AMD Quad FX lansert

[Solefald]

hadde vert interessant å sett korleis ytelsen var blitt no med ny bios, samt Vista istedenfor XP.

[Glufsa]

har Vista noenting å si for ytelsen på et slikt system?

Endret 6. august 2007 av DukeCoke

[Solefald]

leste på extreme tech at XP klarte ikkje å utnytte skikkelig NUMA. og at med 2003 Server og Vista, så ville ytelsen bli annerledes.

 

Performance Note

AMD's Quad FX is a NUMA-based (non-uniform memory architecture) system. Each CPU can access the pool of memory connected to the other CPU. As it turns out, Windows XP understands NUMA-based systems in only a limited fashion. This means that performance of memory-intensive applications can suffer some degradation under Windows XP. Windows Server 2003 and Windows Vista fully implement all the hooks needed to work well with NUMA-based systems. Until we gather up a good suite of Vista-based benchmarks, plus robust, shipping drivers, we'll have to stick with XP for our performance testing. But bear in mind that AMD's strategy for Quad FX is very forward looking, and performance will likely be better under Vista than XP.

 

 

står her

Endret 6. august 2007 av Solefald

[el_salvad]

leste på extreme tech at XP klarte ikkje å utnytte skikkelig NUMA. og at med 2003 Server og Vista, så ville ytelsen bli annerledes.

 

Performance Note

AMD's Quad FX is a NUMA-based (non-uniform memory architecture) system. Each CPU can access the pool of memory connected to the other CPU. As it turns out, Windows XP understands NUMA-based systems in only a limited fashion. This means that performance of memory-intensive applications can suffer some degradation under Windows XP. Windows Server 2003 and Windows Vista fully implement all the hooks needed to work well with NUMA-based systems. Until we gather up a good suite of Vista-based benchmarks, plus robust, shipping drivers, we'll have to stick with XP for our performance testing. But bear in mind that AMD's strategy for Quad FX is very forward looking, and performance will likely be better under Vista than XP.

 

 

står her

9221105[/snapback]

 

techreport testet blant annet FX-74 mot QX6700 under Vista Ultimate-64 og her er deres konklusjon:

 

http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/cpus/index.x?pg=14

 

The fact that Intel retains the overall performance crown comes as no surprise. As we said at the outset, AMD has no real answer to the Core 2 Extreme X6800 among its dual-core processors. Also, Intel's quad-core CPUs tend to scale better than AMD's Quad FX platform, especially for typical desktop-class applications. Our move to Windows Vista x64 has done little to alter this dynamic. At the same time, Core 2 processors tend to draw less power and to be more energy efficient—sometimes markedly so—than Athlon 64s.

 

Det som ble sagt om Quad FX tror jeg bare var marketing hype for å skjule svakhetene på plattformen (nemmelig prosessorene), som ikke ble sterkere av overgangen mot Vista.