Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom users 2.....

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 15, 2008 11:59:48 PM


I have posted my exprerience in using Q6600 and ask a comparison of Phenom in MULTI-TASKING SMOOTHNESS yesterday..

the link:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/247803-28-phenom-user...

And still people are bashing AMD...I am a Fan of either, I've used both AMD & Intel before..I don't care if Phenom is 15% slower than Q6600, cause they are cheaper also...

The question is not the speed of work it does, but the SMOOTHNESS it can multi-task, because in a multi-tasking environment, there should be a benefit of having a Cache shared by all processor than separate Cache with intel...
Just like the Pentium D 8xx & 9xx having separate cache while the Athlon X2 are shared cache...

More about : phenom users

a b à CPUs
January 16, 2008 12:08:05 AM

DELETED
January 16, 2008 12:18:52 AM

If you're concerned about smoothness, you'll need a SSD in RAID 0 and 8GB DDR3
Related resources
January 16, 2008 1:22:29 AM

IF YOU DONT OWN A PHENOM, OR HAVE A LINK TO A FORUM WHERE SOMEONE DOES, STAY OUT OF THIS THREAD.

IF THIS THREAD DEGRADES INTO ANOTHER INTEL VS AMD BASH BY PEOPLE WHO DONT OWN PHENOMS, ILL START BANNING
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2008 1:30:39 AM

DELETED
January 16, 2008 2:11:12 AM

Well I have a 939 3800+ X2 and multitasking is silky smooth. Seeing as how K10 isn't much different than K8 (especially with the TLB patch in place) I would speculate that Phenom is pretty smooth as well.
January 16, 2008 2:15:34 AM

You won't see any differences in smoothness on the desktop between Phenom and Q6600. Unless you have a program that require 100% utilization from all four cores simultaneously, you won't notice anything different.

If you do have a program that takes that much CPU utilization, you're looking more to the server segment.
January 16, 2008 2:33:59 AM

EdzBourne, what exactly do you mean by smoothness?

For example, no lag, no stutter when handling multitudes of windows? If that be the case, nearly all dual-core and quad-core cpus are "smooth". It's actually more of the HD that'll cause the stutters.

Let's assume that the HD isn't a problem. Logic is that a faster cpu will be "smoother" than a slower one. Therefore the Q6600 should be "smoother".

...geez turpit you're scaring me...
January 16, 2008 2:35:28 AM

I feel that Tom's own benchmarks speak very well for the performance of the processors. "Smoothness" is a rather subjective term. People who have a bias may be very likely to come to their own conclusion when measuring something that is subjective. I've lost faith in AMD which has turned my AMD bias into an Intel one, and my own pro-Intel bias would have me favor Intel in subjective tests, that's why I rely on objective, fact driven, tests that are measured in hard numbers.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weave...

The cold hard benchmarks speak for themselves. Intel's offerings are simply better, even their lowest Q6600 processor bests AMD's non-released (recalled) Phenom 9700 in nearly every benchmark except artificial memory bandwidth tests that many would argue have no real world application for consumer purposes.

So in terms of smoothness and responsiveness, the conclusion I would come to is that the processor that does better in nearly all benchmarks would provide better smoothness and responsiveness.

In my most humble opinion based on the facts available, of course.
January 16, 2008 4:02:41 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:


So in terms of smoothness and responsiveness, the conclusion I would come to is that the processor that does better in nearly all benchmarks would provide better smoothness and responsiveness.

In my most humble opinion based on the facts available, of course.


I will try to keep thing simple...

A formula one car is fast and in no way smooth. It is hard on the driver and on the car mechanic.

Same thing happen with cpu. a cpu can be fast, but that doesnt mean it is smooth. It can execute the code really fast, but can be interrupted often if the internal don't have enough registry to store information, or higher latency due to some bus with less bandwidth. Problem is, at the speed where those interrupt happen, you are not likely to feel it. The netburst architecture, with its long pipeline was often interrupted in case of, branch misprediction, in exemple, but that was not something you could actually feel, because the proocessor was running fast(in GHz).

The core2 quad and the Phenom are 2 excellent processor, no matter what others might say. The phenom has strenght and weakness just like the Core2 Quad. The core2 quad has a faster execution compared to the Phenom on a clock by clock comparaison. Especially in single thread. But, when you start to run multithreaded application, the gap between both cpu is closing as soon as the load become more important. because the Phenom has more headroom to move data because of faster HT bus that don't saturate as easily. The Core 2 Quad has less headroom because of its glued core. That's why higher amount of cache is a benefit.

So, what is smoothness? while one application may take longer time to render on a Phenom because it is a bit slower, that do not prevent other application to move data freely. If you are rendering with a fastest CPU, it may be possible than the other app may slowdown because their data are limited in speed by lesser buses. It doesnt mean the CPU is not fast, it is simply that the subsytem is not fast enough for the cpu to work at full capacity. I'm not saying that the Core2 Quad is lagging... I'm just trying to explain why some processor are executing some program faster than another and sometime slower that the other. Because there is not only a cpu core in a computer..

