AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[8350rocks]

What BS are you posting now? Seriously...did you even look at the graph?

The Vertex and the Vertex 2 are nearly the same performance...there is slightly higher throughput on the Vertex 2, but it's nothing to write home about...at all.

When you can read a benchmark, come back. The write speed on the Vertex 2 is much improved, but that has nothing to do with reading data.

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

If you can wade through the BS...I posted some great news yesterday:

HD 9970 due in Oct 2013 to coincide with BF4 launch and a new gaming bundle

FX 9590 benchmarks have supposedly been spotted...

Kaveri low power Engineering Samples were spotted in a data base...the results are very early...so there is no way to extrapolate anything useful (to us) at the moment.

The first FM2+ MB from Asus has already been spotted...meaning Kaveri is coming soon.

What BS are you posting now? Seriously...did you even look at the graph?

The Vertex and the Vertex 2 are nearly the same performance...there is slightly higher throughput on the Vertex 2, but it's nothing to write home about...at all.

When you can read a benchmark, come back. The write speed on the Vertex 2 is much improved, but that has nothing to do with reading data.

Lets throw the BS out and AMD Steamroller speculation in. Thttp://www.techpowerup.com/186793/engineering-sample-of-amd-steamroller-based-apu-spotted.html

 

[8350rocks]

A system making database calls has NOTHING to do with write speed...you probably have no idea how a database works. Will it effect the benchmarks some? Maybe...but not that much. Write speed deals with putting information on the disk, not recalling the information and doing calculations.

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

What BS are you posting now? Seriously...did you even look at the graph?

The Vertex and the Vertex 2 are nearly the same performance...there is slightly higher throughput on the Vertex 2, but it's nothing to write home about...at all.

When you can read a benchmark, come back. The write speed on the Vertex 2 is much improved, but that has nothing to do with reading data.

Seriously just admit you are wrong, if a moderator reads what you are saying when proved all wrong they will all laugh at you. Even when provided with evidence why it is 6-7x faster you still don't admit it.

2412/351 is 6.871x faster on the 8350 vertex 2 ssd vs 1 on intel machine.
http://openbenchmarking.org/prospect/1305170-UT-LLVMCLANG75/fd501a41a2adcc643acc832de94444f9fd7d9678

Now 13668/2214 is 6.18x difference. Margin of error and that benchmark run means its to do with the ssd the difference. I am sure an atom will outperform the fx8350 with a faster ssd.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/ocz_vertex_2_ssd_review,12.html

Even the macboiok air person noticed significant improvements j_bm on here:
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2796610?start=45&tstart=0

on a ulv i7 vs most likely an i7 quad. How else to do you explain why the i3 3217 beats the 3960x then 8350rocks.

Hajifur, you have made far more of a fool out of yourself. Go away, seriously, we are tired of dealing with people like you who ruin the purpose of our thread. The Vertex2 should not really cause a massive performance boost due to write speeds, as pointed out by 8350, it is irrelevant. If the mods are going to do anything, it is likely going to remove your posts. Read my rant and also cowboy's rant and listen to answers. Stop posting nonsense and understand the purpose of the thread.

 

[8350rocks]

THEN GO FIND AN ATOM BENCHMARK FOR POSTGRE SQL THAT "BLOWS THE DOORS" OFF THE 8350!! DON'T COME BACK UNTIL YOU FIND IT.

EDIT: Let's take a look at the rules for this discussion, shall we?

We have had several requests for a sticky on AMD's yet to be released Steamroller architecture ... so here it is.

I want to make a few things clear though.

Post a question relevant to the topic, or information about the topic, or it will be deleted.

Post any negative personal comments about another user ... and they will be deleted.

Post flame baiting comments about the blue, red and green team and they will be deleted.

Our previous sticky concerning Piledriver can be found here:

NOW PLEASE, GO AWAY!!! THIS ISN'T HASFAIL DISCUSSION THREAD!!!

 

[gamerk316]

What BS are you posting now? Seriously...did you even look at the graph?

The Vertex and the Vertex 2 are nearly the same performance...there is slightly higher throughput on the Vertex 2, but it's nothing to write home about...at all.

When you can read a benchmark, come back. The write speed on the Vertex 2 is much improved, but that has nothing to do with reading data.

Unless you need to write the data to disk because some other thread needs access to RAM. So paging could be coming into play.

 

[jdwii]

Hafijur is lucky i'm not a mod,

He keeps saying things that make no sense at all and all he does it through nonsense about power consumption when it would take 10 years to even make the difference up between a I5 and 8350 by that time most people would of already changed their board and CPU 3 times and least people who buy those class of CPU's.

Its not that i'm in denial either i know Intel is around 30% faster in Performance per clock and that they do have probably 15-30% better performance per watt when your CPU is not on idle. On Laptop APU's they barely consume any power my laptop sets at 15-20 watts most of the time(30-40 when gaming) and that is a Llano A8 i'm sure Richland is better. For desktop gamers they're not too crazy about performance per watt that is mainly a concern for the portable market.

 

[noob2222]

Seriously just admit you are wrong, if a moderator reads what you are saying when proved all wrong they will all laugh at you. Even when provided with evidence why it is 6-7x faster you still don't admit it.

you should take your own advice.

 

[cowboy44mag]

Ok, seriously this is getting out of hand. Benchmarks are basically little better than an experts opinion in the first place. They can be influenced by so many variables that its not even funny. I'm sure given enough time and tinkering with a benchmark test to totally screw over product A and enhance the results for product B that I can produce a benchmark showing my smartphone "destroy" my Phenom ii 965 BE. Does that mean that my smartphone is more powerful? Of course not. Anyone else like history? Interesting little tid-bit before WWII France was "benchmarked" as having the worlds most modern best equipped and trained army. Interesting that Germany didn't look at the "benchmark" and instead beat the living daylights out of the British and French. Good thing for the UK that Japan made the mistake of attacking us or the UK and France would be speaking German right now.

A little off topic, but it proves my point. Synthetic benchmarks are unreliable at best. I personally like to use benchmarks of actual high end programs ie video games. The Crysis 3 benchmark shows FX 8350 isn't too far behind the best Intel has. I use Crysis 3 as I believe it is the first of an entire generation type and will be the kinds of games we have in the future. In fact when playing the vast majority of games side by side you can't tell which system is the AMD and which is the Intel (FX 8350 vs i7). Even with Intel's favorite game Skyrim. I have seen those test done before, and both systems run the games at the same levels any advantage to one or the other is negated by the fact that the human eye is imperfect and can't process the difference in FPS. That is something that Intel fans like to totally ignore though. Unless you are programming on your computer or doing some other extreme workloads (that really require the extra 20-30% performance per clock) with it there really is no reason to pick the vastly more expensive Intel over AMD for the common household computer that is used to game on. That is where different experts say we have reached the "good enough" threshold. Any more than the "good enough" is a waste if you aren't using it for a profession that requires it.

 

[cowboy44mag]

In the words of Ace Ventura REEEEAAAEEAAALLLYYY!! A dual core with mid rage gpu can play Crysis 3 on Ultra settings in the same league as an FX 8350 with high end gpu. Man you are a little troll haha!! Lets define "fine" if it can't be played on the highest settings possible than its not "fine".

As far as Skyrim goes, you are seriously trolling. I only have a Phenom II 965 BE and Skyrim is one of my favorite games. I have many mods I wrote myself as well as about 50 mods from Skyrim Nexus all running on Ultra settings in Skyrim. I have no problems at all, and using FRAPS the lowest FPS I've seen is 58 (when loading an area of civil war using the civil war mod- loads like 50 - 100 npcs in a large battle at random points). My regular computer monitor is a 22" LED at 60 refresh so I have a 60 FPS limit for my system. Have to hook it back up to my 1080P 55" LCD again and crank it up to see what max FPS I'm getting there. For a four year old "inferior" AMD processor (with high end AMD GPU) thats not bad!! I know the FX 8350 is vastly superior to my Phenom II 965 BE, so yea (if you have a high end GPU) even with Skyrim your not going to "see" the difference unless your running FRAPS and looking at the numbers.

 

[-Fran-]

Good thing for the UK that Japan made the mistake of attacking us or the UK and France would be speaking German right now.

Uhm... Actually it was Russia who made the Germans retreat. The US went in after Russia had it cooked, but was fast enough before the Germans started speaking Russian. Hence "The Wall". After WWII Russia took half Germany and the Allied forces let Germany re-build themselves on the other half.

Anyway, can I haz ignore button? 8)

Cheers!

 

[jdwii]

Other then the fact 8350rocks and The Q6600 Inside were both proved to be wrong and they still don't admit it.

Look at a moderators calculation on power consumption:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-1729936/amd-6300-power-consumption.html

Also if you are a power user for every year you save around £30 on electricity bills using an intel cpu and remember this is for as long as you use it so if you use it for a few years you get a better more future proof cpu costing you a lot less in the long run. AMD laptop cpus are a bit of a joke really performance wise. Thats were intel are completely dominated amd because inefficient cpu architecture means very low performance for laptops by amd. AMD laptop cpus are competing against atoms and an i3 ulv on there top of the range products. Temash and kaveri have bridged it a bit but still nowhere near intel.

