• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

G80 - Athlon64\cpu limited review?

ernysmuntz

ernysmuntz

ernysmuntz

Associate
Joined
10 Sep 2006
Posts
400
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_8800_gtx_gts_amd_cpu_scaling/default.asp

If you ain't read it already...

Not very interesting really, but it does show that you don't need a core2duo to get massive boost in frame rates for ya games.

Still its a rubbish article, no single core comparisons (why do these sites never test what we actually want) :rolleyes: hate the internet, not an intellectual write up anywhere these days, bloomin europeans with there uncomfortable cold english and long words that real brits never use.

oh well, kinda interestin anyway.
 
ernysmuntz said:
Still its a rubbish article, no single core comparisons (why do these sites never test what we actually want) :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What does it matter? None of the games tested are multi threaded, the only thing that a dual core CPU matters in is the 3Dmark06 benchmarks, and seeing as thats not even a game...

Still, it does prove that despite core 2 duo being an awesome cpu you'd be an idiot to upgrade to it from a decent 939/AM2 system before going for something like a new graphics card.
 
n1kunj said:
What does it matter? None of the games tested are multi threaded, the only thing that a dual core CPU matters in is the 3Dmark06 benchmarks, and seeing as thats not even a game...

Still, it does prove that despite core 2 duo being an awesome cpu you'd be an idiot to upgrade to it from a decent 939/AM2 system before going for something like a new graphics card.
Click to expand...


Not true tbh.

Dual cores over single cores do have performance gains as anything else is put onto the 2nd core. So there is a few % increase.

And frankily, Kentsfeilds at 4ghz bottleneck 8800s, so doesn't matter what CPU you have....
 
It will be interesting to see if multithreaded games will improve this situation as has bee nstated very few games are multi core enabled, when they do start appearing surely this will means games will have twice the processing power to run, so future games maybe less likely to be affected by the CPU.

In the end it will all depend on the code behind the games we play.
 
ernysmuntz said:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_8800_gtx_gts_amd_cpu_scaling/default.asp

If you ain't read it already...

Not very interesting really, but it does show that you don't need a core2duo to get massive boost in frame rates for ya games.

Still its a rubbish article, no single core comparisons (why do these sites never test what we actually want) :rolleyes: hate the internet, not an intellectual write up anywhere these days, bloomin europeans with there uncomfortable cold english and long words that real brits never use.

oh well, kinda interestin anyway.
Click to expand...

You're right. What an utterly retarded article. It starts off quite promising and then it lists the CPU's being used......an FX single core and a bunch of dual cores :confused: Wow, thanks.....that's really helpfull...
 
n1kunj said:
Still, it does prove that despite core 2 duo being an awesome cpu you'd be an idiot to upgrade to it from a decent 939/AM2 system before going for something like a new graphics card.
Click to expand...

been telling everyone that for ages, theres no need to dash for upgrade to C2D if you have good 939/AM2 system, but no, do they listen? i think not, anyways at this moment the 8800GTX is bottlenecked by just about everything, but thats not really a concern since it gets stupid frame rates anyways regardless of the bottleneck...
 
People with Conroe will say "it's miles better" and people on S939 etc will all say "it's still fine" ;)
 
easyrider said:
I go on experience.


2.8ghz opty 170 is pants


3.8ghz conroe different league.
Click to expand...



I get where your coming from and no doubt c2d is a better platform that s939/am2 atm but your comparing 2 cpu's with a 1000mhz difference not exactly apples tp apples comparison now is it ? :)
Its like comparing an Audi TT to a Ferrari , put an x2 at 3.8ghz and I'm sure there wouldnt be a HUGE difference.
Don't get me wrong i'm not like defending AMD here or being a fanboy at all just questioning your comparison. :)
I'd like a c2d system myself but after my latest upgrades(8800,2407,4800+) I can't afford another £500+(well I suppose I could but I couldnt justify it,especially to my wife lol ;) )
 
LeeMc said:
I get where your coming from and no doubt c2d is a better platform that s939/am2 atm but your comparing 2 cpu's with a 1000mhz difference not exactly apples tp apples comparison now is it ? :)
Its like comparing an Audi TT to a Ferrari , put an x2 at 3.8ghz and I'm sure there wouldnt be a HUGE difference.
Don't get me wrong i'm not like defending AMD here or being a fanboy at all just questioning your comparison. :)
I'd like a c2d system myself but after my latest upgrades(8800,2407,4800+) I can't afford another £500+(well I suppose I could but I couldnt justify it,especially to my wife lol ;) )
Click to expand...


10-50% diff at same clock speed and have you seen a air cooled 3.8ghz X2? No, thought not.
 
An Opty 170 @ 2.8ghz is not "pants"... that's pure elitism talking. It's a solid CPU and it's pretty powerful and good at what it does. It is however, as people have pointed out, eclipsed by the C2D which offers more performance clock for clock, and tends to reach much higher speeds.

Those with A64's don't need to upgrade yet to get good performance in the latest games, better to focus on a good GPU instead and wait for quad cores to become mainstream.
 
No doubt a conroe setup will bring juicy performance against any S939 setup...

All comes down to bang for buck I guess and how much each person values each buck vs each bang ;) Some people might say I wasted a load of cash getting an 8800GTX, but I think its a better investment than a conroe setup for me at the moment, similar outlay and I doubt the performance of conroe+7800GTX will be anywhere near that of my current setup.

Ahhh i dunno, I know single core\dual core shouldn't be any different in terms of frame rates in games, but was would be nice to see the review sites ACTUALLY compare them, as they talk as if there is a difference (I know there isn't, or its very small)

I don't really think it overs more than 1-2% max from past experience of owning a 4800+ and messing about with that a while ago, supposedly windows puts the game on one core and all background windows processes and what not on the other....

But it doesn't, thats just the theory, it never worked like that for me, still no doubt dual core is the way6 forward, but thats not really why im posting....not sure why now, maybe shouldn't have stayed up all nite :(
 
Concorde Rules said:
Not true tbh.

Dual cores over single cores do have performance gains as anything else is put onto the 2nd core. So there is a few % increase.
Click to expand...

Thats also not true ;)

There is no appreciable increase in performance, its all within the realms of test error (there are benchmarks that run SLOWER with dualcore for example). Windows does not see the cores from a high-level point of view, that would be performance prohibitive - this is why setting affinity is not recommended outside of bug fixes.

Basically Windows sees each CPU as an execution unit, a unit where it can throw threads (or rather fibres). Basically Windows gets a thread and puts it on the first available execution unit, interrupting the execution unit if neccesary (ie. stopping the current thread, and putting the new one on it). This is a cornerstone of multitasking. Windows will try to put a thread back onto the last execution unit it was on if possible, but it can't always do that. This is why when you run an intensive single-threaded app on a dual CPU system, the CPU usage is ~50% on each CPU.

Its important to realise that the CPU is an execution unit to the OS, simply because when real multicore comes in, each core won't neccesarily be multi-purpose. Different threads will go to different cores, threads will jump from core to core, and it'll just be one big pool of processing power. Not unlike current multi-CPU systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom