Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-30-2012, 06:03 AM   #101
AtenRa
Diamond Member
 
AtenRa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Athens Greece
Posts: 6,184
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelUser2000 View Post
And I've heard multiple AMD fans say CPU is not important to graphics, only turn around and say it is, when argument merits it. There's no difference in graphics between the 35W and 45W Llano chips, only the CPU. For Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge, using a lower end CPU is sometimes favorable because of the TDP sharing.
CPU is not important unless you are CPU bottleneck. At 1366x768 and Medium IQ settings the Llano CPU most probable bottlenecks the iGPU.

If the CPU is the bottleneck, then a faster CPU Llano will perform better.
__________________
Thief : Mantle CPU Scaling and Power evaluation
(10 CPUs at default and Overclock, including Power Consumption)
AtenRa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2012, 06:10 AM   #102
Abwx
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,371
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtenRa View Post
CPU is not important unless you are CPU bottleneck. At 1366x768 and Medium IQ settings the Llano CPU most probable bottlenecks the iGPU.

If the CPU is the bottleneck, then a faster CPU Llano will perform better.
He indeed agree with this point when it suits his demonstration...
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelUser2000 View Post

Also, improvements between CPU and GPU can't be compared equally. 10% on CPU might be just as big as 30-40% on GPU. The former speeds up everything while latter only helps on 3D graphics-like
Abwx is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2012, 06:21 AM   #103
Arzachel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelUser2000 View Post
Llano is like Clarkdale. Maybe the variation is even less then Clarkdale. The Turbo Mode on Llano chips barely work, and doesn't have GPU Turbo at all.
I don't even mean turbo, bumping up the CPU clock 25% higher would make the Llano system perform quite a bit better. That is why I find it weird that they didn't use a A8 3550mx, but I guess reviewers have to make due with what they get sent.
Arzachel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2012, 06:22 AM   #104
IntelUser2000
Elite Member
 
IntelUser2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abwx View Post
He indeed agree with this point when it suits his demonstration...
Way to relate something that's not related at all. The 10% gain in CPU benchmarks can't be compared with 30-40% on GPU benchmarks. Because the latter already gets minimal fps increase using CPU since GPU is bottlenecking it.

Do you seriously not get this? It's called a bottleneck, man. A CPU that might get 10% in CPU-bottlenecked applications might only get 3-4% faster in games.
__________________
Core i7 2600K + Turbo Boost | Intel DH67BL/GMA HD 3000 IGP | Corsair XMS3 2x2GB DDR3-1600 @ 1333 9-9-9-24 |
Intel X25-M G1 80GB + Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | OCZ Modstream 450W | Samsung Syncmaster 931c | Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit | Microsoft Sidewinder Mouse | Viliv S5-Atom Z520 WinXP UMPC
IntelUser2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2012, 07:03 AM   #105
Abwx
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,371
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelUser2000 View Post
Way to relate something that's not related at all. The 10% gain in CPU benchmarks can't be compared with 30-40% on GPU benchmarks. Because the latter already gets minimal fps increase using CPU since GPU is bottlenecking it.

Do you seriously not get this? It's called a bottleneck, man. A CPU that might get 10% in CPU-bottlenecked applications might only get 3-4% faster in games.
Agree on this point as well as for the majority of yours posts ,
the only dispute i made was about comparing vastly different
CPU and then draw conclusions out of discutable benchmark
set ups as this shamefull Anand s one in a review whose conditions
have been very obviously been set up by Intel itself , albeit
all the sites that were delivered SKUs has to follow those
twisted guidelines.

As for the eventual bottlenecks, you will surely agree that a 1.6g CPU will hardly be bottlenecked by a 400 SP radeon , it s rather the contrary.
Abwx is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2012, 07:09 AM   #106
IntelUser2000
Elite Member
 
IntelUser2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,494
Default

Memory impact of Llano. http://forum.notebookreview.com/gami...gurations.html

Difference between Asynchronous DDR3-1333 to Synchronous DDR3-1600 is 9%. Gap between DDR3-1600 and DDR3-1333 when both are synchronous are even less at 6%. Memory impact is huge for desktop Llanos, not as much for laptop.

CPU difference on gaming: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...pu,2959-8.html

Phenom II X4 running at 2.4GHz is 0-1% faster than one running at 1.5GHz. Trinity is supposed to be 56% faster in 3DMark11, the gains are all due to GPU.
__________________
Core i7 2600K + Turbo Boost | Intel DH67BL/GMA HD 3000 IGP | Corsair XMS3 2x2GB DDR3-1600 @ 1333 9-9-9-24 |
Intel X25-M G1 80GB + Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | OCZ Modstream 450W | Samsung Syncmaster 931c | Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit | Microsoft Sidewinder Mouse | Viliv S5-Atom Z520 WinXP UMPC
IntelUser2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2012, 07:44 AM   #107
itsmydamnation
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 610
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelUser2000 View Post
Way to relate something that's not related at all. The 10% gain in CPU benchmarks can't be compared with 30-40% on GPU benchmarks. Because the latter already gets minimal fps increase using CPU since GPU is bottlenecking it.

