AMD vs Intel

All about them.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Asulc
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:37 pm
Location: Oregon, United States

AMD vs Intel

Post by Asulc » Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:08 am

Which would give me a better noise to performance ratio?

AMD Mobo
AMD Proc

Intel Mobo
Intel Proc
[size=75]~Asulc~[/size]

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:25 am

Hello,

I don't think there is much doubt: the E8400 is the (much) higher performing and IIANM, it is also cooler running.
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

Asulc
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:37 pm
Location: Oregon, United States

Post by Asulc » Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:13 am

How does overclocking change that, or does it stay the same? I have never oced before, so ease of overclocking is a must.
What is a good low airflow low profile heatsink to use with the processor?

That you for the quick response neil!
[size=75]~Asulc~[/size]

bgavin
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:05 pm
Location: Orangevale, CA

Post by bgavin » Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:22 am

I was an AMD guy for decades... not any more. There is neither a performance nor price motivation to use AMD. Furthermore, I don't want the endless grief of driver hassles. Fiddling around with crappy drivers for the latest Asian chipset is a waste of my (business) time.

Intel finally got its act together and ditched the high-price, low-performance in favor of the current products. Burning hot Intel Prescotts are now a relic of the past... AMD isn't there yet. The Intel hardware works well and so do the drivers. Install and go. Not install and fiddle and reinstall and fiddle some more and install again, and so forth.

I've built three E8400 systems so far, and am absolutely impressed with performance vs. heat generation. Any decent cooler will keep it nice 'n cool, and quiet. The P35 north bridge does run hot, so attention must be given to keeping it cool.

krille
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:56 am
Location: Sweden

Post by krille » Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:23 am

Asulc wrote:How does overclocking change that, or does it stay the same? I have never oced before, so ease of overclocking is a must.
What is a good low airflow low profile heatsink to use with the processor?

That you for the quick response neil!
Either should be easy to OC. The E8400 should give you a lot better performance / watt, OC'ed or not.
[size=84][color=grey]About to assemble a new PC.

The Plan: E8400 w/ TRUE, Abit IP35 Pro XE, 4GB DDR2, P182, 48x0 w/ S1, ZM850-HP, VelociRaptor 300GB, X-Fi Elite Pro[/color][/size]

ryboto
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:06 pm
Location: New Hampshire, US
Contact:

Post by ryboto » Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:25 am

Asulc wrote:How does overclocking change that, or does it stay the same? I have never oced before, so ease of overclocking is a must.
What is a good low airflow low profile heatsink to use with the processor?

That you for the quick response neil!
The E8400 will overclock much much higher than the 5000+. If money isn't an issue, it's a great processor. I'd love to have one and undervolt the hell out of it.
[url=http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=userpage&teamnum=31574&username=rybot]F@H[/url]
[url=http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=36172&highlight=][size=75]Oldest Setup[/url]
[url=http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=48778]Old[/url]
i5-750 | TR AXP-140 | DFI MI P55-T36 | Lan-Gear mITX | HD5850 | Silverstone ST45SF[/size]

Asulc
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:37 pm
Location: Oregon, United States

Post by Asulc » Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:39 am

What is a good low airflow low profile heatsink to use with the processor?
[size=75]~Asulc~[/size]

jhhoffma
Posts: 2131
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:00 am
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Post by jhhoffma » Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:14 am

For a normal medium-to-high performance system, Intel wins. For low-power HTPC, AMD all the way. That's only due to chipset design however...780G is a god-send for onboard HD playback. It allows you to use a slower, cooler processor and no GPU.
HTPC: OrigenAE X11|Gigabyte GA-MA785GPMT-UD2H|Phenom II x3 740BE w/AC Freezer 7|150GB Velociraptor|Corsair VX450
Main: Antec 300 (SlipStream @ 800rpm/140mm @ 5v)|Asus M4A88TD-M|Phenom II x4 945 (Mugen2 pass.)|Asus EAH6850|Samsung 830 128GB|Antec TP750
WHS: DF-85|P8H67-M Pro|I5-3450S/Hyper 212+|Corsair AX650|Sandisk Extreme 240GB, 2xWD20EARS, 2x WD15EARS, WD15EADS

