"Core 2 Duo -- The Embarrassing Secrets"?

[r0ck]

hal, I agree that AMD is "good enough" for most. Can you explain this "scientific" BS that AMD fans tout? What's that, 0.1% of the market?

 

[Shadow703793]

This is so pointless.
1. How can INTEL optimize the CPU for better benchmark results??????
2. Why is the E6300+ are better than ANY AMD CPU in price/preforming?
3. Intel's architecture is much better than AMD (Look at the Penryn vs. Barc benchmarks)
3. Like others have said this guy is a fanboy

 

[BaldEagle]

What it the point here?
Now if I were making chips and someone had a test they ran through to determine the price of my chip I would damn well tune that baby to run the test as fast as possible. Seems that is exactly what Intel is doing with Core2Duo exactly what we as the PC community have asked for. "Benchies"

 

[Viperabyss]

Oh, and "semi-valid" points? Such as how AMD is going to crush Intel with DTX? lol

nah.. what i meant by "semi- valid" points is that Scientia's question about Core 2's reliance on cache.

i'm sure there are some people who doesn't have this figured out (well at least i didn't when i read his post)

plus i wouldn't really classify him as a "fanboy", as he at least raised some interesting points.

fanboys are those who only posts "appreciation thread", or claims that Intel will BK by 2008 :twisted:

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

hal, I agree that AMD is "good enough" for most. Can you explain this "scientific" BS that AMD fans tout? What's that, 0.1% of the market?

That is also a lie. Clock for clock the Core 2 Duo beats out the Athlon64 X2 in sciencmark, but it's a VERY close fight.

It's also not that people feel they have to defend the Core 2 Duo. It's that people feel they have to defend the facts and stick by them. In this world of media and political manipulation, it's good to have one area where facts reign supreme (or at least should).

If the tables were turned my post would have been about the Athlon64 X2.

 

[Viperabyss]

What it the point here?
Now if I were making chips and someone had a test they ran through to determine the price of my chip I would damn well tune that baby to run the test as fast as possible. Seems that is exactly what Intel is doing with Core2Duo exactly what we as the PC community have asked for. "Benchies"

yes if i were you i would do the same thing.
but by doing this you may spoof only 1 or 2 benchmarks, but not all of them. (pentium 4 is a very good example)

 

[r0ck]

Read his blog. If it smells like a turd, it's a turd.

 

[Viperabyss]

Read his blog. If it smells like a turd, it's a turd.

i would say at least he backed it up with real benchmarks to prove his point, whether or not its a correct one. at least he tried.

EDIT: i'm not saying his points are correct. i'm just merely saying that he followed the standard procedure of debating. i believe at least he deserves some respect.

what i mean by "fanboy" is that a person who utilizes ignorance to proof his point, and uses name calling and profanity when his point is rebuttaled.

 

[No1sFanboy]

Somewhere someone is reading that right now and believing; now that is scary.

I am of the opinion though that the x6800 and quads should be shipped with a better hsf or none.

 

[r0ck]

Instead of "stupid" or "fanboy", he says "silly" and "you make no sense" and "I give up you person that I can't make agree shut up" with and "I'm smart I'm a programmer" and "I'm old and wise".

Core 2 Duo -- The Embarassing Secrets
Intel -- The Monopoly Under Siege
Intel's Chipsets -- The Roots Of Monopoly
2007: Where Are The Clock Speeds?

etc etc

It looks like he puts forth effort in those novels he publishes. That doesn't make him any less of a shill.

 

[r0ck]

Must be your GPU.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI2MiwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0
Take notice of the apples to apples test. And if you don't notice 40 vs 50 fps or whatever (25%), I don't know what you were expecting.

 

[dasickninja]

Booting depends or RAM. Games depend on GPU. Of course the CPU isn't going to have much effect on either.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

I dont care what his blog says but its very believable to me.
My C2D at 3ghz performs no better in games (games We play that utilize only 1 core) than my Sempron3600+ single core did. It performs no better in everyday applications either. It doesnt even boot faster. However I dont doubt that when running applications that utilize two cores, it is faster. Its no 7th wonder of the world though.

Can you post a picture of your rig please.

Because that's bullsh!t!

You notice windows booting faster. Hell even at stock I noticed my old x6800 booting faster then my overclocked X2 4800+ @ 3.0GHz.

Even levels in games load in no time. There are no AMD users who enter games before me (BF2 or BF2142).

And your graphics card would not allow you to see a difference in gaming performance. Especially if you're running anything above 1280x1024.

 

[Guest]

AMD fan boys will do anything these days against C2D

 

[fidgewinkle]

I dont care what his blog says but its very believable to me.
My C2D at 3ghz performs no better in games (games We play that utilize only 1 core) than my Sempron3600+ single core did. It performs no better in everyday applications either. It doesnt even boot faster. However I dont doubt that when running applications that utilize two cores, it is faster. Its no 7th wonder of the world though.

