Darknova45nm with 1.6v! That's going to cause a lot of damage even with adequate cooling. Shouldn't really put 1.4v through a 45nm chip.

Mind you, AMD may have come up with some way of reinforcing the chip against those kind of volts, but bloody hell...

They are only using that much voltage in the extreme overclocked shots, probably just doing it for a benchmark run. They were only using 1.4v @ 3GHz.

i can only say......finaly something from AMD, not much but something

Sub 20s :)

newtekie1They are only using that much voltage in the extreme overclocked shots, probably just doing it for a benchmark run. They were only using 1.4v @ 3GHz.

But even so, if it requires 1.6v to reach what on an intel platform is considering a "mild" OC then AMD are doing something wrong...

Think before you post sometimes...

Good thing there are a lot of people that follow AMD in this thread!:ohwell:

If you've been paying attention the last two forevers AMD's do not put up the same type of numbers as Intel processors in SuperPi so stop expecting it to put up a 10 second time because they NEVER have!

Now if you use 1% logic and 2% effort you'll go over the old SuperPi results from previous AMD processors and notice that this is a very nice improvement for these processors! My best SuperPi time to date is 24.679s in the 1M test with everything turned up as high as I can get it (3.1Ghz)...the new processor even with nothing turned up will nearly match that at only 2.8Ghz!!! That's a fantastic increase overall and I'm damn happy with it. For those wondering (and waiting to throw more mud) my setup for that test was... (all air cooling Xigmatek HDT-S1283 on low)

Phenom 9850 @ 3.1Ghz 1.37v
Patriot Extreme 1150Mhz 4-5-5-15 2T
Northbridge 2.354Ghz
HT Link 2.14Ghz

Anyway I'd love to see some other tests done with this but right now I'm sold already ESPECIALLY with the L3 6Mb cache as that'll help a lot in other apps we really needed the speed in.

On another note and without sounding terribly rude but...why do people with dual cores keep posting what clocks you can achieve on "x" voltage...nobody cares what your DUAL core can do. You quad guys on the other hand are a different story though because you actually have apples to apples going.

K

newtekie1And superpi is important because it does give an idea of processor performance. It doesn't give a well-rouned idea, it only shows a single aspect of the processors performance, but it is still important. It shows how good the processor is at pure number crunching.

But who cares about pure number crunching if the processor costs a arm and a leg. I would rather sacrifice a encoding a video 5 seconds slower if it means I pay £50 less. Honestly are you going to care if your application launches a nanosecond faster or if you get 150 FPS in a game opposed to 149.9 seconds if you can't afford the extra £ required or for a better Super PI result which didn't have any baring in the applications you really use everyday.

newtekie1In the past, SuperPi results have been very good indicators of real world performance. Can you show me proof otherwise?

We are all waiting on these benchmarks to prove this.

Well according to the article phanbuey sent earlier, despite most of the benchmarks being synthetical the 9850 BE was still performing equivalently, in some benchmarks better in some worst, in some just trailing behind. If you were to measure the two CPU's using SuperPI it would show a huge gap between the two CPU's in favour of the Q6600 maybe 10 seconds between? in most tests according to phanbuey's article the performance difference wasn't abnormally different, which completely contradicts the readings Super PI would of gave.

pagalmsSub 20s :)

That shut people up. lol

Oh, and those tests were done with plain jane timings and nothing else was overclocked. Also the ram was very clearly in single channel/unganged mode for these tests (which are not multicore so we know how that affects ganged/unganged). My mouth is watering already to see what they can do when the rest of the system is turned up even a little bit.

K

KeiGood thing there are a lot of people that follow AMD in this thread!:ohwell:

If you've been paying attention the last two forevers AMD's do not put up the same type of numbers as Intel processors in SuperPi so stop expecting it to put up a 10 second time because they NEVER have!

Now if you use 1% logic and 2% effort you'll go over the old SuperPi results from previous AMD processors and notice that this is a very nice improvement for these processors! My best SuperPi time to date is 24.679s in the 1M test with everything turned up as high as I can get it (3.1Ghz)...the new processor even with nothing turned up will nearly match that at only 2.8Ghz!!! That's a fantastic increase overall and I'm damn happy with it. For those wondering (and waiting to throw more mud) my setup for that test was... (all air cooling Xigmatek HDT-S1283 on low)

Phenom 9850 @ 3.1Ghz 1.37v
Patriot Extreme 1150Mhz 4-5-5-15 2T
Northbridge 2.354Ghz
HT Link 2.14Ghz

Anyway I'd love to see some other tests done with this but right now I'm sold already ESPECIALLY with the L3 6Mb cache as that'll help a lot in other apps we really needed the speed in.

