AMD's 3GHz K10 to break 30,000 3DMark06

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Valdis: Thanks for the article!!!

I TOTALLY believe that 30,000 is correct, my only theory is my old system (see sig) with an 8800GTS gets around 7 or 8,000 so a newer architecture with 4 cores and 2 gfx cards in SLI at 3GHZ? For sure I can believe that such a system is only 4x faster. Remember when AMD went 64 bit and Intel said nobody needs it? Look at the wall we hit with RAM requirements this fast... AMD thinks ahead, designs good stuff... Nobody seems to remember when AMD was performance KING before Core came out, so it is simple tick, tock we are seeing in a perfectly functioning duopoly. I feel the same way about AMD as some people feel about Apple products I guess, I'd buy Phenom even if it was slower than an Intel offering if I needed to upgrade. I just shudder at the thought of the crap products Intel would make and sell for top dollar if AMD went under...
 
I'm Be-Fud-dled, K-10 going to suck, K-10 is going be the second coming, Yet nowhere is a reputable benckmark to be found. Just these type of statements with squat to back it up.

All we really seem to have in concrete is that K-10 is late, and not launching anywhere near 3GHZ.

 

Actually you're right. AMD's K7 and K8 Generation were totally written off as "useless" until the benchmarks after it's release gave it, it's Steroid shots into Stardom.

Most people around from that Era would totally remember this.

*That's why AMD isn't claiming 30K 3DMark06 Benchmark nor did it ever state anything about 3.0Ghz Phenom CPU, it's only demonstrated the 3.0Ghz K10 and Tri-Crossfired 2900XT(The same R600 GPUCore which holds the Current 3DMark 05-06 World Records)
 
Well, put it this way... even if this article was total BS, how many people would have read the article and hesitated on buying a new INTEL rig... now consider that before launch if the propoganda mill kicks in full tilt, how many people again will wait till AMD launches their new chip before deciding what to purchase. Now put this to numbers... if 1 million people read this, and only 1% hesitate, that's already 10,000 possible customers that don't buy today... 10,000 x whatever INTEL chips would have been sold at for X price... and that's a lot of money / market share that would have been lost by the day.

Now if it IS true, then that would be great.

Now the big question is if the new AMD chips would be so great, why would they keep a lid on it? So they can keep an ace in the hole vs. INTEL? Doubt it. There's so much industrial espionage going on right now that I'm sure INTEL knows exactly what AMD has planned for the next 12 months and vice versa...

Just my 2 cents...
 


Friday, the Inq had an article talking about someone lifting all of their s***

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=41909

It makes me think a couple of Intel guys stole their s*** so they wrote this fud with what datmantran said in mind.
 


You might have missed what I was getting at. When the 2900XT was released, it was fast enough to take the 3DMark crown. The 2900XT can beat the 8800GTX in 3Dmark. When it first came out however, it couldn't even beat the 8800GTS in most games. I don't care if they can release a 4GHz K10 that can get 75,000 3DMarks. The number of bungholio marks is meaningless if it can't do better then the quad chips of Intel in games/programs. Being able to set a new record is good, but its not the cats cigar if it can't beat Intels quads in most programs.
 


No, I don't think I missed what you were getting at. Maybe I should have put quotations around the "if" part of my statement about the scores being so good. Yes, I think getting a good score is important. After all, if the score had been around 15,000, all the nay sayers would have a field day condemning the K10. Scores are important in that they show a potential of the system, but there are surely more things to be considered, as you point out.

When I said that I would think hard about it, I meant that I have been intending getting an Intel powered machine, as I mentioned in my second paragraph. Thinking hard, at least to me, means looking at the varying performance marks from a variety of things before making a final decision, and I have a couple months to do it before building, so I'm in no rush to run off and buy parts and build. If, that is "IF", the K10 performs well, I may then buy a K10 cpu instead of an Intel cpu based. But that's something I'll make the final decision on later.
 
I still cannot see how this can be anything but fiction. The current world record holder in 3dmark06 has a score of 27,xxx using two X2900XT cards, (overclocked higher than the Inquirer's HD2900XTs), and a Kentsfield QX6850 at over 5 GHz. So a Barcelona core, at 3 GHz, can score more than 10% higher than a 5+ GHz kentsfield, despite having more than a 40% clock disadvantage and lower clocked cards? Not buying it one bit.

http://www.ripping.org/benchmarks.php?act=graphicscores&graphic=3DMark06

 
The current world record holder in 3dmark06 has a score of 27,xxx using two X2900XT cards, (overclocked higher than the Inquirer's HD2900XTs), and a Kentsfield QX6850 at over 5 GHz. So a Barcelona core, at 3 GHz, can score more than 10% higher than a 5+ GHz kentsfield, despite having more than a 40% clock disadvantage and lower clocked cards? Not buying it one bit.
Click to expand...

You've said it all.

This 30K score is too much higher than QX6850's to be true. There's no way they'd have this kind of trick up their sleeves without showing it to the world. No way.

This is just too "iffy" to be true. But hey, we'll know soon enough, I guess.
 


