AMD 45nm Deneb benchmarks

The 3.2ghz one seems pretty nice. But it dosent look like the 2.3ghz one is even worth buying if you own a current Phenom.

So just like others said, we'll see a small but decent clock-over-clock improvement, while most of the advantages come from small node.

eh?? those are the same old benchies from august, it.anand had some new ones
http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3456
server stuff, but hey its a server chip. and at least for perf/watt it beats the 'new' xeon quite clearly

Lol, sorry guys, I just had to do it after seeing Shanghai benchmark that makes it look good under server conditions. It's already #1 on Google for "Deneb benchmarks." *dies*

It's a Chinese site.

I edited to place the Roadmap in it's own thread. It's worth it's own discussion.

I'll wait to see Deneb, Propus, Heka and Rana benchmarks before I make a final decision on how they compare to Agena. Right now, my Toliman's good enough. What I really need this year is a 24" LCD. I'm getting tired of a 17" CRT.

I don't expect Deneb to do as well on the desktop as Nehalem, but I expect it to catch up to more recent Core 2 quad and overtake Kentsfield at best.

I'd really like to see some gaming benchies with multi-GPU setups, like what we saw recently with Ci7. In fact, I'd like to see a side-by-side comparison of the two across a 'wide variety of (gaming) workloads' .

As I said before. Server results generally never translate to desktop results. SO we are still in the dark until a full official review comes, and according to Yips it will be about January when Denebs NDA is released.

Because tha would make sense?

Have you not noticed the trend lately? Everyone does what makes no sense.

Just like ppl who vote for the wrong reasons or without knowing a damn thing just because they think the person is cool!!!!

Its just the way it is. Nothing makes anymore sense.

You my dear fangirl, live in Senseville. We are all stuck in Nonsenseville.

I dunno. But since NVidia is letting Intel's X58 boards use SLI, why wouldn't they let AMD do the same with their boards? After all, AMD could withhold some key technology from NVidia like Intel threatened to do with QPI, unless NVidia cooperates. NVidea already had one can of "whoopass" explode in its face - it doesn't need another

I seriously doubt this will ever happen as it would most likely kill Nvidia's own chipset division. Other than SLI is there really any compelling reason to buy a Nvidia chipset?

Too late for that, nvidia chipsets are already dead. If Nvidia does put out boards/chipset for i7, only an idiot would buy them. Literally no reason to buy one if you can get an Intel board with SLi support.

Buying SLI right now would make no sense, or Nvidia for that matter.

AMD/ATI 4xxx gpu's with 8.12 drivers and beyond will have stream computing built into the drivers. This means that every app/game that has the capability of using a GPGPU will automatically use those new features of ATI's drivers/cards.

On top of that Nvidia's CUDA is a high level driver vs ATI's low level.
This meand that if a developer writes something to take use of CUDA they have to rely on Nvidia's drivers to make it work. in other words something may break in future driver releases.

ATI's low level(or CTM) approach will allow developers to make their program and forget about it. it will ALWAYS work the way it was designed in all future catalyst updates. Nvidia would have to freeze their driver to be able to get that kind of reliability out of CUDA.....or make it much more bloated and slower. AMD/ATI's approach is much better for developers.

No thanks. I may be game to ditching the Nvidia chipset in favor of the x58 but I wont consider ATI cards for at least a year, year and a half (providing they maintain good offerings like they currently do). My investment in video cards I do try to maintain discipline with because I used to spend wayyy too much money playing that game.

Those benchmarks don't show the true performance of the deneb cpu's as the tests were run on a bottlenecking AM2+ board with DDR2.

The latencies aren't bad at all on DDR3. Sure, CL8 at 1600 MHz sounds high, but it's actually the same latency as CL4 DDR2-800.

There is a reason why Intel has opted for DDR3 on thier Core i7, just like DDR2 when it first came out, almost no performance gains, over time the DDR3 will show some noticable performance gains, especially when the bandwidth of DDR3 can work with the Cache and other component bandwidths, one day we will have RAM, CPU and GPU (probally via PCI-E) bandwidth all the same speed I guess

4 on air
5 on ice
6 on LN2

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/836/1/

of course when you posted this you did realize this is the same exact event that keeps getting re-posted? read it carefully. this was done by AMD, not an unbiased 3rd party. as encouraging as it is, i will wait to reserve judgment.