Lowyat.NET Forums

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

LYN wins Intel-Lenovo-Tangs Blogathon challenge. Thank you everybody!
90 Pages « < 6 7 8 9 10 > »  
RSS feedBump TopicReply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

> The Phenom II Official Thread, Phenom II TWKR Edition?

tech3910
post Nov 27 2008, 03:39 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #141


Prototype
*******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 4,202
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Feb 2008
From: Heaven to HELL





QUOTE(AMDAthlon @ Nov 27 2008, 02:53 AM)
Indeedly..The benchmark are still not fully..We will see..
Anyway the pricing will change later as AMD said,the pricing might be below Core i7 or just slightly above it.I wish the price at RM 850~1100..
*


AMD is very "accurate" wit their pricing.
i still remember wen phenom launch, dey calculated how many % it is slower den q6600 & price phenom exactly dat percentage bellow q6600 price........ sweat.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AMDAthlon
post Nov 27 2008, 03:42 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #142


The AMD's /ATi Member Since 1995
*******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 4,042
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Aug 2007
From: AMD's Universe.Living Inside Bulldozer Planet





Haha..Look at the graphics counterpart already know..
But i hope the pricing is right smile.gif
User is online!Profile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
X.E.D
post Nov 27 2008, 10:16 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #143


this will f*ck you up
******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,897
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jan 2006
From: Bukit Katil, MLK // NTU, SG





QUOTE(lex @ Nov 27 2008, 02:40 AM)
That 3DMark CPU score does somewhat indicate the Phenom II 940 will not be faster than Q9550? hmm.gif

And the gaming scores... are those IGP vs IGP?  unsure.gif Or single card versus CrossfireX, 2-way CrossFireX or versus 4-way CrossFireX? Can only speculate.. Until then will await the announcement of system specifications used in that graph. hmm.gif
*



3DMark does not have linear scaling.

With respect to a 3DMark shootout from Computerbase, the Ph-II 940 is 2.5% faster than the 9550, but 1.5% slower than the 3Ghz Q9650. It's about 7% faster than the Phenom I @ 3Ghz.


And Phenom II prices are revised. Now it's an Italian source, but we remove the VAT.

QUOTE
Thus, if we deduct VAT from that Italian store, we get following:

AMD Phenom II 940 Black = €245 = US$318
AMD Phenom II 920 = €205 = US$266


This post has been edited by X.E.D: Nov 27 2008, 10:18 AM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pikacu
post Nov 27 2008, 10:21 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #144


OMG D:
*******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 5,511
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jun 2006
From: Car Junk





OT abit..maybe due to P-II hype, amd decides to do price cut

user posted image
http://www.techpowerup.com/77249/AMD_Price..._Announced.html
still unconfirm for msia
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ndgoh
post Nov 27 2008, 11:05 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #145


On my way
****

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 666
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jun 2006






If AMD price their new CPU higher than i7, they are digging their own grave...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zonan4
post Nov 27 2008, 11:24 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #146


Getting Started
**

Group: Junior Member
Posts: 170
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Puchong, Selangor





huhuhuhu im waiting and saving my money... now almost rm2k huhuhu....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xk2
post Nov 27 2008, 01:11 PM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #147


***♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂♂***
*******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 2,219
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Oct 2007
From: Melaka






User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
maxburnz
post Nov 27 2008, 04:01 PM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #148


On my way
****

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 585
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jun 2008
From: Shah Alam,UNITEN






haha..digging their own grave..lol
i think the price should be around c2q only...more than that...maybe people may jumpship to intel
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lex
post Nov 27 2008, 08:18 PM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #149


Old Am I?
Group Icon

Group: Moderator
Posts: 7,118
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jan 2005





QUOTE(X.E.D @ Nov 27 2008, 10:16 AM)
3DMark does not have linear scaling.
Actually, it does have almost linear scaling. Look at the Q9450, Q9550 and QX9650.. wink.gif

QUOTE(X.E.D @ Nov 27 2008, 10:16 AM)
With respect to a 3DMark shootout from Computerbase,
You mean this one? http://www.pcgameshardware.com/&menu=brows...1&show=original brows.gif

Attached Image

QUOTE(X.E.D @ Nov 27 2008, 10:16 AM)
the Ph-II 940 is 2.5% faster than the 9550, but 1.5% slower than the 3Ghz Q9650. It's about 7% faster than the Phenom I @ 3Ghz.
That article does not have Q9400 but it has the Q9300 and Q9450. rolleyes.gif

From the PCGH graph.... Q9450 = 4081 and Q9300 = 3811, that's only 7.08% difference. However the AMD graph shows around 15.2% difference between Q9300 and Q9400, and the Q9450 is slightly faster than the Q9400. So obviously the scaling in the AMD graph is different, more than twice that of PCGH graph. hmm.gif

Lets assume Q9450 as Q9400.. If 4081 at 91%, to 3811 at 79% is (91% - 79%) / 79%= 15.2% on the AMD graph, so obviously 12% difference equals 15.2%. This 9% difference from Q9400 to Phenom II 940 would be around (9% * 15.2%) / 12% = 11.4%.

Thus 11.4% / 15.2% * 7.08% = 5.31% on the PCGH graph. Total difference from Q9300 to Phenom II 940 is 5.31% + 7.08% = 12.39%. That puts the score around...

3811 * 112.39% = 4283

That puts the Phenom II 940 a bit behind Q9550 at 4284... Much more than 1 point because Q9400 is a bit slower than Q9450. icon_rolleyes.gif

QUOTE(X.E.D @ Nov 27 2008, 10:16 AM)
And Phenom II prices are revised. Now it's an Italian source, but we remove the VAT.
I guess you saw this http://theovalich.wordpress.com/2008/11/26...-less-than-400/ tongue.gif

This post has been edited by lex: Nov 27 2008, 08:31 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
andrekua
post Nov 27 2008, 08:30 PM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #150


Regular
******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,083
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jun 2008






QUOTE(pikacu @ Nov 27 2008, 01:22 AM)
Phenom II 940 vs C2Quad 9400 pre,benchmark? http://www.expreview.com/news/hard/2008-11...1538d10607.html

user posted image
*



OMG ohmy.gif ohmy.gif ohmy.gif ohmy.gif ohmy.gif

Who would fall for this trap? laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
X.E.D
post Nov 27 2008, 10:12 PM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #151


this will f*ck you up
******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,897
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jan 2006
From: Bukit Katil, MLK // NTU, SG





QUOTE(lex @ Nov 27 2008, 08:18 PM)
Quote


I took the performance per clock scaling from Q9550 to Q9650. 6+ % clock difference, but ~ 5% perf difference.
So I applied it to Q9400 from Q9300 scores, and calculated a Q9400 3DMark score. It's about 4001.

The score is in line with most sightings of Q9400 vs Q9450, only 100 points more at max. (Q9450 is 4081 here, 80 points, close to that)


If 4001 = 91% (AMD graph), 100% = 4397. Q9550 is 4284.


If you use the Q9300 graph it's even crazier, 940 is at the same level with QX9770. But let's have a level headed estimation. smile.gif

This post has been edited by X.E.D: Nov 27 2008, 10:14 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tellmewhy
post Nov 27 2008, 10:15 PM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #152


On my way
****

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 684
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Apr 2007






but 1.5v for 4.0 is abit high le ba....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lex
post Nov 27 2008, 10:33 PM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #153


Old Am I?
Group Icon

Group: Moderator
Posts: 7,118
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jan 2005





QUOTE(X.E.D @ Nov 27 2008, 10:12 PM)
The score is in line with most sightings of Q9400 vs Q9450, only 100 points more at max. (Q9450 is 4081 here, 80 points, close to that)
If 4001 = 91% (AMD graph), 100% = 4397. Q9550 is 4284.
If you use the Q9300 graph it's even crazier, 940 is at the same level with QX9770. But let's have a level headed estimation. smile.gif
The DELTA scaling on that graph is different.. doh.gif

Example 1: If you take Q9300 as 3811 and upscale from 79% to 91% for Q9400, that would put Q9400 at 4389... which is incorrect! doh.gif

Example 2: If you use 4001 for Q9400 and down-scale from 91% to 79% for Q9300, that would put Q9300 at 3473... which is again incorrect! doh.gif

My calculations are much better.. brows.gif

This post has been edited by lex: Nov 29 2008, 08:09 AM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
X.E.D
post Nov 27 2008, 10:39 PM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #154


this will f*ck you up
******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,897
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jan 2006
From: Bukit Katil, MLK // NTU, SG





Your calculations have an assumption (that is considered not true already).