To be put at a slower scale, imagine running 4 instance of Winrar. Each of them is taking data on one slow ATA33 HDD, processing it, and writing it on the same drive. And all the core has it own file to work with. Poor HDD... Do you think that the HDD will be able to hold on and feed the necessary data to each core?

So, to answer your question, yes, the phenom can be smoother when running multiple apps than a Core2, even if it takes more time to process the data internally.

And yes, I do own a Phenom. And yes it is smooth. And no, I did not get bugged by the TLB bug. And yes, even at 2.2 GHz, thing are hapenning faster than my X2 4800+ at 2.4 Ghz. But yes, sometime it fell slower too. Yes, I got an ECS motherboard. And no, I did not have any problem having it recognize my 4 gigs of RAM. And no, I did not reinstall Vista (same chipset upgrade). it started right on, installed new driver and keep up running strong since 7 days now.
January 16, 2008 9:09:42 AM

IF you want to do a comparison, you need an objective way of doing it.

Does anyone have any repeatable scientific techniques for measuring smoothness? (or can anyone suggest any?)



In my opinion:

It (smoothness) is a measure of multi-tasking, so we might want to consider loading the 4 cores with 4 different programs, like say, a pdf converter/writer, a winrar encode/decode, a video encode and an audio encode.

Then measure time to initiate all 4 programs, which is a (bad) measure of responsiveness under increased loading, and measure time to complete all 4 programs.

Of course, the actual programs would have to be decided.



Another alternative would be to have a number of different jobs to run, say 7 - so as soon as one is finished you can start another - how quick the system lets you get it started would be a measure of responsiveness.




I have a Q6600 - and I have to say the difference between 2 and 3 cores in terms of responsiveness (when doing heavy multitasking) is amazing!

I also have a K8 X2 (4200 I think), and it was a vast improvement over the FX-53 I previously had in the box. But even it cannot match the Q6600 (when using only 3 cores - I can load one out 100% with a CFD program, it might as well be a tri core then). Anywayz, point is - if that jump from 2 to 3 cores is not specific to the programs or workload I have, AMD might have winner in the Toliman core.
January 16, 2008 10:15:12 AM

WOOT for turpit!!!

anyway, unless you can see at 11 billion FPS (humans see anywhere from 40-80) you will not see any difference.
January 16, 2008 10:34:37 AM

I can just say that the poster somewhere above who was saying that AMDs processors catch upto Intel's CPUs due to the faster HTT bus is wrong. If you've looked at any articles that examine Intel's FSB you will see that even at 1066 there is little, if any, bottleneck on the Intel CPUs.

The "performance increase" gained by having HTT was more of a marketing gimmick my AMD than any tangible performance increase. Sure FSB is getting towards the end of it's life, but it is not quite saturated yet. Especially with the new Intel CPUs cranking it up to 1333/1600.
January 16, 2008 10:42:00 AM

quantumsheep said:
I can just say that the poster somewhere above who was saying that AMDs processors catch upto Intel's CPUs due to the faster HTT bus is wrong. If you've looked at any articles that examine Intel's FSB you will see that even at 1066 there is little, if any, bottleneck on the Intel CPUs.

The "performance increase" gained by having HTT was more of a marketing gimmick my AMD than any tangible performance increase. Sure FSB is getting towards the end of it's life, but it is not quite saturated yet. Especially with the new Intel CPUs cranking it up to 1333/1600.


Depends what your doing with it of course.


If your running programs that use a load of memory (more of a workstation load really), then the AMD will be better, alot better, at least, that is my experience.
January 16, 2008 12:11:21 PM

pat said:
Especially in single thread. But, when you start to run multithreaded application, the gap between both cpu is closing as soon as the load become more important. because the Phenom has more headroom to move data because of faster HT bus that don't saturate as easily. The Core 2 Quad has less headroom because of its glued core. That's why higher amount of cache is a benefit.

So, what is smoothness? while one application may take longer time to render on a Phenom because it is a bit slower, that do not prevent other application to move data freely. If you are rendering with a fastest CPU, it may be possible than the other app may slowdown because their data are limited in speed by lesser buses. It doesnt mean the CPU is not fast, it is simply that the subsytem is not fast enough for the cpu to work at full capacity. I'm not saying that the Core2 Quad is lagging... I'm just trying to explain why some processor are executing some program faster than another and sometime slower that the other. Because there is not only a cpu core in a computer..


I don't agree. You haven't supported your conclusions with facts. You need objective data. What if I told you I thought Core 2 Quad was smoother? You wouldn't be able to fight that conclusion because it's completely opinion.

I don't see how Intel can beat Phenom in every benchmark but not be "smoother" than it.
January 16, 2008 12:11:57 PM

Amiga500 said:
If your running programs that use a load of memory (more of a workstation load really), then the AMD will be better, alot better, at least, that is my experience.


Not according to benchmarks.
January 16, 2008 12:34:18 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Not according to benchmarks.



Sorry - thats incorrect.


Even the old K8 is quicker than the Conroe core-for-core on some of the stuff I'm running.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3162&p=11




Quote:
Several of the HPC benchmarks are too expensive for us to test, but we can get some information from AMD's and Intel's own benchmarking. According to Intel, the new Intel Xeon 5472 (1.89 score) is about 26% faster than the Xeon 5365 (1.5 score) when running the fluent benchmark. According to AMD, the Opteron 2350 is about 10% to 60% faster than a 2.33GHz Xeon E5345. That doesn't give us much comparison data, but at first sight it seems that AMD will be competitive in Fluent even at lower clock speeds (2.5GHz versus 3GHz).




I'm not using FEA, I'm using CFD - but the K8/K10 advantage is even more pronounced.
January 16, 2008 1:23:38 PM

I must say, I really am confused as to which I should get. Some say "Well, if you have an AM2 board, grab the Phenom, if not, get the Q6600" While I look at it and say, the Phenom is $100 cheaper, but the decent MoBo's are expensive. So if you get the Q6600, you can get a nice gigabyte board for $89.99, for the Phenom a decent board is well over $100.
January 16, 2008 1:36:50 PM

Amiga500 said:
Depends what your doing with it of course.


If your running programs that use a load of memory (more of a workstation load really), then the AMD will be better, alot better, at least, that is my experience.


I believe both Quantumsheep and TC were referring to desktop performance. On desktop, Intel's FSB is far from being saturated, by majority of the programs. The bottlenecks usually exist in HD, not the interconnect.

However, if you count HPC and server in, then AMD's HT does have its distinctive and superior advantage, especially in multi-core scaling environment. For desktop though, the extra bandwidth offered by HT has minimal impact on performance.
January 16, 2008 1:49:49 PM

If you are seeing "Hiccups", you likely have some configuration problem with your system. It could be drivers, rogue software, etc....

I'm a heavy mult-tasking user and with weaker CPUs, I don't see CPU releated "Hiccups". Such problems are generally Memory and/or HDD related with the memory issues causing excessive HDD activity.
January 16, 2008 1:52:47 PM

pat said:
Especially in single thread. But, when you start to run multithreaded application, the gap between both cpu is closing as soon as the load become more important. because the Phenom has more headroom to move data because of faster HT bus that don't saturate as easily. The Core 2 Quad has less headroom because of its glued core. That's why higher amount of cache is a benefit.

That is true, to some degree. AMD's HT bus does not offer faster connection, but wider data transferring. That is, in one clock cycle, HyperTransport can transfer more data than FSB. However, if the size of the data pack does not exceed the bandwidth offered by the FSB, you won't notice any difference between FSB and HT.

This is precisely why AMD's HT doesn't offer any real tangible performance improvement on majority of desktop programs. Most desktop programs do not utilize CPU interconnects to their full potential, or even half of it. As a result, Core 2 is able to walk all over Phenom and X2s due to having higher performance, although having slower interconnect.

Quote:

So, what is smoothness? while one application may take longer time to render on a Phenom because it is a bit slower, that do not prevent other application to move data freely. If you are rendering with a fastest CPU, it may be possible than the other app may slowdown because their data are limited in speed by lesser buses. It doesnt mean the CPU is not fast, it is simply that the subsytem is not fast enough for the cpu to work at full capacity. I'm not saying that the Core2 Quad is lagging... I'm just trying to explain why some processor are executing some program faster than another and sometime slower that the other. Because there is not only a cpu core in a computer..

This is not necessarily true. Like TC said, there is no benchmark that can confirm or deny this. Although theoretically speaking, Phenom does have a better core-scaling architecture due to the shared L3 cache across four cores, but there is no evidence showing if the interconnect is completely saturated by the data.

Quote:
To be put at a slower scale, imagine running 4 instance of Winrar. Each of them is taking data on one slow ATA33 HDD, processing it, and writing it on the same drive. And all the core has it own file to work with. Poor HDD... Do you think that the HDD will be able to hold on and feed the necessary data to each core?

This is certainly true. For desktop environment, hard drives are usually the bottleneck when running CPU / RAM intensive applications.

Quote:
So, to answer your question, yes, the phenom can be smoother when running multiple apps than a Core2, even if it takes more time to process the data internally.

I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion. For desktop environment, FSB should not be the bottleneck in the entire system, therefore the difference between HT and FSB should be trivial.
January 16, 2008 1:56:39 PM

meadowlands said:
I must say, I really am confused as to which I should get. Some say "Well, if you have an AM2 board, grab the Phenom, if not, get the Q6600" While I look at it and say, the Phenom is $100 cheaper, but the decent MoBo's are expensive. So if you get the Q6600, you can get a nice gigabyte board for $89.99, for the Phenom a decent board is well over $100.


