable response to all Jack's questions (now and future):

...."but... but... Professor... the inquirer does not have such info :roll: :roll: .... Can we switch to another subject please, please ...." :roll: :roll:



Chime

 

[9-inch]

Quote:
Overall, the 2.16GHz Yonah matches or exceeds the 2.2GHz X2 4400+.


I suggest you read the benchmarks again. Anyhow, I'll do it for you:

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Arithmetic Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->1
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->0

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Multimedia Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->2
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->0

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - Memory Bandwidth Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->3
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->0

FEAR - Average FPS - 1024 x 768
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->3
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->1

Half Life 2 : Lost Coast - 1024 x 768
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->4
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->1

Alias Maya 7.0 - High Definition Render
Let's call this one a tie.

3D Studio Max 7.0 - Radiosity Render
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->4
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->2

Windows Media Encoder 9.0 - MPG to WMV Encode
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->2

LAME MT - WAV to MP3 Encode
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->3

Adobe Photoshop CS2 - Filter Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->4

Macromedia Flash MX - MPEG Import
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

WinRAR 6.3 Multi-Threaded RAR Compression
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->6
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Acrobat 7.0 Pro - 5000 Page Word to PDF Creation
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->7
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Apache Benchmark - 10,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 2
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->8
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Apache Benchmark - 50,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 10
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->9
core duo (2.16GHz)--------->5

Conclusion:
X2-4400--->9
core duo--->5
Tie--------->1

Now, who's the one that got owned??

Someone's @ss got owned. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[ltcommander_data]

I generally don't count the synthetics since they really don't mean much.

Secondly, you can't just say won or lost. If you go through the benchmarks you'll find that most of the cases that the 2.16GHz Yonah losses, it's by a small margin.

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Arithmetic Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 1.4%

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Multimedia Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 1.7%

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - Memory Bandwidth Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 40.8%

FEAR - Average FPS - 1024 x 768
core duo (2.16GHz) by 7.0%

Half Life 2 : Lost Coast - 1024 x 768
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 3.8%

Alias Maya 7.0 - High Definition Render
Tie.

3D Studio Max 7.0 - Radiosity Render
core duo (2.16GHz) by 8.1%

Windows Media Encoder 9.0 - MPG to WMV Encode
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5 by 5.8%

LAME MT - WAV to MP3 Encode
core duo (2.16GHz) by 27.0%

Adobe Photoshop CS2 - Filter Benchmark
core duo (2.16GHz) by 19.5%

Macromedia Flash MX - MPEG Import
core duo (2.16GHz) by 27.2%

WinRAR 6.3 Multi-Threaded RAR Compression
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 23.3%

Acrobat 7.0 Pro - 5000 Page Word to PDF Creation
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 20.9%

Apache Benchmark - 10,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 2
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 1.9%

Apache Benchmark - 50,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 10
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 1.6%

Performance differences less than 2% are usually considered a tie since they are within the margin of error and aren't relevent in the real world anyways. Including the synthetics the results are:

X2-4400--->5
core duo---> 5
Tie---------> 5

However, if you discount the synthetics, 2 of the ties disappear along with 1 of the X2 4400+'s wins. It should also be noted that the Half-Life 2 win by the X2 was only by 3.8%.

Based on the above:

X2-4400--->3
core duo---> 5
Tie---------> 4

Which with the greater than 5% improvement in real-world benchmarks constituting a win, makes crowning a winner (or at least a comparison) more definitive.

 

[SidVicious]

The T2600 OC'ed to 2.9GHz really got my attention ! 8O

Good to see that the two architectures are "almost" equivalent clock for clock...

 

[rettihSlluB]

I generally don't count the synthetics since they really don't mean much.

Secondly, you can't just say won or lost. If you go through the benchmarks you'll find that most of the cases that the 2.16GHz Yonah losses, it's by a small margin.

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Arithmetic Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 1.4%

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - CPU Multimedia Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 1.7%

SiSoft Sandra 2005 - Memory Bandwidth Benchmark
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 40.8%

FEAR - Average FPS - 1024 x 768
core duo (2.16GHz) by 7.0%

Half Life 2 : Lost Coast - 1024 x 768
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 3.8%

Alias Maya 7.0 - High Definition Render
Tie.

3D Studio Max 7.0 - Radiosity Render
core duo (2.16GHz) by 8.1%

Windows Media Encoder 9.0 - MPG to WMV Encode
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<)-->5 by 5.8%

LAME MT - WAV to MP3 Encode
core duo (2.16GHz) by 27.0%

Adobe Photoshop CS2 - Filter Benchmark
core duo (2.16GHz) by 19.5%

Macromedia Flash MX - MPEG Import
core duo (2.16GHz) by 27.2%

WinRAR 6.3 Multi-Threaded RAR Compression
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 23.3%

Acrobat 7.0 Pro - 5000 Page Word to PDF Creation
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 20.9%

Apache Benchmark - 10,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 2
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 1.9%

Apache Benchmark - 50,000 Users w/ Concurrency Of 10
Athlon X2-4400 (2.2GH<) by 1.6%

Performance differences less than 2% are usually considered a tie since they are within the margin of error and aren't relevent in the real world anyways. Including the synthetics the results are:

X2-4400--->5
core duo---> 5
Tie---------> 5

However, if you discount the synthetics, 2 of the ties disappear along with 1 of the X2 4400+'s wins. It should also be noted that the Half-Life 2 win by the X2 was only by 3.8%.