The more you go on the more you sound irrationall. 1 Amd APU's are amazing on laptops from the 350-650$ market. My friend at college bought a I5 ivy for a laptop and it games ok but it skips way more then my laptop does and for the same price he could've gotten a A10 trinity at the time he regrets it every time he plays a game(lots of college kids play games on laptops and need one for 600$ or less). Also like you to know that its still not that big of a difference in price per year, it would take 10 years to make a 30$ difference between a I5 and 8350fx and most of the time desktops and laptops idle. So for the last time 90% of people can care less about power consumption a desktop as long as its not to bad(140+ watt CPU's)

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Either way, it will still be less than the 4770K, myth busted. Power is nothing for the heavy PC user, it is nothing compared to the cost of your fridge or A/C.

Power is nothing for the heavy PC user, but they choose a cheaper and slower AMD CPU? Don't follow your logic. Either you don't have the money for Intel and get AMD, o you are a "heavy PC user" and get Intel because it is faster and in the long run will save you the price difference in electricity bills.

This is a Myth...I did the math, at $0.11 kw/hr (my electric rate), it would take me close to 10 years using the PC @ max load for 6 hours/day 365 days/yr to get back the initial cost difference between the 3770k @ $309 and the FX 8350 @ $179.

You would never save the money by buying Intel...it doesn't "pay for itself"...no one will use the same CPU for a decade on that scale either...so real world numbers if 5 years down the road that PC became a backup...you'd have to likely use it close to 2 decades at half usage for the last 15 years...it's not feasible to assume anyone would keep the same system for 10 years...much less 20, even as a backup.

EDIT: Just out of curiousity...anyone still have a Mac from 1993 still seeing 3 hours usage a day? No...? How about an IBM System? No 486 66MHz users left around? Hmm...

+1, also Hajifur, consoles extract far more out of their hardware than a equivalent PC, do you think a 7800GTX or X1900XT would stand a chance at running Crysis 3? The consoles will (very likely) be able to outrun a high-endish i7 PC in terms of lifespan of running these games smoothly. The i7 system, maybe 3-5 years, the console(s), at least six years. Do not underestimate the Jaguar APU simply because of a low clockrate as it has plenty of secrets under the hood.

Please keep in mind, even though these consoles have "All this power," which is ~ like an underclocked i5-3570k @2.8 Ghz and a GTX 650 ti, Battlefield 3 is supposed to run @ 60 FPS on PS3. Keep in mind:

- This game uses a new engine, and even though it may be 'optimized' it would still need serious power, also considering Frostbite 3's completely new destruction mechanism. Thus being said, for an i5 @ 2.8, and a GTX 650 ti, that game would need some nerfing in order to get it to run that fast. Similar to now, how BF3 on pc looks like the PS3 version if you put the settings at low, but HBAO on and running 720p, meanwhile it will run Much, Much faster. Also resolutions. Battlefield 4 on consoles is still going to run at 720p. For a game like that to run 60 FPS, 1080p, with amazing quality on the PS4's hardware, is just a fantasy.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Honestly I don't care what people say, when I get into college, my Blue Dragon is coming with me. <3 lol

 

[Cazalan]

I keep checking availability on this Kabini board but doesn't look like they're shipping yet.

KBN-I/5200

http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Product/Product_Detail.aspx?DetailID=1497&CategoryID=1&DetailName=Feature&MenuID=106&LanID=0

 

[cowboy44mag]

Good thing for the UK that Japan made the mistake of attacking us or the UK and France would be speaking German right now.

Uhm... Actually it was Russia who made the Germans retreat. The US went in after Russia had it cooked, but was fast enough before the Germans started speaking Russian. Hence "The Wall". After WWII Russia took half Germany and the Allied forces let Germany re-build themselves on the other half.

Anyway, can I haz ignore button? 8)so it was Russia who sS

Cheers!

So it was Russia who supplied all the materials of war the UK needed to fight the Battle of Briton? And it was Russia who launched the D-Day invasion and liberated France? Interesting history books over there!! Haha!!

Anyway was just using Frances over hyped "benchmark" as an example of how far off they can be.

 

[cowboy44mag]

Good thing for the UK that Japan made the mistake of attacking us or the UK and France would be speaking German right now.

Uhm... Actually it was Russia who made the Germans retreat. The US went in after Russia had it cooked, but was fast enough before the Germans started speaking Russian. Hence "The Wall". After WWII Russia took half Germany and the Allied forces let Germany re-build themselves on the other half.

