Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New SMP build

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    well... from these results:
    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...588-5507-25823
    one can certainly conclude, that if one is going for a 7zip box, intel is the way to go, but for openssl performance, amd is the way to go.

    Comment


    • #17
      Sigh, I'm tired of comparing apples to oranges. I'd like to see a Phenom 9750 against a Q6600 (at stock speed, which is 2.4GHz for both) and/or a Phenom 9850 against a Q9300 (both 2.5GHz).

      Comment


      • #18
        Why not OC the Phenom

        Comment


        • #19
          I don't see the point in overclocking when the goal is to compare two competing products. Besides, the Phenom doesn't overclock as well as Intel CPUs, and few people overclock their processors in the first place. Moreover, it requires somewhat expensive equipment (high-end motherboard, third-party cooler, etc…), and it's not exactly simple. When I see the comments on hardware articles, I get the feeling people who read them only care about overclocking their systems… Me, I want to run my CPU at stock speeds and use Cool N' Quiet/SpeedStep, in a reasonably quiet PC. Too bad my motherboard doesn't lower voltages when throttling the CPU's frequency (I've mailed Gigabyte about this, I'm still waiting for an answer).

          Comment


          • #20
            I use stock Intel cooler for 2.4 -> 3.2 with E6600, standard P35 Gigabyte board - not the cheapest, but not "highend" like X48 or so. What board do you use and which cpu?

            Comment


            • #21
              Gigabyte GA-M61P-S3 (rather low-end, AM2-only socket) with a Phenom 9600 BE (started with an Athlon 64 X2 4000+ EE). I wasn't looking for the Black Edition specifically; I asked for a 9600, got a 9600 BE for the same price.

              Comment


              • #22
                Do you use latest BETA bios with setup defaults loaded? Be sure not to use automatic performace enhance in MIT menu (use standard not turbo).

                Comment


                • #23
                  Yeah, latest BIOS. I wrote Gigabyte on May 9th, still no answer.

                  Anyway, here's a better setup to compare my CPU to: http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...18-16404-13644
                  2 x Intel Xeon CPU E5410 @ 2.32GHz (Total Cores: 8). Write cacheing enabled (whatever that means, but sure helps with the pbzip2 bench). It's also close to what the OP intended to buy.

                  I get similar results in the FLAC and gzip benchmarks (12.7s for me vs. 12.3s and 60s vs. 64s), while his OpenSSL results are still disappointing (240 for him with 8 cores vs. 162 for me with 4 cores). His pbzip2 results are much better than what I've seen with other Intel benchmarks so far though: 32s with 8 cores vs. 73s for me. That's a huge increase in performance compared to the same setup but without "Write cacheing": 74s. http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...25-20598-18993

                  Overall it feels like his system is much better configured than other Intel systems on PTS. For one thing, FLAC should be substantially faster than LAME and Ogg Vorbis, which is the case with his system, but not with the others. I wonder what makes the difference?
                  Last edited by apaige; 05-19-2008, 09:18 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    #17 apaige:
                    "Sigh, I'm tired of comparing apples to oranges. I'd like to see a Phenom 9750 against a Q6600 (at stock speed, which is 2.4GHz for both) and/or a Phenom 9850 against a Q9300 (both 2.5GHz)."

                    Q9300 is not to be compared, since it neither matches the price, and it is a very nerfed intel - Q9450 is 12mb cache, and costs around the same as 9850.

                    #19:
                    well.. it is in fact QUITE simple to overclock the intels, ALL i did was set fsb to 400, and i instantly get 2.66 -> 3.2ghz. The stock cooler can keep it within safety limits, as it requires not to raise voltage. also, a standard P35 motherboard can do this easily.

                    #23:
                    hmm.. those pbzip2 results are very low.. i just redid mine with pts 0.7:
                    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...93-23982-30604
                    and with 0.5:
                    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...636-9602-14335

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Redeeman View Post
                      Q9300 is not to be compared, since it neither matches the price, and it is a very nerfed intel - Q9450 is 12mb cache, and costs around the same as 9850.
                      Erm, excuse me, but the lowest prices I could find in France are 315 euros for the C2Q Q9450 and 179 euros for the Phenom 9850, while I could find the Q6600 at 141 euros and the Q9300 at 208 euros… Also, stock frequencies aren't even the same (2.667GHz and 2.5GHz respectively). I don't know where you got your prices from, but the Q9450 is a lot more expensive than all of the aforementioned processors from both Intel and AMD.

                      As for the C2Q Q9300 being a "nerfed" processor (I assume that means crippled?), although I can't compare myself, hardware review sites have found its performance to be on par (sometimes slightly better) with the similarly clocked Q6700. Again, compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

                      Edit: Release prices are $266 for both the 95W Q6600 and the Q9300, $316 for the Q9450 and $235 for the Phenom 9850 BE.
                      Last edited by apaige; 05-19-2008, 11:33 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Well here is a Phenom 9850 universe test. Keep in mind that this particular 9850 is running on a AM2 board which does not support HT3. Unfortunately I won't be able to post the results for the same processor in a Asus M3N -HT Deluxe board (780a chipset) until it's finished doing some fluid dynamics analysis (eta to finish, next Saturday.)

                        http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...16-17291-32168

                        Here is a Q6600 running at stock speed as well. With the exception of the mplayer compile (which the bug has been reported but is not fixed yet) It should give you some idea at what your looking at.

                        http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...266-14772-8279
                        Last edited by deanjo; 05-19-2008, 12:40 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I'd like to see Phenom 9950 (2,66 GHz with higher FSB than other Phenoms, coming very soon) vs. Q6700 (2,66 GHz) reviews.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by d2kx View Post
                            I'd like to see Phenom 9950 (2,66 GHz with higher FSB than other Phenoms, coming very soon) vs. Q6700 (2,66 GHz) reviews.
                            Should be easily simulated by overclocking the 9850BE to 2.6Ghz. The HT link speed are identical on the 9850 and 9950. Just setting the multiplier to 13 instead of 12.5 would give the results you are looking for.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                              Well here is a Phenom 9850 universe test. Keep in mind that this particular 9850 is running on a AM2 board which does not support HT3.
                              Same here (AM2 socket, MCP61/nForce 430 chipset).


                              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                              Here is a Q6600 running at stock speed as well. With the exception of the mplayer compile (which the bug has been reported but is not fixed yet) It should give you some idea at what your looking at.
                              Sounds about right, although compilation times can't really be compared, since the Phenom benchmarks use GCC 4.3.1 and the Q6600 benchmarks use GCC 4.1.2. One thing about the Phenom pbzip2 results though: my 9600 scores 72s vs. 86s for the 9850. I guess there are indeed a lot of factors that come into play with that app. GCC 4.3.x should improve performance on the Q6600 as well.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                                Should be easily simulated by overclocking the 9850BE to 2.6Ghz. The HT link speed are identical on the 9850 and 9950. Just setting the multiplier to 13 instead of 12.5 would give the results you are looking for.
                                2.66 GHz. And the FSB is 266, instead of 200.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X