- Joined
- Nov 17, 2002
I am such a sleuth!
Watch that pic make the rounds on the internet now.
Watch that pic make the rounds on the internet now.
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
3 Core Phenom is real
- Thread starter juane414
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2004
- Location
- Auckland, New Zealand
Off topic, but dizzam that kitty is cute, beatbox I dont know which I prefer.. the angelfish or the cat.. hmmm...
As for tri-core's success being based on price/performace ratio, isnt that a bit of a nobrainer? If they arent going to sell it at a reasonable price between quad and dual, whats the point? (other than "extra core for physics or OS" or whatever)
I dont know which I prefer.. the angelfish or the cat.. hmmm...As for tri-core's success being based on price/performace ratio, isnt that a bit of a nobrainer? If they arent going to sell it at a reasonable price between quad and dual, whats the point? (other than "extra core for physics or OS" or whatever)
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2002
Off topic, but dizzam that kitty is cute, beatbox
Haha, thanks.
Then fish was a Bolivian Ram btw.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2005
- Location
- A Labyrinth
Let me guess, now the cat has a little Bolivian Ram in him too! j/k
CPU magazine reported that the Tri-Core is truly a quad fused off but details were not much more than the netzines. That mag or should I call it a rag is mostly Intel now. Anand can't post an article without an Intel comparison. On the bright side, AMD is able to bring this Trikes from otherwise lost CPUs because the hardware is connected in a way that it can be severed electronically. Remember the 4 independent multi's and vcore rails, these come in handy when needing to put one core down and not affect the other 3 that are perfect. Expect to see 65 and 90 watt Trikes as power measured on four cores. The can still run at 89 and 125TDP making them likely candidates for nice OCing.
Folding with one will have one advantage. Run SMP folding on 2 fast cores, run GPU folding with the third core.
CPU magazine reported that the Tri-Core is truly a quad fused off but details were not much more than the netzines. That mag or should I call it a rag is mostly Intel now. Anand can't post an article without an Intel comparison. On the bright side, AMD is able to bring this Trikes from otherwise lost CPUs because the hardware is connected in a way that it can be severed electronically. Remember the 4 independent multi's and vcore rails, these come in handy when needing to put one core down and not affect the other 3 that are perfect. Expect to see 65 and 90 watt Trikes as power measured on four cores. The can still run at 89 and 125TDP making them likely candidates for nice OCing.
Folding with one will have one advantage. Run SMP folding on 2 fast cores, run GPU folding with the third core.
Last edited:
QuietIce
Disabled
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Location
- Anywhere but there
Hmm, I wonder if one could double up using SETI on two and GPU Folding on one ...?
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2005
- Location
- A Labyrinth
Should be do-able. I know in the folding forums people have tried using both on a dual core with the GPU client slowing down the other client(s). This might allow the CPU client to get 98% of it's due while the GPU hammers on.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2003
march is a longgggggggggggg time awy
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2006
For the 35th time: I'll believe it when I see it on the shelf.
I've been saying that for almost a full year now and AMD hasn't come out with anything. And I came THIS close... (actually I didn't come close at all)... to staying with AMD.
I was going to get an X2 3800. Good thing I hadn't discovered this site back then. (Greenmaji coached me into selling all my old parts, which I didn't think I'd get much for, and buying the system I have today.)
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Location
- South Carolina
Actually AC, the carrier on the right looks like one of the old ceramic ones that the Tbird Athlons and Spitfire Durons used. Nice chop job, man
That's what I was thinking. AMD would have to be in serious financial trouble if they had to bring back the Thunderbird as a tri-core phenom
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2005
- Location
- A Labyrinth
As tempting as your rig is, I still don't see a reason to change. Call it standing on moral ground or just liking what AMD has to offer. Bragging rights are not a good reason for many of us to switch back.
We should see Quads in just a few weeks, the chips are getting boxed so it will happen. What happens to all these cute little benches is not looking good but if I can drop under $100 on one of these to upgrade some folding layers then cool.
