AMD's 3GHz K10 to break 30,000 3DMark06

[Trotter]

After all, they made the assertion this hardware was capable of such benchmarks, its their job to support it with evidence, not mine to disprove it.

Very true. But we shall soon see, as the release is only a couple of weeks away. I saw something about the chips starting into the channel in a few days.

 

[Apokalipse]

The Inquirer is the only source in the net that claimed that DX9.0L is DX10 for Windows XP

If Microsoft did consider making DirectX 10 for XP called DX9.0L. Then why other sources like dailytech, techreport etc didn't mention that ?

Because TheInquirer is willing to put up unconfirmed stories that others aren't. That's why they're sometimes wrong.

And why would Microsoft call the DX10 version of XP "DX9.0L" ?? Why not DX10 instead of DX9.0L ? Don't you feel that there is something wrong with The Inquirer ??

Maybe it lacks features?

And yes I can't believe that his laptop was stolen.

First: The Inquirer claimed that 3GHz K10 scores much more than 5GHz C2Q !! Which is unbelievable because if you do math the K10 would be twice as fast per clock in 3dmarks.

Many people said the same thing before C2D came out.

Even the Athlon64 was only 1.5 the speed of Pentium 4 per clock not 2 times the speed.

And?

If K10 is 2 times the speed per clock compared to Intel C2D then K10 would be even more that 2 times the speed of K8

And?

First, this is a K10 quad core they're benchmarking (compared to a K8 dual core)

Also remember this is only one particular type of benchmark.
I seem to remember one or two very specific cases where the 45nm Intel chips performed about twice as fast as current gen chips. But their average was around about 10-20%.

Second: He claimed that his laptop was stolen. What a coincidence ?? Doesn't this make you feel that The Inquirer is hiding something ?

There were many things suspicious about the Conroe benchmarks when they were first made, too.

After all, they made the assertion this hardware was capable of such benchmarks, its their job to support it with evidence, not mine to disprove it.

Does anybody else here not see the parallels with Conroe release?

Yes, it's not a confirmed case. You have a right to be suspicious. Just like people had a right to be suspicious of Conroe benchmarks before release.

yeah but that xeon had faster ram, and it also is clocked higher. they did say that the xeon was 58% faster with a 50% faster clock speed. so, at the same clock speed, with the same ram....which would be faster i wonder? i dont think that the ram would make up the 8% if they were running the same clock speed, but it might.
i know one thing for sure...its faster than k8.
EDIT:
now, im no mathematical genius...
but how does that equal 58% faster? its 58% (actually i calculate 62% faster 17/27?) faster than 17 seconds, not 58% faster than 27seconds. where does 58% come from?
27 - 17 = 10, right?
its only 37% (27 - 17 = 10 / 27)faster than 27 seconds...and the intels clock speed is 50% more than the amd.
i could be horribly wrong here lol...english and language are my strong points, not math, heh.

(27 / 17) x 100 = 158.82%

But anyway, you have a valid point. the Xeon was clocked faster.

Not only that, but that was an early version of K10.

 

[veg1992]

Very true. But we shall soon see, as the release is only a couple of weeks away. I saw something about the chips starting into the channel in a few days.

2 weeks????

 

[Trotter]

Mid-September for the server chips.

 

[bmxfreakrider]

lol, i dont care what anybody says. Im AMD/NVIDIA all the way, until i can afford a new ati card, then i will have a matching amd/ati combo, but till then, i love nvidia

 

[bmxfreakrider]

wait i read the reivew again, and got a comment. it seems like they did the test at amd, and why in amd's rightfull mind would they let them overclock their system? and how come every part that was in it, seemed like they knew ooh so well, and why would amd let them overclock the best video cards on the market? and their numbers are tooo exact. something is wrong with this picture.

oh wait, they said their own k10 system. how in the **** would they get a system that isnt even available to the public and not have other copies of the data, like printed ****, or something like that, 35mm pics, instant camera pics, **** even a letter from amd about the cpu that they loaned to them....too many quirks in their thing. **** shipping lables or something would even be acceptable proof!

 

[mrfluffles]

Apokalipse, it seems you can't accept that this is bull.. Come on now.. yeah there is a CHANCE that it's real but it would be like winning the lottery 1 in 60mil or something.

There are SO many suspicious things about this:
1) How the eff could they post this without getting serious crap at them by AMD? If amd gave them a sample they would've been under NDA

2) This would be a WAY higher speed jump compared to k8 vs c2d and the k8/c2d one was a pretty big leap itself. k8 is nowhere near twice as slow as c2ds

3) Laptop got stolen? lol

4) This would be a WAY higher speed jump compared to k8 vs c2d and the k8/c2d one was a pretty big leap itself. k8 is nowhere near twice as slow as c2ds

5) I don't understand what this means

"but before that happened we asked AMD if it would let us run memory benchmark scores on a system there. The reps gave us the company line and declined, so we decided to disclose the benchmark scores of our own K10 benchmarking here and now."

So they had a system of their own with a k10 or what? What the heck do they mean their "own" benchmarking?

6) I didn't see before that the 6k difference included the gpu overclocks and the .5 cpu increase but that's still pretty rediculous.. It's not like they did a huge overclock, only to 830/1800 from 740/1650

7) It's the INQUIRER! Why the heck are you sympathizing for them? Yeah a lot of their articles are true but 95% of their true ones are just a link to another website. If they didn't have any true ones they wouldn't have any traffic to look at their fake ones that always seem to be about something significant. And they put out a LOT of articles that were definitively pulled out of their ace (that obviously aren't things that just weren't 100% confirmed yet)

end thread

 

[Nagasama]

lol the intel boys who are suh-wettin.
dude you are fools for thinking that amd has no answer to c2d.
foolish i say!

 

[bmxfreakrider]

hey, intel might be topping the charts right now, but think of it like an argument between cars. two guys, one has a classic mustang, and one has a classic corvette. both are gonna be upgrading and improving until theirs is better then they will hold off and gloat over the victory until the other takes first, then the battle starts over......

its been this way for a while...intel, then amd, then intel, then amd, etc....back and fourth tug of war, its just a freaking battle that leaves us, the enthusiast consumer begging the companies to fight more violently and create some serious performance, like the c2d when then k8 was out, now we are going to have the k10, then they will have the c3d, then k12, etc....down the line untill we have a k64 and a c29o (a 8 core cpu, maybe? or how about a 64bit 64 core 64ghz cpu...oohhhh the possibilities!) only the future will tell. lets just hold off until the k10 rolls of the line and we can try it ourselves, i would buy one just to settle the argument even if i had to pull 3 jobs in one day, plus night shifts all while figuring out how to take care of my schooling and stuff.

 

[dario03]

Thats not a good analogy since a Corvette flat out pwns a Mustang

In any case I wouldn't be surprised if we found out the inquirer isn't being on the level. But it also wouldn't surprise me if AMD K10 is that fast.