User Control Panel
Search iVirtua
Advanced/Tag Search...
Search Users...
What is iVirtua Exclusive Community?
  • An exclusive gaming industry community targeted to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses and Students in the sectors and industries of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely related with it's Business and Industry.
  • A Rich content driven service including articles, contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads, and debate.
  • We strive to cater for cultural influencers, technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
  • A medium to share your or contribute your ideas, experiences, questions and point of view or network with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
Guest's Communication
Live Chat
Teamspeak (VOIP) Audio Conference
Private Messages
Check your Private Messages
Themes
Choose an iVirtua Community theme to reflect your interests...
Business Theme
India/Arabic Theme

Gaming Theme
iVirtua Recommends
Fly Emirates Advertising
AMD Phenom 9900 Overclocked
Digg This Digg Topic Tag it on del.icio.us Tag topic on On del.icio.us Technorati Search Technorati Search Post to Slashdot Post to Slashdot
You are currently in Hardware, Internet, Networking, Comms and Security
Post new topic Reply to topic
Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:48 pm Reply and quote this post
WE'VE SEEN a bit of Phenom's performance in the first partthis past Friday - how about pushing it a bit further?
This round, I tuned the Phenom 9900 - unlocked CPU, keep in mind - test setupas far as possible within an extra day for fully stable operations under bothWindows XP 32-bit and Vista 64-bit, and ran it against a fully tuned IntelQX9770 setup in an "AMD Best vs Intel Best" approach.
One may say that it's not fair since Intel's CPU is more expensive, however,on the other hand, the AMD one can't be bought at all for some time to come.
Both AMD and Intel configurations used dual Asus EAH3870 TOP cards in bothdefault and Crossfire modes, and identical Windows and Catalyst driver versions- so, as much of an apples-to-apples comparison as possible.
Besides the usual 32-bit benchmarks, the 64-bit run added CineBench10 andPovRay 3.7.
The Limits
This is where the Intel and AMD configurations differ in 32-bit and 64-bitmodes: Intel could do 4.27 GHz (multiplier 10, FSB1708) in both modes, but thevoltage needed for the 64-bit mode was 1.425 volts vs 1.40 volts for the 32-bitmode, if all tests were to complete.
When using Asetek Vapochill freeze cooling, the limits are 4.6 GHz FSB1840 at1.45 volts Vcpu in 32 bit mode, and 4.5 GHz FSB1800 at 1.4625 volt Vcpu in64-bit mode. However, this test run only uses the results obtainable on theusual high-end air or water cooling.
In the AMD case, the absolute limit on my setup with similar air or watercooling was 2.88 GHz (14 x FSB206) at 1.325 volts CPU in 32-bit mode, and 2.80GHz (14 x FSB200) at 1.337 volts CPU in 64-bit mode for a complete test run.Even then, though, the PCMark Vantage 64-bit run couldn't be completed.
The push to 1.35 and 1.363 volts didn't give any improvement except moreheat, so there was obviously no point trying harder.
I didn't really bother to push the memory too much here beyond reasonablelatency tuning, as CPU speed is the obvious focus of the story - Phenom has noproblems with memory performance, as in Sandra cases it still has a slight 10% -20% advantage in synthetic memory subsystem speed runs over the Intel offerings.
However, even after accounting for its L3 cache exclusivity, Phenom still hasonly one-third cacheable data size compared to the dual-die Yorkfield and thatseemingly more than neutralises its on-die memory controller advantage.
The results
The benchmark results - here they are:
3DMark06 default - Phenom 2880 Crossfire

3DMark06 default - Intel 4270 Crossfire

Povray 3.7 - Phenom 2800

CineBench - Phenom 2800 Crossfire

... and the other results (memory, CPU, Everest) in the table summary

As you can see, the differences are even greater when taking the overclockingheadroom into account. It is also very interesting to note the Crossfirescaling: on 2.88 GHz AMD, the total score goes up from 11096 to 15026, while onthe 4.27 GHz Intel, the Crossfire jump is from 13516 to 21496... so, it scalesbetter even percentage-wise on the X38 compared to AMD's latest and greatest790FX chipset?
The memory runs still stand out in AMD's favour, but obviously not for long -in just over two quarters, Bloomfield flavour of Nehalem will close that gap,too.
The Hope
Yeah, hope that this lopsided situation has a chance of balancing out by AMDradically improving either the speed yields of its K10, and/or improving thecore IPC by the time the 45 nm shrink is ready.
A combination of slightly lower clock-for-clock performance, and a thirdlower maximum clock headroom under similar conditions, gives us a very unevenmatch, where for every 1x of feather-weight Phenom performance, Intel'ssuperheavy-weight Yorkfield provides in excess of 1.7x using the currentbest-vs-best press sample comparisons.
Basically, they either sell the Phenom 9900 for not more than US$ 300 a piecewhen it comes out in March or April hopefully, or wave a 'magic wand' to somehowget 3.2 GHz or so speed within the 65 nm process and power envelope if keepingthe current microarchitecture intact.
Only at that speed will, in my mind right now, Phenom become somewhatcompetitive at the high end - and even that only in the US$ 500 - 700 per CPUprice bracket. Anything above to fight QX9770? Well, to charge a grand for aPhenom in early 2008, that one better be running at say 3.5 GHz or so.
Well, not all things are that somber. There is one short-term benefit for AMDhere - after looking at the today's 3Dmark06 comparison, it does seem to me thatthe perfect CrossFire platform for AMD GPU sales is there: the Intel X38 / X48platform running Yorkfield quad cores.
In fact, the QX9770 & X48 official - delayed - February shipping datesmatch nicely with AMD rollout of HD3870X2 dual-GPU cards. Put two of those ineach X48 mobo, CrossFire them with just one bridge cable, and you got aquad-core Yorkfield CPU feeding quad AMD GPU, in just two PCI-E x16 v2 slots!The "Intel Inside" Spider, anyone?
Now, that's a good one for AMD - for every such Intel enthusiast box, AMDwould sell some US$1000 or so worth of their high-end GPU card gear... not badat all, ain't it?
Well, could be better for their finances if they fixed the CPUs, since themargins are way better in that department - looks like Intel will continue torule here for another year, at least.

Contributed by Editorial Team, Executive Management Team
372659 iVirtua Loyalty Points • View ProfileSend Private MessageBack to Top

Related Articles
Post new topic   Reply to topic


Page 1 of 1

iVirtua Latest
Latest Discussion

Discuss...
Latest Articles and Reviews

Latest Downloads
Subscribe to the iVirtua Community RSS Feed
Use RSS and get automatically notified of new content and contributions on the iVirtua Community.


Tag Cloud
access amd announced applications author based beta building business card case company content cool core course cpu create data deal dec demo design desktop developers development digital download drive email feature features file files firefox flash free future gaming google graphics hardware help industry information intel internet iphone ipod jan launch linux lol love mac market media memory million mobile money movie music net nintendo nov nvidia oct office official online patch performance playing power price product program ps3 pst publish ram release released report rss sales screen search security sep server show size software sony source speed support technology thu tue update video vista war web website wii windows work working works xbox 360 2006 2007 2008

© 2006 - 2008 iVirtua Community (UK), Part of iVirtua Media Group, London (UK). Tel: 020 8144 7222

Terms of Service and Community RulesAdvertise or Affiliate with iVirtuaRSSPress Information and Media CoverageiVirtua Version 4PrivacyContact