How could BD pull AMD up?

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

My PII was manufactured with SOI tech and it runs a lot hotter than the 2500k does even though it's a lot less powerful. It's the C3 edition also.

Wikipedia posted the clock speeds and they were higher for the cores but slower for the L3 cache.

I had thought that the i2500k had 4 MB L3 cache, so it was a simple error on my part.

WRONG. The average temperature for a Phenom II X4 C3 is 45C at full load; the average temperature for a Core i5 2500K at full load is 70C.

 

[at80eighty]

If it makes you feel better OP, I dont think youre a troll. I think you actually believe everything you type

 

[Bryf50]

WRONG. The average temperature for a Phenom II X4 C3 is 45C at full load; the average temperature for a Core i5 2500K at full load is 70C.

Given identical coolers I really doubt that. If I remember right the Phenoms come with a beefier stock cooler. My 2500k overclocked doesn't hit 70C with my ancient Scythe Mi-Ne cooler.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Given identical coolers I really doubt that. If I remember right the Phenoms come with a beefier stock cooler. My 2500k overclocked doesn't hit 70C with my ancient Scythe Mi-Ne cooler.

Yes, given identical coolers. With a cooler like that you'd be seeing around 35-40C on a Phenom II X4.

Given the same cooler, a Phenom II X4 is always 25-30C cooler than a Core i5 as long as they're within normal voltages. Anyone with knowledge on the matter will tell you this.

There's obviously a downside, though: Phenom II X4s become unstable above 60C or so, while a Core i5 will become unstable above 85C.

 

[sm625]

I have a HD4670 pc that runs sims 3 on max settings. It is sluggish when loading things, but I can hear the hdd chugging. It did crash once but I think it was like 2 hours after windows 7 popped up a low memory message.

 

[Anarchist420]

WRONG. The average temperature for a Phenom II X4 C3 is 45C at full load; the average temperature for a Core i5 2500K at full load is 70C.

I had always been under the impression that a non-OC'd 2500K generally didn't go over 40C under full load and that it wouldn't go over 19C idle/40C full load with a decent cooler and AC MX2.

My PII X2 C3 must have been a very poorly binned chip, especially considering the fact that I undervolted it from 1.34vcore to 1.3, that I use a Masscool 90mm ball bearing HSF (Q-fan off in BIOS, so it's always running at 100% speed) and AC MX2. I have a Panaflo U1A for rear exhaust in Antec 300 and the upstairs thermostat is on 75F AC, so my room is cool. My motherboard runs kind of hot (48C), since it's an nForce chipset (m4n72-e), but that shouldn't be enough to make my CPU run above 22C idle.

I do have cool n quiet turned off, but it still shouldn't idle at 25-26C given the conditions mentioned above. I'm not sure about the load temps, they might be 45 C.

If it makes you feel better OP, I dont think youre a troll. I think you actually believe everything you type

lol Thanks

 

[Bearach]

I had always been under the impression that a non-OC'd 2500K generally didn't go over 40C under full load and that it wouldn't go over 19C idle/40C full load with a decent cooler and AC MX2.

My PII X2 C3 must have been a very poorly binned chip, especially considering the fact that I undervolted it from 1.34vcore to 1.3, that I use a Masscool 90mm ball bearing HSF (Q-fan off in BIOS, so it's always running at 100% speed) and AC MX2. I have a Panaflo U1A for rear exhaust in Antec 300 and the upstairs thermostat is on 75F AC, so my room is cool. My motherboard runs kind of hot (48C), since it's an nForce chipset (m4n72-e), but that shouldn't be enough to make my CPU run above 22C idle.

I do have cool n quiet turned off, but it still shouldn't idle at 25-26C given the conditions mentioned above. I'm not sure about the load temps, they might be 45 C.

lol Thanks

I think both of you are exaggerating the cooling ability of both vendor's processors. You want your Phenom II to be cooler than room temperature... That is quite a task with both vendors. 75f is 23-24c, which is not what I would consider a cool room temperature.

 

[Genx87]

How couldnt it pull AMD up? Right now AMD is sitting 2 generations behind Intel. Anything will help AMD at this point.

 

[john3850]

In 2005 I just bought my second amd64 a Opteron 148 which cost 286.00 at the time and a ati xtpe.
It sure was a bad online pc in the original ut2003 and one of the best pc I owned.
Since then when ever amd was gettig close to a release date the forms were all jumping but what a let down when the numbers got released.
When companys have a good thing you always get leaked clocks and benches way before a release.
Wasnt it ibm that fixed amds problems with the leakage and low clocks on the first and only decent amd cpus.
I believe amd has a good package but are unable to get the clocks up.

 

[Arkadrel]

@john3850

if true then amd should ask IBM for help
Also beg for some aid with eDram for their APUs, so they remove that pesky memory bandwidth bottleneck.

I actually think that performance/watt is gonan be good with bulldozer, their shareing stuff, so u need less components (ei. 12% die space = extra core), is bound to mean less power used overall (when your running both cores pr modual) than 2 complete cores on useing older methode.

Im not sold completly on performance yet, but AMD usually dont rob you, their pretty good at priceing their cpus competitivly vs Intels, based on performance (which just means cheap amd cpus).

If they think they can sell them at price points of 300$+, there must be a reason for it (ei. their expecting good performance).

That said... Intels 22nm tech.. the sooner Bulldozer launches the better for AMD.

 

[Mallibu]

Yes, given identical coolers. With a cooler like that you'd be seeing around 35-40C on a Phenom II X4.

Given the same cooler, a Phenom II X4 is always 25-30C cooler than a Core i5 as long as they're within normal voltages. Anyone with knowledge on the matter will tell you this.

I have both i5 2500 & Phenom 2 x4 965,both with the same Hyper 212+ cooler

i5 2500 stock @ prime = 43C
Phenom 2 x4 965 @ prime = 48C

Don't know why you're making things up,but given the same cooler + stock frequencies i5 is always cooler than phenom

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I had always been under the impression that a non-OC'd 2500K generally didn't go over 40C under full load and that it wouldn't go over 19C idle/40C full load with a decent cooler and AC MX2.

My PII X2 C3 must have been a very poorly binned chip, especially considering the fact that I undervolted it from 1.34vcore to 1.3, that I use a Masscool 90mm ball bearing HSF (Q-fan off in BIOS, so it's always running at 100% speed) and AC MX2. I have a Panaflo U1A for rear exhaust in Antec 300 and the upstairs thermostat is on 75F AC, so my room is cool. My motherboard runs kind of hot (48C), since it's an nForce chipset (m4n72-e), but that shouldn't be enough to make my CPU run above 22C idle.

I do have cool n quiet turned off, but it still shouldn't idle at 25-26C given the conditions mentioned above. I'm not sure about the load temps, they might be 45 C.

lol Thanks

Not even a water cooled (OCed or otherwise) Core i5 2500K is 40C at full load.

Good to know that I've now confirmed you're a troll.

 

[Mallibu]

Not even a water cooled (OCed or otherwise) Core i5 2500K is 40C at full load.

Good to know that I've now confirmed you're a troll.

Here's a picture i just took from my stock i5@prime after 6 minutes with hyper212 (25$ air hsf)

http://www.thelab.gr/members/mallibu-16089/albums/kazabubu--447/temps-i5-6119.jpg

I can photo it,videocapture it,write anything you like,whatever will make sure that it's not fake,so you will admit that you don't know what you're talking about. Have a nice day,sir

 

[Rifter]

Not even a water cooled (OCed or otherwise) Core i5 2500K is 40C at full load.

Good to know that I've now confirmed you're a troll.

sorry to break it to you but the new SB chips do run that cool, as above poster proved with pics.

Most reviews ive seen put the stock cooler around 60c loaded and even a cheap $20 cooler like a 212+ can get alot lower than that as above poster proves.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I would really like to know exactly why the temperature a CPU runs at is important, as long it doesn't reach the threshold where it starts to get damage/unstable.

More, these CPUs are built in different processes that have different physic properties, so comparing temperature between them is completely useless.

If you are worried with heat inside your case and/or room what you look for is power consumption.

 

[Rifter]

I would really like to know exactly why the temperature a CPU runs at is important, as long it doesn't reach the threshold where it starts to get damage/unstable.

More, these CPUs are built in different processes that have different physic properties, so comparing temperature between them is completely useless.

If you are worried with heat inside your case and/or room what you look for is power consumption.

i completly agree, the distance to tjmax is way more important that the actual temp of the chip. my i7 runs fine at 90c, my old phenom II started going wonky on me at anything over 60c. So it really depends on the CPU, and the properties of that exact CPU.

 

[Dresdenboy]

I must be missing something because I don't see how so many people can think that BD (the $290 offering) is going to be faster/better than intel's 2500k.

the reasons why I think it will be a flop are as follows:

OK, let's begin..

it's gotta run hotter since the cores are clocked so much higher.

Why do you think so? Because they tried to use less gates per pipeline stage (less power), more clock gating, finally power gating and a new process? Remember: Prescott was a specific design, not the only way to do things.

it costs $70 more than intel's comparable offering

Without being able to do a comparison you conclude things?

it's late to the market.

So was Merom late for 2003 (K8 launch). Well, going by this you might say that BD should have come instead of X6.

amd's chipsets have traditionally been inferior to those of intel.

