- Status
And we should trust an online review why?
In Dreamland? I'll just throw it out there. If you go with an X4 over an I5 your just plain retarded
another tyypical c0ck, not everyone lives where you live, there are other countrys outside yours!, where i live the PII is a hell of alot cheaper $345 compares to the i5 750 at $445, so stop being a troll fool, where i live the P II is cheaper!!!!
and at for an i5 oxer an X4, is that why an X4 955BE has the tghird highest overclock in history!
smithereen
Distinguished
- Oct 4, 2008
- 1,088
- 0
- 19,310
Now that was just a stupid thing to say... prices vary WILDLY from country to country, even Canadian and British prices can be way out of whack in comparison to American... here in Canada, on Newegg, no less, the Phenom II 955 was cheaper than a Q8400 for several months. If he says a Ph2 is substantially cheaper where he lives, I'm inclined to believe him, and not call him "retarded".
FFXI_Abinadi
Distinguished
- Dec 15, 2009
- 2
- 0
- 18,510
HAHA...
This reminds me of the good old days when people would argue over which was the better performing car a Ford Mustang, Chevy Camero or Dodge Charger. And just like cars, computers = the more $$$ you spend, the better the engineering and the right configuration, the better the performance. And just like an engine if everything is matched up… it runs like a bat out of hell…
So don’t knock the manufacture, knock the driver… because all the computer in the world will not help the “Leeroy Jenkins” out there.
But if you screw up bad enough you might become famous!
PS: I've seen very nice configuations run like shite, and a completely stock configuation run like, well, they should not run that good... Sometimes it just the luck of the draw.
This reminds me of the good old days when people would argue over which was the better performing car a Ford Mustang, Chevy Camero or Dodge Charger. And just like cars, computers = the more $$$ you spend, the better the engineering and the right configuration, the better the performance. And just like an engine if everything is matched up… it runs like a bat out of hell…
So don’t knock the manufacture, knock the driver… because all the computer in the world will not help the “Leeroy Jenkins” out there.
But if you screw up bad enough you might become famous!
PS: I've seen very nice configuations run like shite, and a completely stock configuation run like, well, they should not run that good... Sometimes it just the luck of the draw.
Chronobodi
Distinguished
- Feb 19, 2009
- 498
- 0
- 18,780
who the hell cares? sure, the i5 may be better, but by how much? For the average user and gamer, the Phenom II x4 is almost overkill for that purpose.
Sure, the i5 and i7 can do video encoding and other CPU intensive task better, but in real-time we're only talking about like 5 minutes saved compared to the Phenom II x4, and most of us wouldn't notice the time difference anyway.
Sure, the i5 and i7 can do video encoding and other CPU intensive task better, but in real-time we're only talking about like 5 minutes saved compared to the Phenom II x4, and most of us wouldn't notice the time difference anyway.
FFXI_Abinadi
Distinguished
- Dec 15, 2009
- 2
- 0
- 18,510
Well, i guess we should all care... btw I own a PII x4 955 and do not like Intel and after this little bit of info I don't think Intel knows how to play fair:
If you cannot win fairly there is always the cheating method…
Here's something you probably don't know, but really should - especially if you're a programmer, and especially especially if you're using Intel's compiler. It's a fact that's not widely known, but Intel's compiler deliberately and knowingly cripples performance for non-Intel (AMD/VIA) processors.
Agner Fog details this particularly nasty examples of Intel's anticompetitive practices quite well. Intel's compiler can produce different versions of pieces of code, with each version being optimised for a specific processor and/or instruction set (SSE2, SSE3, etc.). The system detects which CPU it's running on and chooses the optimal code path accordingly; the CPU dispatcher, as it's called.
"However, the Intel CPU dispatcher does not only check which instruction set is supported by the CPU, it also checks the vendor ID string," Fog details, "If the vendor string says 'GenuineIntel' then it uses the optimal code path. If the CPU is not from Intel then, in most cases, it will run the slowest possible version of the code, even if the CPU is fully compatible with a better version."
It turns out that while this is known behaviour, few users of the Intel compiler actually seem to know about it. Intel does not advertise the compiler as being Intel-specific, so the company has no excuse for deliberately crippling performance on non-Intel machines.
"Many software developers think that the compiler is compatible with AMD processors, and in fact it is, but unbeknownst to the programmer it puts in a biased CPU dispatcher that chooses an inferior code path whenever it is running on a non-Intel processor," Fog writes, "If programmers knew this fact they would probably use another compiler. Who wants to sell a piece of software that doesn't work well on AMD processors?"
In fact, Fog points out that even benchmarking programs are affected by this, up to a point where benchmark results can differ greatly depending on how a processor identifies itself. Agner found out that by changing the CPUID of a VIA Nano processor to AuthenticAMD you could increase performance in PCMark 2005's memory subsystem test by 10% - changing it to GenuineIntel yields a 47.4% performance improvement!
In other words, this is a very serious problem. Luckily, though, it appears that the recent antitrust settlement between AMD and Intel will solve this problem for at least AMD users, as the agreement specifically states that Intel must fix its compiler, meaning they'll have to fix their CPU dispatcher.
The Federal Trade Commission is investigating Intel too, and it is also seeking a resolution of the compiler issue, but the FTC takes it all a step further than the Intel-AMD settlement. Since the latter only covers AMD, VIA could still be in trouble. Consequently, the FTC asks that Intel do a lot more than what's described in the AMD settlement:
Requiring that, with respect to those Intel customers that purchased from Intel a software compiler that had or has the design or effect of impairing the actual or apparent performance of microprocessors not manufactured by Intel ("Defective Compiler"), as described in the Complaint:
a. Intel provide them, at no additional charge, a substitute compiler that is not a Defective Compiler;
b. Intel compensate them for the cost of recompiling the software they had compiled on the Defective Compiler and of substituting, and distributing to their own customers, the recompiled software for software compiled on a Defective Compiler; and
c. Intel give public notice and warning, in a manner likely to be communicated to persons that have purchased software compiled on Defective Compilers purchased from Intel, of the possible need to replace that software.
Fog also offers up a number of workarounds, such as using GNU GCC, whose optimisations are similar to that of Intel's compiler, "but the Gnu function library (glibc) is inferior". You can also patch Intel's CPU dispatcher - Fog even provides a patch to do so in "Optimizing software in C++: An optimization guide for Windows, Linux and Mac platforms".
This is a particularly nasty kind of anticompetitive practice, as it really requires deep knowledge of matters in order to find it out. God knows how many benchmarks have been skewed in favour of Intel simply because people unknowingly used Intel's compiler in good faith. Intel's compiler is seen as the cream of the crop and delivers superior performance, but apparently only if you stick to GenuineIntel.
.......
So who is really fastest in a fair test?
If you cannot win fairly there is always the cheating method…
Here's something you probably don't know, but really should - especially if you're a programmer, and especially especially if you're using Intel's compiler. It's a fact that's not widely known, but Intel's compiler deliberately and knowingly cripples performance for non-Intel (AMD/VIA) processors.
Agner Fog details this particularly nasty examples of Intel's anticompetitive practices quite well. Intel's compiler can produce different versions of pieces of code, with each version being optimised for a specific processor and/or instruction set (SSE2, SSE3, etc.). The system detects which CPU it's running on and chooses the optimal code path accordingly; the CPU dispatcher, as it's called.
"However, the Intel CPU dispatcher does not only check which instruction set is supported by the CPU, it also checks the vendor ID string," Fog details, "If the vendor string says 'GenuineIntel' then it uses the optimal code path. If the CPU is not from Intel then, in most cases, it will run the slowest possible version of the code, even if the CPU is fully compatible with a better version."
It turns out that while this is known behaviour, few users of the Intel compiler actually seem to know about it. Intel does not advertise the compiler as being Intel-specific, so the company has no excuse for deliberately crippling performance on non-Intel machines.
