Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD responds to concerns of lackluster POV-Ray scores

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 23, 2007 5:22:58 PM

http://www.uberpulse.com/us/2007/05/amds_barcelona_lack...

Quote:
The objective of our demo was to show performance scaling from our current dual-core processors to our upcoming quad-core processors within the same thermal envelope and drive home the point through a real-world demonstration that customers could expect to see 2x the performance without an increase in power consumption.


We saw an 80% increase, not 100% in performance. And that's nice that their new chips nearly double the performance "in the same thermal envelope", how about measuring the power being burned then?

Quote:
At some point before our launch you can plan on us showing a demo of our parts vs. Intel's high-performance processors.


Sounds like not anytime soon. And Computex is around the corner.

Quote:
One thing to note, the system we showed, while it was a 4P, it was running only 6GB of memory.


I don't think POV-Ray needs that much RAM anyways. Boot uses just 4GB and gets 4700.
http://www.bootdaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&t...
May 23, 2007 5:35:14 PM

Quote:
http://www.uberpulse.com/us/2007/05/amds_barcelona_lack...

The objective of our demo was to show performance scaling from our current dual-core processors to our upcoming quad-core processors within the same thermal envelope and drive home the point through a real-world demonstration that customers could expect to see 2x the performance without an increase in power consumption.


We saw an 80% increase, not 100% in performance. And that's nice that their new chips nearly double the performance "in the same thermal envelope", how about measuring the power being burned then?

Quote:
At some point before our launch you can plan on us showing a demo of our parts vs. Intel's high-performance processors.


Sounds like not anytime soon. And Computex is around the corner.

Quote:
One thing to note, the system we showed, while it was a 4P, it was running only 6GB of memory.


I don't think POV-Ray needs that much RAM anyways. Boot uses just 4GB and gets 4700.
http://www.bootdaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&t...

Ouch. The problem with any specuation at this point is that we don't know what speed they were running at but, a look at QuadFX at 3GHz shows it gets 1620 or so while Qx6700 gets around 1850. That means that Intel is scaling at a lot more than 100% or the test systems are that much different.

But then also, QFX is only 2 CPUs\4 cores while the Opteron system in the tests are 8 cores, so how is POVRay really scaling if 4 extra cores gets no real gain?

I'm not sure what the deal is but something is wrong.
May 23, 2007 5:47:44 PM

Quote:


Ouch. The problem with any specuation at this point is that we don't know what speed they were running at but, a look at QuadFX at 3GHz shows it gets 1620 or so while Qx6700 gets around 1850. That means that Intel is scaling at a lot more than 100% or the test systems are that much different.

But then also, QFX is only 2 CPUs\4 cores while the Opteron system in the tests are 8 cores, so how is POVRay really scaling if 4 extra cores gets no real gain?

I'm not sure what the deal is but something is wrong.








Quote:
"That, Baron, is a lucid, intelligent, well-thought out objection."
May 23, 2007 5:59:28 PM

Quote:
At some point before our launch you can plan on us showing a demo of our parts vs. Intel's high-performance processors.


AMDs handling of this incident doesn't inspire much confidence.

The sheer lack of enthusiasm of AMD spokespersons for benchmarking K10 against Intel makes me worry for K10s final performance.

If K10 is sh*t there is no point in trying to hide it. Marketing wont hide that. AMD should have learnt that from the R600 debacle.
May 23, 2007 6:00:12 PM

Quote:


Ouch. The problem with any specuation at this point is that we don't know what speed they were running at but, a look at QuadFX at 3GHz shows it gets 1620 or so while Qx6700 gets around 1850. That means that Intel is scaling at a lot more than 100% or the test systems are that much different.

But then also, QFX is only 2 CPUs\4 cores while the Opteron system in the tests are 8 cores, so how is POVRay really scaling if 4 extra cores gets no real gain?

I'm not sure what the deal is but something is wrong.








Quote:
"That, Baron, is a lucid, intelligent, well-thought out objection."


