All synthetic crap ... but something none the less.
E6400 scores more than twice as much as X2 6000+ in Sandra MM Integer, hard to say how important this bench is in real world performance. E6400 also outperforms dual FX-74's in this bench so 33% more from Barcelona over Kentsfield isnt revolutionary, but 66% MM FP would be impressive if true.
Beats it in two test? AMD's chips usually hold well in at least one form of testing. Now the other 9 test they probably are breaking even or are at a slight disadvantage.
Could really go either way yet. Then again, monolithic cores have done better then glued cores in the past, so it could really be going for AMD.
Then again, as said, synthetics and real world often are not close enough to compare.
All synthetic crap ... but something none the less.
E6400 scores more than twice as much as X2 6000+ in Sandra MM Integer, hard to say how important this bench is in real world performance. E6400 also outperforms dual FX-74's in this bench so 33% more from Barcelona over Kentsfield isnt revolutionary, but 66% MM FP would be impressive if true.
I agree.If those numbers carry over to other benches...looks good(if this site is believable). I just find that SANDRA numbers don't always jive with reality. I feel that way with all processors in SANDRA.
fudzilla does actually seem to be a trustworthy site does it not? yeah, some of them are total FUD but most of them arent. i still dont trust the scores tho... 33% and 66% sound tooo exact to be ... lets say " realistic"
All synthetic crap ... but something none the less.
E6400 scores more than twice as much as X2 6000+ in Sandra MM Integer, hard to say how important this bench is in real world performance. E6400 also outperforms dual FX-74's in this bench so 33% more from Barcelona over Kentsfield isnt revolutionary, but 66% MM FP would be impressive if true.
I agree.If those numbers carry over to other benches...looks good(if this site is believable). I just find that SANDRA numbers don't always jive with reality. I feel that way with all processors in SANDRA.
I have a feeling that the K10 architecture has lower diferences between artificial and real life benchmarks as it is the case for K7 and K8.
Anyway 20% more int perf. for 2.5 GHz Barcelona over 3.0 GHz Intel even in syntetics is waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy more than Conroe had over K8.
After the recent bleed AMD deserves to smash Intel hands down.
Sure synthetic benchmarks don't mean much.
But usually, high clock speed inflates synthetic results compared to real world (see Netburst, for example), and memory bandwidth/latency is another important factor which is neglected by number crunching synthetic tests (except those specifically designed to test memory performance).
Barcellona has a lower clock speed than its competitor, and has an overall better memory subsystem, so i wouldn't be too surprised to see it ahead even in real world tests.
But we should wait and see.
Sure synthetic benchmarks don't mean much.
But usually, high clock speed inflates synthetic results compared to real world (see Netburst, for example), and memory bandwidth/latency is another important factor which is neglected by number crunching synthetic tests (except those specifically designed to test memory performance).
Barcellona has a lower clock speed than its competitor, and has an overall better memory subsystem, so i wouldn't be too surprised to see it ahead even in real world tests.
But we should wait and see.
Yeah, it's always been that way with SANDRA. As an example, take a 2GHz CPU(either brand), overclock it to 3GHz, and the results will be 1.5 times the original(in other words... clock-speed based), not taking FSB/HT speed, mem speed/timings,etc. into account. :x
I find it "strange" that faud is somehow exempt to the NDA tha tthe rest of the media was forced to follow. I am not a benchmark expert, but aren't the Sandra benchmarks usually labeled with a year? Like... Sandra 2006 or something? *Assuming that is the case* Couldn't this be another 6 year old benchmark being cherry picked to show the "massive" improvement?
It all seems fishy to me. I don't doubt the validity of the article, I just find the circumstances fishy.
I find it "strange" that faud is somehow exempt to the NDA tha tthe rest of the media was forced to follow. I am not a benchmark expert, but aren't the Sandra benchmarks usually labeled with a year? Like... Sandra 2006 or something? *Assuming that is the case* Couldn't this be another 6 year old benchmark being cherry picked to show the "massive" improvement?
It all seems fishy to me. I don't doubt the validity of the article, I just find the circumstances fishy.
People can blow hot air all day long, but numbers in an article don't mean squat. Until a legitimately decent hardware review site gets hold of an actual K10 chip and performs tests, anything else is just plain bullsh*t.
Anybody can post 'K10 is XX% faster than C2D...blah blah blah' and especially coming from a site named fudzilla?? Shall we throw fudzilla in there with the inq?
People can blow hot air all day long, but numbers in an article don't mean squat. Until a legitimately decent hardware review site gets hold of an actual K10 chip and performs tests, anything else is just plain bullsh*t.
Anybody can post 'K10 is XX% faster than C2D...blah blah blah' and especially coming from a site named fudzilla?? Shall we throw fudzilla in there with the inq?
As far as I'm concerned Fudzilla=Inq=Sharikou - all crap sites that spew whatever for hits...
I would pose the same question that Jeff_2087 posed - if the processor is THAT impressive then why the NDA? Why all the secrecy when their financials are already in the toilet? Doesn't seem very wise imo....
A few days ago Fudzilla posted fake CPUZ shot of Barcelona. I think these numbers are fake. They're very vague and not exact. If they're real why not give exact numbers? 33% and 66% sounds suspicious to me. Like he made it up.
