AMD Phenom II X2 550 Vs Intel Xeon 3110

[Mir96TA]

Originally posted by: reallyscrued

Originally posted by: Mir96TA

O yea
Too bad for BMW; cause it is slower then my 96 TransAm
See Amount of the money you can spend does not equate to Faster car!
This benchmark is just a reference. Reference point which easily can use
among different plathforms.
I am just looking into ball park figures

...the GT2 is not a mass produced M. Look it up.

And I doubt your TransAm could take a vanilla M3 on anything that requires turns. Yeah sure, a Civic with 24 psi of boost can make 600 bhp, and if you're trying to go everywhere in straight lines, that's some awesome shit; but it certainly can't run Nurburgring in any impressive numbers.

/end hijack

Actually My leauge ends at M6. Stock M5 and my TA can hang togather. Not only I can run 12s in 1/4 miles and I can do very well road race. However I can't or like to do Autocross/Solo! heeee

Originally posted by: reallyscrued
The 550's really got popular after people applied ACC and starting unlocking cores. It's a solid gaming chip even without the two extra cores though. (For the next year or so I guess.) For about 100 bucks, I don't see why you're so disappointed. Have you tried overclocking it?

Regardless, I think AMD still has the bang for buck. According to this:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

The two cpus you compared are not very different in terms of performance.

I guess what I'm trying to say is,

If you bought a 170/180 dollar AMD chip, you'd probably getting the performance you were hoping for.

Edit: To clean up some nested quotes.

In all honesty I am quiet happy and CPU is doing what I needed for! (Stock settings)
Thats goes money what I spend on the CPU.
Now I am thinking off upgrading MB with 750 South bridge and trying my Luck!
Question what would best bang for the Buck MB
I do not have to have 1394 but would needed with IGP

 

[freaky123]

hi,

Originally posted by: Mir96TA
Wow
Now this is different 32M TestAMD 379.k and Intel 356k

well, again this is not surprising at all, lets take a closer look at CPU specs:

AMD II X2 550, 3.1Ghz, L2-Cache: 2x 512kB, L3-Cache: 6MB shared
Intel Xeon 3110, 3.0Ghz, L2 Cache 2x 3MB

for heavy multithreading, like maxxpi do, a large *shared cache
where every core can access to, is very helpfull, then + 100Mhz clockspeed
(this count for every multithread app.).

you benched 32M, this will need about 300mbyte memory.

so the memory subsystem will also take a part at your results,
what kind of memory subsytem did both PC contain?,
I mean DDR type, main memorytimings and used memory channels.

if you wish to meansure *only CPU performance you should take 1M for testing.

for further multipi informations, you also should take a look here: http://www.maxxpi.net/pages/description/multipi.php

cu

 

[taltamir]

delete

 

[Lorne]

Motherboards themselves can have a large influence on machine benchmarking, I have tested 2 different motherboards using the same CPU, Memory, GFX and HDD and gotten as much as 3000 pts different with no OC on ether.
Making sure drivers are installed and correct, Maybe the AMD dualcore driver?

 

[Mir96TA]

What is AMD dualcore driver ?
Where are those ?

 

[taltamir]

located in AMD.com
back in the day AMD made a dual core driver that allowed higher efficiency than the CPU only approach of intel (relative to itself, not relative to intel) when handling multiple threads... ONLY if it was installed... most people didn't and ended up with lower performance gains. AMD also had software approaches to power saving, etc... Mobo makers always screw it up for them... this is why they are moving more and more of those things into the CPU itself, that way it cannot be messed up by a sloppy mobo implementation, not as efficient in theory, but in reality it works better

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: Mir96TA
I bought AMD Phenom II X2 550 thinking it would as fast as Xeon 3110 Aka E8400.
What I found it is different ball game all togather.
When I was installing XP I notice it is bit slower, I thought it was my optical Drive.
When I ran PC Mark, sure enough it slow Results
Here is my Intel Xeon 3110 results
AMD have a faster clock speed 100Mhz extra and exra 1MB cache, and still slower!
So AMD are really that slow or I am doing some thing WRONG!

Edit: This is my Low end Budget System. In no way fashion this suppose to be a my perfomance system.
This AMD system suppose to be MY HTPC and My Child's computer where he can play
his Blu Ray and HD movies.

The average performance difference between the two according to Anandtech benchmarks is around 13%. The extra clock speed of Phenom II will give around 2% additional performance so Core 2 is 15% faster than Phenom II clock for clock.

See the performance difference between the Core 2 Quad and the Phenom II X4 is less than that, but the native quad actually help slightly scale better than the Core 2. In dual cores, there's much less of a scability problem and Core 2's IPC shows greater advantage than with 4 cores.

Do you know now realize why people were very excited with Core 2? .

 

[freaky123]

hi,

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000
The average performance difference between the two according to Anandtech benchmarks is around 13%. The extra clock speed of Phenom II will give around 2% additional performance so Core 2 is 15% faster than Phenom II clock for clock.

well this is, what you want to see.
the new AMD PII Xx series, doesnt have this peformance difference, that you talking about.
they on same level as C2D, mostly, sometime beat them.

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000
See the performance difference between the Core 2 Quad and the Phenom II X4 is less than that, but the native quad actually help slightly scale better than the Core 2. In dual cores, there's much less of a scability problem and Core 2's IPC shows greater advantage than with 4 cores.

especially all c2d quads, have an disapointment, because of not be a *real quad (2xc2d).
as reusult they have non shared chache, so they have lower multithread performance.
this is a desing problem and cannot be fixed.

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000
Do you know now realize why people were very excited with Core 2? .

credulity..., to trust all you read and dont understand the correlation.
all numeric benchs, based at mips and flops (for CPU), see here some examples (all multithreaded):

MIPS:
4,433.59 Mips Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 (4250MHz)
http://www.maxxpi.net/results/show.php?ID=o4j2k9s1w1j2

4,664.49 Mips AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black (4258MHz)
http://www.maxxpi.net/results/show.php?ID=t1y1n3i8y7o1

FLOPS:
7,525.77 MFlops AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black (4258MHz)
http://www.maxxpi.net/results/show.php?ID=u4l0u2a8w6j8

7,462.44 MFlops Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 (4000MHz)
http://www.maxxpi.net/results/show.php?ID=f0k1c6u5e5q6

there is a intel flops plus about 4-5% at same clock, mips a slightly plus for amd,
compared Intel C2D<> AMD II X/2/3/4, thats it.

as example, compard to the new intel I7 generation,
you will see the difference of one real DIE, example:

10,216.11 MFlops Intel Core i7 920 (4011MHz) (Core I7, HT disabled, only 4 real cores)
http://www.maxxpi.net/results/show.php?ID=r6l1x5w0r5x2

talking to the memory subsystem, for now, the tripplechannel is unbeaten, you will see it here:
http://www.maxxpi.net/pages/re...ser/top10---memory.php


cu

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: freaky123

well this is, what you want to see.
the new AMD PII Xx series, doesnt have this peformance difference, that you talking about.
they on same level as C2D, mostly, sometime beat them.

I don't know what's wrong with you but calculate Anandtech's CPU comparison tells you otherwise.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=2

You can believe synthetics all you want but its about as realistic as what you are dreaming about right now.

 

[freaky123]

hi,

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000
I don't know what's wrong with you but calculate Anandtech's CPU comparison tells you otherwise.

little tired and well they tell something different and 50.000 other websites tell you something else ;-)
who will you thrust?

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000
You can believe synthetics all you want but its about as realistic as what you are dreaming about right now.

right, this (maxxpi, mips+flops) are syntetical, same as show at your link above ,
again, not every thing that your see/read is the reality, this all largely depends on SW for benching
that will be used.

look at modern game Comparisons, between this cpu types.
this shows the real heavy duty workload the best.

Just my 2 cent

cu

 

[nubian1]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

Originally posted by: freaky123

well this is, what you want to see.
the new AMD PII Xx series, doesnt have this peformance difference, that you talking about.
they on same level as C2D, mostly, sometime beat them.

I don't know what's wrong with you but calculate Anandtech's CPU comparison tells you otherwise.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=2

You can believe synthetics all you want but its about as realistic as what you are dreaming about right now.

I just had a look at that link and I see a very different story. The X4 955 does pretty good, being bettered in many benchmarks only by the i7 series or generally more expensive cpu's. I don't read too much into benchmarks such as MS Office apps since my lowly Atom based Netbook runs office just fine without the need for V8 horsepower. I also never understood the fascination with Crysis benchmarks since in reality it never seemed to be a very well optimized game engine anyways compared to other games with comparable eye candy & gameplay.

Now getting back to the brunt of this thread, the X2 550. At a quad core unlocked 3.82Ghz (Higher soon) this cpu of mine will score higher than the 3.2ghz X4 955 which btw shares the same core. This should and does put it in a very good spot and many times will compare favorably to the i7 920 depending on benchmark naturally.

Here is a link to a very interesting performance comparison of a quad core unlocked & overclocked X2 550 vs a stock i7.

http://forums.overclockers.com...howthread.php?t=798279

Now before people cry fowl about this being an Overclocked X2 550 vs Stock i7 920 let me point a few things out.

1) The vast majority of the pc buying public people do NOT overclock their cpu's. Enthusiasts are the minority by far with respect to the general pc buying public. As an enthusiast myself getting stock i7 comparable performance our of a $114 CAD cpu just gives me that warm fuzzy feeling. Part of the fun of being an enthusiast is being able to squeeze additional performance out of a pc using tools such as overclocking. Performance that raises our cpu performance, for example, to a level comparable to a much more expensive product. This is what overclocking is about.

2) At $314.28 CAD (i7 920) vs $114.19 CAD (X2 550) {www.shopbot.ca} if you can get an unlockable & overclock friendly 550 it's an amazing buy. Added to the system cost will be the premium payed for an i7 compatible motherboard vs the AMD based offering and lower ram costs if sticking with DDR2 on the AMD platform vs DDR3. Money saved, $200 CAD according to current prices here in Canada, could go towards a higher performance Video Card for example.

3) The X2 550 compared to the i7 or even the e8400 are not really in the same market segment. A better comparison to the 550 would be the Intel E7xxx series. In this light the X2 550 is an amazing value processor with good performance and with some tweaking, excellent performance.

4) It's almost too much fun to get something for nothing........

I am intrigued by the i7 but am very very happy with my X2 550, as I am with my overclocked E8400 btw. It's great what you can get for a little $$$ and some overclocking/unlocking. It has my non enthusiast friends spitting nails.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: freaky123
hi,

little tired and well they tell something different and 50.000 other websites tell you something else ;-)
who will you thrust?

right, this (maxxpi, mips+flops) are syntetical, same as show at your link above ,
again, not every thing that your see/read is the reality, this all largely depends on SW for benching
that will be used.

look at modern game Comparisons, between this cpu types.
this shows the real heavy duty workload the best.

Just my 2 cent

cu

Nah, game benchmarks are not the best indicators of performance because it has too much GPU/settings dependency. You can go from a 50% difference to a 0% difference because of resolution differences. If you were looking at purely from a fps point of view, everyone would be chasing Celerons and Semprons cause at high resolutions, everything is the same.

Flops don't deviate between different cache and bandwidth processors while real world programs do. And things like SuperPI and Flops aren't designed to real world performance. It's more of importance to programmers and architectural discussion.

Like in Linpack, the Shanghai Opterons can equal/exceed Nehalem Xeons while in most server apps it can't even come close.

See things like Sysmark and 3DSMax or timedemos are designed to simulate real world usage as best as they can.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

Originally posted by: Mir96TA
I bought AMD Phenom II X2 550 thinking it would as fast as Xeon 3110 Aka E8400.
What I found it is different ball game all togather.
When I was installing XP I notice it is bit slower, I thought it was my optical Drive.
When I ran PC Mark, sure enough it slow Results
Here is my Intel Xeon 3110 results
AMD have a faster clock speed 100Mhz extra and exra 1MB cache, and still slower!
So AMD are really that slow or I am doing some thing WRONG!

Edit: This is my Low end Budget System. In no way fashion this suppose to be a my perfomance system.
This AMD system suppose to be MY HTPC and My Child's computer where he can play
his Blu Ray and HD movies.

The average performance difference between the two according to Anandtech benchmarks is around 13%. The extra clock speed of Phenom II will give around 2% additional performance so Core 2 is 15% faster than Phenom II clock for clock.

See the performance difference between the Core 2 Quad and the Phenom II X4 is less than that, but the native quad actually help slightly scale better than the Core 2. In dual cores, there's much less of a scability problem and Core 2's IPC shows greater advantage than with 4 cores.

Do you know now realize why people were very excited with Core 2? .

13 - 2 = 11, not 15

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: nubian1
2) At $314.28 CAD (i7 920) vs $114.19 CAD (X2 550) {www.shopbot.ca} if you can get an unlockable & overclock friendly 550 it's an amazing buy. Added to the system cost will be the premium payed for an i7 compatible motherboard vs the AMD based offering and lower ram costs if sticking with DDR2 on the AMD platform vs DDR3. Money saved, $200 CAD according to current prices here in Canada, could go towards a higher performance Video Card for example.

Why not compared a phenom 2 X4 to an i7?
Anyways, yes intel costs more, they have an advantage and they know it. this is what the i3 and i5 are meant to deal with. The p2 is certainly a legit purchase AT ITS PRICE. But it is not a "competitor"

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: taltamir

The average performance difference between the two according to Anandtech benchmarks is around 13%. The extra clock speed of Phenom II will give around 2% additional performance so Core 2 is 15% faster than Phenom II clock for clock.

13 - 2 = 11, not 15

I know math might not be your strength, but seriously? Phenom is clocked little over 3% higher which would give average of 2% considering scaling, and the lower clocked Core 2 is already 13% faster. Clock-per-clock normalization would give 15% advantage on the Core 2.

Make sense now?

 

[taltamir]

actually I am quite good at math, I just didn't clearly understand what you were saying.
I see now you meant that it was 13% apart for the specific MODELS you were comparing, not PER CLOCK difference of 13%. and then extrapolated a per clock difference of 15% based on the difference per model AND the clockspeed advantage of one.
I thought you were saying "per clock difference 13%" "p2 is high clocked for additional 2% performance" thus total difference in models is 11%

 

[IEC]

I bought my PII X4 940 @ $128. I pretty much only really fall short compared to the i7, which would require a mobo + cpu + DDR3 upgrade.

Unless you need/want the absolute highest performance, PII X2 550 thru X4 955 can be very good values for the price.

 

[nubian1]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: nubian1
2) At $314.28 CAD (i7 920) vs $114.19 CAD (X2 550) {www.shopbot.ca} if you can get an unlockable & overclock friendly 550 it's an amazing buy. Added to the system cost will be the premium payed for an i7 compatible motherboard vs the AMD based offering and lower ram costs if sticking with DDR2 on the AMD platform vs DDR3. Money saved, $200 CAD according to current prices here in Canada, could go towards a higher performance Video Card for example.

Why not compared a phenom 2 X4 to an i7?
Anyways, yes intel costs more, they have an advantage and they know it. this is what the i3 and i5 are meant to deal with. The p2 is certainly a legit purchase AT ITS PRICE. But it is not a "competitor"

The X2 550 was used as a comparison because way back at the start of this thread it was one of original 2 cpu's mentioned that started this conversation. Not sure how it evolved into a P2 vs i7 debate in particular since then we are talking about different market segments.

My post was an attempt to get this discussion back to it's root & to show that to an enthusiast the X2 550 when over clocked & core unlocked is an excellent choice & a viable competitor all things being considered. After all I'd bet that 95% - 99% of pc's sold & built out there are not overclocked so in the hands of an enthusiast the x2 550 can be made to perform much better than it's stock form which will compare well to a much higher priced stock cpu in a completely different market segment.

Btw, I had read an article where a reviewer put a few friends and fellow reviewers in front of a high end AMD based system & a high end Intel based system for some gaming. The video cards used were identical and except for the motherboard & cpu everything was identical as well. By far no one could tell the difference in their gaming experience. I wish I had kept the link.

 

[taltamir]

no need to, everyone knows it....
But guess what, this is a COMPUTER not a CONSOLE. you can do MORE than just gaming on it... I am a gamer, doesn't mean I don't use the occasional intensive program.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: taltamir
no need to, everyone knows it....
But guess what, this is a COMPUTER not a CONSOLE. you can do MORE than just gaming on it... I am a gamer, doesn't mean I don't use the occasional intensive program.

then you'd want it to be as fast as possible no?

Because its not a console but a computer, and hence it does more?


Guys.. this is a very old talk and debate... the AMD is a great machine (budget orientated).

But once u step outside the budget factor, an intel machine will slaughter it.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000
The average performance difference between the two according to Anandtech benchmarks is around 13%. The extra clock speed of Phenom II will give around 2% additional performance so Core 2 is 15% faster than Phenom II clock for clock.

See the performance difference between the Core 2 Quad and the Phenom II X4 is less than that, but the native quad actually help slightly scale better than the Core 2. In dual cores, there's much less of a scability problem and Core 2's IPC shows greater advantage than with 4 cores.

Agreed.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: taltamir
located in AMD.com
back in the day AMD made a dual core driver that allowed higher efficiency than the CPU only approach of intel (relative to itself, not relative to intel) when handling multiple threads... ONLY if it was installed... most people didn't and ended up with lower performance gains. AMD also had software approaches to power saving, etc... Mobo makers always screw it up for them... this is why they are moving more and more of those things into the CPU itself, that way it cannot be messed up by a sloppy mobo implementation, not as efficient in theory, but in reality it works better

I can't comprehend this post. I think you're trying to say too much in too few words? I'm not asking you to extrapolate, though.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: taltamir
no need to, everyone knows it....
But guess what, this is a COMPUTER not a CONSOLE. you can do MORE than just gaming on it... I am a gamer, doesn't mean I don't use the occasional intensive program.

then you'd want it to be as fast as possible no?

Because its not a console but a computer, and hence it does more?


Guys.. this is a very old talk and debate... the AMD is a great machine (budget orientated).

But once u step outside the budget factor, an intel machine will slaughter it.

good, then we are in agreement.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: lopri

Originally posted by: taltamir
located in AMD.com
back in the day AMD made a dual core driver that allowed higher efficiency than the CPU only approach of intel (relative to itself, not relative to intel) when handling multiple threads... ONLY if it was installed... most people didn't and ended up with lower performance gains. AMD also had software approaches to power saving, etc... Mobo makers always screw it up for them... this is why they are moving more and more of those things into the CPU itself, that way it cannot be messed up by a sloppy mobo implementation, not as efficient in theory, but in reality it works better

I can't comprehend this post. I think you're trying to say too much in too few words? I'm not asking you to extrapolate, though.

basically, if you have an AMD X2 go to amd.com and download their CPU driver