POST A COMMENT

71 Comments

Back to Article

  • Alfaneo - Friday, August 26, 2005 - link


    here is 478 pin result
    Run All Summary

    ---------- SUM_RESULTS\3DSMAX\SUMMARY.TXT
    3dsmax-03 Weighted Geometric Mean = 16.99

    ---------- SUM_RESULTS\CATIA\SUMMARY.TXT
    catia-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 14.27

    ---------- SUM_RESULTS\ENSIGHT\SUMMARY.TXT
    ensight-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 20.60

    ---------- SUM_RESULTS\LIGHT\SUMMARY.TXT
    light-07 Weighted Geometric Mean = 12.34

    ---------- SUM_RESULTS\MAYA\SUMMARY.TXT
    maya-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 18.69

    ---------- SUM_RESULTS\PROE\SUMMARY.TXT
    proe-03 Weighted Geometric Mean = 16.74

    ---------- SUM_RESULTS\SW\SUMMARY.TXT
    sw-01 Weighted Geometric Mean = 14.16

    ---------- SUM_RESULTS\UGS\SUMMARY.TXT
    ugs-04 Weighted Geometric Mean = 18.35
    Reply
  • blckgrffn - Thursday, February 24, 2005 - link

    Let's hope that they don't post it because they know that running 1T is imperative to get good performance number, and thus use it by default. Reply
  • Hans Maulwurf - Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - link

    Many other sites don´t publish their command rate either, this looks very strange for me. Most sites used to publish them before. I don´t understand... Reply
  • L3p3rM355i4h - Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - link

    I'm assuming 1T, although the ammount of pwnage that would occur if it was 2T would be incredible. Reply
  • Zebo - Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - link

    Derek/Anand- Why is it you don't say what A64's command rate was? 1T or 2T? This makes a huge impact on A64's performance (as shown by Anand right here and myself in forums) and is sloppy jounalism to leave out. Sure "other" sites do this crap but not anandtech.:| Reply
  • Dualboy24 - Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - link

    I am just not finding the releases to be impressive lately... I am waiting to see the future dual core etc... perhaps that will wow us all. Its just not like the 90s anymore where it was always an exciting time with CPUs.

    Perhaps a battle between 56kbps modem models would prove entertaining :) L()L
    Reply
  • neogodless - Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - link

    #64 I'm saying I don't bother. I don't do that at work (P42.4C) either. At work, I listen to MP3s while having 2 e-mail clients open, various browser windows and tabs, a development environment, FTP, database manager, various IM programs, remote desktop, etc. And I do about the same at home, though usually on a smaller scale. And it works fine. However, if I go to a web page that gobbles up resources (poorly written javascript, i can give you an example page), I'm able to do everything else on the HT machine which shows about "53%" overall CPU usage. An the Athlon 64, if something gobbles up CPU, I see "99%" usage and a sluggish environment. But it's ALL subjective... I want to see Objective measurements.

    I also don't want to see Athlon vs. Intel opinions/flames because I'm not claiming one or the other is better... just asking for objective measurements.
    Reply
  • RZaakir - Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - link

    neo, are you saying that you have problems running a game and listening to MP3s simultaneously on your Athlon 64? Reply
  • RockHydra11 - Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - link

    Disappointing to say the least.... Reply
  • neogodless - Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - link

    I'm not sure why I got attacked for requesting Multi-tasking benchmarks. I prefer my AMD for gaming, and I prefer the Intel at work where I run lots of programs at once but (unfortunately) never game. It's not a fair comparison anyway because my home machine is limited by only one monitor, while my work machine has two.

    Yes, many benchmarks are optimized for Hyperthreading, and if they are synthetic, then it doesn't matter. I'm asking for benchmarks with programs you use every day. If they're optimized for Hyperthreading, then you will see real world benefit from that, when using an HT enabled processor.

    When I run games on my AMD64, it gobbles up all the CPU (even if it's an old game) for whatever reason, and I don't find it practical to leave a game running in the background while doing something else. I've done it, and it didn't greatly hinder doing some small task like check e-mail or send an instant message, but I wouldn't intentionally do it, especially if I decided I'd rather listen to Mp3s than finish my game...
    Reply
  • KingofL337 - Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - link

    Why would anyone buy a P4 for EMT64? When AMD64 is
    a full implementations of 64 not just a poor incomplete copy?

    In Soviet Russia, Computer Reboot You!

    Reply
  • Zebo - Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - link

    "The original Prescott was a Sunday launch. "

    Well see what I mean..:)
    Reply
  • Hans Maulwurf - Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - link

    And remember hyperthreading - it uses only a small area on the die and increases power consumption significantly!

    Oh, and I would still like to know weather it ws 1T or 2T on the Athlon.
    Reply
  • Viditor - Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - link

    Reflex - First, you may very well be quite correct!
    Second, not all parts of the die are equal...for example, the ALU runs at twice the clockspeed of the core. The areas affected by 64bit modes MAY be disproportionally higher than the rest of the CPU (I really don't know, which is why I'm asking for a test...).
    Third, the design for 64bit on Intel is quite different that on AMD. AMD designed the chip to be hybrid from the ground up, Intel had to "retrofit" their Netburst architecture to accomodate it...while they both function very similarly, their incorporation into the chip is quite dissimilar (e.g. AMD has no double-pumped ALU)
    Reply
  • DerekWilson - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    Intel often does sunday launches --

    The original Prescott was a Sunday launch.

    And there was at least a couple others that I can't recall at the moment.

    I've seen other sites say something to the affect of this being a sneaky launch, and I think don't think that is accurate.

    I, for one, would prefer Intel not launch parts on a Sunday. But that's how its been and likely how it will be. :-/
    Reply
  • Zebo - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    What's up with Intel sneaking around in the dark for..Sunday night launches on a holiday weekend told me all I needed to know about this new chip release.

    In sure they still sell billions over AMD but the message is clear from enthusiasts prosective. If you want performance, quiet and cool you buy AMD A64's.(ageing I might add)
    Reply
  • johnsonx - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    In Soviet Russia, message clears YOU!


    damn, it's hard to stop....
    Reply
  • johnsonx - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    The message is clear: Soviet Russia has failed.

    Enough already... let's move on to the next catch phrase (if there must be a next one...).

    Reply
  • Reflex - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    Vidiator - 64bit uses very little die space, even once activated its not going to consume any really noticable amount of power. On an Athlon64 its estimated to be about 10% of the core. Considering how much larger a P4 core is it would account for even less percentage wise. I am not including cache in that measurement either which as you saw accounts for 50% or better.

    So technically it may draw a watt or two, but its not going to change the results significantly...
    Reply
  • Viditor - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    danidentity - "Power consumption is not going to change depending on whether you're running 64-bit apps or not"

    Is there a reason you expect this? My own rationale is that Intel (I'm assuming here) probably dials down a few things (ALU logic, BISTs, unneeded repeaters, etc...) unless the CPU is operating in 64bit only mode or compatiblity mode (as opposed to legacy mode).
    As an example, AMD64 doesn't use the extra registers unless it's in one of the 64bit modes...

    I don't know if there will be a swing in power consumption, but I am curious to see any empirical evidence one way or the other...

    Derek - Thanks for the heads up on the test (Powernow usage...)!
    Reply
  • DerekWilson - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    I noticed a comment about our power numbers showing the 6xx series drawing more at load than the 5xx series ...

    This may be due to the fact that we ran our LOAD power test without EIST and the IDLE power was measured with EIST to get close to the min and max numbers.

    Our AMD parts, however, were measured at min and max without powernow! ... so the AMD parts have the potential to post numbers even lower.
    Reply
  • danidentity - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    #48 - Power consumption is not going to change depending on whether you're running 64-bit apps or not. Reply
  • Live - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    Nice and clean review. Good work. Tough it is not really what you want to read when the biggest CPU maker in the world releases a whole new series. Boring and utterly disappointing. Reply
  • Viditor - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    Nice job AT! I appreciate very much the power consumption numbers!

    Request:
    When we do finally get 64bit benches, I would very much like to see the power consumption figures under 64bit...
    Reply
  • Viditor - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    neogodless - "I would like to see more "multi-tasking" benchmarks"

    If it makes you feel better, many of the benches used are designed for hyperthreading...
    Reply
  • Zebo - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    A pig with a bowtie is still a pig. This was an arse whippin by AMD. Reply
  • bobsmith1492 - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    44 - ???

    My XP 2.4 runs MMJB, UD Agent, about 10 IE and Mozilla windows, Word, Excel, and Paint, with a game minimized in the background, while chatting with several people on Trillian smooth as silk.
    Reply
  • neogodless - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    Every time I see AMD vs Intel benchmarks, I think it's great that I have an AMD at home. But then I remember how much I like using my Intel at work. The reason I bring this is up is because I would like to see more "multi-tasking" benchmarks, like running these same benchmarks with programs running the background, such as Outlook/Thunderbird, AIM/GAIM/Trillian, MusicMatch/WinAmp, and so forth. Reply
  • Houdani - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    In Soviet Russia, benches mark YOU! Reply
  • Billy Idol - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    Reply
  • johnsonx - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    Is there no merit at all in running a few A64 vs P4 6xx benchmarks with the current RC build of XP x64? While I've found too many things I need don't work with XP x64 to use it, I did see that 3dMark03 ran fine. I know 3dMark itself isn't 64-bit, bit it does making heavy use of 64-bit DirectX and graphic driver calls. There must be a few more apps and games that could be called on...

    Maybe just limit the benchies to two processors, say an A64 3500+ vs. a Pentium 4 650, running the same benchmarks in 32-bit and 64-bit Windows, using just one GeForce 6xxx and one Radeon X8-something.

    It'd just be interesting and useful to see which processor runs 64-bit code better, both absolutely and compared to each processor's 32-bit performance.

    When the final release version of XP x64 does come out, it may be interesting to have benchmarks from the RC version to see what's improved (though I agree it wouldn't actually be useful in any practical sense).

    Or perhaps Anandtech knows something I don't, like the release XP x64 is so close that running benches on the RC would be moot....
    Reply
  • SLIM - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    #30 and 36
    Hans is right, the 3000 and 3200 cores in the graphs are not available in retail (downclocked 130nm cores) and are meant to show power consumption scaling with speed increases. It's unfortunate that they left out the more interesting comparison (the 130nm 3500+). The only 90nm AMD chip in the power graphs is the 3500+.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    Very strange your the only guys so far that show an increase in power consumption of the P4 6xx Series over the 5xx Series. Reply
  • Regs - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    Wow, a lot of good comments here. mlittl3, most of the Anandtech's population know that the EE's are just overpriced Northwood's on steroids (Big heads, small balls). And the crayon wax melting comparison made me laugh out loud.

    I just find it funny Intel is trying to slap on everything but the kitchen sink on these processors to make them more appealing. What's next? Are they going to come with a microwave toaster oven combo? With all do respect to Intel, to add on such features is not an easy thing to do at a engineering level but once again I feel that their marketing team is still running the show.

    But what is AMD doing while Intel performs CPR on their Prescott's? All this news on Intel for the past few months left me nostalgic in what AMD is doing behind the scenes. SSE3 was their latest slap-on feature, but as we saw in your recent AMD article it offered little to no performance gain. AMD's next core has to offer lower L1-l2 Cache latencies. This is the only way I see AMD cornering Intel's Cores performance in every application. But im afraid we won't see any such thing until long-horn comes out in a few years. Until now we have to settle for worthless add-ons features for the desk-top consumers while we see both Intel and AMD battle the server market where Intel is mostly threatened.
    Reply
  • HardwareD00d - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    In Soviet Russia, Prescott melts YOU! Reply
  • miketheidiot - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    why do the 3000 and 3200 have signifigantly higher power consumption than the 3500? I thought all 3200 and 3000 are also built on 90nm soi. Reply
  • RadeonGuy - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    Even With All the processors haveing 2mb cache they still suck ass Reply
  • Hans Maulwurf - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    #30 I think the 3000 and 3200 are not really Winchester cores. Maybe clocked down 130 nm cores.

    I´m interested in the memory timing of the A64. Is it 1T or 2T? This is an important information, you should always(!) give it the configuration part of reviews.
    Reply
  • DerekWilson - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    One thing to remember about out power tests --

    We measure power draw at the wall. Power supplies are inefficient and magnify power draw at the wall. Power input to the PSU does not scale proportionally to power output.
    Reply
  • Brian23 - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    I thought that all winchesters were 90nm SOI. Reply
  • L3p3rM355i4h - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    #30 90mm SOI= lower wattage. Reply
  • Brian23 - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    Look at the power consumption graph for the A64. Why is the 3500 winchester doing so much better than the 3000 and 3200 winchesters? Reply
  • L3p3rM355i4h - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    #28 saw almost the same thing at PCPER too. Reply
  • Aenslead - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    I could ALMOST swear I saw the VERY same bencmarks last night @ xbit labs... fancy that. Reply
  • bldckstark - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    227 WATTS!!... My daughter has a crayon maker. It uses a 60W light bulb in a plastic box to melt 3 crayons and pours them into a mold. It melts the wax in about 5 minutes. If I buy a P4 I can melt 11.35 crayons at once. It uses 3.78 times as much energy as is necessary to light my computer room. This is not efficient use of resources. Reply
  • L3p3rM355i4h - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    sorry to go off topic, but are the forums down or does this terminal suck? Reply
  • LoneWolf15 - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    From a price/performance standpoint, I can't see many good reasons to buy a P4 six series, and in many cases, a five series either (exceptions being high-end 3D rendering apps and heavy video encoding). Not just because of what price of processor (which doesn't seem to net a huge speed increase) but the increased power draw means a heavier power supply, plus more expensive cooling. Compared to the lower power draw of the Athlon 64 CPU's, as well as a lower price at least at the entry-to-mid level CPU's, I think Intel really needs to go back to basics and create a new CPU architecture. Reply
  • mlittl3 - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    Okay, I have an addition to my last comment made about the Extreme Edition being a scam. I did some calculations that were left out my anandtech to see if the 3.73EE is truely better than the 3.46EE.

    Everyone knows the differences between the two processors. The 3.73EE has an 8% increase in CPU speed, less total cache overall but 4x the lower latency L2 cache when compared to L3 cache (the XD-bit and EM64T are also added but that will not effect performance at all with 32-bit OS).

    With these added features, the 3.73EE should be better than the 3.46EE especially since the Prescott core is supposed to scale well with clock speed versus the Gallatin/Northwood and the 1066 MHz FSB is supposed to give better performance at higher clock speeds. Well, let's look at the numbers.

    Using Anandtech's results, I calculated the % difference between the two processors. They varied between -10 (worse) and 30 % (better). I then added up all the scores (I took the inverse of the less is better scores) and divided them by the introduction price ($999) and the MHz of each processor. Here are the results.

    Performance per $:
    3.46EE - 20.69
    3.73EE - 20.61

    Performance per MHz:
    3.46EE - 5.96
    3.73EE - 5.52

    You can do the calculations yourself by using all the benchmark numbers from the two extreme edition CPUs in the review. As you can see, the 3.73EE is worse on a per dollar and per MHz basis compared to the 3.46EE (even though the margin is small, it is still worse for the higher clocked CPU). The Prescott core is a failure IMHO. The 3.73EE is a total scam and the extreme edition processors in general are poor performers. Remember these were released just to offset the marketing of AMD FX processors when Intel got wind of them 1.5 years ago. I don't think Intel was ever going to release them and they keep getting worse and worse.

    A scam alert should be issued. Buyer beware!
    Reply
  • L3p3rM355i4h - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    Ho Hum, intel is still stagnating. 227 watts load? Jeezus, thats incredible. Reply
  • mlittl3 - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    Just a quick, possible correction.

    I don't know if you meant to or not, but the comparison of the Prescott vs. Prescott 2M table is missing Windows Media Creator HD and Visual Studio results.
    Reply
  • stephenbrooks - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    The 3.73 EE was at one stage referred to as the "720" model number. Anyone hear anything more of this? The '20 means 14x multiplier but 14x(1066MHz/4) = 3.73 GHz, so if a 730 was released it would be 4 GHz and so on. Reply
  • sphinx - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    I liked the way the info was put into the tables, instead of images. Just an opinion. Reply
  • jmke - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    Great article @ Anandtech, like the power ratings @ LOAD ;)

    here's some OC results from X-Bit labs: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/penti...

    I've also seen 3.0Ghz 6xx series OC to 4.3 with STOCK COOLING!!!
    Reply
  • nourdmrolNMT1 - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    Dranzerk, SLI is not stupid. EE is a marketing gimmick to bring money in, you do what you can do to make money. SLI is a smart thing, but back on subject. i think O/Cing has nothing to do with a processors appeal, they are doing the review for those who want to know what intel is up to, not what it can O/C.

    MIKE
    Reply
  • Dranzerk - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    EE is what SLI is to nvidia. stupid. Reply
  • mlittl3 - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    Is it just me or is the EE procesors just a big scam? All of the game benchmarks show the 3.46 beating or tieing the 3.73. How can a reputable company like Intel fool consumers with that crap? I want the names of everyone who buys an EE based Dell XPC so that I can tar and feather them in the public square.

    I bet I can sell Amway to all those people. :)
    Reply
  • mongoosesRawesome - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    "What Intel is counting on is that the increase in hit rate provided by a 50% larger cache will outshine the 17% longer access to L2 cache."

    Should be 100% larger cache...
    Reply
  • AtaStrumf - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    One thing you completely left out of the conclusion, but I think you should definately add is:

    Don't buy Intel until they have a chipset out that will support dual core.
    Reply
  • danidentity - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    Nice article, but why no overclocking results? That's very dissapointing.

    Surely you have a P5AD2-E to test these new chips with.
    Reply
  • nourdmrolNMT1 - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    whoa.... i got something right.

    MIKE
    Reply
  • DerekWilson - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    you are correct mike (and you too mjz5)

    :-)
    Reply
  • DerekWilson - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    You're in luck -- Anand is writing that one personally. In my opinion he's the best there is at explaining technology so that anyone can understand it.

    And we've got "better" pics of cell, but they have boxes and text all over them to tell what block does what ... that's the best "clean" cell pic we've got.
    Reply
  • mjz5 - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    new news!! Nothing new from intel, actually that's not new news :-s... Reply
  • nourdmrolNMT1 - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    also, in the Cell picture, i count 8 cache areas, is there 8 sub processors with their own cache and then a main processor that controlls all the others with its own cache (the dark blue on the right, while the light blue is the sub processors cache?)

    MIKE
    Reply
  • nourdmrolNMT1 - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    :-)

    yea, find a better quality pic of the Cell processor. and please use small words that the small ppl like me can understand especially in the Cell article next week. i look forward to it, but dont want to be all confused like i am on a lot of your high tech articles.

    :-D

    MIKE
    Reply
  • DerekWilson - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    I can only fix 89 broken things at a time :-)

    anything else need tweaking?
    Reply
  • nourdmrolNMT1 - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    nvm post 3, read this post instead

    page 4 = bottom of page 3... fix it.

    I ORDER YOU NOW

    MIKE
    Reply
  • JustAnAverageGuy - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    It's fun to watch them add the pages one by one :) Reply
  • nourdmrolNMT1 - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    wrong graphs on page 4???

    MIKE
    Reply
  • AtaStrumf - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    He, he, no first post for all you first posters >;-) Reply
  • AtaStrumf - Monday, February 21, 2005 - link

    Bla bla Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now