Your 7600GT has 12 pixel pipelines and a measly 128bit memory bus. You are GPU bound no matter how much you overclock. You might also want to play something like Oblivion or Supreme Commander. Then you will find out how much better your processor is.

 

[RichPLS]

Real world... I have an E6600 that OC's to 3.2GHz stable, but I run it 24/7 at 3.0GHz (9x334) which is nothing special, but equivlant perf to the E6800.
What is cool tho is that I am doing it on air using speedstep, C1E and vanderpool tech all enabled, plus CPU is running 1.38v measuring idle temps at 27C and Max stress temps at 40C!
DDR 2.15v.

 

[epsilon84]

One thing I know after reading this blog: Scientia has problems condensing his/her points. For freaking sake, it doesn't take a 3000 word essay to get across a few points, most of which are bogus anyway.

I guess Scientia is trying to make up for lack of quality with quantity. It's like if rabid fanboy assertions are repeated enough, they must be true. :roll: :lol:

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

If Core 2 is exceeding it's thermal limits, then what the hell do you call a 3.0 ghz Athlon X2?

Core 2 overclocks WAY BETTER than Athlon X2 at either 90 OR 65nm. So I really think AMD has more of an issue.

 

[epsilon84]

Apparently, according to Scientia, SOI has better thermal tolerances than bulk silicon. I don't know if this is true, or to what extent, so I'll let someone knowledgeable like Jack comment on this.

Either way, the X2 6000+ consumes more power than a QX6800, I think that is more embarrassing than anything else.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Apparently, according to Scientia, SOI has better thermal tolerances than bulk silicon. I don't know if this is true, or to what extent, so I'll let someone knowledgeable like Jack comment on this.

Either way, the X2 6000+ consumes more power than a QX6800, I think that is more embarrassing than anything else.

I just don't get what he's getting at. He points out negatives about it, but then why does the thing overclock like a mother on stock air?

Also, if it's just a benchmark hack then why is it doing better in REAL WORLD benchmarks? Those are the ones I care about. Is it hacking all real world benchmarks?

 

[RichPLS]

duh, we all knew Intel was just using smoke and mirrors to get suckers to fall for crappy C2D's... The holographic sticker hypnotizes users so when using the PC, time slows and it only appears that the PC is faster... Real AMD fans know and a LOL secure in the facts that AMD ALWAYS TRUMPS INTEL!!!

 

[turpit]

Well, Scientia might be around here lurking, but the article he posted on his blog is kind of interesting to say the least. I think its a good read and a good way to exercise our powers of deduction and reasoning. with that said, please reply thoughtfully to the thread and leave the bashing out.

Although Core 2 Duo has been impressive since its introduction last year, a veil of secrecy has remained in place which has prevented a true understanding of the chip's capabilities. This has been reminiscent of The Wizard Of Oz with analysts and enthusiasts insisting we ignore what's behind the curtain. However, we can now see that some of C2D's prowess is just as imaginary as the giant flaming wizard.

The two things that Intel would rather you not know about Core 2 Duo are that it has been tweaked for benchmarks rather than for real code, and that at 2.93 Ghz it is exceeding its thermal limits on the 65nm process. I'm sure both of these things will come as a surprise to many but the evidence is at Tom's Hardware Guide, Xbitlabs, and Anandtech. But, although the information is very clear, no one has previously called any attention to it. Core 2 Duo roughly doubles the SSE performance of K8, Core Duo, and P4D. This is no minor accomplishment and Intel deserves every bit of credit for this. For SSE intensive applications, C2D is a grand slam home run. However, the great majority of consumer applications are more dependent on integer performance than floating point performance and this is where the smoke and mirrors have been in full force. There is no doubt that Core 2 Duo is faster than K8 at the same clock. The problem has been in finding out how much faster. Estimates have ranged from 5% to 40% faster. Unfortunately, most of the hardware review sites have shown no desire to narrow this range.

read the rest:
http://scientiasblog.blogspot.com/
© Scientia from AMDZone, April 15 2007

Comments?

Edited to save my ass from a copyright violation charge.

Ninja

I had to read that article several times since you requested no bashing. I kept coming to the same conclusion, so, sorry but I find it difficult not to bash. While I respect Sceintia as the least narrowminded, most logical and practical of the AMD fanboys/horde, the article is, in a word bizzare. Another word would be skewed. Yet another would be delusional.

First I will refer to Scientia as "it", since there has been an unverified rumor floating around that it is a female, and I wouldnt want to insult it

It starts the article claiming Intel has been misleading, that C2D is optimized to run benchmarks, not code. Aside from the fact that nowhere in the article did it present actual evidence to support that claim, I can help but wonder if Scientia realizes that benchmarks are in fact themselves code, albeit worthless code since they dont accomplish work. Rather, what it does is 'lightly' slam benchmarks for not testing in the manner which it sees fit, specifically overloading cache. Then, it gives a comparison of C2D cache to K8 cache, and explains why the K8s method of cache implementation is better.

