You re just too blinded by your intel fanboism..
If you had looked better, you would had seen than there s
a single thread performance bar in Cinebench...:biggrin:
You AMD guys really are a treat . Your comparring a 4 core to a 6 core. If anything a six core SB will be over 70% faster than the 6 core amd your comparing to. The 6 core intel in your link is a little over 40% faster . Whats up with you guys? Apple to apple . Russian was talking IPC . so you compare 4 cores to six cores and you think you debunked russian . Na you just made yourself look the fool.
You AMD guys really are a treat . Your comparring a 4 core to a 6 core. If anything a six core SB will be over 70% faster than the 6 core amd your comparing to. The 6 core intel in your link is a little over 40% faster . Whats up with you guys? Apple to apple . Russian was talking IPC . so you compare 4 cores to six cores and you think you debunked russian . Na you just made yourself look the fool.
Actually if you look at the highest end AMD 4 core in your link it is more than 50% slower. SB-E will be even faster . NOW laydown rollover and play dead.
In synthetic benchmarks designed only to test on-chip IO and/or to maximize the use of functional units (which no useful program will ever do), maybe (OTOH, such benchmarks, based on assumptions which are obsolete, can show a new CPU in worse light than actual programs).I may have missed the beginning of Russian's thing, or I may be reading it wrong, but AMD stated their module design scaled 2 cores to 180% of one core, so shouldn't Bullldozer only have to be ~11% faster to reach an equal Deneb (1 module vs. 2 cores). It's not two 80% cores, it's two 90% cores.
Turbo boost increases clock speeds, not IPC, and that is why programs with only a few threads are so much faster on SB, and programs with more thread are moderately faster on SB. SB only very rarely shows IPC of anywhere near +50% over PhII. AMD has a mountain to climb, but not that high of a mountain. Ironically, when the extra cores can't help AMD, it is actually TLP of Intel's CPUs giving them such an edge, despite AMD's consistent stance against HT (FYI: I don't hate HT, I just hate that it cannot be toggled during runtime, so that one could easily test with it, and disable it if it does not suit their needs, without the risk of rebooting from a remote location, or having to wait until after hours).Right, but keep in mind SB is still about 50% faster in IPC than Phenom II is. So even comparing 1 core to 1 core, even if we discount the 80% "penalty" for 1 core, BD still needs to come up with 40-50% more performance PER core than Phenom II does to match SB at the same clock speed.
You re just too blinded by your intel fanboism..
If you had looked better, you would had seen than there s
a single thread performance bar in Cinebench...:biggrin:
This is 2011. Core count is now just another method of improving CPU performance, just as additional cache, higher clock speeds, and increased IPC are. If putting 16 cores on a die is AMD's means of competing with SB-E, then it is perfectly valid.
Never said it wasn't fine but that not IPC thats simplly more cores . Let me know when AMD does a 16 core CPU that runs over 2 ghz. ...
Although SB has a big IPC advantage, i dont see it being as high
as the erratic number you re quoting..
You are just spreading wrong numbers as a mean to support your
random perfs comparisons.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/20486/12
Today SB delivers the very best performance and it doesn't cost you $500 to get it. Every passing day BD isn't out, it makes it more and more difficult to wait for those looking to upgrade.
The itch got me. Ordered the 2500K+Z68X-UD4 combo at newegg for $380 last night. I already have this memory I got for $80. Nice upgrade for $460. Can probably sell current CPU/RAM/Mobo for ~$100 making it even better.
Z68 gives you unprecedented video encoding performance off HD3000.
Quick sync is not actually usable for video encoding. The quality of the encode is an absurd joke compared to the current state of the art (x264). x264 on the ultra fast preset, which is still leagues above the quality of QS, gets about 70% of the speed of QS. The anandtech test on QS was a total joke, because the software encoder they compared to was a total joke that nobody sane would ever use.
... Of course, that doesn't change the fact that Intel CPU's are the best for encoding video. Just stay away from quick sync.
Do you have a link to a comparison?
Quick sync is not actually usable for video encoding. The quality of the encode is an absurd joke compared to the current state of the art (x264). x264 on the ultra fast preset, which is still leagues above the quality of QS, gets about 70% of the speed of QS. The anandtech test on QS was a total joke, because the software encoder they compared to was a total joke that nobody sane would ever use.
... Of course, that doesn't change the fact that Intel CPU's are the best for encoding video. Just stay away from quick sync.
It's also nice to know a 2500k @ 4.9ghz consumes a reasonable ~220W , while BD's power consumption in overclocked mode is just a mystery at this point.
I was going to wait for BD in June to see how it compares, but things just aren't looking good and AMD not releasing any info is very irritating. Even if BD beats SB at least I can upgrade to IB later without getting a new mobo. No idea if 2nd gen BD will be backwards compatible in the same manner.
Performance in a program without clock speed and core count fixed can't measure an IPC difference. No one is arguing that Sandy bridge as a whole is not ~50% better (well, they shouldn't be, if they are ), but that the ~50% is not accounted for merely by IPC, but by a combination of that and additional speed headroom used by turbo, and/or programs that are amenable to Hyperthreading (also, Intel-optimized programs can skew the results, and AMD-optimized programs are rare).By observation it looks like 40-50% on average (In some cases it's way less than 50% though). Perhaps you are right and I am too optimistic and it's closer to 35-40% (less in games since GPU is the limiting component). I might crunch the math another day but at the moment you should glance at 6 pages of benchmarks. You can see another problem with Phenom II architecture -- it barely scales with increased clock speed. However, a 2500k @ 4.7ghz demolishes a 6 core X1100 @ 4.0ghz and is way ahead of a stock 2500k. This performance can be purchased today for a reasonable $225. On top of that you get exceptional power consumption, even when overclocked.
http://www.techspot.com/review/403-dirt-3-performance/page7.html
SB's lack of cache letting it down in Dirt 3. A sign of things to come perhaps?
A sign of things to come perhaps?