if the F1 2010 scores are really due to memory performance, both the Sandy Bridge system and the Phenom II system should see similar, large drops in framerate AND similar, large drops in SuperPi. And without both of those, it's not fact, it's only theory. I don't own a Sandy Bridge system so I can't exactly go out and do this myself.
OK, so you are saying, for you, you require those numbers. OK, I accept that. I could make these numbers for you, and have in the past, so that when situations exactly like this one happen, I can speak up, and not worry about the vlaidity of the argument I make.
The fact of the matter is that each and every benchmark you see in my reviews was vetted extensively to validate it as a performance compare.
Also, you're acting like I'm not reading your reviews. I told you once I bought my board BECAUSE of your review, I'm not going to tell you again.
I know, I know, but you know, as staff here, I do feel it's my job, not only for you, but for everyone, to make sure that things stay factual, and away from the FUD.
The Biostar review just provides more data points for the same CPU. Also, the wPrime numbers indicate there's bandwidth to spare if you have extra cores to use it.
Actually, the bottom two numbers are an 1100T. The P7P55 D-E Pro has a i5 750 in it. I do also have an I7 870 too. Interesting thought about wprime, but to me, that shows that although memroy performance is lacking in AMD, thier core performance is very good, so my perspective is not the same as yours, I guess.
As an AMD user, QFT. I (somewhat) got around the memory performance by getting $300 dollar sticks of RAM, running water cooling on my CPU and cranking the CPU/NB frequency and voltage. This budget minded AMD rig isn't so budget minded anymore, but it works. Even in F1 2010!
Yeah, and that's AMD saving grace with Phenom II...overclocking. maybe 3% of users here run stock...and time has shown that overclocking to the maximums presents a very different picture than stock numbers. But again, not everyone is going to have a CPU as good as yours..the 1100T i have is a much worse sample than yours, so while it worked out for you, if you had
MY AMD CPU, I do not think you'd be as happy.
I just want to point out that i'm not saying that AMD isn't behind; they're definitely behind. They're just behind in MORE than memory performance. There are plenty of deficiencies to be found in AMD's current silicon, and based on what's come out so far, there are plenty more deficiencies in their new silicon. I don't mind supporting the runner-up if I can get "fast enough" for "cheap enough"
You should hop on our TS server. We do talk about these things there too(from time to time), and through these discussions, it's kinda become clear that L3 cache performance is what's also lacking in AMD CPUs(well, my benchmarking has brought it up too).
I mean really, get rid of AMD's "Unganged" mode, and thier memory performance is even worse, but at least then both Intel and AMD would be using 128-bit memory controllers. The real truth of the matter is that Phenom II CPUs have a memory controller that can split into 2x 64-bit, and even then, they are still very lacking.
Bulldozer is similar...it's a quad-channel controller, in it's "native" socket(I do not consider AM3+ a real BD socket), so I do beleive that part of the problem with desktop Bulldozer parts is that 1/2 of thier memory performance will never be realized on the desktop platform...these chips WERE designed with quad-channel in mind.
in wPrime