Anyway, can I haz ignore button? 8)so it was Russia who sS

Cheers!

So it was Russia who supplied all the materials of war the UK needed to fight the Battle of Briton? And it was Russia who launched the D-Day invasion and liberated France? Interesting history books over there!! Haha!!

Anyway was just using Frances over hyped "benchmark" as an example of how far off they can be.

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

http://it-blog.5amsolutions.com/2010/08/performance-of-postgresql-ssd-vs.html
In this first test the fast SSD performed almost 14 times faster than the 7200 RPM hard drive. It also interesting that the ‘slow’ SSD drive is three times slower than the ‘fast’ SSD drive.

Other then the fact 8350rocks and The Q6600 Inside were both proved to be wrong and they still don't admit it.

Look at a moderators calculation on power consumption:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-1729936/amd-6300-power-consumption.html

Also if you are a power user for every year you save around £30 on electricity bills using an intel cpu and remember this is for as long as you use it so if you use it for a few years you get a better more future proof cpu costing you a lot less in the long run. AMD laptop cpus are a bit of a joke really performance wise. Thats were intel are completely dominated amd because inefficient cpu architecture means very low performance for laptops by amd. AMD laptop cpus are competing against atoms and an i3 ulv on there top of the range products. Temash and kaveri have bridged it a bit but still nowhere near intel.

Good thing for the UK that Japan made the mistake of attacking us or the UK and France would be speaking German right now.

Uhm... Actually it was Russia who made the Germans retreat. The US went in after Russia had it cooked, but was fast enough before the Germans started speaking Russian. Hence "The Wall". After WWII Russia took half Germany and the Allied forces let Germany re-build themselves on the other half.

Anyway, can I haz ignore button? 8)

Cheers!

Gah, think! To the secret, improvised ignore button!

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Spoiler

The 3570k is more compareable to the fx8350. Its quite funny though that there is like 15 intel laptop cpus faster then the 3570k. If amd were more competitive intel would have had to charge less but instead since sandy bridge they have been producing there top end tier 4 core cpus that are designed for laptops and selling higher base clock versions in desktops. The i7 4765t might be as fast as the fx8350 on multithreaded tasks and it is only 35w.

Theres a reason why intel slowest ivy bridge i5 ulv which is the 3317u I have is faster then amds fastest mobile cpu as they are limited by power.

Honestly I am tired of dealing with your nonsense, we really need to deport you back to troll land. When the 8350 can demolish a 3960X in certain multithreaded tasks, the Mobile i7 will need a LOT to catch up. If you are so crazy on power, like some Intel fanboys, why don't you petition for a Mobile PGA to LGA 1150 adapter? :lol:

Seriously, just shut up about this, it is getting us AMD speculation threaders damn tired. The 8350 will require an immense amount of time @250W load to even meet the 4770K's initial price, and the 4770K costs money to operate, too. By the time it even meets the 4770K's initial price, both will be long outdated. Listen to answers, this is an AMD THREAD, SHUT UP ABOUT INTEL BEING SUPERIOR OR CONTRIBUTE IN A WAY OTHER THAN SAYING "ERMEHGOD DERP HURR HERR DURP INTEL IS WAY BETTER IN PERFORMANCE PER WATT AMD WILL RIP YOU OFF WITH POWER HURR DERR DURP" and talk about AMD Steamroller rumors, not "Intel being superior".

People like you rile me up thats why. No AMD cpu multithreaded 100% cpu test will beat the i7 3960x at anything that requires 100% cpu power. In fact I think you have been brainwashed by 8350rocks who shows an amd fx8350 with an ssd up against a hdd and something like the i7 3960x. Notice on that same thing he kept posting an i3 3217u or something like that beats the 3960x as it is hdd based. In fact I am so sure that amd won't beat the 3960x at anything stock vs stock it probably be until 2016 until amd reach that level at a 220w power envelope like the centurion.

edit: Most mobile intel i7 mobile cpus from sandy bridge ivy bridge or haswell once turbo'd beat the fx8350. You have to remember the i7 3770k takes like 45w for the cpu and igpu is like the rest of the tdp rating. If intel rated there tdps like amd for cpu only as amd fx don't have igpu they could easily have ratted the i3 3220 at 20w and the i5 3570k at like 30w and the 3770k at 45w.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html

I hope you have a recipe for crow, cause you're about to be eating it:

http://openbenchmarking.org/prospect/1305170-UT-LLVMCLANG75/fd501a41a2adcc643acc832de94444f9fd7d9678

EDIT: It isn't by a little bit either...the 8350 is like 700% faster...

Hahaha, wow 8350, it seems you need to go back to school:

1. No specific memory model was mentioned, along with no specifications, like speed and per stick size.

2. Different GPUs were used, you may not think, but they can make a difference.

3. Disks are different models completely and different sizes.

4. COMEPLTELY different motherboard brands, at least keep them the same brand.

5. ONLY used the Radeon display driver, why not try an Nvidia? or maybe something else that you can find?

6. different OpenGL Mesas were used.

Me and you know that benchmarks are science experiments, and as I and the United States Education System says, ALL variables in an experiment MUST be the same EXCEPT for ONLY the TESTING MATERIAL (CPU).

And I like how you ONLY put one test of the other 20 tests up. about 70% of the test was won or dominated by Intel, and the 3970X won 40% of that. You forgot really about GraphicsMagick as well.

And you're telling me that I'M giving invalid information? Please, try again with the correct response.

He said the 8350 would not win in 1 benchmark...I proved him wrong.

Even if you slant it 100% toward intel and gave AMD the worst of everything and gave the 3960x the best possible scenario...say it improves 200%, and AMD loses 25% performance...the 8350 would still be 80% faster.

Think about that...if Intel was 3x better at that benchmark, and AMD was 3/4 as effective...the 8350 would still be nearly double the effectiveness...

Additionally...those old GPUs used don't have compute functions, so they are a non-factor for integer performance. Additionally, the only things that matter, would be the HDD, and both systems had the same SSDs, both ran the same Linux Ubuntu 13.04 OS...

Across an entire benchmark suite you might have a point, but this test is pure integer performance...which is done exclusively by the CPU.

Huh, lol, I can never catch a break with you. They are science experiments in limelight, treat them like the should. Use all the same variable as possible. Even with your "percentages", that's still the problem at hand. And I forgot to mention, why not use AMD and Nvidia drivers on say a 7970 Ghz, and a GTX 680 / 770? Then it would be even more fair. If you take it into reality, each test is ~ scored differently, thus, you using percentages would have to be altered according to the value of each test. So the easiest way to do that is count, per test, who won. I believe that there are 18 tests? And the Intel side won about 12 of them. Okay now lets do this:

18 + 100%

12 / 18 = ?

The answer is: 0.6666666666666667. Round that up to 0.67, then move the decimal: 67% I wasn't far off with my estimated percentage of 70%.

Now the 3970X won about 7 of the Intel's ones, so now 12 = 100%

7 / 12 =?

Answer: 0.5833333333333333: round = 0.58 + 58%.

For a total: 7 / 18 = 0.3888888888888889: 0.39 = 39%

AMD: 6/18 = 0.3333333333333333: 0.33 = 33%

Now, in conclusion:

Total:
Intel- 67%
AMD- 33%

Split Down:
i7- 39%
i3- 28%
FX- 33%

So the i3 lost by a little bit, but look. at. that. It seems that the 3970X won.

If you want to make a big deal about it and try to make AMD the top dog against anything, especially with that wimpy energy sucking 8350, then find some false information. Please stop posting nonsense.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

http://it-blog.5amsolutions.com/2010/08/performance-of-postgresql-ssd-vs.html
In this first test the fast SSD performed almost 14 times faster than the 7200 RPM hard drive. It also interesting that the ‘slow’ SSD drive is three times slower than the ‘fast’ SSD drive.

Other then the fact 8350rocks and The Q6600 Inside were both proved to be wrong and they still don't admit it.

Look at a moderators calculation on power consumption:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-1729936/amd-6300-power-consumption.html

Also if you are a power user for every year you save around £30 on electricity bills using an intel cpu and remember this is for as long as you use it so if you use it for a few years you get a better more future proof cpu costing you a lot less in the long run. AMD laptop cpus are a bit of a joke really performance wise. Thats were intel are completely dominated amd because inefficient cpu architecture means very low performance for laptops by amd. AMD laptop cpus are competing against atoms and an i3 ulv on there top of the range products. Temash and kaveri have bridged it a bit but still nowhere near intel.

Good thing for the UK that Japan made the mistake of attacking us or the UK and France would be speaking German right now.

Uhm... Actually it was Russia who made the Germans retreat. The US went in after Russia had it cooked, but was fast enough before the Germans started speaking Russian. Hence "The Wall". After WWII Russia took half Germany and the Allied forces let Germany re-build themselves on the other half.

Anyway, can I haz ignore button? 8)

Cheers!

Gah, think! To the secret, improvised ignore button!

So talking about an Intel CPU (COMPUTERS) is off topic, but a UK war isn't? Give me a break. Seriously.

 

[juanrga]

I am sorry to inform you that there is not news about SR besides the last link I gave about the ES kaveri benchmark.