No, you can have a Biostar T-force 770 for around 82$ US. unless you are talking about crossfire or quad crossfire, then these motherboard are much more expensive.
January 16, 2008 2:20:30 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I don't agree. You haven't supported your conclusions with facts. You need objective data. What if I told you I thought Core 2 Quad was smoother? You wouldn't be able to fight that conclusion because it's completely opinion.

I don't see how Intel can beat Phenom in every benchmark but not be "smoother" than it.


I'm not saying that the Intel is not fast or smooth, I'm only saying that a fast chip is not necessary smoth.If you are in the passenger seat (McLaren has one for demo purpose) of a F1 car, running full speed alorg a race track, and you tri to drink your coffe in a cup withou lid, You'll find your brakefast not that smooth, but fast.

If you are in the pace car, doing the same thing, then the breakfast will not be as fast, but drinking your coffe will be much smooter.


Smoothness is not something that can be mesured easily, but never a faster CPU will be always smooth. But since these day a cpu is very fast, the operation may seem smooth, because human it too slow for them.

As for backing up my fact, if I feven find them, I'l post back.. but having studying microprocessor system at school, programmed assembly, then I read mostly everything about CPU stuff, but don't keep a copy of all benchmark. Too bad I quit programming, because I could have played a bit with them to show you some numbers..

my point here was not to tell which one is faster, but as the OP asked, why a slower Phenom may be smoother than the Intel. Because we all know that Intel is a lot faster than AMD. But smoothness, understanding the inner of a CPU helps when comparing such thing has smoothness..
January 16, 2008 2:59:17 PM

-I think smoothness: how quick is your system when a heavy program crashed. Is it able to close a program easily? Ok, the OS has a lot to do here. How does your system responds when 1,2,3 or 4 cores are in full throttle. We are not talking about the app loading times, because that depends too much on the chipset and harddrive speed, and why not, memory bandwidth a little bit.

my scientific aproach of smoothness would be multicore efficiency. On a 4 core system, load a single core application on core 1, while core 2,3,4 are not loaded. Then I would check the performance impact when core 2, 3 and 4 are loaded to 100%. The system that has less impact wins by design. This value is independent on the speed of the core, however, I don't think this is linear, maybe efficiency could get better with different clock speed. Also, in the case of phenom, 4 memory modules may help when you active the option on bios to let each core use a module alone. DDR1066 may have an slight impact too.

the OS is something you have to take into account. But as everybody uses windows, I would make it the standar there.

-HT is a great thing. Despite its not about performance only, but its a better way of interconnecting, Its like a network. It made possible for asrock to mix an Nforce 3 and Uli 1697 on a motherboard, but there are many more examples I could mention.

January 16, 2008 3:27:24 PM

On the subject of those server benchmarks in which HTT offered some major advantages i wonder what's going to happen to AMD when Intel release Nehalem. As Nehalem will have an integrated memory controller very similar to HTT AMD's lead in those benchmarks should disappear whici, i believe, could leave them in a fair bit of trouble!

That's all just speculation however.
January 16, 2008 4:10:58 PM

turpit said:
IF YOU DONT OWN A PHENOM, OR HAVE A LINK TO A FORUM WHERE SOMEONE DOES, STAY OUT OF THIS THREAD.

IF THIS THREAD DEGRADES INTO ANOTHER INTEL VS AMD BASH BY PEOPLE WHO DONT OWN PHENOMS, ILL START BANNING


WOW this is the first time ive seen a mod REALLY upset :cry:  about a thread
January 16, 2008 4:59:22 PM

uk_gangsta said:
WOW this is the first time ive seen a mod REALLY upset :cry:  about a thread


I myself have been quite pleased at this thread - it's one of the few that hasn't turned into a flame war and is just about having a nice little discussion.

:) 
January 16, 2008 5:23:57 PM

yomamafor1 said:


Quote:
So, to answer your question, yes, the phenom can be smoother when running multiple apps than a Core2, even if it takes more time to process the data internally.

I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion. For desktop environment, FSB should not be the bottleneck in the entire system, therefore the difference between HT and FSB should be trivial.


Because 99.9% of desktop users are far from loading their system, even when running mulrtiple apps.. Just open you performance monitor and look at the performance graph. They don't peak a 100% very often and for a very long time. No matter how power user you are. So, you are very unlikely to get slowdown based on FSB bottleneck.
January 16, 2008 7:21:30 PM

pat said:
Because 99.9% of desktop users are far from loading their system, even when running mulrtiple apps.. Just open you performance monitor and look at the performance graph. They don't peak a 100% very often and for a very long time. No matter how power user you are. So, you are very unlikely to get slowdown based on FSB bottleneck.


Sorry to contradict you but it is really very easy to load your computer at 100%. For example i like encodig video files etc while playing games, easily eats up all the CPU i give it!
a c 127 à CPUs
January 16, 2008 8:19:09 PM

EdzBourne said:
I have posted my exprerience in using Q6600 and ask a comparison of Phenom in MULTI-TASKING SMOOTHNESS yesterday..

the link:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/247803-28-phenom-user...

And still people are bashing AMD...I am a Fan of either, I've used both AMD & Intel before..I don't care if Phenom is 15% slower than Q6600, cause they are cheaper also...

The question is not the speed of work it does, but the SMOOTHNESS it can multi-task, because in a multi-tasking environment, there should be a benefit of having a Cache shared by all processor than separate Cache with intel...
Just like the Pentium D 8xx & 9xx having separate cache while the Athlon X2 are shared cache...


Just one thing here.... the L1 cache is seperate per core but the L2 cache is shared among the cores. For example, the E6600 has a 4MB L2 that is shared dynamically meaning that if one core needs more than the other than it will take priority and use more of the Cache.

Now as per multi tasking you wont see much differenc in the smoothness between the Phenom or the C2Q series. Loading will be more biased to the HD's and their seek time(latency), drive speed(RPMs) and interface speed. But overall both Phenom and C2Q will both provide a very smooth multi-tasking enviroment. So for every day task like web surfing, music playing, downloading and winrar packing/unpacking it will be the same. Hell I could do all of that and run 4-5 games of Conquer Online(look it up, it sucks now but was good then) and never see any lag with my Pentium 4 EE. Now major gaming will be performance attributed but if you have a dual/quad core you should be able to do background task and other things without any FPS hit.
January 16, 2008 8:21:35 PM

Duck, here comes a spanner!!!!!

I am liking this thread, and thx to turpit for stepping in to keep the peace its long over due in this forum. Maybe you guys can help me with this.

I am not a typical user and every one I talk to regarding my new build thinks what I want to do can not be done. But I want to try anyway.

The whole reason I have not upgraded my AMD 4400+ x2 939 pin box is because of what you guy are talking about. I am not sure that what I want to do wont bottleneck on FSB. At this point I am leaning towards INTEL but the FSB issue is a concern as I will be spending a lot of money here I don’t want to get this horribly wrong.

This is why.

My current PC spec:

Motherboard Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 939 pin
Zalman CNPS9700 CPU cooler
Antec tower (cheap case)
1x Creative Soundblaster X-Fi Platinum Fatal1ty Champion
2x Seagate 320gig (T3320620AS) raid 0 for my games
1x Seagate 500gig (ST3500630AS) for random crap
2 gig Corsair XMS Pro CMX1024-3500LLPRO @ 2.0-3-2-6 1T
2x nvidia 7900GTX’s in SLI
1x LG HL-DT-ST DVD-RAM GSA-H30N
620W Enermax Liberty Modular Series SLi - ELT620AWT V2
ViewSonic 19” LCD VX922 2ms
Zboard
A4Tech X-750F mouse

I currently run a virtual PC (vmware) which I use for all my internet stuff. Every thing I do internet wise other than gaming is done through this virtual PC, skype, msn, everything. Currently I can not keep the virtual PC open and play a game or encode a movie or use fraps at the same time, which is one thing I want to do. I like fraps and use it often.

I want to add a TV card so that I can have a TV on all the time and keep my virtual PC open as well even when I enter a game of COD4 or BF2142 for example.

This is what I want the new PC build to have and be able to do:

2x 36 gig western digital raptors raid 0 for OS and the virtual PC (it has a 30gig virtual hdd)
4x 150 gig western digital raptors raid 0 for games and fraps recording
4x Seagate 320gig raid 0 for TV recording and encoding.
1x 1000gig HDD for backing up stuff. (nit sure which brand yet)
2x DVD Rom’s
1x Creative Soundblaster X-Fi Platinum Fatal1ty Champion
2 more monitors, 1x 22” for my main screen and 1x 19” for virtual PC. The current one would be for the TV.
1x onboard audio for the virtual PC.
2x SLI or Crossfire
2x network cards (one for the virtual PC one for the main PC)
1x TV card or video editing card that can do TV (I have had a look at a few, but I would be interested to see what you guys can suggest here) this card also need to display the virtual PC and TV. So it needs to have 2 displays attached.
4 gig memory, possibly 8 gig (question is should all 4 banks be used for 4 gig if I go with 4)
As there will not be enough SATA ports I will need a SATA raid controller (suggestions!!)
Psu?
Motherboard?
Cpu?
Case?
Cooling, should I water cool?

So this is the PC I seriously want to build. I have spent many hours looking at different combination of motherboard ram etc and can still not decide what to do.

I have even looked at the dual socket option but then things really start to get expensive and I lose gaming performance.

What would you guys suggest for a build like this? :ouch:  :sol:  :whistle: 
January 16, 2008 8:23:28 PM

Amiga500 said:
Sorry - thats incorrect.


Even the old K8 is quicker than the Conroe core-for-core on some of the stuff I'm running.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3162&p=11


http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f389/kilcoo316/lsdyna.gif

Quote:
Several of the HPC benchmarks are too expensive for us to test, but we can get some information from AMD's and Intel's own benchmarking. According to Intel, the new Intel Xeon 5472 (1.89 score) is about 26% faster than the Xeon 5365 (1.5 score) when running the fluent benchmark. According to AMD, the Opteron 2350 is about 10% to 60% faster than a 2.33GHz Xeon E5345. That doesn't give us much comparison data, but at first sight it seems that AMD will be competitive in Fluent even at lower clock speeds (2.5GHz versus 3GHz).




I'm not using FEA, I'm using CFD - but the K8/K10 advantage is even more pronounced.


Interesting... but not to the gamers
January 16, 2008 8:24:58 PM

quantumsheep said:
Sorry to contradict you but it is really very easy to load your computer at 100%. For example i like encodig video files etc while playing games, easily eats up all the CPU i give it!


I said that for 99.9% of thse that uses computer. You may be an exception. But, but I'm sure that your system is not fully loaded at al fo 90% of the time you actually use it.
January 16, 2008 8:40:12 PM

pat said:
you are very unlikely to get slowdown based on FSB bottleneck.



Agreed. The FSB is not an issue on desktop machines for the vast majority of users, gamers included.
January 16, 2008 9:23:18 PM

amddiesel said:
Interesting... but not to the gamers


I know.


Its a sad day whenever I am having to put work ahead of games :pfff: 



I wish I had the time for rfactor dude :D 
January 16, 2008 10:15:16 PM

I think AMD boards are alot cheaper than Intel boards. First reason is there are no more memory controller chip added to AMD boards compared to Intel. If you are talking about decent boards please make sure to think HOW OLD is the board are you talking to. Maybe you compare the November 2007 released boards (AMD) for 2006 Boards of Intel's. AMD boards are alot cheaper for a fact. Reason 2, if they are not cheaper then no one will buy them.
a c 127 à CPUs
January 17, 2008 12:37:34 AM

pogsnet said:
I think AMD boards are alot cheaper than Intel boards. First reason is there are no more memory controller chip added to AMD boards compared to Intel. If you are talking about decent boards please make sure to think HOW OLD is the board are you talking to. Maybe you compare the November 2007 released boards (AMD) for 2006 Boards of Intel's. AMD boards are alot cheaper for a fact. Reason 2, if they are not cheaper then no one will buy them.


You could compare the release date but why would you buy a newer board if a older one will wupport the chips you want? Any Asus P35 mobo will more and likely support any of the Yorkies/Penryns. To get FULL(and I mean HT3, the power saving options and faster memory support) form an AMD chip you need a newer AM2+ board with either the 770 or 790 chipset. To compare mobos its all about the CPU.

Basically if you can get a P35 mobo for $80 bucks that is made to support the 45nm chips then thats the one you compare to the cheapest AMD Phenom supporting mobo. But don't forget that most of the extra cost comes from the extra features such as CF/SLI, 6-8 SATA ports, WiFi, Firewire, external SATA and so on. You also have to remember that now AMD makes their own chipsets so the prices for their boards are going to seem similar to someone who is building a new rig as compared to someone building a new Intel rig.

I made a wishlist for a new Phenom rig on newegg.com and the total cost with a nice 790FX mobo came to $1600. A intel rig with a Q6600 came to $1500. Only difference if the Intel rig came with a case and the Phenom rig did not. Now with a older AM2 mobo and DDR1 it is cheaper but if you build a new rig all together it ends up the same as a new Intel rig with equal or better CPU.

But the important part is the fact that the smoothness with either one should provide the same. Only lag will be dependant on your HD. Like if you only have one Raptor it might not load as fast as 2 Seagate SATA2 in a RAID0 since the interface speed is doubled in a RAID0 where as one SATA drive only has the base speed. In real terms you wont be able to see a difference between the Phenom and the C2Q when it comes to multitasking. Maybe you will see the difference when OC'ing them as the C2Q series has a higher headroom but not at stock speeds.

Edit: Forgot to add that the MC being on the chipset doesn't add to cost it just makes a difference in memory bandwidth.
January 17, 2008 1:28:30 AM

jimmysmitty said:
.Now with a older AM2 mobo and DDR1 it is cheaper but if you build a new rig all together it ends up the same as a new Intel rig with equal or better CPU..



AM2 don't support ddr1 memory, only ddr2. 939 support ddr1
January 17, 2008 1:29:59 AM

pat said:
AM2 don't support ddr1 memory, only ddr2. 939 support ddr1


You're correct. And if you want to get REALLY technical, it's the processor, not the motherboard that determines the type of RAM you can use (IMC).
January 17, 2008 2:42:19 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
You're correct. And if you want to get REALLY technical, it's the processor, not the motherboard that determines the type of RAM you can use (IMC).

That means C2D is compatible with DDR, DDR2, and DDR3 while K8 AM2 is only compatible with DDR2?
January 17, 2008 3:16:28 AM

JonnyRock said:
Duck, here comes a spanner!!!!!

I am liking this thread, and thx to turpit for stepping in to keep the peace its long over due in this forum. Maybe you guys can help me with this.

I am not a typical user and every one I talk to regarding my new build thinks what I want to do can not be done. But I want to try anyway.

The whole reason I have not upgraded my AMD 4400+ x2 939 pin box is because of what you guy are talking about. I am not sure that what I want to do wont bottleneck on FSB. At this point I am leaning towards INTEL but the FSB issue is a concern as I will be spending a lot of money here I don’t want to get this horribly wrong.

This is why.

My current PC spec:

Motherboard Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 939 pin
Zalman CNPS9700 CPU cooler
Antec tower (cheap case)
1x Creative Soundblaster X-Fi Platinum Fatal1ty Champion
2x Seagate 320gig (T3320620AS) raid 0 for my games
1x Seagate 500gig (ST3500630AS) for random crap
2 gig Corsair XMS Pro CMX1024-3500LLPRO @ 2.0-3-2-6 1T
2x nvidia 7900GTX’s in SLI
1x LG HL-DT-ST DVD-RAM GSA-H30N
620W Enermax Liberty Modular Series SLi - ELT620AWT V2
ViewSonic 19” LCD VX922 2ms
Zboard
A4Tech X-750F mouse

I currently run a virtual PC (vmware) which I use for all my internet stuff. Every thing I do internet wise other than gaming is done through this virtual PC, skype, msn, everything. Currently I can not keep the virtual PC open and play a game or encode a movie or use fraps at the same time, which is one thing I want to do. I like fraps and use it often.

I want to add a TV card so that I can have a TV on all the time and keep my virtual PC open as well even when I enter a game of COD4 or BF2142 for example.

This is what I want the new PC build to have and be able to do:

2x 36 gig western digital raptors raid 0 for OS and the virtual PC (it has a 30gig virtual hdd)
4x 150 gig western digital raptors raid 0 for games and fraps recording
4x Seagate 320gig raid 0 for TV recording and encoding.
1x 1000gig HDD for backing up stuff. (nit sure which brand yet)
2x DVD Rom’s
1x Creative Soundblaster X-Fi Platinum Fatal1ty Champion
2 more monitors, 1x 22” for my main screen and 1x 19” for virtual PC. The current one would be for the TV.
1x onboard audio for the virtual PC.
2x SLI or Crossfire
2x network cards (one for the virtual PC one for the main PC)
1x TV card or video editing card that can do TV (I have had a look at a few, but I would be interested to see what you guys can suggest here) this card also need to display the virtual PC and TV. So it needs to have 2 displays attached.
4 gig memory, possibly 8 gig (question is should all 4 banks be used for 4 gig if I go with 4)
As there will not be enough SATA ports I will need a SATA raid controller (suggestions!!)
Psu?
Motherboard?
Cpu?
Case?
Cooling, should I water cool?

So this is the PC I seriously want to build. I have spent many hours looking at different combination of motherboard ram etc and can still not decide what to do.

I have even looked at the dual socket option but then things really start to get expensive and I lose gaming performance.

What would you guys suggest for a build like this? :ouch:  :sol:  :whistle: 

LOL, sounds like you need to just buy someones used mainframe.
January 17, 2008 4:16:11 AM

Evilonigiri said:
That means C2D is compatible with DDR, DDR2, and DDR3 while K8 AM2 is only compatible with DDR2?

Yep :) 
January 17, 2008 5:10:27 AM

I'm planning to go with AMD/ATI this year. I switch back and forth with AMD, Intel, ATI and Nvidia. One thing I like about the Phenom is the price. Under $200 for a quad core that's a steal, sure it's not as fast at the $270 Q6600 but most applications and most of us don't need them extra performance at all. Well, I don't have much use for a quad core, my games will even fully utilized it. But for a chance I'd rather buy a cheap quad core anyways, since I've been using a dual core and it has served it porpuse really well.

I already have an HD3870 so all I need now is an AMD platform to go with. Getting a quad core and a motherboard for it that cost as much as a Q6600 is a good deal for me. So unless there will be a cheaper offer this spring, I'll get the Phenom 9500 and a board for it. That should fixed my system for the next two years, I hope.
January 17, 2008 5:37:36 AM

chuckshissle said:
I' Under $200 for a quad core that's a steal, sure it's not as fast at the $270 Q6600


AMD's problem in the UK is currently the Pheonm 9500 is only £20 cheaper than the Q6600 and the 9600 is actally more expensive at the majority of retailers! This doesn't really give much consumer choice does it!