So its not overruled? If it is I'm wearing my "Ol Dixie" tie and tails. It's just wierd.
May 23, 2007 6:00:36 PM

Quote:

Ouch. The problem with any specuation at this point is that we don't know what speed they were running at


I think the scores could be a lot better had they not used High Efficiency parts but they were trying to defend their sad scores with "we only used 6GB" and yeah.

http://www.hothardware.com/articles/Core_2_Extreme_QX67...
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_quadfx/11.shtml

Some reviews show POV-Ray scores for Kentsfield near ~2000 and some around ~2600. Different betas maybe, but AMD should know to choose the best to represent themselves.
May 23, 2007 6:11:20 PM

Quote:


So its not overruled? If it is I'm wearing my "Ol Dixie" tie and tails. It's just wierd.


Sorry, I should have added "sustained"
May 23, 2007 6:36:49 PM

Hello, do you have something to add?
May 23, 2007 6:42:19 PM

Quote:



"That, Baron, is a lucid, intelligent, well-thought out objection."


:trophy: :trophy:

And Bytch, these are workstation setups, for professional graphics design, visualization and other high-power computational duties like that. In light of your recent mental breakthrough that these 16-core setups aren't for consumers:

a c 111 à CPUs
May 23, 2007 6:42:33 PM

Fud . . .

Any POV-Ray bench should include the version# and whether they are running the actual render benchmark tool test (or simply timng a run on a scene or an object). They should also capture a screenshot of the message area because POV-Ray does not report their benchmark tool results on a separate screen. Like this:
This is v3.6.1b (one core!) of an Opty 270 showing 75.47 pixels per second with a total time of 1953.86 seconds.

Average PPS CPU time shown @ Boot Daily is a FUD. It's Pixels Per Second (higher the better) or Total Time (lower the better)

One additional note: The POV-Ray SMP release povwin-3.7.beta.20b has *Timed-out* as of May ist and the *so-called* tests cannot be reproduced.

What a crock . . . .
May 23, 2007 7:17:40 PM

What points are you trying to make?

Are you accusing AMD, Intel, or both of FUD because they didn't give full blown numbers and specs and screens?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/intel-v8_1...
X-bit got similar scores to Intel and Boot.

My initial post was responding to AMD's "we got bad score booey only 6GB" when V8s with 4GB get better. And deducing their statement of when they'll launch hard numbers, and asking them to prove 80%, not 100%, performance gain with 0 increase in watts.
May 23, 2007 7:21:06 PM

Quote:

Ouch. The problem with any specuation at this point is that we don't know what speed they were running at


I think the scores could be a lot better had they not used High Efficiency parts but they were trying to defend their sad scores with "we only used 6GB" and yeah.

http://www.hothardware.com/articles/Core_2_Extreme_QX67...
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_quadfx/11.shtml

Some reviews show POV-Ray scores for Kentsfield near ~2000 and some around ~2600. Different betas maybe, but AMD should know to choose the best to represent themselves.

Even worse, the AMD demo used 82xx and the LostCircuits used 280 and the 280 system is just slightly behind the 82xx system. How could that kind of scaling happen?
Barcelona has L3 which lowers latency and widens paths everywhere so there is no "theoretical" bottleneck.
A 4P AMD system is the fastest out there for servers. It always scales around 80-100% above dual so why is the 4P 82xx system only getting 2000?
May 23, 2007 7:41:32 PM

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Opteron_microp...
Slowest Socket F 8 socket chip is 2GHz. So...
1) AMD underclocked them.
2) Bad scaling for 2 to 4 sockets. There are no Intel 2 to 4 socket scores to compare to though so "bad" is subjective.

http://siliconvalleysleuth.co.uk/2006/10/intel_shines_o...
It's not a core scaling problem since here it gets a 17x speedup.


