FordGT90ConceptIt isn't. The FB-DIMMs on Xeons are higher latency but mega bandwidth (not to mention very high write performance). The FB-DIMM design effectively eliminates the problems associated with FSB bandwidth.

Can you show me some benchmarks about it? Or this is first-hand experience?

Mostly bullshit.

Expensive, design flaw compared to what amd was the only one to have( is not the story anymore.)
and well, so on.
FB-Dimms isn't fast like a Freaking Unganged 1066 mhz.!
12 gb copy, everest. ? :)
DDR3 pushes 16-17 easy.

Geekbench: forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=88575


Intel Burn Test: forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=94721



Clock for clock, Xeons with FB-DIMMs spank the rest. It's a clear trend. They're slow out of the start gate but once they get going, they're hard to stop. As proof of this, note how they generally have lower memory scores but still win in the end. The latency of the FB-DIMMs will strike against any benchmarking but it more than makes up for it in CPU results because of the huge bandwidth.

Mine, for instance, is only running at 533 MHz FSB but with memory running in quad-channel. It could push upwards of 16,800 MB/s. My motherboard supports 32-64 GiB memory (8 DIMMs).

Also, the biggest advantage of FB-DIMMs are shown on the four-way platform (604 socket). The reason there are over 150 fewer pins is because FB-DIMM only needs a fraction of the number of memory controller -> DIMM interconnects as normal DIMMs.


Core i7s are currently getting the highest marks for memory because of QPI.

You guys can keep going back and forth about the i7 vs The Phenom II all day long. It doesn't change the fact the Phenom II was NEVER meant to compete with the i7. However the Phenom II smokes the i7 in the price-performance race. (when it came out) It also is very much its equal in real world gaming benchmarks.

Unless an application is written to take advantage of the i7s multi threading your just wasting your money. Especially if you want to build a gaming system. So what you do awesome in a synthetic bench. Show me real world results to justify the price because every game bench I've seen the i7 and Phenom II are about the same.

TheMailMan78You guys can keep going back and forth about the i7 vs The Phenom II all day long. It doesn't change the fact the Phenom II was NEVER meant to compete with the i7. However the Phenom II smokes the i7 in the price-performance race. (when it came out) It also is very much its equal in real world gaming benchmarks.

Unless an application is written to take advantage of the i7s multi threading your just wasting your money. Especially if you want to build a gaming system. So what you do awesome in a synthetic bench. Show me real world results to justify the price because every game bench I've seen the i7 and Phenom II are about the same.

well said.

TheMailMan78You guys can keep going back and forth about the i7 vs The Phenom II all day long. It doesn't change the fact the Phenom II was NEVER meant to compete with the i7. However the Phenom II smokes the i7 in the price-performance race. (when it came out) It also is very much its equal in real world gaming benchmarks.

Unless an application is written to take advantage of the i7s multi threading your just wasting your money. Especially if you want to build a gaming system. So what you do awesome in a synthetic bench. Show me real world results to justify the price because every game bench I've seen the i7 and Phenom II are about the same.

Kitkatwell said.

Agreed. This is exactly what I was trying to say to Weer back on page 1, except I didn't want to have to go to this detail.

StudabakerAgreed. This is exactly what I was trying to say to Weer back on page 1, except I didn't want to have to go to this detail.

I dont care about weer. I want newtekie1.

<< Throws his beer down.

TheMailMan78I dont care about weer. I want newtekie1.

<< Throws his beer down.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

TheMailMan78You guys can keep going back and forth about the i7 vs The Phenom II all day long. It doesn't change the fact the Phenom II was NEVER meant to compete with the i7. However the Phenom II smokes the i7 in the price-performance race. (when it came out) It also is very much its equal in real world gaming benchmarks.

Unless an application is written to take advantage of the i7s multi threading your just wasting your money. Especially if you want to build a gaming system. So what you do awesome in a synthetic bench. Show me real world results to justify the price because every game bench I've seen the i7 and Phenom II are about the same.

I got WCG running on both Core i7 920 and dual E5310 systems. Even if the game/app I'm running doesn't use more than one core (13%), WCG will take the other 87-100% of the clocks. There is rarely ever a clock wasted, game or not.


When I code/run an app that is high-demand (like this), I take up 100% of the clocks on that single task. Even if a game doesn't use all that power, it's great to have it available on demand.

