Phenom users 2.....

[homerdog]

However, that is an advantage of having the MC on the motherboard, you can use the same processor with different memory types.

True, but I'd say (and I think you would agree) that the advantages of an IMC far outweigh the disadvantages.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

True, but I'd say (and I think you would agree) that the advantages of an IMC far outweigh the disadvantages.

On the server side, perhaps. But on the desktop side I do not see advantages. FSB is not saturated. Intel is able to provide much faster processors that don't have IMCs.

 

[quantumsheep]

On the server side, perhaps. But on the desktop side I do not see advantages. FSB is not saturated. Intel is able to provide much faster processors that don't have IMCs.

Although with Nehalem Intel is introducing an IMC and i'd love to see the server performance of a Nehalem. If the fact about the IMC really helping with some of those apps i reckon it'll destroy anything AMD can offer in absolutly any situation, whilst offering lower power consumption.

 

[homerdog]

On the server side, perhaps. But on the desktop side I do not see advantages. FSB is not saturated. Intel is able to provide much faster processors that don't have IMCs.

From what I gather having an IMC reduces the need for a large cache. Less cache means more room for core logic, assuming that the IMC requires fewer transistors than Penryn's massive L2.

 

[keithlm]

Although with Nehalem Intel is introducing an IMC and i'd love to see the server performance of a Nehalem. If the fact about the IMC really helping with some of those apps i reckon it'll destroy anything AMD can offer in absolutly any situation, whilst offering lower power consumption.

Please expound on your logic. I can't follow you.

If Intel moves to an IMC architecture they are in the same boat as AMD when it comes to "those apps" and benchmarks. Unless they can magically make their chip and IMC work better than AMD's then things will be about equal. So... your statement doesn't make any sense.

Unless you were thinking of something that you didn't type?

Perhaps you meant they will be released on 45nm? But then AMD is also supposed to be on 45nm at about the same time. So... there would be no way of knowing any true facts yet as it pertains to size of die. (And with both companies... I'll have to say I'll believe them when I see them.)

 

[yomamafor1]

Please expound on your logic. I can't follow you.

If Intel moves to an IMC architecture they are in the same boat as AMD when it comes to "those apps" and benchmarks. Unless they can magically make their chip and IMC work better than AMD's then things will be about equal. So... your statement doesn't make any sense.

Unless you were thinking of something that you didn't type?

Perhaps you meant they will be released on 45nm? But then AMD is also supposed to be on 45nm at about the same time. So... there would be no way of knowing any true facts yet as it pertains to size of die. (And with both companies... I'll have to say I'll believe them when I see them.)

What he means is, Intel has the CPU uarch advantage, while AMD has the interconnect advantage. If Intel can debut a strong core logic with a strong interconnect, it can annihilate AMD's offering across the board.

That Core uarch has a name: Nehalem. Not only Intel has a faster / wider interconnect (CSI) than AMD's HT, Intel's core engine is vastly superior than AMD's at the moment.

So you see AMD currently can outperform Intel in benchmarks and programs that utilize massive memory bandwidth, as well as FP. However, with the introduction of Nehalem, it will all change.

This is why AMD need to be careful with its next uarch, Bulldozer. With Intel having the advantage not only in process node, it also has the advantage of performance on all front. With current AMD's execution, it'll only be a matter of time before AMD is forced out of x86's market.

 

[drysocks]

I'm still stuck on smoothness. What does that mean?

 

[jbj190]

Er, the quality of the IHS at 2000grit?

 

[Major_Spittle]

The question is not the speed of work it does, but the SMOOTHNESS it can multi-task, because in a multi-tasking environment, there should be a benefit of having a Cache shared by all processor than separate Cache with intel...
Just like the Pentium D 8xx & 9xx having separate cache while the Athlon X2 are shared cache...

If your QuadCore computer is not running "smooth" it is most likely due to your Hard Drives and a number of other things, but the Cache systems on the processors are not one of them. It would take me too long to explain why so I am going to let you actually research that using the google function on your computer. Perhaps someone with a Phenom processor like Turpit will be willing explain to you how a computer works in depth. Here is my simplest explaination I can give you before I am banned for providing knowledge on this forum.

Question: "because in a multi-tasking environment, there should be a benefit of having a Cache shared by all processor than separate Cache with intel"

Answer: Yes there is, it is called speed (processing power). It makes the processor faster, but is only one factor.
If your CPU is slow and can't process all the threads thrown at it, then Yes your computer won't run smooth because your processor is too slow to process the data quickly.

ps, your question does come off like that of an AMD fanboy that knows nothing about computers but would like a self affirmation in his belief that Processor A is somehow superior to Processor B. Is that you Baron_Matrix?