- Joined
- May 26, 2004
- Location
- Japan, Tokyo, Ueno.
I read the article and I was aware that I linked a gpu bound res, see here LINK
So I decided to try the game and saw it for myself that even at 10X270 it didn't always maxed out my processor so I bumped it up to 12X266 (3200) and most of the time my cores were loaded about 80%. LINK
That's why I linked that Image because seems 1024X768 might even put more stress on the procs than running the bots and physics.
Actually it's even beyond my point, let's say you can run it at 160 FPS and only does 80 for me, I would still say so what, I can run it with a decent framerate so it's fine for me.
By the time quads will be a requirement to run games properly the E6XXX and
the E2XXX line will go down just alike so I do not expect those midrange procs to last significantly longer nor to justify the price.
I wish that would happen few heads should roll and someone would put AMD back in the ring.
For what I wrote about I wouldn't build rigs with other than E2XXX or some cheap X2s, both reach 3G and should last till cheap quads arrive, unless the rig is for work.
AlabamaCajun said:
I find reviews and benches useless without proper comparison the more the merrier so I can't see what's wrong with it, they are doing their job, and I find that line funny when I look at your avatar.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2005
- Location
- A Labyrinth
I see no problem making comparisons, but every thing has a mention of Intel in it. Sometimes we need to read just about the product with no mentions of other products. It's obvious that all things are Intel right now. I don't remember that from the big FX days.
- Joined
- May 26, 2004
- Location
- Japan, Tokyo, Ueno.
That would have been really unfair if those days they didn't to point out how inferior Intel was, but actually they did. I checked some of their articles you can see very nasty results.
FX60, EE965, PD805 was all compared to competitor's products even if the result was really bad for Intel.
If early Phenom articles mention that you can drop in a K10 into your current AM2 mobo and that the result is fast enough (even if it would loose to the Penryn) to stick with your rig, I find that okay.
Now if AMD comes out on top and they wouldn't compare it to Intel I bet you would blame them for not showing, just show those comparisons no matter how it turns out, that's the fair thing.
FX60, EE965, PD805 was all compared to competitor's products even if the result was really bad for Intel.
If early Phenom articles mention that you can drop in a K10 into your current AM2 mobo and that the result is fast enough (even if it would loose to the Penryn) to stick with your rig, I find that okay.
Now if AMD comes out on top and they wouldn't compare it to Intel I bet you would blame them for not showing, just show those comparisons no matter how it turns out, that's the fair thing.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2002
- Joined
- May 26, 2004
- Location
- Japan, Tokyo, Ueno.
AC, just imagine how much hate mail they would receive for not showing the glory of either company when they are on top, but better to drop the subject seems you have something against them.
Splat yes we know that, what would be more interesting to know whether they have just 3 core designs ready by now and well when do they expect better yields with "native" triples, what we might only know after we see them.
Splat yes we know that, what would be more interesting to know whether they have just 3 core designs ready by now and well when do they expect better yields with "native" triples, what we might only know after we see them.
QuietIce
Disabled
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Location
- Anywhere but there
I doubt they'll ever have a "native" triple (short of a GPU/Physics core?) - just the quads that won't pass a certain bin test. For example, a quad with a 2.6/2.6/2.6/2.0 GHz test might be worth more in the 3x2.6 GHz bin than the 4x2.0 GHz bin ...
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2002
i'd doubt "native" tricores are being developed. I thought I remembered seeing a die shot showing "native" tricores a while ago, but I was searching around for a while and couldn't find it again. I personally see the tricore as being marketed as being three-cores-for-the-price-of-2, and eventually when quads are being sold in $500 Dell's, the tricore will be similar to the Single core processorright now...almost extinct.
there's always the chance that the Tricore finds it's niche and takes off, then they might find it more economical to have native tricores, but I don't see that happening.
there's always the chance that the Tricore finds it's niche and takes off, then they might find it more economical to have native tricores, but I don't see that happening.
- Joined
- May 26, 2004
- Location
- Japan, Tokyo, Ueno.
