Mutant Corn
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 605
Intel got rid of the traditional front side bus, but there are still parts of the system that serve the same function. They just moved most of it to the CPU die. AMD also replaced most of the FSB (with Hypertransport..more on that later), but they still have a more-or-less traditional north bridge/south bridge setup. However, in both AMD and Intel systems, the memory controller isn't attached to the HT/QPI at all. Both companies' processors have a dedicated memory controller in the CPU itself. In other words, the CPU is linked directly to the RAM. Motherboards have limitations because there's still a limit in the hardware somewhere, but it has nothign to do with the FSB.i fell like we are getting closer to an agreement.
we now agree on the intergraded gpu and about the pins. (still nothing agenst pins. they work as thay should)
ok.... i am not sure if they are using intergraded memory controller, what i meen is thet controller that used to sit on the motherboard.
you might be right..... But then i just dont understad why thay still have a speed limitation on the motherboard then. the FSB.
when intel got rid of the mem controler on the motherboard, thay also got rid of the FSB. can you explane that?
i am just asking corz i seriosly dont know.
No, AMD's default base clock (FSB speed) is always 200MHz, and Intel's I believe is 133MHz up until Sandy Bridge, which drops it to 100MHz. Doesn't matter on sandy bridge anyway though, since you can't change it without screwing stuff up.i just saw a damm cheep amd bord with an FSB at 2700 mhz... that suprised me. that is kinda fast for FSB and for that lov prise.
but Intels speed via the bord is QPI. an intel core i7 920 has i QPI at 6,4 GT/s. thats 3,2 ghz. and when you overclock it, it goes up.
THATS why it confuses me that you are saying that amd has intergraded mem controller.
What you were probably looking at is Hypertransport speed. Hypertransport, as used by AMD, is more or less what Intel was trying to emulate when the designed QPI. (Hypertransport isn't an AMD-only technology)
Default HT speed for AMD systems varies by what CPU and socket you have, but I think their highest so far is 2000MHz on AM3. However, current Hypertransport technology is capable of up to 3.2GHz. It isn't directly comparable with QPI, though.
Also, HT speed does go up when you overclock the system with the base clock, but not if you do it with the CPU multiplier. Same with RAM speed.
AMD and Intel do not have perfectly identical instruction sets. It's absolutely possible to optimize for one or the other. Intel's current architecture is more efficient clock-for-clock than AMD's though...no argument there.the remaining this is the thing that startet it all.
BENCHMARKS........
cpu benshmarks are different from gpu benchmarks. games ARE optimized to ether ati(amd) or nvidia. also some 3d gpu rendering benchmarks are optimized for amd or nvidia.
like "Unigine Heaven" is optimized for nvidia. "Unigine Heaven" is a benchmark that you should NOT count on. it should be banded.
but you can always count on 3dmark.
anyway... the cpu benchmarks in the other hand is not optimized.
i can't see how you can optimize a non driver needed hardware.
so what you are saying is that they optimize there cpu's for better real life tasks...... nice.....
so is it optimized for like winrar. awesome... i use winrar alot.
is it cinebench optimized.... nice.. i have photoshop cs3... cpu rendering.
about games.... i like games.
cpu's is NOT optimized.
It's NOT an unfair fight. They're nearly the same price, and as such are direct competitors to one another.about your amd 6 core..... i dont need to find a 6 core intel to match up with it.
what about a 4 core core i5.
AMD's Six-Core Phenom II X6 1090T & 1055T Reviewed - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News
(just go to some of the benchmarking test in the review.)
i know that in some of the benchmarks core i5 gets its ass handed to it, but thing about that the amd 1090t has a higher mhz (500 mhz) then core i5 AND 2 more cores. total unfare fight.
Again, your percieved advantage is negated by the fact that they're the same price. Doesn't matter what the specs are. Performnce per dollar is what matters in computing. And if you look, in the benchmarks that actually use all of the cores, the x6's are up to 20% more powerful than the i5 and about on par with the i7's, which have eight threads and, key point here, are $100 more. Given the proper workload, you pay 2/3 as much for the AMD and get the same performance. The gap is even wider when you consider the 1055T there.you could also just have a look at the core i7 920 and 860. those are also 4 cores (8 threads) with still 400-500 lower mhz then the amd 1090t. those are really giving the amd 1090t a challange.
this is what i meen about that intel mhz is worth more then amd mhz.
this should be a total unfare fight. 4 core vs 6, lower mhz vs higher. amd has avantage but still looses in most benchmarks.
The Phenom II x6 chips definitely need a heavily multithreaded workload to shine, but when they do, it's pretty obvious that they kick arse compared to the similarly-priced 1st gen Nehalem chip. Pretty good for an architecture designed to combat Intel's old Core 2 architecture.
None of them can hold a candle to the ~$200 Sandy Bridge offerings, though.