Re: But HDR/SM3.0 3DMark is an extremely easy parallel load, one that can be loaded with 1600 stream processors, 40 texturing units and 16 ROPs.
If that were the case, then the 4870 would have a commanding lead over the GTX 280 in this test, let alone the 4870 X2, which has 2.5 times the number of SP FLOPs over the GTX 280. Unfortunately for AMD, their benchmark performance hardly reflects the number of math units in their design.
But more to the point, if you think 3DMark06 is a common piece of software for consumers and professionals buying CPUs, then you have no business posting about performance, absolute, per watt or per dollar.
Re: Besides you have to prove that an EE C2Q including chipset and memory on a totally serial task uses 1/200th of the energy per task completed of a 4870x2 card. Do know that even on a totally serial task that the 4870x2 runs at 750 million instructions per second, lets see that a EE C2Q core even getting 75 billion instructions per second. Or even with the power difference at that serial task. I extremely doubt that an EE CPU on a totally serial load would have even 5 times the performance of a 4870x2 at less than 1/20th of the idle power of the 4870x2 or about 5W total system power (EE C2Q CPU, memory, chipset, VRMs, etc.).
Wrong again, Pete. The 4870 X2 has an idle power of almost 80W, just doing nothing inside Windows. And when you turn on just a simple 2D workload, the power shoots up to 87W. That's more than the entire TDP of a 3GHz quad core Xeon.
So, actually, the Xeon can be performing an entire 4-thread workload using all 4 cores, and it's still lower power than a 4870 X2 card doing nothing. Given that, you made a silly conjecture. Typically silly, as was your previous post.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