Hey, I beleive that it should scale better. I just can''t understand why there is seemingly NO scaling from 2 to 4 cores. It definitely deserves investigation.
May 23, 2007 7:49:52 PM

perhaps they were accidentally used a bad batch of Barcelona chips without the latest revisions?
May 23, 2007 7:52:34 PM

Quote:
Hello, do you have something to add?

yeh. you poor boys need to get lives.
May 23, 2007 7:52:45 PM

Whatever they say, it's just tremendously CRAPPY that a Barcelona core has more or less the same IPC of a current K8 and power envelope and other BS have nothing to do with this, blah!
May 23, 2007 8:17:43 PM

I think thats kind of the conclusion everyone is coming to. Though "4000 pixel...' sounds great, it doesnt mean anything without a whole lot of other info thats missing. An unqualified number.
May 23, 2007 8:39:13 PM

Quote:
This is v3.6.1b (one core!) of an Opty 270 showing 75.47 pixels per second with a total time of 1953.86 seconds.

To bench POVRay, you'd select from the menu, "Render" -> "Run Benchmark (all CPUs)". A message comes up reminding you that benchmark figures are not comparable between versions 3.6 and 3.7.

For example, version 3.6 (single-core) yields ~170 PPS (867 seconds) on a 2.93GHz Conroe. Version 3.7b20 (dual-core) yields ~911 FPS (287 seconds) on the same system. I ran these two just now without optimizing, but the figures are nowhere near each other.

Quote:
One additional note: The POV-Ray SMP release povwin-3.7.beta.20b has *Timed-out* as of May ist and the *so-called* tests cannot be reproduced.

Temporarily set your system clock to last year while benchmarking.

Quote:
Hey, I beleive that it should scale better. I just can''t understand why there is seemingly NO scaling from 2 to 4 cores. It definitely deserves investigation.

That's because the HE line of dual-core K8 goes up to 2.6GHz, and there sure isn't an HE Barcelona expected at 2.6GHz.

Assuming good scaling and the standard benchmark, the K8's were running at 1.6 to 1.8GHz, and the video states the K10's were running at the same clock. That's not the best way to argue that people would get 2x performance per watt from a simple CPU swap... because it's simply not true for POVray if you start with a 68W K8 at 2.6GHz.

Quote:
Barcelona has L3 which lowers latency and widens paths everywhere so there is no "theoretical" bottleneck.

Every level of cache increases minimum latency. It's the hope of the designers that average latency goes down due to cache hits, which save tremendous time over fetching from RAM.

POVRay is not bandwidth constrained in modern systems. Why else does a 16-core Clovertown speed up so perfectly? If POVRay were bandwidth-intensive, such results would make a joke of those complaining about the antiquated FSB.
May 23, 2007 9:45:28 PM

Well if it is a POS then what do you expect them to do;
stall giving information (Done),
have a demo nobody is allowed to talk about (Done),
hype up whatever redeeming characteristic it might have like average power consumption (Done).

Oh my, I guess it must really be a POS.
a c 111 à CPUs
May 23, 2007 9:52:46 PM

Quote:
Temporarily set your system clock to last year while benchmarking.


You read my mind :D  I ran it back to April.

Went to 1138.37 PPS in v3.7b20 4-way Opty's at 2GHz 4Gb PC3200 ECC DDR.

@ r0ck:

My point was that Boot Daily showed the **Average PPS CPU time** (their exact words) at 4719.32 when it would actually be around 600. My **PPS CPU time** in the above bench was 288.13.

AND THEN Boot Daily provided their own *extrapolation* . . . simply fud . . .

So I'll do my own extrapolation:

8-way Xeons @ 2.66GHz = 600 PPS CPU time
4-way Optys @ 2GHz = 288 PPS CPU time

288 x 2 = 576 x 1.33 = 766.08 PPS CPU time
(clock-to-clock // core-to-core)

So Boot Daily had their $4,000 workstation's arse kicked by my $1,000 rig :lol: 

It's all fud . . .
May 23, 2007 10:09:52 PM

Quote:
Well if it is a POS then what do you expect them to do;
stall giving information (Done),
have a demo nobody is allowed to talk about (Done),
hype up whatever redeeming characteristic it might have like average power consumption (Done).

Oh my, I guess it must really be a POS.


Occam's razor in action!
May 23, 2007 11:09:09 PM

Quote:
We can only refer to R600 as a debacle if they dont match nvidias driver maturation in 6 months.


I give you my vote to call R600 a debacle.