FordGT90ConceptI got WCG running on both Core i7 920 and dual E5310 systems. Even if the game/app I'm running doesn't use more than one core (13%), WCG will take the other 87-100% of the clocks. There is rarely ever a clock wasted, game or not.


When I code/run an app that is high-demand (like this), I take up 100% of the clocks on that single task. Even if a game doesn't use all that power, it's great to have it available on demand.

Like I said. Unless the application uses all the threads then an i7 isn't any better than a Phenom II. However if it does like the application you posted then the i7 shines. But the average person doesn't use those kind of apps.

Even on a single thread, the Core i7 is superior. This is especially true of encoding tasks--the rest are marginally faster. The only place Core i7 loses is some of your game benchmarks.

Check here: www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3551&p=14

Core i7 920 came out on top (usually by a large margin too) of the Phenom II X4 955 22 times out of 24. The only two benchmarks the Phenom II came out on top of are two gaming benchmarks. Core i7 920 wins 92% of the time, yet, they have a similar price. The only reason why Phenom II ends up cheaper is because of the platform costs of the LGA1366 package.

Is it worth the extra money? Without a doubt.

FordGT90ConceptEven on a single thread, the Core i7 is superior. This is especially true of encoding tasks--the rest are marginally faster. The only place Core i7 loses is some of your game benchmarks.

Check here: www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3551&p=14

Core i7 920 came out on top (usually by a large margin too) of the Phenom II X4 955 22 times out of 24. The only two benchmarks the Phenom II came out on top of are two gaming benchmarks. Core i7 920 wins 92% of the time, yet, they have a similar price. The only reason why Phenom II ends up cheaper is because of the platform costs of the LGA1366 package.

Is it worth the extra money? Without a doubt.

I'm not arguing the i7 isnt faster. I'm arguing the Phenom II is better buy for the average consumer. As for the game benches I've seen some where the Phenom II spanks the i7. However no one can argue the Phenom II can hold a candle to the i7 in encoding.

TheMailMan78I'm not arguing the i7 isnt faster. I'm arguing the Phenom II is better buy for the average consumer. As for the game benches I've seen some where the Phenom II spanks the i7. However no one can argue the Phenom II can hold a candle to the i7 in encoding.

Average consumers buy Celerons and Semperons. Depressing, I know. :(

Spending more than $200 on a processor is above average (at least). I'd actually classify it as enthusiast (not ridiculous enthusiasm though :laugh:).

FordGT90ConceptAverage consumers buy Celerons and Semperons. Depressing, I know. :(

Spending more than $200 on a processor is above average (at least). I'd actually classify it as enthusiast (not ridiculous enthusiasm though :laugh:).

What about 130? Because thats how much a Phenom II x3 costs and like I said in games it hangs with any i7 at decent gaming resolutions.

Budget is $49 or less. Average is $50-99. Above average is $100-199. High end is $200-499. Ridiculous is $500+.

The same scale can be applied to pretty much everything else including power supplies, cases, sound cards, video cards, and hard drives. That means two-way servers are always ridiculous. ;) :shadedshu

FordGT90ConceptBudget is $49 or less. Average is $50-99. Above average is $100-199. High end is $200-499. Ridiculous is $500+.

The same scale can be applied to pretty much everything else including power supplies, cases, sound cards, video cards, and hard drives.

Would you like to see some benches where the i7 gets a bloody nose at decent resolutions?

I play games at 1024x768 so no, it really doesn't matter to me.

FordGT90ConceptI play games at 1024x768 so no, it really doesn't matter to me.

I hate you.

LMAO! :roll:

I'm sorry. Its 1:30am and Ive been drinking.

TheMailMan78I'm not arguing the i7 isnt faster. I'm arguing the Phenom II is better buy for the average consumer. As for the game benches I've seen some where the Phenom II spanks the i7. However no one can argue the Phenom II can hold a candle to the i7 in encoding.

Completely depends on what you mean by "average" consumer. If you mean most who use computers, then most of them don't game either, but mostly just surf the web and such. For these people, a PII is overkill as well (w/ the one exception being the x3 720, I swear if it wasn't for that proc the whole line would be useless). Any old regular dual core suits them fine, pre-builts and all the junk and unoptimized windows crap is what slows them down (if you don't see the value in a mac, try using a pre-built unconfigured pc and then imagine doing it if you were your grandmother or computer illiterate friend).

