The toy after a week of use

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: jandlecack

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
But just because tripple channel works well with i7's architecture, does not mean that it will work well the PhII's. Remember, PhII is very much a legacy architecture, it's roots deep in the K8 reservoir. It's merely evolutionary, not revolutionary.

My point exactly.

The architecture is not as impressive as it should be, considering it's AMDs flagship model, and mostly the only reason to build an AM3 based system.

The architecture is exactly "as impressive as it should be". They've squeezed a lot out of it.

AMD needs a new architecture if it wants to compete with i7.

 

[jandlecack]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
AMD needs a new architecture if it wants to compete with i7.

I rest my case.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: jandlecack

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
AMD needs a new architecture if it wants to compete with i7.

I rest my case.

But, in your initial statements, you were not saying that AMD needed a new architecture. You stated that the current architecture was held back by AM2+ support, and this is clearly not the case.

 

[jandlecack]

And I think it is, and it isn't. Lack of trichan is just one of the aspects that I find flawed in the current architecture considering how it's built for AM3 - I assume - primarily. I feel that they could get much more out of a promising platform like AM3 if they started developing microarchitectures specifically for sockets instead of refreshing them all the time but on a new socket with funky backwards compatibility.

Plus, neither of us can prove whether it is held back or not, but if anything I'd put more trust in an upcoming high end AM3-only CPU than another one of these hybrids. So both our points are moot to some extent.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: jandlecack
And I think it is, and it isn't. Lack of trichan is just one of the aspects that I find flawed in the current architecture considering how it's built for AM3 - I assume - primarily. I feel that they could get much more out of a promising platform like AM3 if they started developing microarchitectures specifically for sockets instead of refreshing them all the time but on a new socket with funky backwards compatibility.

Sadly, I don't think AMD was concerned about maintaining backwards compatibility, they simply don't have the R&D to break out a an all-new architecture.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: jandlecack
And I think it is, and it isn't. Lack of trichan is just one of the aspects that I find flawed in the current architecture considering how it's built for AM3 - I assume - primarily. I feel that they could get much more out of a promising platform like AM3 if they started developing microarchitectures specifically for sockets instead of refreshing them all the time but on a new socket with funky backwards compatibility.

Ok, I get where you are coming from now. But, I don't think the decision to have AM2+ capability was a deciding factor on what went into the cores. It seems AMD really over estimated just how long a K8 based processor would dominate. My guess is even if PhII was AM3 only we'd have what we have now. Of course this is just my gut feeling and we have no way of proving or disproving this.

 

[jandlecack]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: jandlecack
And I think it is, and it isn't. Lack of trichan is just one of the aspects that I find flawed in the current architecture considering how it's built for AM3 - I assume - primarily. I feel that they could get much more out of a promising platform like AM3 if they started developing microarchitectures specifically for sockets instead of refreshing them all the time but on a new socket with funky backwards compatibility.

Sadly, I don't think AMD was concerned about maintaining backwards compatibility, they simply don't have the R&D to break out a an all-new architecture.

The problems that AMD is facing are of much broader nature indeed.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Rubycon
Are you going to overcluck it?

I prefer overclacking myself, but that's just me...

 

[lopri]

Without sounding rude - could you guys make a new thread about AMD vs. Intel? We all know where they stand today and I have my own opinion, but that wasn't the purpose of this thread. Thank you much!

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: lopri

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
write up a guide on how to overclock these things PLEASEEEE

i've NEVER understood how to overclock AMD's and that A64 guide did not help me

1. Hit 'Del' at boot and enter BIOS.
3. Change multiplier from 16 to 20.
3. Hit 'F10' then 'Enter'. Wait 30 secs.

1. Shut down and change memory sticks.
2. Rinse and repeat above steps.

Very quick water-testing from last night. Everytime it doesn't like some changes to NB -> clear CMOS. :thumbsdown: Hopefully I will get to run some benches by the weekend.

Lopri what's going on here? Can you elaborate please? Why does this happen? What are you saying about the memory sticks? I'm confused.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: jandlecack

Originally posted by: SlowSpyderWhy do you feel backwards compatibility holds the chip back?

I'd like to think that by maintaining compatibility of the older socket as well as DDR2 RAM, something had to be sacrificed. This is evident as running the 955 on an AM3-DDR3 platform does not bring the performance gains it should compared to AM2-DDR2, but comes with the price premium.

The DDR3 memory by nature may give it some gains in synthetic benchmarks, but in real-world performance (games anyone) there is almost zero point in running it on AM3 unless you got money to burn and like to boast about running DDR3 or something.

This is probably tied to the lack of triple channel support in the CPU architecture/memory controller. Which brings me back to the compatibility issue...

It's still a very fast chip in its own right though.

My guess is they took the DDR2 controller and were able to add on to it, we really have no idea if anything had to be sacrificed. Kind of like when they went with 64 bit support, they built it on to their 32 bit chip.

I think when the transition from DDR1 to DDR2 occured, it was pretty much the same story. DDR2 didn't really offer much over DDR1. My guess is the better timings make up for the bandwidth advantage of DDR3 in a lot of situations. I'm willing to bet as DDR3 improves and as the need for more bandwidth grows DDR3 will start to seperate itself from DDR2.

AMD does lack triple channel support, but does that make a real difference? Again, I wouldn't be suprised if this is a feature that starts to show it's true benefit down the road, but not sure how much it matters right now, or if it really makes a point that AMD had to sacrifice anything for backwards compatibility.

Just my $.02.

Nothing was sacrificed, this is FUD.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: jandlecack

Originally posted by: SlowSpyderWhy do you feel backwards compatibility holds the chip back?

I'd like to think that by maintaining compatibility of the older socket as well as DDR2 RAM, something had to be sacrificed. This is evident as running the 955 on an AM3-DDR3 platform does not bring the performance gains it should compared to AM2-DDR2, but comes with the price premium.

The DDR3 memory by nature may give it some gains in synthetic benchmarks, but in real-world performance (games anyone) there is almost zero point in running it on AM3 unless you got money to burn and like to boast about running DDR3 or something.

This is probably tied to the lack of triple channel support in the CPU architecture/memory controller. Which brings me back to the compatibility issue...

It's still a very fast chip in its own right though.

I'm still not sure what you are getting at. No transition in memory standard since SDR-DDR has done much, if anything, for performance. In fact when DDR2 was introduced, it was found to be slower than DDR-400.

From your post, it sounds like you are making suppositions based on zero knowledge.

:thumbsup:
I agree. There's no reason including the DDR2 memory controller with the move to DDR3 would slow the chip down.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Lopri what's going on here? Can you elaborate please? Why does this happen? What are you saying about the memory sticks? I'm confused.

It was a quick testing on a 64-bit OS. It was almost too easy and performance was inconsistent, so I think there was something wrong. But for a guide Louis asked for, I don't think it's that bad.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: lopri
Without sounding rude - could you guys make a new thread about AMD vs. Intel? We all know where they stand today and I have my own opinion, but that wasn't the purpose of this thread. Thank you much!

It's not possible to mention AMD w/o the Intel dudes popping in! :laugh: This was actually not bad, as it wasn't the usually nasty "AMD/Intel sucks" stuff.

OK, back on topic. We need ovary-claking results, dammit!

 

[OCGuy]

It will be a shame if you let such a chip go to waste by not overclacking heavily.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: jandlecack
And I think it is, and it isn't. Lack of trichan is just one of the aspects that I find flawed in the current architecture considering how it's built for AM3 - I assume - primarily. I feel that they could get much more out of a promising platform like AM3 if they started developing microarchitectures specifically for sockets instead of refreshing them all the time but on a new socket with funky backwards compatibility.

Plus, neither of us can prove whether it is held back or not, but if anything I'd put more trust in an upcoming high end AM3-only CPU than another one of these hybrids. So both our points are moot to some extent.

Seriously? A socket does not an architecture make!

AM3 is simply a socket to necessarily differentiate memory standards, and that is only because the voltages and signaling between DDR2 and DDR3 aren't the same. I'm not sure why else you'd be saying AMD is holding back. The socket makes absolutely no difference on the chip - you've just become accustom to a new socket meaning completely new things.

Lack of tri-channel isn't a flaw. It's not a necessity. It's the same reason why MAINSTREAM Core i5 parts are going to be dual channel.

In the end, it's all about what the core logic of the CPU is doing. In the case of the Phenom II, this has absolutely nothing to do with the socket. The only reason the Phenom II is "backwards compatible" with the older socket is because they have two memory controllers in it in order to accomplish that. To me, that doesn't sound like holding anything back. It sounds rather enabling.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: jandlecack
And I think it is, and it isn't. Lack of trichan is just one of the aspects that I find flawed in the current architecture considering how it's built for AM3 - I assume - primarily. I feel that they could get much more out of a promising platform like AM3 if they started developing microarchitectures specifically for sockets instead of refreshing them all the time but on a new socket with funky backwards compatibility.

Ok, I get where you are coming from now. But, I don't think the decision to have AM2+ capability was a deciding factor on what went into the cores. It seems AMD really over estimated just how long a K8 based processor would dominate. My guess is even if PhII was AM3 only we'd have what we have now. Of course this is just my gut feeling and we have no way of proving or disproving this.

Guys, PhII is AM2+ compatible intentionally...they could not do what Intel did with i7 and build an IMC that required so many PCB layers that the mobo would be $250+, combined with the (then) much more expense DDR3.

For a product placement point of view, AM2+ cheap low-layer count PCB mobos combined with cheap DDR2 and dual-channel controller hit the platform pricepoint nicely.

Think about it, even if we make the completely gratuitous allowance that ditching AM2+ compatibility would give PhII a 10% increase in IPC, what kind of CPU sales do you think AMD would have seen with their X4 940 if it required $250+ AM3 triple-channel mobos (requires more PCB layers for the trichan) combined with the requirement that you need to buy DDR3 ram?

It would destroy the upgrade path, folks who had a system already populated with DDR2 they'd just as soon not get rid of. And it would have forced AMD to price their PhII cpus such that they competed with i7 directly on a platform level price/performance metric.

It would have been for the total loss.

 

[Tempered81]

lopri, what are your overcloaking results?

 

[geokilla]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
lopri, what are your overcloaking results?

He's probably too busy jizzing his pants to post back. His OCs are just that high

 

[lopri]

There is definitely something wrong. Gotta go out for now but will probably back quick so I can figure this thing out. Until then all I have is a 1M.

 

[soonerproud]

OP, I have one on the way after a month of trying to get my previous system to be stable. Newegg offered to buy it all back and let me order new parts when I got paid today. I am getting some extra work painting a small house which is paying for the difference between the previous set up and the parts i am buying now. I hope to have the parts here on Monday or Tuesday, now that UPS has their act together and no longer forces the express shipping to be three days when your order has been in town for at least a day prior.

Links to parts located below.

ECS BLACK SERIES A790GXM-AD3 AM3

AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Deneb 3.2GHz

G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: lopri
Without sounding rude - could you guys make a new thread about AMD vs. Intel? We all know where they stand today and I have my own opinion, but that wasn't the purpose of this thread. Thank you much!

Amen to that.

Originally posted by: lopri
There is definitely something wrong. Gotta go out for now but will probably back quick so I can figure this thing out. Until then all I have is a 1M.

This AM3 stuff is so new. Combine the new CPU with brand-new mobos on a new architecture and I'm not surprised there are problems. That doesn't mean the platform is invalid or worthless or not competitive; it simply means, at least to me, that the platform needs some more bake time. If Gigabyte comes out with a BIOS update a lot of issues might go away.

I'm just saying, I doubt a completely solidified OCing benchmark result is in the cards yet.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: jandlecack

Originally posted by: SlowSpyderWhy do you feel backwards compatibility holds the chip back?

I'd like to think that by maintaining compatibility of the older socket as well as DDR2 RAM, something had to be sacrificed. This is evident as running the 955 on an AM3-DDR3 platform does not bring the performance gains it should compared to AM2-DDR2, but comes with the price premium.

The DDR3 memory by nature may give it some gains in synthetic benchmarks, but in real-world performance (games anyone) there is almost zero point in running it on AM3 unless you got money to burn and like to boast about running DDR3 or something.

This is probably tied to the lack of triple channel support in the CPU architecture/memory controller. Which brings me back to the compatibility issue...

It's still a very fast chip in its own right though.

Actually, click the links in my previous post and you will see that AM3/DDR3 is in price parity now with AM2+/DDR2. There is no point in losing that 3-5% extra performance that the AM3 controller paired with DDR3 sometimes provides when the cost is essentially the same now.

Another thing you got completely wrong is that backwards compatibility does not hold the AM3 processors back in performance since the AM3 and the AM2+ controllers on the CPU are entirely different controllers. In many benchies there was a slight increase in performance using AM3 due to the extra bandwidth of DDR3.

What these CPU's really need is a larger L2 cache to mitigate the extra latency the L3 cache causes which in turn would allow the AM3 controller to use the higher bandwidth more effective on DDR3. Intel just did a better job of designing their caches and controllers to take advantage of DDR3 and they transitioned to triple channel on the i7. AMD has a chance when transitioning to 32 NM to fix these issues and become more competitive with Intel's top of the line.

I agree with the OP that this thread was not started to debate Intel vs AMD so that was not my intention of mentioning them. The 955 is a hell of a chip for the price and it makes it hard for those of us who want a i7, but can't afford it to pass it up.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: soonerproud
Another thing you got completely wrong is that backwards compatibility does not hold the AM3 processors back in performance since the AM3 and the AM2+ controllers on the CPU are entirely different controllers. In many benchies there was a slight increase in performance using AM3 due to the extra bandwidth of DDR3.

I think Jandle's argument is more that if AMD had ditched the AM2+/DDR2 hardware and transistor needed to for that compatibility and then used those freed-up transistors to create a tri-channel DDR3 AM3 cpu plus bolster any other xtor starved tweaks on current PhII (within the same die-size and cost-budget) then such a CPU would have likely had higher IPC.

He's making the argument that the presence of AM2+/DDR2 hardware means something else could not be present, and that something else could have meant higher performance.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: geokilla

Originally posted by: jaredpace
lopri, what are your overcloaking results?

He's probably too busy jizzing his pants to post back. His OCs are just that high

As long as it stays out of the power supply he should be fine.