Realistically, Ive seen conflicting benches, and didnt go into depth on the uarch evaluation, but it looks like it has buttloads of potential.

Seems very much like QFX. Like QFX, R600 seems to be lacking something to scream, and it doesnt seem to be the drivers. Where QFX lacked the CPUs (K10) for it to do what AMD intended, it seems to be R600 needs 65nm to shine.

I feel bad for all the folks waiting on drivers. While ATI has built some mind boggling hardware, they suck relative to Nvidia in the driver support arena, and I doubt the need to speed up R600 is going to change that.

I honestly dont get what ATI was thinking. If R600 was intended for 65nm, why not hold off till 65nm was up and running? Why not play the game, do a node shrink of the 580s, get the node process perfected, then start pumping out the 600s.
May 23, 2007 11:48:16 PM

This is off topic, but to follow up on what you were saying, everyone knows about the nVidia debacle concerning their 88 series. Law suits etc. Maybe the new DX10 arch itself is such a change that its hard to do. nVidia didnt even have SLI drivers until very recently for Vista. Anyways back on topic, maybe I missed this but what version of povray is being used in the "bench" ?
May 23, 2007 11:55:55 PM

Quote:
This is off topic, but to follow up on what you were saying, everyone knows about the nVidia debacle concerning their 88 series. Law suits etc. Maybe the new DX10 arch itself is such a change that its hard to do. nVidia didnt even have SLI drivers until very recently for Vista. Anyways back on topic, maybe I missed this but what version of povray is being used in the "bench" ?


I would guess DX10 is 'difficult' as well. Its M$. Look how many tries it took to get DX9 squared away.
May 24, 2007 12:00:39 AM

Quote:
This is off topic, but to follow up on what you were saying, everyone knows about the nVidia debacle concerning their 88 series. Law suits etc. Maybe the new DX10 arch itself is such a change that its hard to do. nVidia didnt even have SLI drivers until very recently for Vista. Anyways back on topic, maybe I missed this but what version of povray is being used in the "bench" ?


I would guess DX10 is 'difficult' as well. Its M$. Look how many tries it took to get DX9 squared away. I think M$ should always be abreviated . Something like M.$. or More $
May 24, 2007 1:09:04 AM

FUD FUD and more FUD, that's all AMD got this summer :x By the time Big Bird's imaginary friend shows up as Barcelona, Penryn will be available in volumes and Nehalem on the horizon to burry AMD :roll:

No benchmarks, no chip, no competition, game over AMD. Hector maybe you can get a job at IBM
May 24, 2007 1:26:44 AM

Quote:
perhaps they were accidentally used a bad batch of Barcelona chips without the latest revisions?


That shouldn't affect scaling. I don't know what rev it was but revs take 2 months.
May 24, 2007 1:32:35 AM

Bottom line is that any benchmarks coming from AMD (or Intel for that matter) are a bunch of BS. We need 3rd party benchmarks, not pictures of monitors and NDA's.

AMD is hiding something. Sometimes a company will hide good things, but in the position that AMD is in right now, if they had anything good to say they would be saying it.
May 24, 2007 1:43:59 AM

Quote:
FUD FUD and more FUD, that's all AMD got this summer :x By the time Big Bird's imaginary friend shows up as Barcelona, Penryn will be available in volumes and Nehalem on the horizon to burry AMD :roll:

No benchmarks, no chip, no competition, game over AMD. Hector maybe you can get a job at IBM


You may perhaps be using the term FUD incorrectly. If you go back a few months I SAID REPEATEDLY THAT AMD COULDN'T keep dropping prices.

Barcelona is going to take a LOT of money to launch properly. That's why they needed those convertible notes. That $1.5B should at least cover the launch though as has been reported, Fab 30 will not ramp to 65nm as fast.

In my opinion the price war meant they COULDN'T go directly to 45nm at Fab 30/38. I wouldn't consider it a failure of mgmt but a situation where they would be damned if they did and damned if they didn't.

I have confidence that Barcelona will be 80% faster per core than 82xx, but we'll see.
May 24, 2007 2:00:43 AM

Quote:
The AMDzone commentary is hilarious:
http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News...