On another note and without sounding terribly rude but...why do people with dual cores keep posting what clocks you can achieve on "x" voltage...nobody cares what your DUAL core can do. You quad guys on the other hand are a different story though because you actually have apples to apples going.

K

if that is true, than this CPU is not bad at all ;)

DarrenBut who cares about pure number crunching if the processor costs a arm and a leg. I would rather sacrifice a encoding a video 5 seconds slower if it means I pay £50 less. Honestly are you going to care if your application launches a nanosecond faster or if you get 150 FPS in a game opposed to 149.9 seconds if you can't afford the extra £ required or for a better Super PI result which didn't have any baring in the applications you really use everyday.



Well according to the article phanbuey sent earlier, despite most of the benchmarks being synthetical the 9850 BE was still performing equivalently, in some benchmarks better in some worst, in some just trailing behind. If you were to measure the two CPU's using SuperPI it would show a huge gap between the two CPU's in favour of the Q6600 maybe 10 seconds between? in most tests according to phanbuey's article the performance difference wasn't abnormally different, which completely contradicts the readings Super PI would of gave.


That shut people up. lol

Darren don't argue with them about number crunching ability...if they were really concerned and wanted the best in number crunching then they wouldn't be cheap @sses and would buy the fastest processor in the first place not the cheap one they heard could be overclocked to be fast. They're simply here to throw dirt and that is all...I don't see any AMD guys over in the new Intel thread doing that, as a matter of fact I remember praising the new Intel processor (the 2.66Ghz one not a fan of the 2.93Ghz model).

I'm done let the kids have their fun...your turn

K

[I.R.A]_FBimy e6400 does 3.2 @ 1.225V

my E7200 does 4 GHz @ 1.25v...and your point?

I hope AMD has some headroom for overclocking. The small performance gain is nice, but we still need more if AMD is going to try to compete with Intel.

KeiGood thing there are a lot of people that follow AMD in this thread!:ohwell:

If you've been paying attention the last two forevers AMD's do not put up the same type of numbers as Intel processors in SuperPi so stop expecting it to put up a 10 second time because they NEVER have!

Now if you use 1% logic and 2% effort you'll go over the old SuperPi results from previous AMD processors and notice that this is a very nice improvement for these processors! My best SuperPi time to date is 24.679s in the 1M test with everything turned up as high as I can get it (3.1Ghz)...the new processor even with nothing turned up will nearly match that at only 2.8Ghz!!! That's a fantastic increase overall and I'm damn happy with it. For those wondering (and waiting to throw more mud) my setup for that test was... (all air cooling Xigmatek HDT-S1283 on low)

Phenom 9850 @ 3.1Ghz 1.37v
Patriot Extreme 1150Mhz 4-5-5-15 2T
Northbridge 2.354Ghz
HT Link 2.14Ghz

Anyway I'd love to see some other tests done with this but right now I'm sold already ESPECIALLY with the L3 6Mb cache as that'll help a lot in other apps we really needed the speed in.

On another note and without sounding terribly rude but...why do people with dual cores keep posting what clocks you can achieve on "x" voltage...nobody cares what your DUAL core can do. You quad guys on the other hand are a different story though because you actually have apples to apples going.

K

Yeah, but don't let the Intel fanbois hear ya ;)

My old Venice 3000 at 2.6Ghz and OC'd RAM did 18 seconds in SuperPi, I was happy with that lol.

and my phenom does 4.5GHz at 1.225V :)

vojcif that is true, than this CPU is not bad at all ;)

I'm trying to find a shot of my setup with the 1M SuperPi time on the screen but can't find it only the 32M test. Either way I'll put up the SuperPi results (full list) and the lowest I can do 3Ghz at...for relevancy that's FOUR cores running 3Ghz with a stability test to prove it at only 1.232v

Just because a processor comes at a certain speed doesn't mean that's literally what it took for anybody to get that speed. systems differ..my low voltage thread pretty much proves that completely. I can boot 3Ghz as low as 1.20v on all four cores but it takes a small bump to get it stable. Btw, I wish they used a different 790 board I'm not a fan of the MSI FX board at all...the bios doesn't have nearly enough options for the Phenom.

K

breakfromyoumy E7200 does 4 GHz @ 1.25v...and your point?

I hope AMD has some headroom for overclocking. The small performance gain is nice, but we still need more if AMD is going to try to compete with Intel.

You've seen a single test and fail to put that into perspective...the Phenoms now are significantly slower than the new models shown here. Those same current Phenoms are competition for Intel today perhaps not the exact speed of some of the Intels but far far far from slow.

