When it comes to benchmarks, the move from 2.50GHz to 2.97GHz increased performance by 25%, which is great considering the overclock was only 18%.
So it seems to scale very well.
That's odd, theoretically speaking you can't achieve better than 1:1 scaling ratio with increased clcokspeeds, I wonder if LR increased the NB/L3 as well whilst overclocking? That could be a possible explanation for the 'superlinear' scaling.
If you go by Tech Reports's overclocking benchmarks, between 2.5GHz and 3GHz Cinebench performance increases 18% from a 20% clock increase.
Mathos, I'm not sure what you mean by the 2.6GHz number? Its not like there is some magical switch beyond 2599.99MHz that suddenly allows Phenom to achieve superlinear scaling...
Nice finds there. I was hoping a bit better performance (like actually BEATING the X2 6400+ once and for all....oh well). At least it's in the right direction, if the quoted prices are correct, they may not be too bad of a deal to get (providing you have a much slower cpu already or it's your first system). If the black edition can actually make it 3ghz (beating the x2 6400+), at least it would be a upgrade for the older boards; providing the bios gets updated for it. By what I see though, seems the OLD Q6600 still has a slight lead over the new cpus at stock, and if overclocked, the q6600 really takes the lead over the new amd cpus. Maybe the 45nm cpus will be better?
That's odd, theoretically speaking you can't achieve better than 1:1 scaling ratio with increased clcokspeeds, I wonder if LR increased the NB/L3 as well whilst overclocking? That could be a possible explanation for the 'superlinear' scaling.
If you go by Tech Reports's overclocking benchmarks, between 2.5GHz and 3GHz Cinebench performance increases 18% from a 20% clock increase.
Mathos, I'm not sure what you mean by the 2.6GHz number? Its not like there is some magical switch beyond 2599.99MHz that suddenly allows Phenom to achieve superlinear scaling...
It has a wierd scaling curve, starts to dip down at 2.6, then after that it shoots back up again to the original lines linear rise. But for example, my 2.6core 2.4nb/imc is equal to say about a 2.8ghz Phenom, going by benchies. But I say thats mostly due to the higher L3 cache speed.
That's interesting. If it does yield such a big increase, I wonder why they aren't upping the HT speed to full. Are they saving that for the 45nm so they look really good?
That's interesting. If it does yield such a big increase, I wonder why they aren't upping the HT speed to full. Are they saving that for the 45nm so they look really good?
I somehow doubt that AMD is holding back right now.
I somehow doubt that AMD is holding back right now.
Think you're right, its very rare for the IMC to be able to run stable above 2.0/2.2 on the phenoms when it comes down to it. Though may be how they come back on the deneb 45nm though.
Oh no, I agree it isn't as simple as upping the frequency on the current hardware. I meant designing it to run at the higher HT link as many current mothers claim to support.
^^This is what I've been saying all along. The 6400 x2 performs as it does because the IMC is runing at 3.2ghz. If you all recall, socket AM2 could not perform as well as 939 until the IMC was at 2.4ghz. Thus, the X3 & X4 chips are basically running into the same issue Intel is with the FSB. Sure, they have far more bandwidth to the chipset, but the bandwidth to the memory system is VASTLY hindered compared to what it could be. Honestly, I was quite upset to find out that AMD had decided to use two 64bit memory controllers instead of two 128 bit memory controllers. Sure, they can read and write at the same time, but the overall bandwidth is at best the same as an x2 of the same IMC frequency.
There are a few possible reasons why AMD didn't put two 128-bit memory controllers into the Phenom. Two 128-bit memory controllers would require four channels using available 64-bit DDR2 or DDR3 modules. A current Socket AM2 or Socket 1207 chip only has 480 pins for two channels and using four would require doubling the RAM control pin count, requiring a new socket. AMD has promised backwards compatibility, particularly on Socket 1207, so this is a no-go. Requiring four modules for peak performance would also get a bit cumbersome while just transitioning to DDR3 also gives a big increase in bandwidth, so that probably puts dampers on the dual 128-bit IMC plan as well.
---------------
UNIX is user-friendly- it's just picky who its friends are.
DRM is slowly killing personal computing, one Sony rootkit and TPM chip at a time.
Is memory bandwidth the real issue at present thou? ... isn't it the cache latency on that L3 pig of a thing MU ... and the prefetch logic ... plus the core2 is essentially a wider design?
Look at the Scott Wasson original Barcy article for a good brief on that whole latency issue.
Tends to explain the major reason the single socket performance can't catch Intel.
On the multisocket front the thing scales quite well.
An ugly duckling ... some may say but I think of it more like comparing a Train engine to a prime mover.
Intel's prime mover can tow one or two trailers at speed but runs out of steam on a steep hill and has to drop back a few cogs (but picks up down the other side quickly). It is a lot faster and more maneuverable.
AMD's train engine can't go as fast but can pull a bigger load because it can easily insert more engines in a line ... the couplings between them allow one engine to control the rest easily ... more engines more load.
VIA's go cart has a whipper snipper motor.
Intel's new atom is a glow plug engine from my model aeroplane.
I see some of the other threads used car analogies ... not going there again with the whole Jap vs US Muscle cars ... I like Detroit Iron !!
---------------
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.
"Will you people please just stop drinking the AMD kool aid. This is just getting ridiculous". (someguy7).
Once it is cranked above 2.8 Ghz the chip does seem a lot better across the board though.
Power dissipation becomes an issue when overclocked.
No more than an overclocked Q6600 I suppose ... Both monstrous.
That's why everyone's waiting for Deneb. I don't like the thermals of an overclocked B3 or Q6600. Rumors of the Deneb from gossip sites like The Inquirer say it will arrive at 3.0 stock at 65 watts. If more pipelines allow it to be really overclockable, then it will be the Phenom we hoped for. Too bad it will take about 9 more months to arrive, then it will compete against Nehalem. Oh well, there's always hope at 32nm past SOI.
I'm interested if my board would support "Deneb", i currently have an Asus M3A32-MVP Deluxe motherboard running a Phenom 9600 (B2).
Is that AM2 or AM2+? From the few articles I've seen, Denebs will be supported on AM2+ and then on AM3 a few months later. I don't think they will be supported on AM2 boards, but I could be wrong.
I doubt 'everyone' is waiting for Deneb, I may be mistaken but I think Nehalem is the more anticipated product of the two.
As for 3GHz 65W Deneb chips? LOL I'll believe it when I see it, The INQ has a habit of hyping up AMD's products, mainly thanks to its bunnysuit fanboy Charlie D and his sidekick Theo.
