Originally posted by: aigomorla
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Also, please 'invest' in Firefox. It has a built in spellcheck.
(And try and be less of an obvious Intel fanboy who needs to scream it from the rooftops, and behave in a slightly more respectable way befitting a moderator on the forums).
how in anyway am i showing fanism?
Show me a phenom that truely does perform.
Also show me a AMD that performs remotely close to its competition.
Bah, seems like you people just dont get it do you.
Okey, i wont say anymore, buy your phenoms. Ive had one. 9850BE. Was fairly nice, clocked at 3.015ghz, ran a bit too hot, consumed roughly the same electricty as a kentsfield @ 3.45ghz.
But hey, i dont know my processors right?
Originally posted by: Gikaseixas
Aigo all we're saying is that AMD might turn this thing around, well not turn around but come close to Yorkfield. Nobody knows what the future holds, nobody knew that a 4870 would perform so close to the 280 GTX, i bet all of us where surprised. On the same note, AMD fans didn't expect CD2 to be this good bet, everything's possible.
Originally posted by: aigomorla
Extelleron.
As i said my friend has a Neha sitting 3 houses from me.
And, its FAST.
Thats all i need to say.
To me FAST is REALLY FAST.
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: aigomorla
Extelleron.
As i said my friend has a Neha sitting 3 houses from me.
And, its FAST.
Thats all i need to say.
To me FAST is REALLY FAST.
Of course it's fast. Unless Intel messed up very badly, it's faster than Yorkfield and Yorkfield is the fastest thing currently available.
The question is how much faster. In Cinebench....it'll be like night and day comparing it to Yorkfield. But how about in something like Crysis that doesn't scale beyond 2 threads? IMC + QPI + architectural improvements should make it faster than Yorkfield, but by how much? That's what we will have to see come Q4.
Yes, but aren't all of the DC apps optimized for Intel, primarily. That seems like an unfair basis on what to compare CPUs by.Originally posted by: aigomorla
The AMD, it had problems matching PPD with my Kentsfield @ 3.2ghz. And it was very noticible. That is why i pulled it. Not because i hate AMD. It just couldnt provide the PPD i was expecting/need.
Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
aigomorla, just out of curiosity, you keep saying the Phenom is 'crap'... why do you think that? Is it that the C2D's bench much faster or was there something your Phenom couldn't do well enough? Let me be clear on this, I know that the C2D's are faster then the Phenom. Intel hit a home run and then some. They use reasonable power, they have reasonable thermals, they overclock as well as you could want, and they perform stellar. No doubt about it, the C2D is better all around then the Phenom.
But, I must have the fastest Phenom in the world or something, I have yet to run into anything at all that it cannot do. I game on it, nothing seems to slow down a bit. I have been really, really into Titan Quest lately, I think the Diablo 3 trailre got my hack & slash juices running or something. I went from using my PC maybe .5-1 hour a day for general use to gaming a few hours a day (loading the CPU/GPU) and can honestly say that my electricity bill has not budged. As I mentioned above, the C2D IS faster, sometimes by a long shot, yet I feel like we've gotten to a point where CPU's have so much juice that faster is just for bragging rights and synthetic benchmarks at this point. Don't get me wrong, I love to race my car, I understand the desire to have faster just to have faster. But, I just have not found any instance where my Phenom isn't good enough... no where have I yet found a piece of software that when I try to run it I feel that I need more CPU.
I'm not trying to argue, certainly the C2D is a great buy. I am just trying to understand what your Phenom system couldn't do. Or get an idea of what people feel it is bad at so I can understand where this is coming from. I'm going back to Titan Quest now.
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Yes, but aren't all of the DC apps optimized for Intel, primarily. That seems like an unfair basis on what to compare CPUs by.Originally posted by: aigomorla
The AMD, it had problems matching PPD with my Kentsfield @ 3.2ghz. And it was very noticible. That is why i pulled it. Not because i hate AMD. It just couldnt provide the PPD i was expecting/need.
Originally posted by: aigomorla
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Yes, but aren't all of the DC apps optimized for Intel, primarily. That seems like an unfair basis on what to compare CPUs by.Originally posted by: aigomorla
The AMD, it had problems matching PPD with my Kentsfield @ 3.2ghz. And it was very noticible. That is why i pulled it. Not because i hate AMD. It just couldnt provide the PPD i was expecting/need.
nah I use WCG Bionic. And it held my Opteron quite well.
People even ran dual opty's on it, and got very good results.
Also F@H on a Cell processor > Intel. Just incase you didnt know
http://arstechnica.com/news.ar...owns-the-pc-in-fh.html
im seriously not being biased. Just wait and see.
i tasted the colder water. And yes its very yummy.
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Nehalem is a server CPU at heart IMO. Every improvement in Nehalem is more important in the server space than on the desktop. HyperTransport has given AMD an advantage in servers for years now, but it hasn't done much for them on the desktop. I don't think QPI will do much for Intel on the desktop either. SMT makes sense for servers as I said earlier, but not for desktops at this point.
Originally posted by: dmens
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Nehalem is a server CPU at heart IMO. Every improvement in Nehalem is more important in the server space than on the desktop. HyperTransport has given AMD an advantage in servers for years now, but it hasn't done much for them on the desktop. I don't think QPI will do much for Intel on the desktop either. SMT makes sense for servers as I said earlier, but not for desktops at this point.
heh, if nehalem was yorkfield + CSI, it would've been out a year ago. it's a lot more than that.
Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
But, I must have the fastest Phenom in the world or something, I have yet to run into anything at all that it cannot do. I game on it, nothing seems to slow down a bit. I have been really, really into Titan Quest lately, I think the Diablo 3 trailre got my hack & slash juices running or something. I went from using my PC maybe .5-1 hour a day for general use to gaming a few hours a day (loading the CPU/GPU) and can honestly say that my electricity bill has not budged. As I mentioned above, the C2D IS faster, sometimes by a long shot, yet I feel like we've gotten to a point where CPU's have so much juice that faster is just for bragging rights and synthetic benchmarks at this point. Don't get me wrong, I love to race my car, I understand the desire to have faster just to have faster. But, I just have not found any instance where my Phenom isn't good enough... no where have I yet found a piece of software that when I try to run it I feel that I need more CPU.
Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
aigomorla, just out of curiosity, you keep saying the Phenom is 'crap'... why do you think that? Is it that the C2D's bench much faster or was there something your Phenom couldn't do well enough? Let me be clear on this, I know that the C2D's are faster then the Phenom. Intel hit a home run and then some. They use reasonable power, they have reasonable thermals, they overclock as well as you could want, and they perform stellar. No doubt about it, the C2D is better all around then the Phenom.
But, I must have the fastest Phenom in the world or something, I have yet to run into anything at all that it cannot do. I game on it, nothing seems to slow down a bit. I have been really, really into Titan Quest lately, I think the Diablo 3 trailre got my hack & slash juices running or something. I went from using my PC maybe .5-1 hour a day for general use to gaming a few hours a day (loading the CPU/GPU) and can honestly say that my electricity bill has not budged. As I mentioned above, the C2D IS faster, sometimes by a long shot, yet I feel like we've gotten to a point where CPU's have so much juice that faster is just for bragging rights and synthetic benchmarks at this point. Don't get me wrong, I love to race my car, I understand the desire to have faster just to have faster. But, I just have not found any instance where my Phenom isn't good enough... no where have I yet found a piece of software that when I try to run it I feel that I need more CPU.
I'm not trying to argue, certainly the C2D is a great buy. I am just trying to understand what your Phenom system couldn't do. Or get an idea of what people feel it is bad at so I can understand where this is coming from. I'm going back to Titan Quest now.
Originally posted by: Triskaine
If it is, than I must have missed something. Nehalem is Yorkfield+IMC+SMT+New Cache Structure+QPI+some minor changes to the frontend.
Originally posted by: Triskaine
If it is, than I must have missed something. Nehalem is Yorkfield+IMC+SMT+New Cache Structure+QPI+some minor changes to the frontend.
Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
.
.
.
No doubt about it, the C2D is better all around then the Phenom.
But, I must have the fastest Phenom in the world or something, I have yet to run into anything at all that it cannot do. I game on it, nothing seems to slow down a bit.
.
.
.
I'm not trying to argue, certainly the C2D is a great buy. I am just trying to understand what your Phenom system couldn't do. Or get an idea of what people feel it is bad at so I can understand where this is coming from. I'm going back to Titan Quest now.
Originally posted by: dmens
Originally posted by: Triskaine
If it is, than I must have missed something. Nehalem is Yorkfield+IMC+SMT+New Cache Structure+QPI+some minor changes to the frontend.
yeah you missed something, unless minor changes to the frontend takes years of work.
Originally posted by: TriskaineYes I have forgotten to mention the new TLB and second-level branchprediction the added support for unaligned-cache requests and some other stuff which I would put under 'minor'. It is definitely not trivial to put all that into a scalable Architecture, test and debug it etc. Especially QPI seems to have taken a while to complete.