AMD needs to get their prices sorted out and as soon as they do i'm going to start recommending their Quads, 'cause at the price they're going for in the states they're a steal.
January 17, 2008 8:44:50 AM

chuckshissle said:
I'm planning to go with AMD/ATI this year. I switch back and forth with AMD, Intel, ATI and Nvidia. One thing I like about the Phenom is the price. Under $200 for a quad core that's a steal, sure it's not as fast at the $270 Q6600 but most applications and most of us don't need them extra performance at all. Well, I don't have much use for a quad core, my games will even fully utilized it. But for a chance I'd rather buy a cheap quad core anyways, since I've been using a dual core and it has served it porpuse really well.

I already have an HD3870 so all I need now is an AMD platform to go with. Getting a quad core and a motherboard for it that cost as much as a Q6600 is a good deal for me. So unless there will be a cheaper offer this spring, I'll get the Phenom 9500 and a board for it. That should fixed my system for the next two years, I hope.


I'll get one Phenom for my wife, who keeps her PC on much of the time getting unlicensed anime fansubs, but who also mods and plays games. She can utilize quad cores. I'll get the cheapest Phenom for her 690G board.

For my system, I'll stick with my current Athlon X2 4600+ on a 690G unless there's a really cheap triple core that games will utilize. I'll wait till 45nm for an AMD quad core, or maybe wait to see what AMD has with Swift.

I was going to get two 3850's for each PC, but my wife wants a 3870, so I'll get two since I won't be getting a new processor. I'm debating the value of the single 3870 at Newegg that has DDR3 instead of DDR4, it's $29 more than the 512 meg 3850 and $20 cheaper than the cheapest DDR4 3870.

We'll also replace our 17" Viewsonic A70f and A71f with two decent LCD's with the next resolution above 1280 x 1024 (what is it? 1440 x 900?). I don't think I'd see enough of a performance boost with a quad core for myself this year, and it makes sense to go for the better graphics cards and new monitors.

I mostly play games, surf the net kvetching about all sorts of things, watch anime and write semiprofessionally. The applications that need quad core the most now are 3DS Max and various encoding programs, plus the kind of multitasking she does.

Faster RAM might help too, all we have are Kingston DDR2 667 value RAM in both PC's with dual boot Vista/XP on each. Sometimes, I've even gone back and played old games under Dosbox, but I am looking forward to The Witcher, Hellgate London, and when they finally come out; Alan Wake and Spore. I don't play FPS all that much because my wife doesn't mind SF and horror, and she's as much of a fantays CRPG fan as I am (especially The Elder Scrolls), but she doesn't like guns, so not even Call of Duty 2 where you get to shoot Nazis in WW2.
January 17, 2008 2:28:07 PM

yipsl said:
Call of Duty 2 where you get to shoot Nazis in WW2.


I don't mean to offend anyone by this statement and it is a bit off topic - but here it goes:

Pretty much 99% of the "Nazi" soldiers in World War 2 were just normal blokes who joined the army to make a living and quite possibly got caught up in the massive propaganda storm that the regime created. Pretty much anyone can be made to believe anything by the use of Propaganda. I'm not sure if conscription took place with in the Reich, but it wouldn't suprise me (Nazi Germany isn't my speciality, political ideology and Stalin's USSR are my specialitys). Therefore when you say you're shooting Nazis - you're not. You're just shooting normal everyday blokes like you or me. Pretty much the only real "Nazis" were the ones that were running the Concentration camps and in powerful positions in Government. So the likelihood of a real Nazi had of being shot in World War 2 was very minimal. Probably about 15:1.

Oh and one other thing that's different yet again - please noone call Nazism Fascism as it just wasn't.

Sorry for getting off topic, it's just a little bugbear of mine.
January 17, 2008 3:29:38 PM

I saw some statistic that said like of the 3 million germans who made up the army that invaded russia in ww2, only 10,000 survived and ever returned home. Most of the bad guys bought it is the point.
January 17, 2008 3:37:36 PM

Evilonigiri said:
That means C2D is compatible with DDR, DDR2, and DDR3 while K8 AM2 is only compatible with DDR2?


That's because Athlons have the memory controller on die since 2003, while in intel: the mobo's chipset determines which memory can the system support.
January 17, 2008 3:42:25 PM

Evilonigiri said:
That means C2D is compatible with DDR, DDR2, and DDR3 while K8 AM2 is only compatible with DDR2?


No, not technically.

In that case the motherboard is compatible with a memory type, because on an Intel machine the memory controller is on the motherboard, not the processor.

However, that is an advantage of having the MC on the motherboard, you can use the same processor with different memory types.
!