Frankly, it just looks like another version of the pre-C2D release 'cashe thrashing' argument that the likes of MrsBytch(then known as MadModMike), 9-inch and so many other horde acolytes ran around crying about. Cache Thrashing, as you know, was disproven only moments after C2Ds release, if not before.

To futher support its claims, it actually uses factual data (benchs of the C400) as if to prove that the cache is where C2D gets its performance. Well Duh! That Intel vastly improved the prefetchers, ram and cache handling(memory handling) is not now, nor has been a secret for sometime, except perhaps to those who were only interested in reading AMD articles. So obviously reduction in cache would incur a perfromance hit. However, what Scientia does not note, IRT cache and cashe thrashing, is the peak. Weve all seen the tests that the jump from 2mb to 4mb cache helps C2D, but not nearly so much as one would expect. The extra cache exceeds the point of diminishing returns, which is interesting, since it esentially limits the possibility of the cache thrashing argument to a point below the low end C2Ds 2mb of cache. The 2mb resevoir is obviously enough since significantly more brings minimal gains, with no unusuall difficulties noted. Now if Scientia wanted to argue that the C400 was lacking sufficient cache, or suffers from performance problems due to a lack of cache, that would have been a legitimate argument, but to reverse that argument to imply that the shortage of that commodity, which is so vital to C2Ds performance, implies a problem with the Uarch itself is simply deviuos or ignorant.

Esentially, his entire aurgument in that paragraph is akin to someone saying, 'dont buy a GM V8, beacuse their economy 4 cylinders have been shown to lack power' :roll:


IRT the 2.93 GHz limit @65nm, it again provides no/tainted proof. Scientia starts by refering to the Thermal Guide in our own forum, which it fails to correctly identify. It then mixes this with data form Anandtech. Why this is interesting as while the guide defines 55'C as the TCase max, Intel itself defines TCase max(thermal specification at Max Thermal Design Power(TDP)) @ as 60.4'C
EE6800 specs

He bases his conclusion on the data for the stock cooler, which while not even remotely a poor way to judge the results clearly puts the burden of the test on the cooler itself, not the process. To say 2.93Ghz is the max clockspeed the process can safely attain because the stock HSF can only maintain TCase max under 100% load at that clockspeed is purely and simply assinine. It is a test of the HSF, not the Uarch. Technically, based on his presentation, the only real way to test that would be to run the CPU without any additonal form of cooling, including the heat spreader. In which case, not only would the C2D fail to meet its Tcasemax @ load, but any other recent processor (post 2000) would as well, either Intel or AMD produced!

Further Scientia fails claims that anything faster than 2.93Ghz is dangerous because of the heat, yet it fails to note that (in the case of the 6800) the TCase max of 60.4'C is when the thermal monitor activates, protecting the CPU from thermal overload.

I am very disapointed in Scientia....I respected it as a logical person, but this review is blatently tainted in 'Intel lies, AMD rulz'.

 

[Egon]

I have never really posted here before because my knowledge on subjects discussed here is far outclassed by most of the other regular posters, and I have been content to just absorb what I can from those more knowledgeable than me. I have to make some comments here though.

If Intel is smart enough to be able to create a chip that mysteriously performs better on benchmarks than real world apps, wouldn’t they also be smart enough to make a chip that is faster in those applications as well? I mean if they can pay an engineer to map out the transistor paths that will make benchmark X go faster can’t they do the exact same thing with everything else? Despite what some people think the engineers in BOTH AMD and Intel are not mentally deficient.

The other thing I hate is how people continuously attribute one chip or another’s superiority to a single item. Like AMD’s IMC or C2D’s larger cache/FSB architecture. This reminds me of the stupid arguments I used to get into in HS with buddies who drove Japanese Import cars while I drove my old Chevy. If I had a dime for every time they pointed out I didn’t have overhead cams or fuel injection I would be rich. I don’t care how you do it, if it works it works, and it doesn’t invalidate the performance. If anything if you are being outperformed by an “inferior” out of date technology what does that say about you? I will take my in the block cam Small Block Chevy FTW any day of the week!

However, the worst thing about this blog entry we are commenting on is that Shraikouboob (who is mentally deficient BTW) is using it for fodder to fuel his inane ramblings on his blog. If nothing else this sin is inexcusable!

 

[joefriday]

The stupidest thing about his rant is the Celeron being 40% slower with the decreased cache. What a farce. The new Celeron 2.0GHz performs roughly equivalent to AMD's athlon64 3500, 2.2GHz CPU. That means the new Celerons are performing about 10% above the same clocked AMD K8. If scientia claims the Celeron to be 40% less performing than the Core2Duo, he them must also accept that Core2Duo is by default 50% faster than K8. Not that he'll ever admit that though (and he well shouldn't, because Core2Duo is usually only 20-25% faster). This proves that his mathematical deduction is wrong, which in and of itself completely discredits his whole argument of cache being the reason Core2 performs, which is a very old and worn out argument that has been discredited many, many times already.

Scientia should stick to this forum instead of AMDzone. He might actually learn something here.

 

[ThunderChunky]

My pseudoscience detector went off the chart.