TEST: sse4 optimize every part of dolphin

[Battousai90]

Huhu Bye bye Phenom:

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1608247

For only 200 bucks !

Wait for Bulldozer now, but i doubt.

[NaturalViolence]

Quote:if you want to change my opinion on the matter try to do so without insulting my intelligence =D thanx!

I think you're confusing me with squall

[Squall Leonhart]

(01-21-2011, 02:33 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote:

Quote:if you want to change my opinion on the matter try to do so without insulting my intelligence =D thanx!

I think you're confusing me with squall

i think hes confusing you with himself.

[inteGReddy]

(01-22-2011, 12:20 AM)Squall Leonhart Wrote:

(01-21-2011, 02:33 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote:

Quote:if you want to change my opinion on the matter try to do so without insulting my intelligence =D thanx!

I think you're confusing me with squall

i think hes confusing you with himself.

yeah, jajaja!!

(01-21-2011, 10:29 AM)Battousai90 Wrote: Huhu Bye bye Phenom:

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1608247

For only 200 bucks !

Wait for Bulldozer now, but i doubt.

... dunno what point you are trying to prove by posting that, lol. that is not even an i7. it is obviously not triple channel and the memory is slow neway for an intel. gotta have that 1000mhz xmp if you wanna get full potential. i would like to point out that i paid just over 200 bux for my cpu in january 2010 when i7's were easily twice as much. also, posting that proves nothing as i can get into windows up to 4.4 ghz. i cannot, however, pass prime95 at such a speed for long. therefore, people's clock speeds in their sigs are most always their max desktop speed and not what their pc is actually capable of being stable at. having said that, my cpu is more than a year old. i hardly expect it to keep up with cpus that have been released in the past few months.

i am curious however, post a bench (lets say 4M hyper-pi calculation?) and we'll see how much better than phenom your i5 is. here is my setup:    

(01-21-2011, 02:33 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote:

Quote:if you want to change my opinion on the matter try to do so without insulting my intelligence =D thanx!

I think you're confusing me with squall

yeah sorry. i wasn't trying to insinuate that you had insulted my intelligence. just wanted to sneak that in there. ha.

[NaturalViolence]

Quote:people's clock speeds in their sigs are most always their max desktop speed and not what their pc is actually capable of being stable at. having said that, my cpu is more than a year old. i hardly expect it to keep up with cpus that have been released in the past few months.

Actually I would have assume that most have been tested for stability with prime95 unless otherwise indicated. Bloomfield can easily be OCed to 4.0GHz on air cooling prime95 stable, lyynfield 4.2GHz, clarkdale 4.4GHz, sanby bridge 4.8GHz, if you're lucky and get a particularly good one you can go even higher but those are pretty much universal numbers that everyone can achieve with decent cooling + mobo while maintaining prime95 stability. Gulftown can easily get into the 5-6GHz range on liquid cooling while maintaining prime95 stability (although unaffordable). AMDs deneb and thuban can get to 3.8GHz prime95 stable pretty universally, some lucky people can get to 4.0 or even 4.2 GHz while maintaining prime95 stability but that's uncommon. So intel cpus are still a little bit more OCable on average.

Points you have made that I agree with:
1. Most games in dolphin will run at fullspeed or close to it with a phenom II OCed to 3.8GHz
2. Phenom II offered amazing bang per buck a year ago. Even it was a little bit slower, mobo + ram + cpu was easily half as much with an AM3 platform vs. an LGA1366 setup.
3. A year old cpu cannot be expected to keep up with a modern architecture

Points I think we can both agree on:
1. Although more expensive i7/i5 cpus are significantly faster in vector intensive applications
2. Even the dual channel i5/i7s have significantly higher memory throughput than a Phenom II (about 1/3 more). And triple channel I7s have nearly 60% more memory throughput than an AM3 phenom II.
3. If someone had the money for an i7 and wanted the best cpu possible for dolphin a sandy bridge cpu would be the best recommendation.

/thread

[Squall Leonhart]

(01-22-2011, 12:21 AM)inteGReddy Wrote:

(01-22-2011, 12:20 AM)Squall Leonhart Wrote:

(01-21-2011, 02:33 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote:

Quote:if you want to change my opinion on the matter try to do so without insulting my intelligence =D thanx!

I think you're confusing me with squall

i think hes confusing you with himself.

yeah, jajaja!!

(01-21-2011, 10:29 AM)Battousai90 Wrote: Huhu Bye bye Phenom:

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1608247

For only 200 bucks !

Wait for Bulldozer now, but i doubt.

... dunno what point you are trying to prove by posting that, lol. that is not even an i7. it is obviously not triple channel and the memory is slow neway for an intel. gotta have that 1000mhz xmp if you wanna get full potential. i would like to point out that i paid just over 200 bux for my cpu in january 2010 when i7's were easily twice as much. also, posting that proves nothing as i can get into windows up to 4.4 ghz. i cannot, however, pass prime95 at such a speed for long. therefore, people's clock speeds in their sigs are most always their max desktop speed and not what their pc is actually capable of being stable at. having said that, my cpu is more than a year old. i hardly expect it to keep up with cpus that have been released in the past few months.

i am curious however, post a bench (lets say 4M hyper-pi calculation?) and we'll see how much better than phenom your i5 is. here is my setup:

(01-21-2011, 02:33 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote:

Quote:if you want to change my opinion on the matter try to do so without insulting my intelligence =D thanx!

I think you're confusing me with squall

yeah sorry. i wasn't trying to insinuate that you had insulted my intelligence. just wanted to sneak that in there. ha.

in superpi, at the same clocks, an i7 (and actually, this is more true for the 920 than it is higher multi'd chips) it would be 1.5-1.7x the phenom score.

[inteGReddy]

(01-22-2011, 02:31 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: Points I think we can both agree on:
1. Although more expensive i7/i5 cpus are significantly faster in vector intensive applications
2. Even the dual channel i5/i7s have significantly higher memory throughput than a Phenom II (about 1/3 more). And triple channel I7s have nearly 60% more memory throughput than an AM3 phenom II.
3. If someone had the money for an i7 and wanted the best cpu possible for dolphin a sandy bridge cpu would be the best recommendation.

/thread

i concur.

(01-22-2011, 12:20 AM)Squall Leonhart Wrote: in superpi, at the same clocks, an i7 (and actually, this is more true for the 920 than it is higher multi'd chips) it would be 1.5-1.7x the phenom score.

indulge me, show me a hyper pi screen.

[Squall Leonhart]

sorry... what?

[NaturalViolence]

[inteGReddy]

ahh yes. thank you for posting that squall. i have been wanting to review this information. it appears that the price and performance of our two cpu's differ quite a bit.

with a speed increase of roughly 30%, your cpu was priced right at about 100% more than my phenom when i purchased it in december of 2009. the phenom 965, retailing at 245 usd in December 2009, is 70% as fast as the i7 920, retailing at 562 usd in December 2009. (prices verifiable at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehalem_%28microarchitecture%29 and http://www.anandtech.com/show/2819)

it was a clear choice. i could have paid upwards of 100% more for less than a 50% increase in actual performance. intel caught on, and near the end of the first quarter of 2010, they cut the i-core prices in half, reclaiming the market from amd. i cant say i wasnt a little jealous of my friend who was building an i7 system 4 months later for around the same price as my system. but, then again, i was doing stuff at blazing speeds for really cheap and wouldn't have waited 4 months to get a slightly better cpu neway. way she goes boys. by the time you get it in the mail, put it together, and install an os on it, the stuff you ordered is either on sale or something better is out.

i personally cant afford to build a 2k system every year. so i try to fork out about 1k every year or so. i know some people can afford to upgrade their build multiple times a year. i guess i could make that happen if i really wanted to but i got my priorities, yaknow?

in conclusion i would like to point out that intel almost always is better than amd. having said that, although limited to budget cpus, amd can often have "a better bang for your buck" than intel.

... and back to the original subject. it would be interesting to take your system and benchmark dolphin with both sse3 and sse4.2 and compare the speeds. i am really interested in just how ignorant i am in this matter.