So we have a 10GB advantage on memory amount for the Xeon. I'm not sure if that would contribute, but I can guess it would.


This is one thing you can be certain of --- for Povray, 6 gigs vs 16 gigs would not make a difference .... this is too funny.

More fun even over at Phd's blog du Jour
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/

Quote:
Intel does not innovate, it steals AMD's ideas: x86_64, dual core, performance per watt, spinning off flash division. The following are items Intel has not yet copied: IMC, HT, true quad core...


Since when spinning off flash division is considered an "idea" that is tangible in chip innovation? (even the rest of the claims are mostly trash...and for each 1 of them there are plenty of counter Intel ideas/innovations) but hey, good for a laugh :? :lol: 
May 24, 2007 2:08:34 AM

Quote:


I have confidence that Barcelona will be 80% faster per core than 82xx, but we'll see.


More FUD, More imaginary benchmarks, in other words:

More Lies, Hector kissing Henri, and Videotapes
a c 111 à CPUs
May 24, 2007 2:49:42 AM



Exactly.

I have no idea what the PPS CPU Time is at Boot Daily. It's not the pretty red line they show on their chart. I'll submit that the PPS CPU time on an 8-way xeon at 3GHz has got to be 60-70% faster than a 4-way opteron at 2GHz. Fair enough?

At xbit an 8-way workstation with dual xeon E5365's on a 5000x chipset is compared to a 4-way FX-74 on an Asus L1N64! I'm wondering where I might purchase a Xeon E5365? Ohhh, yeahhhh - buy Apple's 8-Core Mac Pro! (Which, by the way, will cost you $4,696 - $8,496 as configured at Boot Daily - without an OS or monitor.)

I guess you missed xbit whining about the Asus mobo. You did read the article, right?

I've got an idea. Why don't they bench the 4-way xeon e5355 at 2.66ghz (since it actually exists at retail) against a 4-way opteron 2218 at 2.6ghz on a Tyan Thunder S2915? The Opty rig will only cost $400 or so less than the xeon workstation . . .

I guess you missed ther sidebar on xbit that said Availability of Intel’s Latest Quad-Core Chip to Be Limited, Says Intel. Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 Is a Rare Chip with Unclear Thermal Specifications

So they are benching an 8-way cpu you cannot purchase at retail and a 4-way cpu that's *Rare with Unclear Thermal Specifications* (both installed on a workstation motherboard) against a 4-way FX cpu installed on an pos ATX desktop mobo?

I got no problem with the Lost Circuit review. They didn't like the Asus L1N64 either. And overall the AMD FX held its own or surpassed the Core 2 Extreme X6800 . . . .
May 24, 2007 2:56:55 AM

AMD's needs a new marketing brainstorming session or something...
Like...

Good Enough for goobermint work...

Who needs more performance anywhoo?

Hey, We may compute slower, but we use less power than faster current 65nm Intel CPU's... plus we use True Native Quad Core (No Glued CPU's 4 AMD to come unglued) Let's see intel claim that, :roll: :lol: 

AMD buyers are statistically smarter than Intel buyers, buy smart, buy AMD!

AMD is sicker than Intel!

AMD is not profit driven, instead we are rumor oriented for our clients egos...
May 24, 2007 2:58:22 AM

Quote:
FUD FUD and more FUD, that's all AMD got this summer :x By the time Big Bird's imaginary friend shows up as Barcelona, Penryn will be available in volumes and Nehalem on the horizon to burry AMD :roll:

No benchmarks, no chip, no competition, game over AMD. Hector maybe you can get a job at IBM


You may perhaps be using the term FUD incorrectly. If you go back a few months I SAID REPEATEDLY THAT AMD COULDN'T keep dropping prices.

Barcelona is going to take a LOT of money to launch properly. That's why they needed those convertible notes. That $1.5B should at least cover the launch though as has been reported, Fab 30 will not ramp to 65nm as fast.

In my opinion the price war meant they COULDN'T go directly to 45nm at Fab 30/38. I wouldn't consider it a failure of mgmt but a situation where they would be damned if they did and damned if they didn't.