Based on the above:

X2-4400--->3
core duo---> 5
Tie---------> 4

Which with the greater than 5% improvement in real-world benchmarks constituting a win, makes crowning a winner (or at least a comparison) more definitive.

So, are you finally admitting that core duo is no match to the X2-4400 with this post??

It seems kinda laughable to see that you guys praise conroe's superpi results (which is also a synthetic becnhmark) and still give no credit to the X2-4400. Even in the Apache benchmark (which is real world performance) the X2-4400 blow away the core duo.

Once more, thanks for proving me right.

 

[YO_KID37]

Lols Seems liek the Conroe and Yonah are the same thing as an AMD Athlon64 @ 2.4ghz just seems like Intel bought a load of X2s and put a different socket on the bottom and another sticker on top and called it the future King of the Computing, lols they seem to be too similar to tell weather if Intel just Copy and pasted a AMDx2 or what maybe a few Fsb here and there and a little copper or silver conductors here and there and you got a Conroe/ or Yonah.

 

[dvdpiddy]

As you guys can see in the link, yonah gets it deep in the @ss by X2 in 3D mark and gaming tests.
http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/yonah-crossfire-3.htm

Bull$hitter(ya i'm still calling you bull$hitter) don't you think that it's oddly strange that some sites report yonah is beating x2 or x2 is beating yonah? I think that they're both even and sites that are loyal to intel or amd are spinning the truth to make people come to their side it's all about money!

 

[shinigamiX]

OK, Intel and AMD are equal. I, however, kick both their asses.

 

[edwuave]

haha....yonah architecture is almost same as conroe, which means we will see almost the same result here as well. conroe better than AMD by 20%?it is nothing much but a marketing strategy by intel. whihc is loosing its market share nowdays. and will continue to loose even conroe is out. cheers for AMD.

 

[dvdpiddy]

OK, Intel and AMD are equal. I, however, kick both their asses.

Exactly! Except for the kicking asses part can you take on intel security by yourself?

 

[dvdpiddy]

haha....yonah architecture is almost same as conroe, which means we will see almost the same result here as well. conroe better than AMD by 20%?it is nothing much but a marketing strategy by intel. whihc is loosing its market share nowdays. and will continue to loose even conroe is out. cheers for AMD.

Would you take the time and spell out the differences and similarities between Conroe and Yohna please. Many thanks, Jack It's yonah not yohna.

 

[iterations]

haha....yonah architecture is almost same as conroe, which means we will see almost the same result here as well. conroe better than AMD by 20%?it is nothing much but a marketing strategy by intel. whihc is loosing its market share nowdays. and will continue to loose even conroe is out. cheers for AMD.

Yeah conroe is the same as yonah...

Except Conroe is a 4 issue core while Yonah is 3 issue.

Except Conroe features micro and macro ops fusion while Yonah only has micro ops fusion.

Except Conroe has a full 128bit wide, one cycle for compleition SSE engine, while Yonah (and every other chip in existance fron Intel or AMD) lacks.

Except Conroe has ultra fine grained power control for all functional units across the entire surface of the die.

Except Conroe has a fully shared 4MB cache and low latency L1->L1 crossbar.

Yeah they are clearly the same and there is no reason Conroe will perform even better than the unbelievebly good Yonah, which performs the same or better than the X2 from AMD while using way way less power and overclocking much more reliably... cheers for AMD indeed.

 

[Ycon]

Why not compare apples to apples?
However, if you multiply Yonah´s scores by 3, you will get the comparison of performance/watt which actually matters more than other values you might find.

 

[RichPLS]

And Yonah is 32-bit only, and Conroe will have 64-bit extensions...

 

[RichPLS]

Aaaaaaaannnnnnddddddd.....


Yonah is a NOTEBOOK CPU, which is designed for lower power and resulting in of course lower performance than an equivalent desktop processor...

Sooooooooo, in light of Yonah that competes aggressively with AMD's heaviest hitting DESKTOP CPU, that paints Intel in a good shade, while tossing AMD's architecture on the curbside recycling bin...

 

[Era]

Memory disambiuation

Oh fock. Start learning spelling, dumparse.
You had me cornered whit that "disambiuation" so bad I had go to my dictionary.
If you want to use fancy pansy words, at least spell them right.

 

[Action_Man]

 

[Era]

Fancy-pansy.

 

[Era]

You take it as you like, but it was meant to be an insult.
Did I spell it wrong?

 

[Legenic]

@ rettihSlluB and 9-inch:

both chips are very much the same in performance. the X2 is faster overall, but not by much at all. no chip took it in the "@ss".

I must bring up though:

core duo being a mobile chip that; with a somewhat modest 667mhz fsb, no on-die memory controller and with a _considerably_ lower power consumption than the X2 both at idle and full load, is still able to perform almost identically with the athlon chip. this is what's impressive about the core duo imo.