mx-5
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:43 pm

Post by mx-5 » Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:29 am

jhhoffma wrote:For a normal medium-to-high performance system, Intel wins. For low-power HTPC, AMD all the way. That's only due to chipset design however...780G is a god-send for onboard HD playback. It allows you to use a slower, cooler processor and no GPU.
I agree. I think AMD still has a market for affordable CPU + motherboard that can do more than Intel's CPU + chipset. For basic desktop (read non-gamer) and HTPC, AMD's got the upper hand with capable onboard video that cost less, runs cooler, and is greener to operate. And there are much fewer Intel mobos that offer digital video out (DVI/HDMI) compared to AMD.

The other AMD advantage that some people might not care about but may influence a small number of buyers is the availability of hardware virtualization. You can get that in AMD's $70 processor, and while Intel's $70 E2xxx might run faster / overclock better, Intel decided to cut VT out of the E2xxx and E4xxx to differentiate the market.

thejamppa
Posts: 3142
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:20 am
Location: Missing in Finnish wilderness, howling to moon with wolf brethren and walking with brother bears
Contact:

Post by thejamppa » Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:19 pm

AMD's strength is that they have very balanced entire platform affordable. Intel's CPU's always cost more and motherboards are costly vs. AMD.

While Intel offers superior in pure raw power in many cases, you still need to pay quite a lot in from their CPU's. While Intel's cpu's overclock now like dream, 2xxx and 4xxx series are being killed. Replicament could be locked like new Wolfendales but OC is still possible via FSB it like current Wolfendales most likely as Intel has changed its attitude towards Overclokcing.

However not too many users practise overclocking and in budget segment AMD offers more than enough CPU's equal performance in non-overclocked situations against Intel's lowend.

AMD's 780G chipset is something very well done and something Intel has not yet answer. Maybe their new G45 will deliver competition, maybe not. Intel's focus has not lately been in HTPC set-up's and AMD has gained good foothold there. Just lately Intel has started to provde more HTPC friendly set-up's. But currently no Intel chipset can quite compeate with 780G in performance + connectivity + price ratio.
If seeing is believing, how can blind person believe in anything?
Maturity is just not experience in life but also ability to make compromises.

kassler
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:17 am
Location: Sweden

Post by kassler » Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:23 am

ryboto wrote:The E8400 will overclock much much higher than the 5000+. If money isn't an issue, it's a great processor.
You don't need to overcklock AMD, Intel has a slow FSB and that could affect total how the computer feels. AMD runs smoother. If you are doing rendering or lengthy compression tasks, then it will of course be noticed if you overclock AMD.

Vicotnik
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1822
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:53 am
Location: Sweden

Post by Vicotnik » Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:24 am

kassler wrote:You don't need to overcklock AMD, Intel has a slow FSB and that could affect total how the computer feels. AMD runs smoother.
Hmmm.. Care to back that up with an explanation? Sounds like bs to me.

AMDs HT has an advantage in some areas but as far as I know that's an issue with large multiprocessor systems. HT scales better than the Intel equivalent. For a normal system I don't think that's much of a problem. But if I'm wrong please enlighten me.
Main: ASRock B85M-ITX | i3-4330 | 16GB DDR3 | Intel 730 240GB | HDPLEX H1-S | picoPSU | No moving parts | Idle 13.9W
HTPC: ASRock J4105-ITX | 4GB DDR4 | Intel 535 120GB | picoPSU | No moving parts
Gaming: Intel DH77EB | i5-3570K | GTX 1060 6GB | 16GB DDR3 | TJ08-E | RM750X
Server: ASRock N3150-ITX | ~30TB | G-360 | Idle ~25W

ryboto
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:06 pm
Location: New Hampshire, US
Contact:

