Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: New SMP build

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    126

    Default

    Gigabyte GA-M61P-S3 (rather low-end, AM2-only socket) with a Phenom 9600 BE (started with an Athlon 64 X2 4000+ EE). I wasn't looking for the Black Edition specifically; I asked for a 9600, got a 9600 BE for the same price.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,679

    Default

    Do you use latest BETA bios with setup defaults loaded? Be sure not to use automatic performace enhance in MIT menu (use standard not turbo).

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    126

    Default

    Yeah, latest BIOS. I wrote Gigabyte on May 9th, still no answer.

    Anyway, here's a better setup to compare my CPU to: http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...18-16404-13644
    2 x Intel Xeon CPU E5410 @ 2.32GHz (Total Cores: 8). Write cacheing enabled (whatever that means, but sure helps with the pbzip2 bench). It's also close to what the OP intended to buy.

    I get similar results in the FLAC and gzip benchmarks (12.7s for me vs. 12.3s and 60s vs. 64s), while his OpenSSL results are still disappointing (240 for him with 8 cores vs. 162 for me with 4 cores). His pbzip2 results are much better than what I've seen with other Intel benchmarks so far though: 32s with 8 cores vs. 73s for me. That's a huge increase in performance compared to the same setup but without "Write cacheing": 74s. http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...25-20598-18993

    Overall it feels like his system is much better configured than other Intel systems on PTS. For one thing, FLAC should be substantially faster than LAME and Ogg Vorbis, which is the case with his system, but not with the others. I wonder what makes the difference?
    Last edited by apaige; 05-19-2008 at 10:18 AM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    370

    Default

    #17 apaige:
    "Sigh, I'm tired of comparing apples to oranges. I'd like to see a Phenom 9750 against a Q6600 (at stock speed, which is 2.4GHz for both) and/or a Phenom 9850 against a Q9300 (both 2.5GHz)."

    Q9300 is not to be compared, since it neither matches the price, and it is a very nerfed intel - Q9450 is 12mb cache, and costs around the same as 9850.

    #19:
    well.. it is in fact QUITE simple to overclock the intels, ALL i did was set fsb to 400, and i instantly get 2.66 -> 3.2ghz. The stock cooler can keep it within safety limits, as it requires not to raise voltage. also, a standard P35 motherboard can do this easily.

    #23:
    hmm.. those pbzip2 results are very low.. i just redid mine with pts 0.7:
    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...93-23982-30604
    and with 0.5:
    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...636-9602-14335

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redeeman View Post
    Q9300 is not to be compared, since it neither matches the price, and it is a very nerfed intel - Q9450 is 12mb cache, and costs around the same as 9850.
    Erm, excuse me, but the lowest prices I could find in France are 315 euros for the C2Q Q9450 and 179 euros for the Phenom 9850, while I could find the Q6600 at 141 euros and the Q9300 at 208 euros… Also, stock frequencies aren't even the same (2.667GHz and 2.5GHz respectively). I don't know where you got your prices from, but the Q9450 is a lot more expensive than all of the aforementioned processors from both Intel and AMD.

    As for the C2Q Q9300 being a "nerfed" processor (I assume that means crippled?), although I can't compare myself, hardware review sites have found its performance to be on par (sometimes slightly better) with the similarly clocked Q6700. Again, compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

    Edit: Release prices are $266 for both the 95W Q6600 and the Q9300, $316 for the Q9450 and $235 for the Phenom 9850 BE.
    Last edited by apaige; 05-19-2008 at 12:33 PM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Well here is a Phenom 9850 universe test. Keep in mind that this particular 9850 is running on a AM2 board which does not support HT3. Unfortunately I won't be able to post the results for the same processor in a Asus M3N -HT Deluxe board (780a chipset) until it's finished doing some fluid dynamics analysis (eta to finish, next Saturday.)

    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...16-17291-32168

    Here is a Q6600 running at stock speed as well. With the exception of the mplayer compile (which the bug has been reported but is not fixed yet) It should give you some idea at what your looking at.

    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...266-14772-8279
    Last edited by deanjo; 05-19-2008 at 01:40 PM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,175

    Default

    I'd like to see Phenom 9950 (2,66 GHz with higher FSB than other Phenoms, coming very soon) vs. Q6700 (2,66 GHz) reviews.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by d2kx View Post
    I'd like to see Phenom 9950 (2,66 GHz with higher FSB than other Phenoms, coming very soon) vs. Q6700 (2,66 GHz) reviews.
    Should be easily simulated by overclocking the 9850BE to 2.6Ghz. The HT link speed are identical on the 9850 and 9950. Just setting the multiplier to 13 instead of 12.5 would give the results you are looking for.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Well here is a Phenom 9850 universe test. Keep in mind that this particular 9850 is running on a AM2 board which does not support HT3.
    Same here (AM2 socket, MCP61/nForce 430 chipset).


    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Here is a Q6600 running at stock speed as well. With the exception of the mplayer compile (which the bug has been reported but is not fixed yet) It should give you some idea at what your looking at.
    Sounds about right, although compilation times can't really be compared, since the Phenom benchmarks use GCC 4.3.1 and the Q6600 benchmarks use GCC 4.1.2. One thing about the Phenom pbzip2 results though: my 9600 scores 72s vs. 86s for the 9850. I guess there are indeed a lot of factors that come into play with that app. GCC 4.3.x should improve performance on the Q6600 as well.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Should be easily simulated by overclocking the 9850BE to 2.6Ghz. The HT link speed are identical on the 9850 and 9950. Just setting the multiplier to 13 instead of 12.5 would give the results you are looking for.
    2.66 GHz. And the FSB is 266, instead of 200.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •