Six AMD D/C's now at or below Intel price/performance curve

[turpit]

Everything clear from the table. Bandwidth and software performance perfectly make sense.
However, I'd let out those STUPID, 100% synthetic, PRO-Intel values that give intel CPUs (even old P4s) lead of 200-300% over K8s.Sandra2007 gives a performance rating of ~4000 for a 3GHz P4 and only 2800 for my 3000+, not to mention the likes of PC/3D mark. That's just shameful.

Absolutely. I would very much like to see the tech sites stop using the synthetic bench marks altogether. I would much rather see them use pure app benchmarks, even if they have to use obsure programs to do this.

 

[clue69less]

Everything clear from the table. Bandwidth and software performance perfectly make sense.
However, I'd let out those STUPID, 100% synthetic, PRO-Intel values that give intel CPUs (even old P4s) lead of 200-300% over K8s.Sandra2007 gives a performance rating of ~4000 for a 3GHz P4 and only 2800 for my 3000+, not to mention the likes of PC/3D mark. That's just shameful.

Absolutely. I would very much like to see the tech sites stop using the synthetic bench marks altogether. I would much rather see them use pure app benchmarks, even if they have to use obsure programs to do this.

As long as the benchmarks are well-defined, readily available and quantitative, it doesn't matter so much to me. Synthetics have their place in the mix.

 

[m25]

Everything clear from the table. Bandwidth and software performance perfectly make sense.
However, I'd let out those STUPID, 100% synthetic, PRO-Intel values that give intel CPUs (even old P4s) lead of 200-300% over K8s.Sandra2007 gives a performance rating of ~4000 for a 3GHz P4 and only 2800 for my 3000+, not to mention the likes of PC/3D mark. That's just shameful.

Absolutely. I would very much like to see the tech sites stop using the synthetic bench marks altogether. I would much rather see them use pure app benchmarks, even if they have to use obsure programs to do this.

As long as the benchmarks are well-defined, readily available and quantitative, it doesn't matter so much to me. Synthetics have their place in the mix.

Doesen't it smell you of BS when a cpu beats a contemporary one with a 100-200% edge?! Doesen't smell of BS when a 3G P4 gets a 4000 rating while a 3000+ only takes 2800. I work everyday with both of them and can say that they're just head to head.
C'mon, are we STUPID not to see that it's just a hard coded line of programming to determine that, not analyzing, it's just something like

3.0P4 -> 3987;
A643000+ -> 2875;
etc.

 

[clue69less]

C'mon, are we STUPID not to see that it's just a hard coded line of programming to determine that, not analyzing, it's just something like

3.0P4 -> 3987;
A643000+ -> 2875;
etc.

You think 3DM06 assigns results solely based on the CPU identity?

 

[1Tanker]

Everything clear from the table. Bandwidth and software performance perfectly make sense.
However, I'd let out those STUPID, 100% synthetic, PRO-Intel values that give intel CPUs (even old P4s) lead of 200-300% over K8s.Sandra2007 gives a performance rating of ~4000 for a 3GHz P4 and only 2800 for my 3000+, not to mention the likes of PC/3D mark. That's just shameful.

Absolutely. I would very much like to see the tech sites stop using the synthetic bench marks altogether. I would much rather see them use pure app benchmarks, even if they have to use obsure programs to do this.

As long as the benchmarks are well-defined, readily available and quantitative, it doesn't matter so much to me. Synthetics have their place in the mix.

Doesen't it smell you of BS when a cpu beats a contemporary one with a 100-200% edge?! Doesen't smell of BS when a 3G P4 gets a 4000 rating while a 3000+ only takes 2800. I work everyday with both of them and can say that they're just head to head.
C'mon, are we STUPID not to see that it's just a hard coded line of programming to determine that, not analyzing, it's just something like

3.0P4 -> 3987;
A643000+ -> 2875;
etc.Look at the PR rating in SANDRA. They base that on a comparison against a Pentium 100. :?

 

[Flopmouth_Fish]

I'm just going to sit back and laugh as MMM hopelessly tries to defend AMD against the Conroe. K8 kicked Prescott ass for three years, but now Intel has come back with a better product. If I were to buy a CPU now, I'd get a Conroe because it's faster than K8. When I bought my A64 in April, K8 was faster than Prescott. Some people kiss the ass of their favorite company; others get the most for their money.

 

[DavidC1]

Doesen't it smell you of BS when a cpu beats a contemporary one with a 100-200% edge?! Doesen't smell of BS when a 3G P4 gets a 4000 rating while a 3000+ only takes 2800. I work everyday with both of them and can say that they're just head to head.
C'mon, are we STUPID not to see that it's just a hard coded line of programming to determine that, not analyzing, it's just something like

No, do you think the same way if there was two systems that are otherwise identical except one used dual channel memory and other used single channel memory and showed 80% advantage in memory bandwidth?? Do you call that bullshit and conclude dual channel only gives 5% bandwidth increase over single channel?? No, because we are looking at one factor.

by m25

Everything clear from the table. Bandwidth and software performance perfectly make sense.
However, I'd let out those STUPID, 100% synthetic, PRO-Intel values that give intel CPUs (even old P4s) lead of 200-300% over K8s.Sandra2007 gives a performance rating of ~4000 for a 3GHz P4 and only 2800 for my 3000+, not to mention the likes of PC/3D mark. That's just shameful

Err, early benchmark showed some synthetics showing clear advantage of A64 over Core 2 Duo(like memory bandwidth benchmark etc), and people outrightly dismissed C2D because of that. However, it showed in actual benchmarks C2D kicks the crap out of A64 and more.

Actually, the reason Pentium 4's got such advantage in some benchmarks over A64(like SSE2) and doesn't in real world apps is because synthetics measure only one component.

Say a particular real world program ONLY consisted of SSE2, memory dependency, and legacy x87 FPU code.

Say it consisted of:
30% SSE2
50% memory
20% x87 FPU

Say A64's are:
2x FPU performance
1.8x memory performance
0.5x SSE2 performance

Of course in synthetic apps its gonna show P4 killing A64 in SSE2 and A64 killing P4 in memory/FPU performance.

The particular app would show 45% advantage in performance for A64 over Pentium 4.

If another benchmark was:
60% SSE2
15% memory
25% FPU

Pentium 4 would be 11% faster than A64 in this case due to lots of SSE2.

Of course this is vastly simplified comparison, but you see, if you are able to gather ALL synthetic performance and the code in the program, you should be able to predict real world performance.