The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition

Oh.. now that's great.. so you mean that when I do my next system in a few years I'll still have to decide which company I want to go with?? ROFL.

Good point Sammy.. I'm sure this will be one of the better posts I read today.

 

I loved that Athlon X2 dearly for the short time I had it. And it may in fact be coming back my way for $20. Good deal because I effectively already sold it to him. But he's since upgraded the PC. I would have put it as a clock-for-clock near-equal to the E6750 in games at least. My E6750 did OC higher though. I was able to do 3.6 stable and cool.

I'm intrigued by this whole Intel/AMD Antitrust situation. Does this mean I will start seeing better application and gaming performance? I know quite a few games are Intel affiliated, so maybe they are using this same code as well?

 

The 7750 is probably a clock for clock equal to the 6700, not sure about the 6750, but I'd guess it's quite similar. I think the 7750s usually clock to 3.1-3.4. The E6750 should get 3.6-3.8 though, from how I remember them managing.

 

Sam,
I agree entirely, and I wasn't implying that this compiler incident was the cause of all the problems that AMD has encountered. I think what will change is the positioning of the AMD chips, compared to Intel. For instance, the 630 Quad I have, was said to be competitive with a Q8200-Q8300, and it totally smokes both of them. The 630 seems to be fairly close to a Q9450 in real world use. I've spent some time with the Q9450, and it's overall performance seems slightly better than the 630, so where will that leave the 630 when the knackered compiler issue is resolved and everything runs at full speed again?

I wouldn't quite say that eliminating the scenario merely eliminates the excessively biased programs, because removing the scenario will improve the chips performance using these excessively biased programs. At this point, who can say what programs are affected. We already know that the Intel compiler slows down benchmarking for AMD chips through the use of CPUID to identify the chips. That was it's intended purpose when the function was first slipped into the compiler back in 2003, to counter the better performance of the then new Opteron chips. What effect will this have for the Phenom II 940BE or the new 955BE and 965BE, "GM" chips with honest benchmarks and faster running real world programs? The way it is now, Intel and AMD are in a race where the Intel's get to run on the super highway, while AMD get's the handicap of having to use the surface streets! What sort of improvement will there be for AMD when both get to run on the same super highway? Intel's performance will not go down, but AMD's performance will go up!

The affect is far more profound than you might think, given that 90% of all PCs sold are not overclocked at all, so what will be the difference at stock speeds. That's the main reason our Government is not accepting Intel's "band-aid fix" for the problem, because Intel would still have an unfair advantage for several years to come, until through upgrading, programs no longer have the offending code in them.

Best Regards,
Russ

 

No, I'm afraid I disagree entirely. The Q8200 and Q8300 comparing to the X4 630 was a typical result. What this does is remove the outliers, the 630 is still not going to outperform the Q8300 by very much if at all, but it will no longer be vastly behind them in certain programs.
I don't see the state of play changing much here at all, rather that certain programs that ran terribly on AMDs may no longer do so. I know AMD fans will be hoping for this to be a 'magic bullet' to vastly increase their performance, but it won't, as there isn't extra performance there to untap. I perceive the Intel situation to have a slightly less profound impact than some, and I'd be surprised if it turns out different to that.

 

Got er up and running. Quite the rocky start My SSD has a different power connection than I anticipated. Go ahead and laugh. A lot of you probably knew that it had a different connection. Well I did not I'm running My AAKS drive til I can get a converter for it. Windows 7 installed SUPER slow. Not sure why yet. First I tried loading XP on the new drive and was greeted with a blue screen, which I attributed to Low voltage ram. It was running at 1.5, where it wants to run at 1.6. Gonna run to town and see about a converter at the local pc shop. Hopefully they don't rape me!

 

Are you sure? SSDs are meant to have standard S-ATA power connectors like any other drive. The one I had certainly does, and the Intels look identical - I haven't heard anything about them needing power adapters, because no such adapter exists! My friend Jon bought two of them and was able to get them running out of the box. If they required 'special SSD power adapters' I would have heard about it!

 

it is a standard sata power connector.


and russ who knows how much the perfoamce increace will be? but what about all those progams not running an intel compiler? where AMD is behind on those they will still be behind.

also the inquirer is as bad as the sun for reporting journalism, i have not seen any MAJOR new sites with this news.

i think this is all BS tbh. no big tech sites have it up.

 

The Inquirer is a mediocre source when lots of other sites report a story. When none do, I agree, it's usually rumours or lies. This news I would expect to be true though, since I always knew it to be the case before the story appeared. I don't think it's false news, I think it's old news.