Homework assignment for you: Define the word "competition"...then define the word "we"

Forgive me if it seems as thoguh I'm slinging mud at you; just saying choose your words more carefully and check as many facts as you can first. :)

DarknovaMy old Venice 3000 at 2.6Ghz and OC'd RAM did 18 seconds in SuperPi, I was happy with that lol.

Dayumn! That's really fast! :toast:

Why can't all Intel guys and AMD guys get along like this...in the end we're all computer people.:shadedshu

K

Tatty_OneMy E8200 does 4gig on 1.3V :D

My E3110 Xeon (E8400) does 4Ghz at 1.4125V :cry: (24/7 stable)

You got an awesome chip. :eek:

my next will be 45nm deneb

hey they just about hit 3.5ghz on SB600 thats not something to insult remember the SB750 boards are supposed to be alot better oc'rs



and just to ask WHEN HAS AMD BEEN GOOD AT sp? what i'm seeing is they are doing alot better clock for clock and th scaling looks very good on these chips

My dog does 360° in 1,2s :)

KeiDayumn! That's really fast! :toast:

Why can't all Intel guys and AMD guys get along like this...in the end we're all computer people.:shadedshu

Heheh, I'm going back to AMD at some point, probably around Xmas time. I'm not getting stuck with Intel and their constant socket changes.

My old AMD BSODs in 34 seconds. :laugh:

Intel fanboys......???

To be a fanboy you would buy a sub par product over a better one just because of your brand preference. Thats a fanboy..... an AMD fanboy.;) Some AMD's are a good price but there quads are not if you like to OC.

Buying a Pentium D over a AMD X2 would be a fanboy thing to do. (when they were in the competition)

I just pointed that out because somebody felt the need to call Intel purchasers, fanboys. :shadedshu

The AMD dual core processors are still pretty awesome in their Black editions. When will Intel get those awesome Multi's. :(

I am glad there are people out there willing to buy AMD processors because if they didn't, we all know Intel would charge us whatever they pleased due to lack of competition. Although I would like to see AMD step it up in the Quad department more than what we have just seen. Mainly because I don't think Intel is really feeling the heat from AMD, despite the high voltages in those benches.:)

pagalmsMy dog does 360° in 1,2s :)

:eek: I need to upgrade my dog!:twitch:

K

although everyone is wanting to speculate on this CPUs performance based on OCs . . .


I think that's rather absurd - what I see here is an AMD CPU that appears that it will perform more on par with some of Intel's quads . . . that right there is enough for many OE companies to start designing systems . . . and if AMD prices it low enough to be pricer:performance competitive, for both consumers and OEMs, this CPU definitley comes across as being able to help AMD start getting their foot back through the door.

And this is still just an engineering sample - not a finished product, yet.

Kei:eek: I need to upgrade my dog!:twitch:

K

Why not OC the dog? Use the 'herbal' method. :)


We must be happy that these Denreb parts are overclocking well. They took a 2.3 GHz to almost 3.5 GHz alebit unlocked multipler and voltage.

DaedalusHeliosMy old AMD BSODs in 34 seconds. :laugh:

Intel fanboys......???

To be a fanboy you would buy a sub par product over a better one just because of your brand preference. Thats a fanboy..... an AMD fanboy.;)

I just pointed that out because somebody felt the need to call Intel purchasers, fanboys. :shadedshu

The AMD dual core processors are still pretty awesome in their Black editions. When will Intel get those awesome Multi's. :(

I am glad there are people out there willing to buy AMD processors because if they didn't, we all know Intel would charge us whatever they pleased due to lack of competition. Although I would like to see AMD step it up in the Quad department more than what we have just seen. Mainly because I don't think Intel is really feeling the heat from AMD, despite the high voltages in those benches.:)

A fanboy is someone who feverently believes that they chosen company is better than the others even if the other company has been proven to be better in certain things, or overall.

There are still Intel fanboys who believe that you can't get better than Intel, and in raw performance they aren't half right, but having used Intel for over 18 months now as impressed with the raw performance and incredibly high benches, I'm looking for something more stable that will last me longer (IE no socket changes or being forced to change motherboard to use the latest tech).

DaedalusHeliosMy E3110 Xeon (E8400) does 4Ghz at 1.4125V :cry: (24/7 stable)

You got an awesome chip. :eek:

u all forget something, we talk abaut 4 cores here, not 2 cores, tell me how many q6600 or q9*** can work on 4ghz at 1.25V? :) my q6600 need 1.475 for 3.2-3.4GHz