I have confidence that Barcelona will be 80% faster per core than 82xx, but we'll see.
i would say that's a fair opinion, but we won't necessarily know if Barcelona will perform or not.

ATM, we can only speculate.
May 24, 2007 6:45:42 AM

Quote:
My point was that Boot Daily showed the **Average PPS CPU time** (their exact words) at 4719.32 when it would actually be around 600. My **PPS CPU time** in the above bench was 288.13.

AND THEN Boot Daily provided their own *extrapolation* . . . simply fud . . .

So I'll do my own extrapolation:

8-way Xeons @ 2.66GHz = 600 PPS CPU time
4-way Optys @ 2GHz = 288 PPS CPU time

288 x 2 = 576 x 1.33 = 766.08 PPS CPU time
(clock-to-clock // core-to-core)

So Boot Daily had their $4,000 workstation's arse kicked by my $1,000 rig

It's all fud . . .

Boot Daily didn't extrapolate anything - they used the aggregate PPS figure given at the end of the standard POVRay bench, and those numbers are normal for the C2D core with the latest version of POVRay (3.7b20). You could say they mislabelled.

Likewise, if you meant you used 4 single-core Opterons at 2GHz, then your aggregate PPS of 1138 sounds reasonable.

But when you extrapolated to per-core PPS, then compensated again for having half the cores, you arrived at the mistaken conclusion that K8 was faster than C2D core-to-core and clock-for-clock. K8 is known to be slower than C2D at this bench; you gave K8 an artificial 2x speed-up in that calculation.
May 24, 2007 10:42:12 AM

Quote:


I have confidence that Barcelona will be 80% faster per core than 82xx, but we'll see.


More FUD, More imaginary benchmarks, in other words:

More Lies, Hector kissing Henri, and Videotapes

Baron understands nothing.... if anything about this DEMO shows is most certainly that Barcey is not 80% faster per core. Period.


I understand that you need a new hobby.
May 24, 2007 10:45:22 AM

Quote:


I have confidence that Barcelona will be 80% faster per core than 82xx, but we'll see.


More FUD, More imaginary benchmarks, in other words:

More Lies, Hector kissing Henri, and Videotapes

Screw you and Henri. I'm with the engrs. They make the chips. If it's not 80% faster per core (floating point) it won't cost me a dime.
a c 111 à CPUs
May 24, 2007 12:06:12 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Boot Daily didn't extrapolate anything - they used the aggregate PPS figure given at the end of the standard POVRay bench, and those numbers are normal for the C2D core with the latest version of POVRay (3.7b20). You could say they mislabelled.

Likewise, if you meant you used 4 single-core Opterons at 2GHz, then your aggregate PPS of 1138 sounds reasonable.

But when you extrapolated to per-core PPS, then compensated again for having half the cores, you arrived at the mistaken conclusion that K8 was faster than C2D core-to-core and clock-for-clock. K8 is known to be slower than C2D at this bench; you gave K8 an artificial 2x speed-up in that calculation.
I agree with you completely. It was not my intent to disparage C2D or compare it to the K8 - or the K10 for that matter. Boot Daily reported the PPS of an 8-way Xeon X5365 workstation - then labeled it as CPU (or core) time. My concern is that some folks see a *pretty red line* without knowing what the bench truly represents.

I was wrong with my attribution of the extrapolation to Boot Daily. It was the quote from Uber-Puke that extrapolated the benchies as follows:
Quote:
If you take 16 cores at 1.8Ghz, divided by 2 and add 60% to get to 3.0Ghz, it gives POV-Ray score of 3600 for 8 cores. Meaning that at 3.0GHz, Barcelona still lose by quite some compare to an 8 cores Clowertown system.
Please forgive my own sarcastic extrapolation :) 

Strictly for illustrative purposes I also ran the POV-Ray SSE2 multi-core bench in 3.7.beta.20b before resetting my date. Here yah go . . .
I will assume that your C2D PPS scaled substantially better in the SSE engine than my Optys . . .

Have a good day!
May 24, 2007 12:19:33 PM

Quote:
The AMDzone commentary is hilarious:
http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News...