Do you seriously not get this? It's called a bottleneck, man. A CPU that might get 10% in CPU-bottlenecked applications might only get 3-4% faster in games.
nice to see your pretty much flat out lying there . everything so far, AMD, Leaks, the posts/benchmarks on Semi accurate all point to much higher then 10% improvement, hell some CPU benchmarks are seeing 50% ( an outlier, but still happened). Hell with the same TDP the benifit from the resonance clock mesh should almost hit your 10% performance increase.

That completely ignores improvements to the process over time and changes to cores and the much improved turbo. doesn't matter if you compare it to STARS or bulldozer pile-driver SOC's in CPU out perform by more then 10%.


for reference i wonder what your posts during the pre release for bulldozer were like?
itsmydamnation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2012, 07:59 AM   #108
IntelUser2000
Elite Member
 
IntelUser2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by itsmydamnation View Post
nice to see your pretty much flat out lying there .
BTW, that was about Ivy Bridge, idiot.

For Bulldozer I estimated that it would be 10-20% faster in multi-threaded applications than 2600K based on AMD's earlier claims.
__________________
Core i7 2600K + Turbo Boost | Intel DH67BL/GMA HD 3000 IGP | Corsair XMS3 2x2GB DDR3-1600 @ 1333 9-9-9-24 |
Intel X25-M G1 80GB + Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | OCZ Modstream 450W | Samsung Syncmaster 931c | Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit | Microsoft Sidewinder Mouse | Viliv S5-Atom Z520 WinXP UMPC
IntelUser2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2012, 09:27 AM   #109
pelov
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,512
Default

Worth a read

Looks like they've done quite a bit of fiddling with the Bulldozer cores. I'm wondering how low they managed to get the L2 latency as that was easily one of the bigger issues with Bulldozer. The reduced leakage is a welcome sign as well.

The AMD claims on Bulldozer were the biggest load of horseshit I've ever seen. JF immediately disappeared after its release in order to not live up to the shame. Frankly that was by far AMD's biggest mistake with Bulldozer. By overstating their improvements they built up a lot of hype and then never managed to live up to expectations.

The difference this time around seems to be that the leaked benchmarks and figures point to AMD's claims being on target. Prior to Bulldozer there were leaked figures and signs, numerous delays that pointed to some serious issues. This time around there's been a far more consistent picture painted and the picture looks pretty good for AMD. The real question is the price. They fucked it up bad with Bulldozer and it's only now that BD is dropping in price to where you can make the argument that it makes sense but it's taken an IB release and numerous SB price drops as well and now BD arguably looks even less attractive than it did at launch. Trinity's die size is slightly bigger than Llanos but apparently no yield issues so let's hope Read was serious about beating Intel on price.
pelov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2012, 09:37 AM   #110
Don Karnage
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pelov View Post
Worth a read

Looks like they've done quite a bit of fiddling with the Bulldozer cores. I'm wondering how low they managed to get the L2 latency as that was easily one of the bigger issues with Bulldozer. The reduced leakage is a welcome sign as well.

The AMD claims on Bulldozer were the biggest load of horseshit I've ever seen. JF immediately disappeared after its release in order to not live up to the shame. Frankly that was by far AMD's biggest mistake with Bulldozer. By overstating their improvements they built up a lot of hype and then never managed to live up to expectations.

The difference this time around seems to be that the leaked benchmarks and figures point to AMD's claims being on target. Prior to Bulldozer there were leaked figures and signs, numerous delays that pointed to some serious issues. This time around there's been a far more consistent picture painted and the picture looks pretty good for AMD. The real question is the price. They fucked it up bad with Bulldozer and it's only now that BD is dropping in price to where you can make the argument that it makes sense but it's taken an IB release and numerous SB price drops as well and now BD arguably looks even less attractive than it did at launch. Trinity's die size is slightly bigger than Llanos but apparently no yield issues so let's hope Read was serious about beating Intel on price.
Agreed. The 8120s price is very attractive and will only get better
Don Karnage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2012, 12:59 PM   #111
Olikan
Golden Member
 
Olikan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,825
Default

did i said? piledriver is a page long of small tweaks over bulldozer....pro tip, there is more changes in vishera (more than just L3 cache)

Olikan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.