"Many software developers think that the compiler is compatible with AMD processors, and in fact it is, but unbeknownst to the programmer it puts in a biased CPU dispatcher that chooses an inferior code path whenever it is running on a non-Intel processor," Fog writes, "If programmers knew this fact they would probably use another compiler. Who wants to sell a piece of software that doesn't work well on AMD processors?"
In fact, Fog points out that even benchmarking programs are affected by this, up to a point where benchmark results can differ greatly depending on how a processor identifies itself. Agner found out that by changing the CPUID of a VIA Nano processor to AuthenticAMD you could increase performance in PCMark 2005's memory subsystem test by 10% - changing it to GenuineIntel yields a 47.4% performance improvement!
In other words, this is a very serious problem. Luckily, though, it appears that the recent antitrust settlement between AMD and Intel will solve this problem for at least AMD users, as the agreement specifically states that Intel must fix its compiler, meaning they'll have to fix their CPU dispatcher.
The Federal Trade Commission is investigating Intel too, and it is also seeking a resolution of the compiler issue, but the FTC takes it all a step further than the Intel-AMD settlement. Since the latter only covers AMD, VIA could still be in trouble. Consequently, the FTC asks that Intel do a lot more than what's described in the AMD settlement:
Requiring that, with respect to those Intel customers that purchased from Intel a software compiler that had or has the design or effect of impairing the actual or apparent performance of microprocessors not manufactured by Intel ("Defective Compiler"), as described in the Complaint:
a. Intel provide them, at no additional charge, a substitute compiler that is not a Defective Compiler;
b. Intel compensate them for the cost of recompiling the software they had compiled on the Defective Compiler and of substituting, and distributing to their own customers, the recompiled software for software compiled on a Defective Compiler; and
c. Intel give public notice and warning, in a manner likely to be communicated to persons that have purchased software compiled on Defective Compilers purchased from Intel, of the possible need to replace that software.
Fog also offers up a number of workarounds, such as using GNU GCC, whose optimisations are similar to that of Intel's compiler, "but the Gnu function library (glibc) is inferior". You can also patch Intel's CPU dispatcher - Fog even provides a patch to do so in "Optimizing software in C++: An optimization guide for Windows, Linux and Mac platforms".
This is a particularly nasty kind of anticompetitive practice, as it really requires deep knowledge of matters in order to find it out. God knows how many benchmarks have been skewed in favour of Intel simply because people unknowingly used Intel's compiler in good faith. Intel's compiler is seen as the cream of the crop and delivers superior performance, but apparently only if you stick to GenuineIntel.
.......
So who is really fastest in a fair test?
jimmysmitty
Champion
- Oct 5, 2007
- 21,595
- 594
- 59,140
For a while now the stock clock has meant near nothing. AMD proved this with the Athlon 64 series. A CPU can have a clock advantage and still not beat the competiton.
In this case a 2.66GHz Core i7 can keep up with a 3.4GHz Phenom II.
BTW FFXI_Abinadi, the amount of programs that actually use the compiler are very little. Most use Microsofts for better Windows performance.
Cryslayer80
Distinguished
- Aug 28, 2009
- 433
- 0
- 18,810
Absolutezanity
Distinguished
- Sep 10, 2010
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
yes, in many cases the i5 will (however slightly and not noticable) out perform the x4 955, but i LOVE ati card and ati cards seem to run smoother (for me) with amd chipsets and therefor i will always run amd... there is no one answer, let everyone make up their own mind.
Mousemonkey
Titan
- Sep 3, 2006
- 59,462
- 17
- 92,965
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News RTX 5090 cable overheats to 150 degrees Celsius — Uneven current distribution likely the culprit- Started by Admin
- Replies: 71
-
-
News Trump administration declares 'most powerful' AI chips will be built in America
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 13
-
-
News Third Ryzen 7 9800X3D burnout case appears, kills the CPU, and damages the motherboard socket
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 9
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram