This is what I come back to?
Let's recap:
dr. apocalipsis Post #1:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=37061610&postcount=130
dr. apocalipsis Post #2:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=37142744&postcount=144
dr. apocalipsis Post #3:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=37179782&postcount=148
dr. apocalipsis Post #4:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=37208555&postcount=218
Seriously, I can't understad your point at all.
That would be the second time you've said something along those lines.
I'm not parsing words, or arguing semantics here. Again, you made a broad brush statement, which was inaccurate.
My point now is as simple as it was when I first replied to your initial post:
·feist·;37141474 said:
Not true, my sir.
Second generation of Core 2, Yorkfield, still have higher IPC than any AMD processor, including Phenom II, Bulldozer or Llano. 4 years after their release.
Thuban x6 can compete due to extra cores, but thats it. Per thread performance, power consumption or OC headroom still behind Q9000 series.
This is incorrect.
You may want to re-run some benchmarks, readings, and OCs to refresh your memory. Barring access to the parts you mentioned, have a look at reviews.
Again, those are three areas of stated futility; performance, power consumption, and overclock capability.
I'm not debating performance, yet you continue to bring it up, even though I've already made my stance on that point clear, more than once. Still, your claim of Phenom IIs only being able to
"compete due to extra cores, but thats it", is also flawed. I've addressed why, along with the posted links. Of the three claims, power consumption, and overclocking are the most problematic. As I've said earlier. The power consumption claim, is not a 100% black, and white matter. Ivy Bridge, and Bulldozer results (among others) should tell you that. Even then, Phenom IIs have gone against LGA 775, LGA 1156, and LGA 1366 45nm parts. I grabbed five random power consumption charts, out of the dozen or so reviews at that Phenom II X4 920/940 link. Instead of acknowledging the range of results, you've overlooked the charts clearly showing the AMDs being roughly equal to (or lower than) the Intels, bringing up performance-per-watt, and comparing the X4 940 to an ~340MHz lower clocked Q9400. That's how you arrived at a "4-1" tally?
I've already asked if you were taking
"into account the different states of Intel and AMD's 45nm maturity." You didn't respond to that. Instead, you again claimed that:
Phenom II x4 tops at 4ghz OC talking about 24/7 in x64 2x2Gb or more setups, you can see Q9650 over 4,4Ghz.
That's factually inaccurate.
For whatever reason, you've brushed-off the overclocking results I posted.
I made it abundantly clear that not only is the X4 980 not a magical chip, the results posted were the very first five results from Google, posted in order, just in case anyone might assume they were in any way cherry-picked. I also posted quotes showing at least two of the reviews mentioned the lower end X4 975 (like many other X4 SKUs) also clocked higher than 4.0GHz, with one reviewer stating:
"We have seen most C3 Deneb cores pass 4 GHz maximum clock." You follow with:
I was talking all the time about 24/7 OC's. You posted even suicide shots there: 1,620 Vcore! So you got the very last release of the Phenom II family, 980BE, peak of AMD's 45nm, released in 2011 with the ultimate revision of the chip, and you try to tell me they are on par with first revision of Intel 45nm tech released in 2008, when that AMD chip can only OC 400~600 mhz (Tops at 16%) under extreme voltages. Seriously, I can't understad your point at all.
It's so easy to find better Q9650 OC's:
Have a look at Vcore.
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/5507/4905od4.jpg
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?203329-Q9650-EP45-DQ6-ALL-AIR-4.9GHz
On air OC with high Vcore.
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/2113/syspp9.jpg
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?206237-Q9650-4.8GHz-4870-8800-3870-all-air
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=423924
5 ghz on air. Suicide shot for sure since Vcore is not shown.
First, you'll find C3 stepping reviews from 2009, not that long after E0 stepping surfaced. Notice the difference in each company's process roadmap? Or, the irony in effectively claiming that the C3 stepping results I posted were not particularly valid, while posting
E0 Q9650 OCs? Surely, E0s weren't the first revision of that line, any more than C3s, correct? Again, refer to the reviewer's comment about having
"seen most C3 Deneb cores pass 4 GHz maximum clock." Or, reread my remark about how
"overall, a large number of 45nm Phenom II/i5 7xx/i7 8xx/i7 9xx tend to fall within the 3.8-4.2GHz range for standard 24/7." Your Q9650 shots don't change that at all.
Without spending anymore time on this, or looking elsewhere, I'll stick to the source you've used. If you frequent that forum, then you should easily be able to find other examples of 24/7 4GHz+ X4s, across different steppings, that don't need extreme cooling.
Three quick random links, more if you follow the links in their sigs, replies in the threads, or the internet:
Phenom II Air/Water CPU-Z Validation Thread:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...0-Phenom-II-Air-Water-CPU-Z-Validation-Thread
Phenom 965 4.4ghz superpi 1m
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?235711-Phenom-965-4.4ghz-superpi-1m
New 955 BE first tests, 5 GHz on air
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?280563-New-955-BE-first-tests-5-GHz-on-air&
If you aren't familiar with Phenom II voltage tolerances, or the voltage range you often find many top end 24/7 clocks, that's fine, but being incredulous, and then attempting to make direct comparisons to contemporary Intels, isn't.
Percentage of overclock is another thing you continue to bring up. What bearing does that
ultimately have when you can get similar results from overclocking 2.66GHz i7 920s, and 3.2GHz i7 960s, or any number of closely comparable parts (even factoring in higher order binning, multiplier limitations, and so on)?
I feel we are wasting time here.
Agreed, though I wasn't the one stating misinformation, and presenting it as if it were in some way absolute. And, no, neither are my counterpoints. That's also clear.
I've posted several links disputing your remarks, and you've chosen to disavow them, make claims of suicide runs, and added qualifiers that have nothing to do with your initial three-point claim, and the fact that it was flawed. It wasn't even necessary to venture into Bulldozer air/water clocks, or extreme cooling of different Intel/AMD CPU generations to show that.
Trying to later on modify things with points such as percentage of overclock, or performance per watt, doesn't change your original blanket statement, or my reply to it.