Post by ryboto » Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:38 am

kassler wrote:
ryboto wrote:The E8400 will overclock much much higher than the 5000+. If money isn't an issue, it's a great processor.
You don't need to overcklock AMD, Intel has a slow FSB and that could affect total how the computer feels. AMD runs smoother. If you are doing rendering or lengthy compression tasks, then it will of course be noticed if you overclock AMD.
The FSB is at what 1600mhz now? or is it 1333 with the E8000's? Regardless, if money isn't an issue, the 8400 is a better processor. Sure, you can build a very competent system for less money if you go with AMD, you can get a 2.9ghz X2 for $100. There's two sides to the story though, and if he's going to overclock, E8400 makes more sense.
[url=http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=userpage&teamnum=31574&username=rybot]F@H[/url]
[url=http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=36172&highlight=][size=75]Oldest Setup[/url]
[url=http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=48778]Old[/url]
i5-750 | TR AXP-140 | DFI MI P55-T36 | Lan-Gear mITX | HD5850 | Silverstone ST45SF[/size]

kassler
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:17 am
Location: Sweden

Post by kassler » Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:02 pm

ryboto wrote:The FSB is at what 1600mhz now? or is it 1333 with the E8000's? Regardless, if money isn't an issue, the 8400 is a better processor. Sure, you can build a very competent system for less money if you go with AMD, you can get a 2.9ghz X2 for $100. There's two sides to the story though, and if he's going to overclock, E8400 makes more sense.
But it isn’t very effective. It’s almost impossible to reach over 10 GB/s, you need to some extreme OC then.
http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/mai ... page1.html
Here is a movie: http://youtube.com/watch?v=oeEqNMD0aKE
The need for an IMC and why the FSB is dead

ryboto
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:06 pm
Location: New Hampshire, US
Contact:

Post by ryboto » Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:15 pm

kassler wrote: But it isn’t very effective. It’s almost impossible to reach over 10 GB/s, you need to some extreme OC then.
http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/mai ... page1.html
Here is a movie: http://youtube.com/watch?v=oeEqNMD0aKE
The need for an IMC and why the FSB is dead
When does a desktop user ever have a real issue with bandwidth though? Maybe in servers, but given the performance numbers of Core2 against the K8 it's pretty obvious we haven't exhausted the bandwidth yet.
[url=http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=userpage&teamnum=31574&username=rybot]F@H[/url]
[url=http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=36172&highlight=][size=75]Oldest Setup[/url]
[url=http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=48778]Old[/url]
i5-750 | TR AXP-140 | DFI MI P55-T36 | Lan-Gear mITX | HD5850 | Silverstone ST45SF[/size]

kassler
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:17 am
Location: Sweden

Post by kassler » Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:21 pm

ryboto wrote:When does a desktop user ever have a real issue with bandwidth though? Maybe in servers, but given the performance numbers of Core2 against the K8 it's pretty obvious we haven't exhausted the bandwidth yet.
Every time you are surfing the internet you are surfing the internet you are hitting the bandwidth limit of the FSB, browsers are very memory intensive applications and they are threaded (FF3, IE). But it is what you prioritize of course, and if speed is important.

Vicotnik
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1822
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:53 am
Location: Sweden

Post by Vicotnik » Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:32 pm

kassler wrote:Every time you are surfing the internet you are surfing the internet you are hitting the bandwidth limit of the FSB, browsers are very memory intensive applications and they are threaded (FF3, IE). But it is what you prioritize of course, and if speed is important.
Do you have any real life benchmarks showing this? Even if it's measurable I really don't believe it's something the user would notice. Surfing the web is hardly an intensive task.
Main: ASRock B85M-ITX | i3-4330 | 16GB DDR3 | Intel 730 240GB | HDPLEX H1-S | picoPSU | No moving parts | Idle 13.9W
HTPC: ASRock J4105-ITX | 4GB DDR4 | Intel 535 120GB | picoPSU | No moving parts
Gaming: Intel DH77EB | i5-3570K | GTX 1060 6GB | 16GB DDR3 | TJ08-E | RM750X
Server: ASRock N3150-ITX | ~30TB | G-360 | Idle ~25W

kassler
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:17 am
Location: Sweden

Post by kassler » Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:50 pm

Vicotnik wrote:
kassler wrote:Every time you are surfing the internet you are surfing the internet you are hitting the bandwidth limit of the FSB, browsers are very memory intensive applications and they are threaded (FF3, IE). But it is what you prioritize of course, and if speed is important.
Do you have any real life benchmarks showing this? Even if it's measurable I really don't believe it's something the user would notice. Surfing the web is hardly an intensive task.
You don't need to beleve it, every one has the right to make up their own opinion.
Here is one test: http://connexitor.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=191

bonestonne
Posts: 1839
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:10 pm
Location: Northern New Jersey
Contact:

Post by bonestonne » Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:59 pm

AMD is then completely unprepared for an 80 core CPU that intel has had in the works for almost 2 years now.

AMD may have the HT advantage, but Intel has bigger and better things on their mind.

besides, weren't the penryns doing a lot better than AMD before they were released anyway?
|Dual Intel Xeon E5-2680v2--Xigmatek SD1283 DK-II|Asus Z9PA-D8--HR-05 IFX|128gb DDR3-1600 ECC RDIMM|300gb DC SSD, 640gb, 1TB, 2TB HDDs|nVidia GTX660ti 2GB|Antec HCG-750|NZXT Source 210 Elite|M-Audio ProFire 2626|Art TubeOpto8 with Smooth Plate Tube Swap|Avid Artist Mix x2|
FartingBob wrote:A 9500GT with 1GB of RAM is the most pointless thing since NASCAR.

Vicotnik
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1822
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:53 am
Location: Sweden

Post by Vicotnik » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:44 pm

kassler wrote:You don't need to beleve it, every one has the right to make up their own opinion.
Here is one test: http://connexitor.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=191
Those are servers, like I mentioned earlier. I mean look at the systems compared:

"First we have the AMD 4P system with 4 Opteron 875 (2.2GHz dual core) processors, 16GB of DDR-333 DIMMs, and Broadcom BCM5704 Gbit ethernet. Next is the AMD 2P system with 2 Opteron 2347 (1.9GHz native quad core) processors, 16GB of DDR2-667 DIMMs, and Nvidia MCP55 Gbit ethernet. And now, thanks to Matt Ezell and the University of Tennessee EECS department, we have an Intel 2P system with 2 Xeon 5345 (2.3GHz MCM quad core) processors, 16GB of DDR2-667 FBDIMMs, and Broadcom BCM5708 Gbit ethernet."

Surfing the net indeed.. :roll:
Main: ASRock B85M-ITX | i3-4330 | 16GB DDR3 | Intel 730 240GB | HDPLEX H1-S | picoPSU | No moving parts | Idle 13.9W
HTPC: ASRock J4105-ITX | 4GB DDR4 | Intel 535 120GB | picoPSU | No moving parts
Gaming: Intel DH77EB | i5-3570K | GTX 1060 6GB | 16GB DDR3 | TJ08-E | RM750X
Server: ASRock N3150-ITX | ~30TB | G-360 | Idle ~25W

kassler
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:17 am
Location: Sweden

Post by kassler » Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:21 am

Vicotnik wrote:
kassler wrote:You don't need to beleve it, every one has the right to make up their own opinion.
Here is one test: http://connexitor.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=191
Those are servers, like I mentioned earlier. I mean look at the systems compared:
Do you know what the main differences are when you compare a server and a desktop?
Servers need to scale very well and you can find tests there that show how processors scale. Applications that need performance hasn’t been done to desktops because a desktop hasn’t executed that type of applications well. Now that phenom exists and soon Nehalem, applications can take advantage of this type of scaling. Also games could soon be created for more processors.
Browsers may soon get database support also (databases is very memory intensive). Google works on a project called google gears ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Gears ) . When there is more power on the desktop it is possible to use that for new functionality.

ryboto
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:06 pm
Location: New Hampshire, US
Contact:

