Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > CPU's and Motherboards

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old November 22, 2007, 12:50 AM
Misoprostol
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmac View Post
Uh, that board isn't even part of the Spider platform ...

I was talking about the 790FX chipset motherboards, which are priced similarly to other high-end consumer boards ($180-$285 on NCIX).
No, it's not, but look at the commend I was replying to. Someone was suggesting that he would like a platform that can have one CPU and one GPU and then is expandable to multi CPU and multi GPU. But he figured a platform like that would come with a premium.

I showed a perfect example of a board that's been out for ages, does exactly what he's talking about, and comes at a considerable premium over a single socket board.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old November 26, 2007, 06:06 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 9
Default

Lets not forget the 790X chipset.. theres a mobo going for 100$ @ ncix. Yes it only has 2 video card slots instead of 4 but it is quite alot less expensive.

As for the dual processor mobos, those are only for extreme users with alot of money to burn IMO.. No one really needs that kind of performance for now.
__________________
http://www.xtricom.com
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old November 26, 2007, 09:15 PM
Amon's Avatar
Allstar
F@H
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 719

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helphin View Post
Lets not forget the 790X chipset.. theres a mobo going for 100$ @ ncix. Yes it only has 2 video card slots instead of 4 but it is quite alot less expensive.

As for the dual processor mobos, those are only for extreme users with alot of money to burn IMO.. No one really needs that kind of performance for now.
Indeed. Those multi-monitor power-users will love the new multi-socket platform whereas the majority of us will see it as a well nifty chipset.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old December 12, 2007, 05:07 PM
Trial Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1
Default

come on ppl it not all that bad, the phenom might not be as quick as the q6600 but u have missed one thing which i have noticed is on gaming its, if u look at the fps they r not high has the q6600 but there is somthing about the minimum fps is always higher then the q6600 which should translate into more smooth game play. from what i see the phenom should have more smother game play.
by the way i like the review well layed and just gets to the point
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old December 14, 2007, 01:00 AM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4
Default

Hello all.. My first post.... figured it'd be nice to post amongst some fellow Hosers.. :)

A couple things that jump out at me:

1) Low Int Scores: Could be low L3 Cache speed /TLB error... Leading to an inability to fully feed the core. Could be Intel just schools AMD with Int performance. However, until Penryn hit, K10 was the dividing KING! 2 x the speed of 65nm C2D cores (C2Q just two slapped together) The new Dividing engine in Penryn only pulls up to equivalent speeds. So issues feeding Phenom are going to effect "single cycle ops" more then say Many FP ops that can take up to 12 cycles (divide on Phenom). Perhaps this explains some disparity?

2) Weird Benchmark results; As has been mentioned, find it odd that Phenom does so well in Min frame results, (meaning higher complexity and thus more work, perhaps more FP??) well in max frame counts (easy frames, perhaps less complex FP or other reason).

This leads me to believe that if certain issues are fixed, Phenom may pull out some victories clock to clock in more games in the future. As well, If L3 cache starts running 1 to 1 with CPU speed, It may scale even better then it does. I am thinking the penalties associated ith running a non synchronous L3 Cache that has to co-ordinate with 4 cores... Not pretty in my opinion. AS soon as it goes (if it does) synchronous (and thus faster) we should see more scaling gains.

Also, in relation to TLB errata, one would think that as Freq delta increases vs L3 Speed, the impact would be greater and greater on should have performance vs now have performance.

3) Overall feeling that something is badly broken a la Thoroughbred A vs Thoroughbred B. Or Like x1800 vs x1900... Just, something isn't quite right when you really get into analyzing the code and the results.

4) Although AMD was dumb to bet the farm on a monolithic core, I firmly believe they committed themselves to this insanely hard endeavour before realizing that they would be flat broke, and thus unable to have 2 full fledged mature 65nm fabs by now, nevermind 1 65nm and 1 45nm... However, had they all the cash of god, (intels self), I beleive we would be seeing vastly improved performance from the first few spins of barcelona and r600 (and derivatives -phen -rv670) months ago. But unlike many l33t intel fanbois scream... AMD wasn't sleeping for 2 years, they were dumping cash into capacity, too bad all of Intels Israelis COULD put intel back together again ;)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thermalright XWB-1 Review Discussion Thread Misoprostol Water Cooling 11 October 25, 2007 07:53 PM
Comment Thread for HD2600 XT Performance Preview SKYMTL Video Cards 11 August 23, 2007 02:42 PM
GPU Round Up Discussion Thread Misoprostol Water Cooling 18 July 17, 2007 06:22 PM
AMD prepares its Phenom FX, Phenom X4 and Phenom X2 lineups Babrbarossa Press Releases & Tech News 1 May 4, 2007 07:38 AM