Intel --- Important ---

[dean7]

*Sneeze* Meh *Cough*

Seriously... are you just trying to up your post count or something??? :lol:

 

[qcmadness]

Are you under-clocking your X6800 from 2.93GHz to 1.6GHz?

 

[dasickninja]

..... no.

 

[dean7]

I knew it!

 

[Whizzard9992]

Yes?








(+1)

 

[danica]

See. Only one timing, and the exact value I got. Now anyone tried with the AMD?

I would like to know the timing on a FX-62. Anyone?

For those serious answers, thank you.

 

[SEALBoy]

See. Only one timing, and the exact value I got. Now anyone tried with the AMD?

I would like to know the timing on a FX-62. Anyone?

For those serious answers, thank you.

I don't think anyone in their right mind actually BOUGHT an FX-62.

 

[Doughbuy]

Nissan Skyline and Toyota Supra respectively. The wankel was a nice engine, but their were a ton of problems with it... I feel sorry for the mechanics that has to work on that thing...

 

[sruane]

Your core 2 extreme is obviously crap. Send it to me for proper disposal.

 

[UC7]

No...no... Danica has got something here.

I found that, on third Tuesday's of each month, during the time period between 5 and 6 pm EST, if the humidity is greater than 80%, and if you balance on your left foot, you can use your right eye to squint at an LCD screen from 50 feet away, and you will see the FX-62 crush the Intel chip.

It's proven, because I typed it.


I am pretty sure that you can reproduce these results also.... the typing, I mean.


(It's not that I am anti-AMD either, as this is the first Intel chip I have had in quite a while. It's just... come on.... I mean... come on.)

 

[dean7]

No...no... Danica has got something here.

I found that, on third Tuesday's of each month, during the time period between 5 and 6 pm EST, if the humidity is greater than 80%, and if you balance on your left foot, you can use your right eye to squint at an LCD screen from 50 feet away, and you will see the FX-62 crush the Intel chip.

It's proven, because I typed it.


I am pretty sure that you can reproduce these results also.... the typing, I mean.


(It's not that I am anti-AMD either, as this is the first Intel chip I have had in quite a while. It's just... come on.... I mean... come on.)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Holy crap, man. You're killing me here!!

I'm at work and my boss might get suspicious if she hears me laughing this hard. :x

 

[1Tanker]

No...no... Danica has got something here.

I found that, on third Tuesday's of each month, during the time period between 5 and 6 pm EST, if the humidity is greater than 80%, and if you balance on your left foot, you can use your right eye to squint at an LCD screen from 50 feet away, and you will see the FX-62 crush the Intel chip.

It's proven, because I typed it.


I am pretty sure that you can reproduce these results also.... the typing, I mean.


(It's not that I am anti-AMD either, as this is the first Intel chip I have had in quite a while. It's just... come on.... I mean... come on.)

*Disclaimer* Do not run this benchmark while intoxicated.

 

[dasickninja]

To the Texan, the R34's engine is pretty normal, its the ETESA ETS system that makes the R34 a real monster. Best traction of any touge car. The two monster engines are really the 4AGE and the 2JZGE. Everything else is irrelevant in the engine department.

 

[mandraque]

danica can you show results with double the resolution. It would have interesting results...

 

[dean7]

No...no... Danica has got something here.

I found that, on third Tuesday's of each month, during the time period between 5 and 6 pm EST, if the humidity is greater than 80%, and if you balance on your left foot, you can use your right eye to squint at an LCD screen from 50 feet away, and you will see the FX-62 crush the Intel chip.

It's proven, because I typed it.


I am pretty sure that you can reproduce these results also.... the typing, I mean.


(It's not that I am anti-AMD either, as this is the first Intel chip I have had in quite a while. It's just... come on.... I mean... come on.)

*Disclaimer* Do not run this benchmark while intoxicated.
Actually, I heard that if you run it while heavily intoxicated you can achieve optimal results!

 

[odk0037]

E6600 2GB 5-5-5-12 ram, 56"

 

[danica]

Thank you for your time.

it is not far from the rest. I would like to see some AMD test, is there some one?

is this the only thing that AMD is faster than the Intel? must have something else, or not?

thanks again

 

[dlmacline]

Since it seems people here would not help you... (I think you'ved hurt their feelings with your claims)

Call your dealer danica and tell them why C2E is not performing to what you expect..

Maybe you can check its setup.. is your PC getting too much heat.. maybe the graphics card is getting too hot..or software problems perhaps?

 

[danny9894]

LOL, I'm down here in Texas, it's about 75F outside... sucks for you Connecticutins (whatever you call yourselves) and Canuks =P

And minnesotans

 

[Whizzard9992]

Since it seems people here would not help you... (I think you'ved hurt their feelings with your claims)

Call your dealer danica and tell them why C2E is not performing to what you expect..

