News - GIGABYTE slips clock speeds for AMD hexa-core Thuban CPUs

Quote:

---

Thuban to hit 2.8GHz at 95W, set to bring hexa-core processing to the mainstream?

---

Read more.

Yeah, this is where I'll be heading, the 2.8GHz part joined with 8GB DDR3 @ 1600MHz and Crossfire 5870s... I reckon it'd be a more than capable system

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GageC

Yeah, this is where I'll be heading, the 2.8GHz part joined with 8GB DDR3 @ 1600MHz and Crossfire 5870s... I reckon it'd be a more than capable system

---

i7 920 would perform better, purely on logic and efficiency. Better single core performance, plus 4x 920 cores would perform better than 6x 1055T cores. Nostradamus has spoken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by borandi

i7 920 would perform better, purely on logic and efficiency. Better single core performance, plus 4x 920 cores would perform better than 6x 1055T cores. Nostradamus has spoken.

---

I concur.

IF an application can take advantage of the additional cores then any quad core CPUs will be significantly slower.

if the amd architecture would be only half as fast as intel's then your statement would be true, but as long as this is not the case.... :P

and on the other hand, for gaming even an athlon 2 (clocked between 2.6-3Ghz) provides more than enough performance for GPUs like the 5870.

I believe that the i7's performance "advantage" does not justify the added costs, not even remotely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by borandi

i7 920 would perform better, purely on logic and efficiency. Better single core performance, plus 4x 920 cores would perform better than 6x 1055T cores. Nostradamus has spoken.

---

Wrong on every count.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo75

Wrong on every count.

---

Not if (as has been the case in the past) the i7s clock significantly faster than this, and if overclocking is discounted, not if AMD has no answer to turboboost.
Not to mention hyperthreading, which gives the i7's four physical cores (eight virtual cores) processing power equivalent to six physical cores - which come into play in any truly multithreaded application.

The jury is out on logic and efficiency, unless this uses the old AMD architecture, in which case i7 wins again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miniyazz

Not if (as has been the case in the past) the i7s clock significantly faster than this, and if overclocking is discounted, not if AMD has no answer to turboboost.
Not to mention hyperthreading, which gives the i7's four physical cores (eight virtual cores) processing power equivalent to six physical cores - which come into play in any truly multithreaded application.

The jury is out on logic and efficiency, unless this uses the old AMD architecture, in which case i7 wins again.

---

Then how come that the i7 is not really faster than the Core 2 Quad in clock to clock comprasion? LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ehhhhhhh

Then how come that the i7 is not really faster than the Core 2 Quad in clock to clock comprasion? LOL

---

Now you sir, are wrong. I bring the following:

Core2Quad Q6600 @ 3Ghz, 1m SPi, 16.49 seconds (http://hwbot.org/community/submissio...hz_16sec_490ms)
Core i7 920 @ 3Ghz, 1m SPi, 13.58 seconds (http://hwbot.org/community/submissio...20_13sec_580ms)

C2Q is 121% the time for i7 on a single threaded app.

Phenom II X4 940 @ 3Ghz, 1m SPi, 22.52 seconds (http://hwbot.org/community/submissio...40_22sec_520ms)

X4 940 is 166% the time for i7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo75

Wrong on every count.

---

I'm run chemistry simulations for a living - I crave clock efficiency and fast memory. This is what i7 offers, with its high throughput per clock and triple channel memory. Thuban offers 6 physical cores, whereas i7 has 4 physical + 4 logical, where the logical have a high attrition rate and offer near as damnit 8 core performance. Combine that with triple channel DDR3 for i7 vs dual channel DDR3 for Thuban and it's a nobrainer.

depending on the anandtech CPU bench comprasion (core2quad 3ghz vs intel i7940) I believe it is on par with the C2Q (sorry, I cannot link it yet)


I do understand that your activity (chem. sim.) needs the potential of an i7 system and I would have chosen that one as well. But this particular area is far from the average scenario.

However, I would pick an AMD offering for "normal" use without hesitation. Basically that's the point when the price vs performance perspective comes to play.

If the pricing will be right I would prefer building a thuban based system for my video encoding, image altering, etc needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ehhhhhhh

Then how come that the i7 is not really faster than the Core 2 Quad in clock to clock comprasion? LOL

---

anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=17
anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=18

i7 920 is much faster clock to clock than Core 2 Quad in video and rendering usage. This is what counts in industry I work in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by borandi

I'm run chemistry simulations for a living - I crave clock efficiency and fast memory. This is what i7 offers, with its high throughput per clock and triple channel memory. Thuban offers 6 physical cores, whereas i7 has 4 physical + 4 logical, where the logical have a high attrition rate and offer near as damnit 8 core performance. Combine that with triple channel DDR3 for i7 vs dual channel DDR3 for Thuban and it's a nobrainer.

---

At maximum an SMT core is worth 30% of a real core so you get 5.2 cores compared to 6 for Thuban best case, it's nowhere near 8 cores.

Thuban will trounce any quad i7 in rendering and encoding for sure. You seem to have missed the news that Thuban has it's own turbo mode btw. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo75

At maximum an SMT core is worth 30% of a real core so you get 5.2 cores compared to 6 for Thuban best case, it's nowhere near 8 cores.

Thuban will trounce any quad i7 in rendering and encoding for sure. You seem to have missed the news that Thuban has it's own turbo mode btw. :)

---

Good to hear about Turbo mode for Thuban.

Although I was under the impression that while not particularly close to 8 cores, it was significantly more than 130% of 4 cores. I reserve judgement on how Thuban compares to quad i7 for reviews - I hope Thuban performs favourably, but I have my doubts.

30% is the figure for the old Pentium 4 HT. It's more like 70-75% on the i7s.

Thuban is still K10 based logic, i.e. that of the Phenom II X4s. So essentially it's another 50% of cores built on top of a Phenom II X4. That still makes it far behind in single thread, and just behind the i7 in MT.

I do however agree that the Thuban will take the price/performance crown, but it's not the performance crown - the halo product. They need an architecture change to increase single thread performance to get it.

Wheyyyy! Fanboy fight!!

There is so much crap flying around on this thread and completely made up figures!
On both sides.

I am interested in this turbo mode for thuban though.