Occam's razor. smile.gif)))))))))

This post has been edited by X.E.D: Nov 27 2008, 10:39 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lex
post Nov 27 2008, 10:50 PM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #155


Old Am I?
Group Icon

Group: Moderator
Posts: 7,118
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jan 2005





QUOTE(X.E.D @ Nov 27 2008, 10:39 PM)
Your calculations have an assumption (that is considered not true already).
Occam's razor. smile.gif)))))))))
My assumption is way more accurate than your simple assumptions (calculation). brows.gif

Due to Q9400 missing in that PCGH graph, I used the nearest processor which would be the Q9450.. wink.gif

The Q9400 is a little slower than the Q9450. If I had a real Q9400 score, the performance scaling from Q9300 to Q9400 much lower, and putting the PII 940 further behind the Q9550. rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by lex: Nov 27 2008, 10:52 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
X.E.D
post Nov 27 2008, 10:54 PM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #156


this will f*ck you up
******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,897
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jan 2006
From: Bukit Katil, MLK // NTU, SG





You're re-averaging the graph, because Q9300 does not match with Q9400/9450.

You're assuming both datasets are wrong because they are wrong relatively (true, but one should be correct objectively, or this graph is all lies)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lex
post Nov 27 2008, 11:01 PM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #157


Old Am I?
Group Icon

Group: Moderator
Posts: 7,118
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jan 2005





I took into account the DELTA scaling on both graphs. That is how I calculate the outcome. Didn't you notice the percentages are different. doh.gif

Even the steeper "slope" (delta) from Q9300 to Q9400 can be seen, which means the AMD graph has used smaller range scaling between PII 940 as 100% and Q9300 as 79%, unlike the "infinite" scaling on the PCGH graph. wink.gif

Since the PII 940 score is unknown, I took the Q9450 score as Q9400 (both same clocks, just different cache thus scores are very close) and scale the score from there using the Q9300 as the base. rolleyes.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ndgoh
post Nov 28 2008, 01:05 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #158


On my way
****

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 666
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jun 2006






Hmmm... Phenom II.... where are youuuu....? We all really miss youuuu...

Phenom II 2.8Ghz priced at USD266 is sweet! By the time it hits the market... It'll cost lesser... My budget is RM600-700... So, I'll just wait for the durian to fall la...

http://theovalich.wordpress.com/2008/11/26...-less-than-400/
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lex
post Nov 28 2008, 01:35 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #159


Old Am I?
Group Icon

Group: Moderator
Posts: 7,118
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jan 2005





QUOTE(ndgoh @ Nov 28 2008, 01:05 AM)
Phenom II 2.8Ghz priced at USD266 is sweet! By the time it hits the market... It'll cost lesser...
That would put right smack in Q9400 to Q9450 territory.. We already guessed the prices much earlier in this thread. brows.gif See...
QUOTE(jinaun @ Nov 17 2008, 12:54 PM)
i would presume phenom II X4 940 would be priced at???

say.. between Q9400 to Q9450 level?
QUOTE(lex @ Nov 17 2008, 11:13 PM)
IMHO it would be around Q9400 prices, maybe lower for the 2.7GHz and 2.8GHz processors. I'm not sure about the price of the 3GHz one though.. unsure.gif


QUOTE(ndgoh @ Nov 28 2008, 01:05 AM)
My budget is RM600-700... So, I'll just wait for the durian to fall la... 
Not so fast yet, you may want to wait till January and see... wink.gif

QUOTE(ndgoh @ Nov 28 2008, 01:05 AM)
Already posted.. See few posts above... rolleyes.gif

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zonan4
post Nov 30 2008, 10:31 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #160


Getting Started
**

Group: Junior Member
Posts: 170
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Aug 2006
From: Puchong, Selangor





i want more.... more...... im hungry..... huhuhuhuhuhuhu
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

90 Pages « < 6 7 8 9 10 > » 
Bump TopicReply to this topicTopic OptionsStart new topic
 



----debug section please ignore----
Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd November 2009 - 01:37 AM
All Rights Reserved 2003-2009 Vijandren Ramadass (~living on a prayer~)