Maybe you can check its setup.. is your PC getting too much heat.. maybe the graphics card is getting too hot..or software problems perhaps?

lol. It's not his setup.

Danica, people aren't taking you seriously because you ignored the serious feedback you initially got.

There's likely another bottleneck or something else going on in the background. 33" versus 34" represents a 3% difference in performance, which is negligible. No one's denying that the AMD might be faster at performing this specific task, but there's not enough information about how the radial blur is performed to be able to tell.

>>>> This is why I recommended posing on an Adobe forum and getting feedback from the source. Most people here are hardware junkies ruled by unbiased, proven benchmarks, under neither of which does your example fall. Given that, I'm surprised you haven't been tarred and feathered yet.

Yes, get a benchmark for the FX-62. Try the benchmark at different resolutions. What are the results of other CPU intensive PS filters? Most importantly, ask an Adobe expert what the cause of the discrepency might be.

No one's going to take you seriously because it seems like you've found a grain of something that says AMD is faster. Ultimately, AMD has been proven to be slower, which makes people doubt your bench. Again, I need to repeat that someone posted a LONG reply with a LOT of benchmarks IN ADOBE showing intel to be faster. If it's slower on your computer, there might be a reason. I suspect there's a reason your benchmark isn't used to gauge processor speed.

 

[Doughbuy]

The first 2.6 L RB26DETT featured twin-turbochargers and produced 280 PS (206 kW) @ 6800 rpm and 260 ft·lbf (353 N·m) @ 4400 rpm. The last series of the RB26DETT produced 280 PS (206 kW) @ 6800 rpm and 289 ft·lbf (392 N·m) @ 4400 rpm. However, several stock (unmodified) engines have been dyno tested and reported to obtain nearer the 320 hp mark. It is widely renowned for its strength and extreme power potential. It is not uncommon for 600 hp to be achieved on the standard bottom end. With regular maintenance, many of these engines have been driven way past the 100,000 mile mark with a few heading toward 200,000 miles.

With replacements of the rods and pistons to forged units, and larger turbos (the Garrett T88 turbo being a popular conversion), the RB26 motor is capable of power in excess of 1 megawatt (or over 1,000 hp).

Seems pretty beastly to me. Either way, some of the crappiest engines Japan makes are much better than American one's (except the LS-6, which pretty much redeemed the Corvette as a dream car)...

And it's not the ETESA-ETS... It's the ATTESA-ETS...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATTESA-ETS

Which is also fairly beastly. I'd buy a skyline if I could... too bad they stopped making them =(

 

[NovemberWind]

P4 1.6 512 MB Ram Sony Vaio 5’ 06”
P4 2.4 512 MB Ram ASUS P4S800MX 2’ 49”
P4 3.06 512 MB Ram Intel 850 EMV2 1’ 40”
Sempron 3000+ 1 GB Ram Asus K8V-MX 1’ 34”
P4 3.2 1 GB Ram HP Notebook MB Quanta 1’ 13”
P4 3.4 2 GB Ram Intel 915 PCY 1’ 10”
AMD 3800 64 1 GB Ram Asus 1’ 10”
4600+ 4 GB Ram Asus A8N Premium 2.5/3/3/7 36”
Intel Core Duo 6700 OC 4 GB Ram Asus P5W 4/4/4/10 34”
4600+ 8% 4 GB Ram Asus A8N Premium 2.5/3/3/7 34”
4800+ 4 GB Ram Asus A8N Premium 2.5/3/3/7 34”
Intel Core Duo X6800 4 GB Ram Asus P5B Wifi 4/4/4/10 34”
4800+ 10% 4 GB Ram Asus A8N Premium 2.5/3/3/7 33”

Danica,

Clearly you must recognize from the results you've posted as well as from the response of the audience that something is clearly screwy with your claim. First and foremost, your fellow posters have (less than) kindly pointed out that your benchmark is hardly optimal. (though I should add here for the benefit of the crowd that it's certainly doing a good job keeping me amused - keep up the good work) Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there is some information that you posted that simply doesn't jive.

You've listed essentially equivalent timings for your benchmark operation for a number of processors - a number of processors that decidedly do NOT have equivalent performance capabilities. (about 33-34 seconds for all of: Intel C2D6700, AMD 4600, C2D6800, AMD 4800) It looks like there may be some overclocking involved, but that still doesn't explain everything - if nothing else, specifically why the 4600+8% and the 4800+10% are exactly the same, plus the fact that overclocking didn't help your 4600 - not kosher, my friend. Combine this with the fact that there is a clear discrepancy between the lower end processors, and then all of a sudden you get to a plateau with the higher end stuff and..... well, let's just say this goes a long way to explain everybody's sarcasm.

So, your test is clearly bunk. But not worthless. You may have inadvertently stumbled across a common bottleneck that might be worthwhile to get out in the open so other people don't run into the same problem.