 

[keithlm]

Intel's core engine is vastly superior than AMD's at the moment.

There could be problems with your presumption.

If Intel's uarch advantage mainly comes from their current reliance on using large caches... then there could be future problems with Nehalem. If the uarch advantage exists regardless of cache... then your hypothesis is probably correct.

We would need to actually see some type of benchmarks that somehow bypass, disable, or make the cache not a viable player in order to be able to test this theory.

Otherwise it is all conjecture.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Let's take a PIII 450 and modify it with L3 cache and an on-die MC. Will that make it smooth? No.

The processor is slow.

I don't believe AMD currently is any smoother than Intel because of shared L3, HT, or IMC.

Intel's products are faster. Use can use all the racecar analogies you want, but in the PC world a faster processor is going to be smoother virtually all the time.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

There could be problems with your presumption.

If Intel's uarch advantage mainly comes from their current reliance on using large caches... then there could be future problems with Nehalem. If the uarch advantage exists regardless of cache... then your hypothesis is probably correct.

We would need to actually see some type of benchmarks that somehow bypass, disable, or make the cache not a viable player in order to be able to test this theory.

Otherwise it is all conjecture.

If the simple answer is "add more cache", then why the hell hasn't AMD done that?

 

[yomamafor1]

There could be problems with your presumption.

No.

If Intel's uarch advantage mainly comes from their current reliance on using large caches... then there could be future problems with Nehalem. If the uarch advantage exists regardless of cache... then your hypothesis is probably correct.

This is the problem with your presumption. Intel's Core uarch's main advantage does not come from large caches, but rather from 4-issue core, multiple Int and FP SSE units, as well as superior OoO capability. Large cache is just part of the FSB architecture, like I mentioned above, not part of the Core uarch. If Intel release a Core 2 version with an IMC, there is no doubt it will outperform any AMD's offering (with the possible exception of FP). Core 2 can already outperform AMD's Barcelona in both Spec_fp and Spec_int.

We would need to actually see some type of benchmarks that somehow bypass, disable, or make the cache not a viable player in order to be able to test this theory.

Otherwise it is all conjecture.

The truth is, you can never compare architecture to architecture, especially with Intel and AMD. They utilize different interconnect architecture (FSB vs. HTT), thus making direct comparison between them pointless.

 

[TSIMonster]

I enjoy our Phenom. We use my phenom rig at work for heavy multi-tasking and video rendering/editing and it just flies. I do not have a Q6600 to compare to though. I went with Phenom for this build because we NEEDED a quad-core and the Phenom/ASUS 690G solution was the best bang for buck for us.

Hope this helps. Our 9500 scored 4000 marks in 3DMark06 with 2GB of DDR2 800 and an 8800GTS 320 with a slight overclock to 2.4Ghz.

 

[xrodney]

If you're concerned about smoothness, you'll need a SSD in RAID 0 and 8GB DDR3

Well SSD is no match for SATA/SAS raids, yes it have lover acces time and power requirements, but thats all, it cant achive same data transfer speeds and SSD is more likely to broke sooner and cost 10 times more.

About DDR3 over DDR2, it dont bring enough if any performance increase to justify huge price increase.

 

[homerdog]

Well SSD is no match for SATA/SAS raids, yes it have lover acces time and power requirements, but thats all, it cant achive same data transfer speeds and SSD is more likely to broke sooner and cost 10 times more.

In terms of smoothness access time is more important than maximum transfer speed.

 

[techguy911]

Might be cheaper where you are but a q6600 and a phenom are 3 bucks diff so i would rather get the q6600 for performance in games.

Amd toots that the phenom is much cheaper yet here in canada they are very close to q6600.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Might be cheaper where you are but a q6600 and a phenom are 3 bucks diff so i would rather get the q6600 for performance in games.

Amd toots that the phenom is much cheaper yet here in canada they are very close to q6600.

The difference in price/performance is HUGE on those procs. Intel has an enermous advantage at the pricing you describe. No brainer!

 

[xrodney]

You could compare the release date but why would you buy a newer board if a older one will wupport the chips you want? Any Asus P35 mobo will more and likely support any of the Yorkies/Penryns. To get FULL(and I mean HT3, the power saving options and faster memory support) form an AMD chip you need a newer AM2+ board with either the 770 or 790 chipset. To compare mobos its all about the CPU.

Basically if you can get a P35 mobo for $80 bucks that is made to support the 45nm chips then thats the one you compare to the cheapest AMD Phenom supporting mobo. But don't forget that most of the extra cost comes from the extra features such as CF/SLI, 6-8 SATA ports, WiFi, Firewire, external SATA and so on. You also have to remember that now AMD makes their own chipsets so the prices for their boards are going to seem similar to someone who is building a new rig as compared to someone building a new Intel rig.