But I would like to reconsider SR performance. I assumed that SR would be about a 30% faster than PD. In that case my estimation was that 4C SR would be so fast as 4C IB approx.

I have found that AMD claims that a SR core will be 2x faster than JG (Jaguar) core. Previously in this same thread I gave some benchmarks with a 4x1 JG being so fast as a 2x2 SB. Assuming everything scales up fine

8x1 JG ~ 4x2 SB

Taking AMD claim 1 SR = 2 JG we obtain

4x1 SR ~ 4x2 SB

I.e. a 4C SR will be about as fast as an i7 SB (CPU only).

The previous estimation using another route was

4x1 SR ~ 4 IB

I.e. a 4C SR will be about as fast as an i5 IB (CPU only).

I think both estimations agree rather well. A 4C Steamroller CPU would be close in performance to an i7-2600k or to an i5-3570k (approx.)

What do you think?

 

[simon12]

4 x Jaguar cores = between half and 80% of a Pentium mobile dual core see http://www.anandtech.com/show/6981/the-kabini-deal-can-amd-improve-the-quality-of-mainstream-pcs-with-its-latest-apu/2 I expect SR to be in another league. Jaguar is a competitor to Atom a good one but not good compared to high end desktop CPUs.

 

[cowboy44mag]

"So talking about an Intel CPU (COMPUTERS) is off topic, but a UK war isn't? Give me a break. Seriously."

I was simply making an analogy about how off "benchmark" scores can be in the real world, outside of a lab and synthetic tests. I actually didn't mean to stir or rial anyone up. I find it funny though how little credit the US is given for its role in WWII, but that is not the topic, so unlike the Intel fan club here I will drop it.

Now getting back to Steamroller, I would love to see a 30% improvement over PD, but realistically what does everyone else think it will be? Seeing as how AMD and Intel both over-estimate the improvement that will be made I'm thinking it will probably be 20-25% improvement over PD. Using that as a figure it probably won't edge i7 4770K in performance, but should come somewhat close. When considering Price/Performance it will look even better.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Wow!... 107 pages.. and so many garbage

Speaking as a moderator, the thing you don't see is that it would be about 200 pages full of garbage if we didn't step in and delete several pages at a time. Keeping something on topic is like herding cats. Or in my line of work, like trying to get Baby Boomer doctors to touch type in the electronic medical records (hunt and peck with two index fingers is considered "excellent" for them) or the docs' patients to quit bugging them for narcotics. Try as you might, it's NEVER EVER EVER going to happen. You just replace the stock $2 Dell/HP membrane keyboard for Ol' Doc with a 25 year old IBM Model M that his jackhammering with the right 2nd digit won't faze and let the Haswell/Hasbeen/Hasfail/Faildozer/etc. talk slide until you can get around to pruning it out.

Just out of curiousity...anyone still have a Mac from 1993 still seeing 3 hours usage a day? No...? How about an IBM System? No 486 66MHz users left around? Hmm...

I used to have both of those systems, or close enough. I had a cast-off 1993 Mac LC2 with the highly crippled 16-bit bus on a 32 bit 33 MHz 68LC030 and a "smack it to fix the short" rainbow Apple logo CRT monitor. I played SimCity 1.4 and 2000 and the original Civilization on that sucker and enjoyed it more than any modern game. It was a real lucky day when you managed to hit the right boot key codes to disable enough stuff to wind up with the magical 2714K of free RAM to run SC2K. And then you better save every five minutes lest you freeze up. I had an IBM 486 too, but it was a 50 MHz 80486SX2 rather than the much faster 66 MHz 80486DX2. It ran OS/2 Warp 2.0 too so I had the extreme fun of running my Windows 3.x stuff through an early 1990s emulator. I learned really quick not to right click as it would freeze the system rock solid.

That old stuff sure was unreliable crap but it still seemed more fun than current gear. A 64-bit, quad CPU setup with tens of millions of KB of RAM like I have now would have cost a nice house "back in the day" and been as finicky as a Ferrari to keep running. My current setup is more like a two-ton truck. It's guaranteed to run even if you run it three quarts low on oil and have two flat tires.

What opteron beats the i7 3960x
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
AMD Opteron 6234 12 core cpu loses to laptop cpus, so comparing opteron to the i7 3960x is an insult to intel cpu. I think amd fanboys are so deluded they actually think there cpus are close.