That image was a mockup, as Ed wrote whether native or not gets interesting if it takes off or Dell says okay guys we need a million of it next quarter.
The pricing is really going to get interesting Dual Celeys for go for sub 50 next year and AMD still has single and dual cores on roadmap till 09. If they price war continues and I see no reason why wouldn't it happen with quads as well that pushes the whole low end.
200$ quad, 100$ tri, sub 100 dual ?
The pricing is really going to get interesting Dual Celeys for go for sub 50 next year and AMD still has single and dual cores on roadmap till 09. If they price war continues and I see no reason why wouldn't it happen with quads as well that pushes the whole low end.
200$ quad, 100$ tri, sub 100 dual ?
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2005
- Location
- A Labyrinth
I doubt we will see loose trike chips. They will more than likely end up in the hands of mass merchandisers (Dell, HP, Apple, etc). I would not mind having one to diddle with for a while but I'll be looking into the quads trying to decide what I need, Phenom, Opti etc.
etc). I would not mind having one to diddle with for a while but I'll be looking into the quads trying to decide what I need, Phenom, Opti etc.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2003
So I decided to try the game and saw it for myself that even at 10X270 it didn't always maxed out my processor so I bumped it up to 12X266 (3200) and most of the time my cores were loaded about 80%. LINK
That's why I linked that Image because seems 1024X768 might even put more stress on the procs than running the bots and physics.
The first link in this reply wasn't part of what you originally linked to me when i first replied in this thread based on clock for clock scaling while in a GPU bound scenario . Also running the game at a lower res is simply taking the stress off the GPU and allowing the CPU to run more openly which is why it's loading more. If you benched at a low res while including Physics/Bots, then while in a battle, it will load to the same degrees as the flyby depending on the intensity of the battles. Yes the flyby is stressing the processor heavily however what it's showing for results does not merit the absence of physics/bots since in the realworld, there will always be physics/bots or players if you are playing mutli.
All Anandtech was simply doing was showing a basic comparison. Just the same as anyone that runs a 3dmark test. If you want to see a more realistic benchmark then goto PcPerspective.com. At least they show you the Min/Avg/Max frame rates which they do "ingame" tests, not flybys. Unfortunately they don't have any cpu comparisons for UT3....
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=464
You can also goto HardOCP for the same type of testing. This is a bit more real world orientated than how Anandtech conducts their tests. At least you can see that at the highest grafic settings in the demo which is Medium along with the fastest current processor at 1600x1200 8xAF, you'll get a min of 50fps or around that in Heatray. It's a large difference compared to the numbers that Anandtech was showing which are based off of AVG framerates only. Mainly proves that when the final game comes out, it will be much more demanding.
Depending on personal preference, this is debatable. I personally do not like my games to dip anywhere below 50fps. I fully agree that the difference from 80 and 160 is negligible for AVG framerates however the real determining factor is the personal preference of how far you mind the framerates to dip. Anandtech simply does not display this difference unlike PcPerspective and HardOCP which if I am really interested in performance then I will goto either of those sites. I will also ask people in forums.
Also keep in mind that this demo is not really testing the full capabilities of the full game. You just aren't going to know for a fact what performance you will get until it is released.
You are using UT3 as your main example for dual vs quad in PC gaming which is bad mainly for the fact that not all games are the same. Like I mentioned in my other posts, there are games out now that do show a clear difference in playability when comparing duals to quads like Supreme Commander and World in Conflict. The larger the map with the more units will just bog any dual to shreds. It's silly to just recommend a dual core only because your gaming preference isn't derived around such games out now that don't fully utilize quads. Not everyone likes FPS gaming.
If you read the developers comment on UT3 it says...
http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/236/Tim-Sweeney-Talks-UT3-Tech
"Unreal Engine 3 is a transitional multithreaded architecture. It runs two heavyweight threads, and a pool of helper threads."
Not all games work in this same fashion thus proving that a dual vs quad in UT3 may be negligible but, not in others.