So we have a 10GB advantage on memory amount for the Xeon. I'm not sure if that would contribute, but I can guess it would.


This is one thing you can be certain of --- for Povray, 6 gigs vs 16 gigs would not make a difference .... this is too funny.This reminds me when trolls from FUDzone were crying about the low SuperPi times of Core2, because it has 4MB of L2. Now there are C2D's with only 512kB which are outperforming the same clocked K8's with 2MB of L2.
May 24, 2007 12:36:23 PM

Quote:
I have confidence that Barcelona will be 80% faster per core than 82xx, but we'll see.
That BS stinks! Please save us, don't pull beloved numbers out of your ass!
BTW, I am still waiting for you to post the benchmarks of your 2xFX-70. It should be 300% faster than your X2 4400+ for multi-threaded apps and 100% for single-threaded.
a c 99 à CPUs
May 24, 2007 2:26:50 PM

Quote:
I think M$ should always be abreviated . Something like M.$. or More $


"M$" is the preferred abbreviation for people who don't like Microsoft because of their monopolistic and extremely expensive products they foist upon the market. Here are some more good ones:

Microsloth
Microslop
Mickeysoft
Microshit
May 24, 2007 2:46:34 PM

Quote:
The AMDzone commentary is hilarious:
http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News...


So we have a 10GB advantage on memory amount for the Xeon. I'm not sure if that would contribute, but I can guess it would.


This is one thing you can be certain of --- for Povray, 6 gigs vs 16 gigs would not make a difference .... this is too funny.This reminds me when trolls from FUDzone were crying about the low SuperPi times of Core2, because it has 4MB of L2. Now there are C2D's with only 512kB which are outperforming the same clocked K8's with 2MB of L2.
there are k8's with 2Mb cache per core?
o_O
May 24, 2007 2:50:26 PM

Quote:
The AMDzone commentary is hilarious:
http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News...


So we have a 10GB advantage on memory amount for the Xeon. I'm not sure if that would contribute, but I can guess it would.


This is one thing you can be certain of --- for Povray, 6 gigs vs 16 gigs would not make a difference .... this is too funny.This reminds me when trolls from FUDzone were crying about the low SuperPi times of Core2, because it has 4MB of L2. Now there are C2D's with only 512kB which are outperforming the same clocked K8's with 2MB of L2.
there are k8's with 2Mb cache per core?
o_O
Who said per core?
2MB of L2 per CPU.
May 24, 2007 3:58:29 PM

If it isn't going to be faster just confess already and sell the features it does have it's certainly better than the X2's.

Oh my god it has to be better than the X2's doesn't it? Please not a second dud in a row with the 65nm X2's.
May 24, 2007 10:22:27 PM

Quote:
And Bytch, these are workstation setups, for professional graphics design, visualization and other high-power computational duties like that. In light of your recent mental breakthrough that these 16-core setups aren't for consumers:


Yeah then explain that to all the little fanboys here that think this really matters to them! :roll:

OK.

Dear Mrs 'Little Fanboy' Bytch. K10 is the precursor AMDs next generation DTPC CPUs.

With me so far?

How K10 performs will be a direct indicator of how the new DTPC AMD CPUs will themselves perform.

Understand now?
May 24, 2007 11:26:50 PM

Quote:


I have confidence that Barcelona will be 80% faster per core than 82xx, but we'll see.


More FUD, More imaginary benchmarks, in other words:

More Lies, Hector kissing Henri, and Videotapes

Screw you and Henri. I'm with the engrs. They make the chips. If it's not 80% faster per core (floating point) it won't cost me a dime.

I can just see you Baron all over the internet with your 4x4 :lol: 

I built one piece at a time
and it didn't cost me a dime
You know me when I come through your town

No screwing please... and you really missed where my comment was going...you must be no older than 24 years old
May 25, 2007 12:22:03 AM

You deserve (ÇáÇÓã) ÙÇåÑÉþ , enjoy!
May 25, 2007 12:26:09 AM

Since Phenom and marvel have similar meanings... do you not agree that AMD's K10 is materializing quite comically? :wink:
!