Because you are probably looking in the wrong place on the 3dmark06 servers. Odds are it was probably a simulated record on a simulated CPU running at an estimated clockspeed....so you need to look in the simulated scores section 😉
 
It would be all nice and good if the new Barcelona chips could compete in price with the budget Intel quads, however a 20% increase in performance (i wont give AMD more), isnt worth the premium people will be paying for their chips at launch. Sorry but computer building is about getting the best bang for your buck for most people.

Though I must agree, we NEED AMD to get back into this race with some force, or else the best bang for Intel quads will cost us all 1000's of the aforementioned bucks.
 


It might be true, it may be way off the mark- it is The Inq. But there are a few things that stand out to me:

1. The board uses a brand-new chipset, the RD790. AMD makes the chipset and the GPUs, so it's possible that the RD790 has features that allow better-than-previous scaling on the CrossFire setup.

2. The Barcelona at 3.0 GHz may very well perform better in a certain benchmark than a 5.0 GHz QX6850 does. Compare the performance in DivX 6.6a in a 3.00 GHz Yorkfield to a QX6850, and that's just due to basically one difference: SSE4. The overall performance of the A0 Yorkfield vs. the Kentsfield is really more like 5% for the Yorkfield, might be the same for the 10h vs. the Kentsfield.

We haven't seen much for 10h benchmarks besides a few that AMD demonstrated on very low-clocked Barcelonas on boards that they admitted had horrible HT issues. Since those were dual-socket chips, HT and NUMA really would kill performance if it isn't working correctly (see FX-70 series reviews) and thus wouldn't give much of an idea of what the chip can really do. So it's hard to tell if the numbers were real or just pulled out the posterior of Charlie.
 
My questions about this starts with the orginal bench of 3DMark, which was done not only with a 5Ghz cpu, but also was super cooled. I heard a while ago that the 2900 would sing with a better cpu, now whether this transforms into better gaming is the question. I would point out tho, that at 5Ghz and oceed so high, the original mark certainly wasnt used for gaming. But if this is true, this setup could be used in this form, which of course looks quite promising
 



oh!
 
Tell me how 30,000 3Dmark06 has anything to do with what matters, frame per second is what matters to me. I don't know about you but 30,000-50,000 means what? More salt?
 


http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=2835078

the profile above is a score of QX6850 @ 5110MHz and scored 27039, but adding 2 more ATI HD2900XT to it might lift things over to 30,000 - 40,000 ...
 


Wow, thats a huge amount of frame rates!
 
The only reason I can think of them not releasing reliable numbers for the processor earlier if it is great is that they need to keep selling the processors they have on the market.

If AMD releases some great numbers that completely overshadow their previous line of processors a month or two before they are actually released then 99% of the enthusiest community would not purchase their older parts. Even some vendors would likely put off ordering any of the high end processors until the new set came out. They can't go 2 months without selling much because everyone is waiting for something that isn't on the market yet.

We saw the same thing happen, to a lesser extent, simply when Intel announced their price drops on their slightly refreshed processor line. There was at least a month where a lot of people put off buying processors. Even the retailers, such as Newegg, weren't renewing their stock of processors until the new prices went into effect.


As for the benchmark of the K10, it at least shows promise. Hopefully the advantages they claim translate into real world gains. And not that the processor was designed around maximizing certain aspects of the processor benchmarks at the expense of normal application performance. Such as the HD2900 cards with had amazing shader processing numbers but cut down some of the other aspects of graphic rendering, since shaders is the most important number now, and hurt the overall real world performance of the card.
 
The matchup we'll see by 10th September won't have any 3Ghz K10s at all, so this is all pointless anyway. In a few weeks, Intel will also launch the X38 chipset, and there's no hint of an AMD Desktop CPU launch based on K10 yet.

The first battle will probably be between a 5365 Quad-core Xeon @ 2.93Ghz or 3.0Ghz, now that we know that Tigerton will launch next week, and the 1.9Ghz or maybe 2.0Ghz Barcelona CPUs. It's kind of tricky, though: Tigerton has a quad FSB @ 1066Mhz, while Barcelona has a much more sophisticated HT interconnect; Tigerton has the highest clock. But one question stands out: Why are we discussing 3DMark06 scores, which are gamer-related, if this will be a server launch first?

OK, I know, we're trying to see how much potential this architecture has. But I think that posting these ridiculously high scores without actually allowing people to check these data with their own eyes is just spreading unjustified excitement.

It'll still take months before we even get to see desktop CPUs based on that tech. So let's not get overexcited and let's just wait.
 
Personally, I hate Intel. I hope they go out of business. Most importantly, I hope thier executives and management become homeless so I can spit on them like they have spat on the consumer for over 20 years.
 


Intel may not be perfect, but believe me, you don't want them going out of business. I find your comment rash and insensitive to the large number of employees who had nothing to do with the "debatable" business practices which provoked your little outburst.

How about we give Intel some breathing room. In the face of what plagues AMD, it escapes everyone that Intel has a great number of expectations to meet in the short and long term. They have commited to a tick and tock strategy that would put a great deal of strain on even the largest of research teams. Meanwhile, Intel has to contend with AMD's underdog persona, and as a result, is afforded little room for error.

"This message brought to you by Slap Those Fanboys, a USA company."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom