Average Performance Delta between Phenom II, Core 2, Core i7, and Sandy?

[Abwx]

Well this thread turned into exactly what I thought it would once the Intel conspiracy that "Anand is part of" garbage started being posted.

I wish I could report the whole thread to the mods, but I don't think there is that option.

Personnaly, i never insulted people because they do not agree with me.

It seems that at Anand forum, there s quite a hard pressure
by some members to stick to their opinion or else being diabolized or
worse, insulted...

Funny thing is that those who ressort to such extremities generaly
make no valuable technical contribution and are short of such
arguments when defendind their stance, so since the debate escape
their limited understanding, they bring it down to their intellectualy
limited level..

 

[RobertPters77]

Wow what poor moderation these forums have.

Well I just got my lappy back from the shop. Lucky me only 300$ worth of damage. Unsure of what exactly it was but the tech said it wasn't major. I'll be sticking with Intel for a little while longer. Maybe I'll go amd when they retake the performance crown. Which will be NEVER.

I just wish I could remove this inferior radeon and replace it with a godly geforce.

[redacted]

 

[Arg Clin]

Why is it that a 1075t at 190$ get's smashed by an i5-2300 at 185$? Both are in the same price range. Why isn't amd's more core + higher clock speed approach working? I'll tell you why. Performance per clock.

I think you should remember that Phenom II is one generation older than the i5 Sandy Bridge from Intel. I'd be worried if Sandy Bride didn't smash the previous generation from AMD. As for price - there is no reason for AMD to dump prices and hold a firesale just before the launch of Bulldozer. That would just be plain dumb. Better to hand a few sales to Intel than canibalize your own soon-to-be-born crownprince.

I assume Bulldozer will beat Sandy Bridge - if not overall, then at least on a performance-per-$ basis. If not AMD need not bother. Nothing in the history of AMD vs. Intel suggests any other likely scenario.

 

[Abwx]

I'll mark that up to the language barrier.

In what you quoted I mentioned a specific company (HP) and a specific process (seeding).

Seed:
to place, introduce, etc., especially in the hope of increase or profit

It's a process where if somebody wants to sell lot of something they give the potential customer some for free. The hope is the company will try it out, like it, and buy more.

Think of it as a free trial.

As far as the last, go look on HP's website yourself. You cannot purchase a high end enterprise class desktop or laptop from HP with an AMD CPU in it. They don't make them.

You are right about language barrier, indeed.

As for businesses practices , i find shocking that firms
are given hardware for free.
I didn t know that it goes as far as this, but surely that
the $ at stakes are way more than a few 1U/2U servers.

 

[Markfw]

This thread has gone beyond hope. I have posted comments to several posters about their actions. And we moderators don't get paid, so I am sorry if I don't spend every waking hour to ban the trolls.

And lastly a warning to the posters I have warned. I will be watching you much more closely now. You have sealed your own fates.

/thread

locked

 

[Topweasel]

@topweasel

I disrespectfully disagree.

If company 'A' gives me a cpu at 3ghz that does 100 operations per second. And company 'B' gives me a cpu that does only 50 operations per second at the same clock speed. I'll buy the cpu from company 'A.' If the price is right though.

The whole More cores, + higher clock speed thing that amd is doing right now is the same thing intel did with the P4+HT in 2004.

Why is it that a 1075t at 190$ get's smashed by an i5-2300 at 185$? Both are in the same price range. Why isn't amd's more core + higher clock speed approach working? I'll tell you why. Performance per clock.

But that isn't what we are talking about here. If all things are equal with the exception of one thing the one, which ever is better at that one thing wins.

If the IPCPC was equal between the two, both at the same speed, and one had more Cache, which would you purchase?

You can't look at CPU design and only hold one stat near to your heart. In your example what if the CPU with 50% IPC was running twice as fast? Then they are equal. What if its 20%? Then it would only need to be 20% faster.

In the benchmarks the 1075t gets "smashed in" it gets smashed in because it doesn't get as get as much done in the same time the 2300 does. Tons of ways to fix that, maybe its an increased L1 cache, better branch predictor, faster speeds, more FP throughput, better memory controller. No single measurement is 100% the only way to build a CPU.

Edit: Eeek. Sorry if screwed up and posted in a thread that was supposed to be locked.