Due to USB3, SATA3 and such? Or on what did you base your claim?

it has 2x as much L3 cache as 2500k, but it's clocked only 20% faster than the Phenom II's L3 cache, and there is only 33% more L3 cache compared to the PII.

It's difficult to compare a cache's effect on performance on size alone. And did you see the ISSCC paper stating peak bandwidths of 300 MB/s read and 150 MB/s write? This looks to be a lot more than with Phenom II.

given all that why do some people think it wil be faster or a better value than the 2500k? What am I missing? The modules share the L2 cache, but that only gives 512KB/core if that were to be divided.

I didn't see anything given in your post.
Given that you already saw performance numbers and price tags of Bulldozer models, why don't you tell us what you know?

And since when is 2048/2=512? Are you using the decimal number system correctly?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if AMD wants to succeed, then they should either just copy intel, or they should just stick to making products that aren't quite as fast as intel's but are a lot cheaper.

I tried.

In addition to their hotter-running, poorly designed CPUs (it's faster if they went with a design with less L3 cache clocked the same as the cores; for example, the 6 core Thuban was a really stupid idea, IMO; they could've just made a well binned PII x4 with 3.8-4 GHz core clock and 2.5-2.8 GHz L3 cache), AMD's GPUs and their technologies are pretty inferior to those of nvidia, so I don't see how they've managed to survive so long.

I'm sure that your suggestions will be fairly evaluated based on your track record of analyses and suggestions.

 

[386DX]

Yes, given identical coolers. With a cooler like that you'd be seeing around 35-40C on a Phenom II X4.

Given the same cooler, a Phenom II X4 is always 25-30C cooler than a Core i5 as long as they're within normal voltages. Anyone with knowledge on the matter will tell you this.

There's obviously a downside, though: Phenom II X4s become unstable above 60C or so, while a Core i5 will become unstable above 85C.

LOL Nobody knows what the "Real" temperature of AMD Phenom chips are. The temperature you get from the various monitoring programs is not the "real" temperature its the number reported by the AMD diode. That's why you think your AMD CPU is running cooler.

I have posted before if you bother to read the whitepaper AMD CPU's temperature sensor you will know:
- There is only 1 temp sensor
- The sensor is located in the Northbridge area and not in each core
- Software that shows AMD temperature is just reading the value given by this sensor and extrapolating it to "guess" what each core temp is
- The readings are in Celsius, a value of 41 means it 1 degree Celsius hotter then a value of 40... not that the "real" temperature is 41 C
- The usually maximum sensor value for Phenom is approx 62 C (varies by chips)

This is how AMD fools there followers into thinking there CPU is running super cool... some even think there AMD CPU's are air conditioners since they report temperatures lower then ambient. Intel Core and higher CPU's have accurate "real" temperature readings because Intel has released the real Max Temp for there CPU so an accurate reading can be derived from the sensor. If your temp program shows your Intel CPU is at 80C it means its really at 80C, if your temp program shows your AMD CPU is at 60 C it means its 2 C away from shutting down, the "real" temp can be 70, 75, 80, 100 nobody knows cause AMD won't release the offset value.

If you think what I'm saying is BS here's some quote from the author of CoreTemp:

"Core Temp displays the temperature reported to it by the CPU.
I've explained it many times, these processors report temperatures which are not absolute. There is usually a 10-15C delta that should be added to the readings to see the real temperature value."
http://www.alcpu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=800

"K10 does not report actual core temperature, it reports a "floating" temp, since without knowing this offset you won't be able to get the real, absolute temp."
http://www.alcpu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=577#orb

 

[GaiaHunter]

LOL Nobody knows what the "Real" temperature of AMD Phenom chips are. The temperature you get from the various monitoring programs is not the "real" temperature its the number reported by the AMD diode. That's why you think your AMD CPU is running cooler.

I have posted before if you bother to read the whitepaper AMD CPU's temperature sensor you will know:
- There is only 1 temp sensor
- The sensor is located in the Northbridge area and not in each core
- Software that shows AMD temperature is just reading the value given by this sensor and extrapolating it to "guess" what each core temp is
- The readings are in Celsius, a value of 41 means it 1 degree Celsius hotter then a value of 40... not that the "real" temperature is 41 C
- The usually maximum sensor value for Phenom is approx 62 C (varies by chips)

This is how AMD fools there followers into thinking there CPU is running super cool... some even think there AMD CPU's are air conditioners since they report temperatures lower then ambient. Intel Core and higher CPU's have accurate "real" temperature readings because Intel has released the real Max Temp for there CPU so an accurate reading can be derived from the sensor. If your temp program shows your Intel CPU is at 80C it means its really at 80C, if your temp program shows your AMD CPU is at 60 C it means its 2 C away from shutting down, the "real" temp can be 70, 75, 80, 100 nobody knows cause AMD won't release the offset value.