Now, some people have suggested that the DDR2 vs DDR RAM may be the issue. I kinda doubt it, but eh, I've been wrong before. It does look like, from the timings you've posted, more RAM certainly helps the cause. But still, something isn't right.

My suggestion is you look at the pagefile as the potential culprit. My hunch is that Adobe is writing things to the hard drive to use as virtual RAM instead of running information through your regular RAM. You're limited to the speed of the hard drives which, while fast, aren't nearly as fast as RAM. This would explain why everything plateaued - all your experiments are using RAIDed 150 Raptors? If this is the case, your performance issues have nothing to do with the power of the processor. They have to do with the fact that your processor is being lazy because the rest of the computer can't keep up.

Now, eliminating this bottleneck is not something I am an expert in by any means, but I have toyed around with it in the past a tiny bit. My suggestion is this:

Delete your Windows pagefile (set virtual memory to zero) and try your test again. This way, everything is going to run through your RAM instead of your hard drive.

Mind you, I'm not the end-all be-all of knowledge in this department. I seem to recall reading somewhere that Adobe likes to load things into the pagefile, so you might just want to reduce it a lot instead of setting it to zero..... However, you do have 4GB of RAM..... But I'm still curious if your computer is recognizing all of it. I've heard that Windows (regular Windows XP - the 32 bit variety, not 64 bit) doesn't recognize that much RAM, or you have to do something special - I forget. Whatever.

Anyway, run the test again and make sure that your hard drives aren't a bottleneck. Then please post your results again because if I'm right, I want to bask in the glory, and if I'm wrong, I want to know it because I'll have learned something interesting.

Best of luck.

 

[NovemberWind]

@ Whizzard - I agree with you (obviously, from my post). Your post wasn't up when I started my reply.

Interestingly, I just noticed this on Tom's this morning as well:
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/advice-virtual-memory-ftopict206552.html

Not the greatest of forums, but it does have a little info that I think is relevant here. Danica - note that in that forum, they only talk about how much virtual RAM should be applied to run everything that needs to be run - not optimized for speed. I still suggest you turn off the page file and see what happens.

 

[danica]

For all of you with good intentions, thank you very much again.

Let me start with the difference of the 4600 +10% and the 4800 +8%.

On the ASUS A8N, you can OC with % increase. The main difference between the two is the L2 cache, only that. The 4600 with 512KB x 2 and the 4800 with 1MB x 2. both run @ 2.4 Ghz. That explains the small difference in performance between the two. I only was able to OC the 4800 by 8%, more than that it would crash. The 4600 could handle a little more, 10%. On the P5B, just change the multiplier and the frequency (example: 10 X 340 Mhz)

About my installation:

All the tested computers were fresh Windows XP 32 installed, with all SPs. On the 4 GB RAM computers, the OS would only recognize 3 GB, but that did not matter, because I took 2 GB and tested with the same results (the 2GB were dual channel). After the fresh Windows install, nothing but the Photoshop was installed (of course of the Adobe SPs). I did all that myself, so there is very little margin for discrepancies. The BIOS were all checked for the best performance. I rechecked when OC, and constantly monitored the temperature on them.

Why do I use this method for benchmarking?

I’ve been using this, since Photoshop 6, and as many of you suggested, this is a common and known test in the Photoshop forums. This is not my invention.

My final point is: are the tests being published correct? If this specific test gives the edge to the AMD, does anyone tried any other test that the Intel was not as good? Please, I don’t deserve to be banned for my questions and affirmations, I just want some help, as I mentioned before. This is a real question, not some foolish joke. I have a job, and would not waist my time and yours too. Maybe someone have a coherent explanation.

I am willing to answer all your questions about this matter. Maybe this could help me, and many other users. If I did not answer as fast as you post, is because I have to work too, sorry for that.

I will keep on trying. I believe there are good reasons to ask this question, as there are some good souls trying to help. Will no judge the offensive posts, one have their reasons for doing this.

Thank you all again

 

[Whizzard9992]

I don't think you're listening at all.

Overclock your X6800 and give us the benchmarks. First, try it by overclocking the FSB, then try it by overclocking it with the internal multiplier. This will give us a little more info about what's happening under the hood.

I suspect this is a memory bottleneck, since the memory bus in AMD is the only thing that performs better in synthetics. The adobe filter may be playing to AMD's strength in this particular filter. I wouldn't say, "Global media is conspiring to make Intel look faster," as you initially implied.

Also keep in mind that running a stock X6800 is like driving your ferarri to grandma's house at 20 MPH. You can overclock an E6300 to perform at the speed of an X6800 with little effort. To the point: if you're running an X6800 at stock speeds, you've wasted your money and our time. You just don't buy an X6800 and run it stock. It makes no sense.

Also, for the love of god, try another PS benchmark, and post in an adobe forum about radial blur. I know this is a standard bench in PS forums, but it's as old as sin. This may have been a valid benchmark once, but there's a good chance it's no longer valid.