Hey now, I have a 6234. It isn't hugely fast in single-threaded Windows benchmarks due to its 3.0 GHz all-core Turbo speed but it will certainly demolish any dual-core laptop CPU in any remotely multi-threaded, especially on an OS that isn't a 64 bit version of a 32 bit shell for a 16 bit OS originally written for an 8-bit processor on a 4 bit bus by two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition. You don't buy a G34 system to run single-threaded stuff. You buy an FX-9590 if you want to do that.

Having run a home computer lab that would trip a 15A circuit in the summer, I agree that power consumption has some merit, but it's just one factor of many. I had to shut down my F@H farm when it hit $450/month in electric bills. For a 1-3 computer home it's not much issue.

It's always going to come down to personal preference and budget.

Nah, don't shut it down, upgrade from 120-volt "dinkyplug" to proper 240 volt circuits. You get twice the wattage on the same wires and also get access to much higher amperage draws as well. 120 volts pretty well tops out at 2.4 kW (20 amps) while you can run hundreds of amps on a 240 volt branch. I regularly steal the 30 amp/240 volt dryer outlet to run the 3 hp cabinet saw in my small excuse for a basement woodshop. I simply have a homemade 12-gauge extension cord with a NEMA 14-30 plug on one end and a 6-20 receptacle on the other end. It works great and my 3 hp saw can cut anything I throw at it, unlike a dinkyplug 1.5 hp unit which bogs down on anything thicker than 4/4 with a proper full-kerf blade. You can do the same with computers especially since modern PSUs can run on either 120 V or 240V. However, if you really want to play with the big boys, they are currently using 4160 volt medium voltage setups to their racks like one of the places I work. There's nothing like seeing "DANGER 4160 VOLTS" on an incoming conduit to get your attention in an indoor electrical room.

Example I needed something a little bigger than an F-350 for my business, but really didn't want to pay the bloated price of an F-550. Added some leaf springs (front and back), an airbag lift kit, some engine tweaks and alterations... my F-350 has nearly all the same stats as an F-550 for a fraction the cost (got to admit a lot of work though), on top of that I'm able to get it through inspection every year and register it every year at the cheaper F-350 rates. However Intel fans are sooo impressed with the brandname they wouldn't look any further than it says F-350 so it must be inferior to the F-550, just like they have all passed judgement on Steamroller as being vastly inferior to Haswell because herp a derp it don't say Intel Inside anywhere on it. AMD's current Piledriver FX-8350 can get some impressive results but you have to put a little effort into tweaking and overclocking it to get it there, and Steamroller will bring AMD even further.

Okay I am a truck guy so I will go way off topic. Your airbagged and chipped F-350 isn't an F-550 even if you put on stacks and a smoke switch to roll coal at passing Priuses. (Which is very fun by the way.) The F-350 has a frame rated for 14k GVWR max (most are only 9550-11000 lbs) with a Dana 60 monobeam up front and a Sterling 10.5 out back with a maximum of 4.11 gears, connected to 17" rims with LT tires. The F-550 has a frame rated for 19.5k GVWR, a Dana Super 60 front and a Dana S110 rear with 4.88 gears connected to 19.5" rims wearing medium duty truck tires. It's like a single processor desktop versus my quad CPU server in server tasks- it just doesn't stand up. However your F-350 will be much friendlier with the DOT fellows as its lower GVWR will allow you to pull a higher GVWR trailer and fly under the magical 26k GCWR CDL limit. Unless of course you have a Class A CDL, then the mere mortals rules do not apply.

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

Wow!... 107 pages.. and so many garbage

Speaking as a moderator, the thing you don't see is that it would be about 200 pages full of garbage if we didn't step in and delete several pages at a time. Keeping something on topic is like herding cats. Or in my line of work, like trying to get Baby Boomer doctors to touch type in the electronic medical records (hunt and peck with two index fingers is considered "excellent" for them) or the docs' patients to quit bugging them for narcotics. Try as you might, it's NEVER EVER EVER going to happen. You just replace the stock $2 Dell/HP membrane keyboard for Ol' Doc with a 25 year old IBM Model M that his jackhammering with the right 2nd digit won't faze and let the Haswell/Hasbeen/Hasfail/Faildozer/etc. talk slide until you can get around to pruning it out.

Just out of curiousity...anyone still have a Mac from 1993 still seeing 3 hours usage a day? No...? How about an IBM System? No 486 66MHz users left around? Hmm...

I used to have both of those systems, or close enough. I had a cast-off 1993 Mac LC2 with the highly crippled 16-bit bus on a 32 bit 33 MHz 68LC030 and a "smack it to fix the short" rainbow Apple logo CRT monitor. I played SimCity 1.4 and 2000 and the original Civilization on that sucker and enjoyed it more than any modern game. It was a real lucky day when you managed to hit the right boot key codes to disable enough stuff to wind up with the magical 2714K of free RAM to run SC2K. And then you better save every five minutes lest you freeze up. I had an IBM 486 too, but it was a 50 MHz 80486SX2 rather than the much faster 66 MHz 80486DX2. It ran OS/2 Warp 2.0 too so I had the extreme fun of running my Windows 3.x stuff through an early 1990s emulator. I learned really quick not to right click as it would freeze the system rock solid.

That old stuff sure was unreliable crap but it still seemed more fun than current gear. A 64-bit, quad CPU setup with tens of millions of KB of RAM like I have now would have cost a nice house "back in the day" and been as finicky as a Ferrari to keep running. My current setup is more like a two-ton truck. It's guaranteed to run even if you run it three quarts low on oil and have two flat tires.

What opteron beats the i7 3960x
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
AMD Opteron 6234 12 core cpu loses to laptop cpus, so comparing opteron to the i7 3960x is an insult to intel cpu. I think amd fanboys are so deluded they actually think there cpus are close.

Hey now, I have a 6234. It isn't hugely fast in single-threaded Windows benchmarks due to its 3.0 GHz all-core Turbo speed but it will certainly demolish any dual-core laptop CPU in any remotely multi-threaded, especially on an OS that isn't a 64 bit version of a 32 bit shell for a 16 bit OS originally written for an 8-bit processor on a 4 bit bus by two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition. You don't buy a G34 system to run single-threaded stuff. You buy an FX-9590 if you want to do that.

Having run a home computer lab that would trip a 15A circuit in the summer, I agree that power consumption has some merit, but it's just one factor of many. I had to shut down my F@H farm when it hit $450/month in electric bills. For a 1-3 computer home it's not much issue.

It's always going to come down to personal preference and budget.

Nah, don't shut it down, upgrade from 120-volt "dinkyplug" to proper 240 volt circuits. You get twice the wattage on the same wires and also get access to much higher amperage draws as well. 120 volts pretty well tops out at 2.4 kW (20 amps) while you can run hundreds of amps on a 240 volt branch. I regularly steal the 30 amp/240 volt dryer outlet to run the 3 hp cabinet saw in my small excuse for a basement woodshop. I simply have a homemade 12-gauge extension cord with a NEMA 14-30 plug on one end and a 6-20 receptacle on the other end. It works great and my 3 hp saw can cut anything I throw at it, unlike a dinkyplug 1.5 hp unit which bogs down on anything thicker than 4/4 with a proper full-kerf blade. You can do the same with computers especially since modern PSUs can run on either 120 V or 240V. However, if you really want to play with the big boys, they are currently using 4160 volt medium voltage setups to their racks like one of the places I work. There's nothing like seeing "DANGER 4160 VOLTS" on an incoming conduit to get your attention in an indoor electrical room.

Example I needed something a little bigger than an F-350 for my business, but really didn't want to pay the bloated price of an F-550. Added some leaf springs (front and back), an airbag lift kit, some engine tweaks and alterations... my F-350 has nearly all the same stats as an F-550 for a fraction the cost (got to admit a lot of work though), on top of that I'm able to get it through inspection every year and register it every year at the cheaper F-350 rates. However Intel fans are sooo impressed with the brandname they wouldn't look any further than it says F-350 so it must be inferior to the F-550, just like they have all passed judgement on Steamroller as being vastly inferior to Haswell because herp a derp it don't say Intel Inside anywhere on it. AMD's current Piledriver FX-8350 can get some impressive results but you have to put a little effort into tweaking and overclocking it to get it there, and Steamroller will bring AMD even further.

Okay I am a truck guy so I will go way off topic. Your airbagged and chipped F-350 isn't an F-550 even if you put on stacks and a smoke switch to roll coal at passing Priuses. (Which is very fun by the way.) The F-350 has a frame rated for 14k GVWR max (most are only 9550-11000 lbs) with a Dana 60 monobeam up front and a Sterling 10.5 out back with a maximum of 4.11 gears, connected to 17" rims with LT tires. The F-550 has a frame rated for 19.5k GVWR, a Dana Super 60 front and a Dana S110 rear with 4.88 gears connected to 19.5" rims wearing medium duty truck tires. It's like a single processor desktop versus my quad CPU server in server tasks- it just doesn't stand up. However your F-350 will be much friendlier with the DOT fellows as its lower GVWR will allow you to pull a higher GVWR trailer and fly under the magical 26k GCWR CDL limit. Unless of course you have a Class A CDL, then the mere mortals rules do not apply.

Phew, a mod came, we set up a secret thread as a last resort. Loving your rants.