If you think what I'm saying is BS here's some quote from the author of CoreTemp:

"Core Temp displays the temperature reported to it by the CPU.
I've explained it many times, these processors report temperatures which are not absolute. There is usually a 10-15C delta that should be added to the readings to see the real temperature value."
http://www.alcpu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=800

"K10 does not report actual core temperature, it reports a "floating" temp, since without knowing this offset you won't be able to get the real, absolute temp."
http://www.alcpu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=577#orb

Again, even if all that is correct, what is the point?

What is the importance of the cpu temperature - obviously those 45ºC-55ºC phenom II work fine, even if their real temperature is 60ºC-70ºC.

What you need to know:

1) Is the CPU stable - if yes then temperature doesn't matter.

2) Power consumption.

Two equal CPUs, CPU A running at 50ºC and CPU B running at 60ºC it only means the CPU A is dissipating heat faster into the surroundings, ie, case and room.

 

[996GT2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LOL_Wut_Axel
Not even a water cooled (OCed or otherwise) Core i5 2500K is 40C at full load.

Good to know that I've now confirmed you're a troll.
Here's a picture i just took from my stock i5@prime after 6 minutes with hyper212 (25$ air hsf)

http://www.thelab.gr/members/mallibu...ps-i5-6119.jpg

I can photo it,videocapture it,write anything you like,whatever will make sure that it's not fake,so you will admit that you don't know what you're talking about. Have a nice day,sir

Somebody just got called out.

 

[garagisti]

Intel reported the TDP of Nehalem chippery as 130W. Then again, if you actually do the math yourself, which is: TDP = v.core X amperage, the TDP is = 1.37 X 100 = 137W. So Intel point blank lied about TDP, have done so for a long long time in past. Which is why AMD came up with ACP to counter it. When you're talking about 140W TDP max on an AMD chip, the chip is usually not reaching that much under normal/ heavy load conditions. I tried a lot, but i couldn't find the bloody amperage of SB chippery. My point is, why you would so easily believe claims of one company and not the other. It's not like you've actually verified internal temperatures by placing your own devices. You're reading off a screen, so really, what makes it believable. As far as i'm concerned Intel has not been honest about TDP for a while now, and they continued to do so even when they has better performing products. Ask why, and you will come to conclude that it makes them look good, and so they lied.

 

[Rifter]

Intel reported the TDP of Nehalem chippery as 130W. Then again, if you actually do the math yourself, which is: TDP = v.core X amperage, the TDP is = 1.37 X 100 = 137W. So Intel point blank lied about TDP, have done so for a long long time in past. Which is why AMD came up with ACP to counter it. When you're talking about 140W TDP max on an AMD chip, the chip is usually not reaching that much under normal/ heavy load conditions. I tried a lot, but i couldn't find the bloody amperage of SB chippery. My point is, why you would so easily believe claims of one company and not the other. It's not like you've actually verified internal temperatures by placing your own devices. You're reading off a screen, so really, what makes it believable. As far as i'm concerned Intel has not been honest about TDP for a while now, and they continued to do so even when they has better performing products. Ask why, and you will come to conclude that it makes them look good, and so they lied.

sorry to break this to you but every company lies, its just a fact of life. They are in it to make money plain and simple and will do whatever possible to do it. Intel lies about TDP, Nvidia does to. AMD lied about BD being AM3 compatable and not needing new mobo's. ATI said the 6770 wasnt a rebadge and then released it as a 100% 5770 rebadge. MS has done some shady work in the past too, they all do it. If you want to buy from a company that doesnt or hasnt lied at some point its not even possible as they all have.

 

[AnotherGuy]

OP is a fool, just check some of his post in P&N.

Wrong... OP is a Newb!

 

[garagisti]

sorry to break this to you but every company lies, its just a fact of life...

Which is what i was trying to tell those brown nosed Intel shills... did you not read? I never understand why they are so willing to bend over for one and not even give a chance to the other company. They swear by Intel, like its word is gospel and chips are manna from heaven. The forums here are too blue (Intel hued)

 

[Rifter]

Which is what i was trying to tell those brown nosed Intel shills... did you not read? I never understand why they are so willing to bend over for one and not even give a chance to the other company. They swear by Intel, like its word is gospel and chips are manna from heaven. The forums here are too blue (Intel hued)

there are always die hard fans of any company, for the CPU forum it seems to be more intel and the VC&G forum seems to be more ATI at the moment. It will change over time. Personally i am smart enough to realize they all conduct business in the same manner weather you like it or not and just buy the best hardware currently available in my price range regardless of the company it comes from. No point in sticking to one company and sticking your head in the ground every time they do something shady and pretend it doesnt happen.