Of those people (general public), many are just as likely to be into music/video editing as gaming (perhaps a bit more likely), and for these things i7 is far and a away better for the money.

Now, if you mean people on forums like these, you still have to be more specific. Because the "average" person on a forum like this is a hardware junkie, buys parts for the hell of it, likes synthetic benchies and oc'ing, and generally goes for the best around. Again, i7 is better for the money.

If, however, you mean by "average" they are playing mostly games and/or have a love affair w/ AMD, then yes PII does serve a better buy for those folks. I would hesitate to call them average though. 720BE is great in all situations though, doesn't matter what the build that's just a great chip for the money. Thought I would clarify though......:laugh:

newtekie1The Q6600 released in Jan2007 is still outperforming their top offering today, they still have a lot of ground to make up.

Thats weird because the Phenom II X4 955 is exactly the SAME as the i7 at gaming, and general purpose, and the Phenom II is only slower at media encoding because the i7 uses SSE 4.2 while the Phenom II uses SSE 4a. Lets not forget that even though the memory controller on the Phenom II isn't as effiecient, because unlike Intel they care a bit bout the customer so they provided support for both DDR2 AND DDR3 so people with older motherboards etc can still upgrade their CPUs. If AMD's only objective was to get people to spend money and nothing else like Intel, then we'd have one hell of a CPU battle like back in the Athlon FX days.

MrAlexIf AMD's only objective was to get people to spend money and nothing else like Intel

That is every corporation's sole objective and thus reason for existence, to have you buy their products. They are precisely like Intel in this respect. AMD has apparently done a brilliant job of making you think they care about you and your computer, which is a good marketing technique indeed. Enjoy. :toast:

MrAlexThats weird because the Phenom II X4 955 is exactly the SAME as the i7 at gaming, and general purpose, and the Phenom II is only slower at media encoding because the i7 uses SSE 4.2 while the Phenom II uses SSE 4a. Lets not forget that even though the memory controller on the Phenom II isn't as effiecient, because unlike Intel they care a bit bout the customer so they provided support for both DDR2 AND DDR3 so people with older motherboards etc can still upgrade their CPUs. If AMD's only objective was to get people to spend money and nothing else like Intel, then we'd have one hell of a CPU battle like back in the Athlon FX days.

Core i7 = glorified Pentium 4/D

If you recall, Pentium 4/D handed it to Athlon 64/X2 in media/encoding but the Athlon 64/X2 handed it to the Pentium 4/D in the gaming department. History repeats except Core i7 isn't as weak in gaming as Pentium 4/D were.

Core i7 is faster because it has many more stages which go through media work much faster. Longer stages aren't good for games though because it takes longer to recycle those stages.

Not many applications use SSE 4.2. Only professional software really does and, even those take some time to update then proliferate the market. AMDs 4a isn't the same as Intel's 4.1 (47 instructions) or 4.2 (7 more instructions). Intel and AMD have split ways at SSE4 (SSE4a only support 4 of 54 + 2 more instructions--6 total). Intel will be going to AVX while AMD goes to SSE5. I can tell you right now that SSE5 will flop (reminds me of AMD's 3D Now! back on the K6). AMD will be implementing AVX in 2011.

AMD is rapidly phasing out the DDR2 chips. The only reason why AMD processors can support both is because the pin count didn't change between them.

Very, very, very few people ever upgrade their processor.


AVX looks a lot like Larrabee. :eek:

FordGT90ConceptCore i7 = glorified Pentium 4/D

If you recall, Pentium 4/D handed it to Athlon 64/X2 in media/encoding but the Athlon 64/X2 handed it to the Pentium 4/D in the gaming department. History repeats except Core i7 isn't as weak in gaming as Pentium 4/D were.

Core i7 is faster because it has many more stages which go through media work much faster. Longer stages aren't good for games though because it takes longer to recycle those stages.

Not so much, this isn't netburst. It has hyperthreading, but that doesn't make it a glorified netburst chip. Different architectures. Different computing world than it was in those days too w/ more uses at hand, and gaming in those days was more cpu reliant than it is today. It isn't weak, it's just a non-factor.