I made a wishlist for a new Phenom rig on newegg.com and the total cost with a nice 790FX mobo came to $1600. A intel rig with a Q6600 came to $1500. Only difference if the Intel rig came with a case and the Phenom rig did not. Now with a older AM2 mobo and DDR1 it is cheaper but if you build a new rig all together it ends up the same as a new Intel rig with equal or better CPU.

But the important part is the fact that the smoothness with either one should provide the same. Only lag will be dependant on your HD. Like if you only have one Raptor it might not load as fast as 2 Seagate SATA2 in a RAID0 since the interface speed is doubled in a RAID0 where as one SATA drive only has the base speed. In real terms you wont be able to see a difference between the Phenom and the C2Q when it comes to multitasking. Maybe you will see the difference when OC'ing them as the C2Q series has a higher headroom but not at stock speeds.

Edit: Forgot to add that the MC being on the chipset doesn't add to cost it just makes a difference in memory bandwidth.

I will not aggre with you. For me most important in my copmputer is mainboard (P35 is nice chipset, but it have some limitations - for example not enough PCI-e lines to match my requirements)

Intel vs AMD mobos price it all depend what you need (AMD board i like cost around 200$ but intel counterpart 300$)

 

[MU_Engineer]

I have posted my exprerience in using Q6600 and ask a comparison of Phenom in MULTI-TASKING SMOOTHNESS yesterday..

the link:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/247803-28-phenom-users

And still people are bashing AMD...I am a Fan of either, I've used both AMD & Intel before..I don't care if Phenom is 15% slower than Q6600, cause they are cheaper also...

The question is not the speed of work it does, but the SMOOTHNESS it can multi-task, because in a multi-tasking environment, there should be a benefit of having a Cache shared by all processor than separate Cache with intel...
Just like the Pentium D 8xx & 9xx having separate cache while the Athlon X2 are shared cache...

The biggest determinants on "smoothness" in my experience are:

1. The ability of the OS to allocate CPU time. This is BY FAR AND WAY the biggest factor affecting smoothness as I have had single-core CPUs on OSes that handle multiple threads very smoothly and have run four-core machines on OSes that did not. Windows 2000 and XP are not so hot at allocating CPU time: some thread that hogs the CPU keeps hogging it until it voluntarily gives control up (e.g. finishes) or you kill the process. The *nixes and to a lesser extent Windows Vista distribute CPU time more smoothly and do not let a threads that take a bunch of CPU time bog down the system as much.

2. Number of cores. Having more cores than intensive threads covers up for an OS that cannot ration CPU cycles efficiently and also makes scheduling processes faster as the OS isn't fighting its own threads for CPU time (again, how well an OS does this depends on how well it respects process priority and distributes CPU time.)

3. Hard drive throughput. Keeping a system smooth requires that the OS and CPU be fed data quickly. Simultaneous access of a hard drive in excess of its ability kills performance something fierce.

4. Amount of memory. Swapping kills performance.

5. Other OS tweaks like I/O scheduling and such. These can help to prioritize access to other system resources other than just the CPU, which can be important if the system is heavily loaded.

I haven't noticed much if any of a difference in smoothness when using different processors of the same general type (such as dual-core, single-core, dual-CPU dual-core, etc.) on the same hardware and OS. I see a difference in speed and perhaps noise and heat, but that's about it.

 

[TSIMonster]

Might be cheaper where you are but a q6600 and a phenom are 3 bucks diff so i would rather get the q6600 for performance in games.

Amd toots that the phenom is much cheaper yet here in canada they are very close to q6600.

Q6600 is $275.... We got Phenom from newegg for $170 in a combo

 

[Guest]

I have a Phenom II 920 2.8GHz quad core. I think it's pretty amazing. I have 4GB of ddr2 1066 on an MSI K9A2 Platinum Motherboard, and Im not running raid anything. I still have yet to load the processor 100%, but i am impressed with it's performance. I am able to convert video, (AVI to DVD on ConvertXtoDVD) Play Crysis, surf the net, Download torrents, and listen to music all at the same time with no hiccups. I get a slight delay, about 3 seconds when ALT+TABbing back into crysis from the internet, or from windows back to crysis, But other than that, switching applications while burning, downloading or gaming, has been a breeze. My temperatures are always good with the stock cooler that came with the processor. It's not an i7 But it does what i need it to do.

 

[caamsa]

Wow things must be really slow around here............people posting in month old threads.

 

[someguy7]

One year + a month

 

[caamsa]

One year + a month

LOL you are right.......that is what happens to you when you get old.........