Post by ryboto » Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:22 am

kassler wrote: Do you know what the main differences are when you compare a server and a desktop?
Servers need to scale very well and you can find tests there that show how processors scale. Applications that need performance hasn’t been done to desktops because a desktop hasn’t executed that type of applications well. Now that phenom exists and soon Nehalem, applications can take advantage of this type of scaling. Also games could soon be created for more processors.
Browsers may soon get database support also (databases is very memory intensive). Google works on a project called google gears ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Gears ) . When there is more power on the desktop it is possible to use that for new functionality.
Still, your claims that the FSB can't handle tasks is moot, since the Core2 still outperforms the K8, regardless of available bandwidth. Show us desktop tests, for tasks a DESKTOP user might perform that shows an FSB bandwidth limitation.
[url=http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=userpage&teamnum=31574&username=rybot]F@H[/url]
[url=http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=36172&highlight=][size=75]Oldest Setup[/url]
[url=http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=48778]Old[/url]
i5-750 | TR AXP-140 | DFI MI P55-T36 | Lan-Gear mITX | HD5850 | Silverstone ST45SF[/size]

kassler
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:17 am
Location: Sweden

Post by kassler » Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:07 am

ryboto wrote:Still, your claims that the FSB can't handle tasks is moot, since the Core2 still outperforms the K8, regardless of available bandwidth. Show us desktop tests, for tasks a DESKTOP user might perform that shows an FSB bandwidth limitation.
Do you mean game tests that are singlethreaded and are using 1024x768?

The new ATI 4800 serie needs fast PCI Express.

PCI Express 2.0 x16 can handle 8 GB/s

Do you know how much the FSB can handle?
Last edited by kassler on Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Vicotnik
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1822
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:53 am
Location: Sweden

Post by Vicotnik » Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:07 am

kassler wrote:Do you know what the main differences are when you compare a server and a desktop?
I have some idea, but that is beside the point really. What both me and ryboto claims is that at the moment Intels high-end blows away AMDs high-end on the desktop. Nobody is saying that the tests and numbers you are presenting are lies or wrong in any way. What I question is your interpretation of that data. Theoretical bandwith numbers or even practical ones are not as important as real life performance. A long time ago AMDs and Intels CPUs were very similar and then theoretical comparison of busses and such were indeed meaningful. Now they are very different and there are many areas where AMD does things much better than Intel, and vice versa. But what matters in the end is real world performance. And not just any real world performance, but real world performance relevant to the things we plan to do with the system.
kassler wrote:Do you mean game tests that are singlethreaded and are using 1024x768?

The new ATI 4800 serie needs fast PCI Express.

PCI Express 2.0 x16 can handle 8 GB/s

Do you know how much the FSB can handle?
Are you saying that tests of the new graphic cards from ATI shows Phenom outperforming the Core 2 Duo? If so, please link to such a test so we can discuss it.

In the days of AGP the bandwith of the bus had little impact on real world performance. AGP4X was just a tiny bit slower than AGP8X in practical tests. Most traffic on the card is between GPU and onboard memory. I am not up do date on the situation today, but if it has changed the news has eluded me.
Last edited by Vicotnik on Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Main: ASRock B85M-ITX | i3-4330 | 16GB DDR3 | Intel 730 240GB | HDPLEX H1-S | picoPSU | No moving parts | Idle 13.9W
HTPC: ASRock J4105-ITX | 4GB DDR4 | Intel 535 120GB | picoPSU | No moving parts
Gaming: Intel DH77EB | i5-3570K | GTX 1060 6GB | 16GB DDR3 | TJ08-E | RM750X
Server: ASRock N3150-ITX | ~30TB | G-360 | Idle ~25W

ryboto
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:06 pm
Location: New Hampshire, US
Contact:

Post by ryboto » Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:15 am

kassler wrote:
ryboto wrote:Still, your claims that the FSB can't handle tasks is moot, since the Core2 still outperforms the K8, regardless of available bandwidth. Show us desktop tests, for tasks a DESKTOP user might perform that shows an FSB bandwidth limitation.
Do you mean game tests that are singlethreaded and are using 1024x768?

The new ATI 4800 serie needs fast PCI Express.

PCI Express 2.0 x16 can handle 8 GB/s

Do you know how much the FSB can handle?
Games, encoding, compiling, what have you, as it stands, Intel has faster parts now, unless you begin to consider the heavily threaded server space, where AMD scales much better. I'm not saying AMDs are incompetent, I game on mine just fine. PCIE 2.0 can handle 8GB/s, ok, good, but when a lot of the game is handled by the GPU, what's it matter? I think every benchmark I read of the 4800s used an Intel system to test. Are you saying they're all underestimating performance?
[url=http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=userpage&teamnum=31574&username=rybot]F@H[/url]
[url=http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=36172&highlight=][size=75]Oldest Setup[/url]
[url=http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=48778]Old[/url]
i5-750 | TR AXP-140 | DFI MI P55-T36 | Lan-Gear mITX | HD5850 | Silverstone ST45SF[/size]

kassler
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:17 am
Location: Sweden

Post by kassler » Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:16 am

Vicotnik wrote:And not just any real world performance, but real world performance relevant to the things we plan to do with the system.
What matter is the user experience. If you run a game at low resolution just to get some differences on CPU and can present interesting charts that doesn’t mean that this is 1:1 to how users work with computers.
Most users have more than one application running, they want those applications to run smoothly.
Adding more load to Intel and it doesn’t run as well as those performance tests showed. Same in games, games need to run smooth. If one computer has 300 fps and 288 of those are executed on the first half of the second and two on the second half. Then this game won’t run smooth even if it shows much better performance. The numbers was just to explain what I mean.

Vicotnik
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1822
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:53 am
Location: Sweden

Post by Vicotnik » Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:24 am

kassler wrote:What matter is the user experience.
How do you measure that? If you can then I have not seen such a test, please show me. If you can't measure it it's very subjective isn't it? Perhaps the kind of thing you would have to test double-blind. I know I cannot tell what CPU the system is using just by surfing the web.

What we have is a bunch of tests, all saying that Core 2 Duo outperforms the Phenom for desktop use. My own empirical evidence supports this.

And then we have you claiming that "AMD runs smoother" with a bunch of bus bandwidth numbers and 8 core web server tests to support this. It's not good enough.
Main: ASRock B85M-ITX | i3-4330 | 16GB DDR3 | Intel 730 240GB | HDPLEX H1-S | picoPSU | No moving parts | Idle 13.9W
HTPC: ASRock J4105-ITX | 4GB DDR4 | Intel 535 120GB | picoPSU | No moving parts
Gaming: Intel DH77EB | i5-3570K | GTX 1060 6GB | 16GB DDR3 | TJ08-E | RM750X
Server: ASRock N3150-ITX | ~30TB | G-360 | Idle ~25W

kassler
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:17 am
Location: Sweden

Post by kassler » Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:27 am

Vicotnik wrote: Most traffic on the card is between GPU and onboard memory. I am not up do date on the situation today, but if it has changed the news has eluded me.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pci ... 72-10.html

Yes there are traffic is handled using DMA but i dont think that is the most important when the game is played. if the graphic card needs to use memory on the motherboard performance is going down hard.

The traffic that goes to the GPU's from the processor needs to compete with memory traffic. If games scales to more cores it will also compete with synchronization traffic and more cores can transfer much more data.

kassler
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:17 am
Location: Sweden

Post by kassler » Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:31 am

Vicotnik wrote:And then we have you claiming that "AMD runs smoother" with a bunch of bus bandwidth numbers and 8 core web server tests to support this. It's not good enough.
Read this thread: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/sho ... p?t=187494

Vicotnik
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 1822
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:53 am
Location: Sweden

Post by Vicotnik » Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:07 am

Thank you, finally something that explains what the fcuk you're talking about. ;)

I haven't read the whole thing but it seems there might be something to what you are saying. But I still think it's a minor deal since most people don't seem to notice. Some of the points in that thread only applies to C2Q and not C2D. Also it seems to affect mostly gamers and not all of them at that.
Main: ASRock B85M-ITX | i3-4330 | 16GB DDR3 | Intel 730 240GB | HDPLEX H1-S | picoPSU | No moving parts | Idle 13.9W
HTPC: ASRock J4105-ITX | 4GB DDR4 | Intel 535 120GB | picoPSU | No moving parts
Gaming: Intel DH77EB | i5-3570K | GTX 1060 6GB | 16GB DDR3 | TJ08-E | RM750X
Server: ASRock N3150-ITX | ~30TB | G-360 | Idle ~25W

Post Reply