 

well if its old, its VERY old.

 

Here you go. I trust you see where the difference is

LOL! I think they sent me the wrong one... The one I have is 1.8", I ordered the 2.5. Wonderful!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167016

 

yep they mucked up! lol

 

I was going to say, that's an X18-M!

 

Pretty unreal eh. 300$ I shell out, and they screw it up LOL! I suppose I was due for a mistake. They've done me right so long. It really is only a matter of time. People make mistakes. Even the egg Gotta wait til monday to even do anything about it...

 

Shaff,
It's been estimated that roughly 85-90% of all programs are compiled using the Intel Compiler. Lets face it, there are things the AMD's do better than the Intels, and things the Intel's do better than the AMDs! The catch is, that at stock speeds there's not a huge amount of difference either way. That's where 90% of the money is spent, on stock computers, so what will be the effect of removing the shackles Intel's compiler has put on AMD CPUs? I'm pretty sure that Intel targeted areas of performance that the AMD's were equal to or better than Intel, otherwise why bother at all in knackering the compiler!

When I challenged The Enquirer a while back, everyone jumped on me for it, so which is it? Is The Enquirer reliable or not. Based on all the reading I've done on this subject, I would say reliable!

I must confess I was puzzled by the lack of information, and how difficult it is to find out anything about the subject, but I also considered that any company that feels it was harmed financially, or persons owning AMD CPUs could sue and win monetary damages from Intel for Intel's illegal actions, so perhaps that's why everything is so hush hush! It's not a joke and it isn't BS. Not according to the information I've provided in previous posts. Intel wasn't dragged back to Court for nothing, you know! They were dragged back because Intel's solution to the problem they created does not satisfy the Courts, because it doesn't address Intel's current advantage over AMD, an unfair advantage that would continue for several years. An advantage Intel has had for 7 years already! I sure would have liked to be a fly on the wall during that Court session and the ensuing conversations! LOL!!

The biggest thing I can't understand is why all the Intel fans say things about what effect all of this will have on a comparison between Intel and AMD CPUs. Is there suddenly something wrong with demanding a level playing field? The fact is, we won't know what the results will be with everything equal. It's a lead pipe cinch that programs that don't use the Intel compiler will run the same as always, but the big mystery is how much of an effect it's going to have running programs that do use the compiler, and how much the performance improves. Intel would not have done this lightly, as it is illegal to do! Hey, they got away with it for over 7 years. The only reason the Courts allowed the settlement was because Intel was going to fix the problem. Unfortunately for Intel, the Court has it's own computer experts too!

Russ

 

Sam,
Not when the guy that discovered the problem says that he got as high as a 47.4% increase in performance just by switching the CPUID from AMD to Intel. These are not overclocked figures either! I also think it funny that the Intel fans are the only ones talking about and playing down a "magic bullet", while all the AMD fans are just happy to have a level playing field coming our way! None of them have made any reference to, or hopes of any "magic bullet"! Just the fact that the AMD chips will improve in some areas without the Knackered compiler, while the Intels will stay the same, should improve AMD's standing!

As far as my comparison between the Q9450 and the 630, I used both of them, back and forth for a couple of days, as well as a Q9550. All were overclocked! The Q9450 was slightly faster than the 630, and not near as much difference in performance as when using the Q9550. The Q9550 is by far the better chip! It also costs a lot more than the $101.99 630! At stock speeds, the difference will be slight. That's 85-90% of all computer sold, and AMD does have the price advantage!

Russ

 

Oman7,
That looks like a laptop SDD! I just saw one for the first time a couple of weeks ago. The model listed on it isn't even sold by Newegg. What does the box say? Is the model number the same as the drive? I googled the model number and got very few hits, all in Japanese! LOL

Russ

 

It looks like both the box and SSD differ in models.
The box says - SSDSA1MH080G201
And the SSD - SSDSA1M080G2GN
Wonderful. I sure hope newegg believes this crap! And that I'm not trying to pull a fast one on them LOL!

 

Oman7,
Aren't you glad I asked? LOL!! The mistake was made by Intel, not Newegg. That drive isn't even sold here, it's sold in Japan! Somehow, it wound up in that box and got shipped to Newegg. BTW! Ask Newegg to please confirm the model number is correct before they ship you a new one, so the same thing won't happen again.

Russ

 

The thought actually occurred to me when I was posting the original images. But I disregarded it. Thinking basically I was mistaken somehow LOL! Thank you for pointing that out
Perhaps newegg will give me a gift certificate for future purchases eh LOL!