POST A COMMENT

80 Comments

Back to Article

  • Slappi - Thursday, May 25, 2006 - link

    That is the real question.

    Very biased these last few months.

    I sure hope Conroe can cook dinner and clean my house because if it can't someone has some explaining to do.
    Reply
  • lewisc - Thursday, May 25, 2006 - link

    How was that review at all biased? AM2 showed very very small improvements over socket 939, Anand said so. Is it biased because the result was not what you wanted? How you could possibly suggest buying a a new platform that has hardly any improvement over a predecessor is beyond me. Reply
  • Slappi - Thursday, May 25, 2006 - link

    Just all his talk about Intel the last few months has been really biased. Not necessarily this article.

    Just my opinion and I really like this site it just seems like someone is being taken care of.

    I could be wrong.
    Reply
  • clnee55 - Friday, May 26, 2006 - link

    I agree in the last few months, AMD has shown that it doesn't have anything ready to compete with Conroe. I certainly can trust Anand's analysis. Your conspiracy theory is full of it.

    By the way, just how much AMD stock do you own?

    Reply
  • EdisonStarfire - Thursday, May 25, 2006 - link

    I've owned AMD systems since 1998 starting with an Athlon 600 OEM. I've built several other AMD systems since then. Sure, there is a slight chance Intel had some influence on their test systems anand tested but from seeing other pre-release samples around the web I think its just a case of Intel finally waking up and building a good cpu. I hope AMD has a good answer but if they don't and fooled themselves into thinking Intel didn't have the resources or need to build something (like alot of fanboys do) then they were kidding themselves badly. If the Core 2 Duo chips are the best out when its time to dump my X2 4400 then thats what I will be buying. I know AMD is limited in resources but the Dothan should have been a sign of what was coming and made some revisions with the AM2 release. Let's hope the deerhound cores improvements add about 20% IPC so can keep some good competition going between the two companies.

    in short... I don't think Anand is being biased about anything. Just my 2 cents.
    Reply
  • peternelson - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link


    I am interested in the changes from 939 to AM2/940 and opteron/940 and SocketF/1207

    I would like detailed PINOUTS for these.

    eg how many pins are GND, how many power / core power, how many ddr, how many ddr2, how many hypertransport links.

    Ideally full pinout not just summary by group function.

    Is this information available anywhere or would I have to/my company have to sign an NDA with AMD to obtain it?
    Reply
  • ultraCODE - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    Have anyone managed to benchmark new AM2 platform with RightMark RMMA? It shows the real peak speed (I don't trust crappy Sandra) for mem. read/write. Any results highly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
    Best wishes,
    uC
    Reply
  • jmke - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    here ya go

    quote:

    Dual-Channel DDR2-800 on AMD Athlon 64 X2 "AM2" — the First Test Results of the New Integrated Memory Controller in RightMark Memory Analyzer


    http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/mainboard/ddr2...">http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/mainboard/ddr2...
    Reply
  • Xenoid - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    Ok so AM2 is AMD's offering for 2/4 06.

    The article title mentions same performance, faster memory, lower power. Wouldn't faster memory (in this case, ddr2) net a higher performance than what we're seeing here? Why is AMD bothering with DDR2 if it's not a significant improvement? If the power usage is so low, does this mean we can overclock a lot easier? I never understood the huge deal behind power usage on a cpu.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    DDR production is slowing down, and DDR2 is continuing to mature, AMD does need to change to this memory type now, regardless if they like it or not.

    DDR2 also allows higher capacities, so you can probably reach 4x2Gb now as 2Gb modles are actually available on DDR2.

    Considering DDR2 biggest advanatge bandwidth, is what AMD doesn't really need more fo right now, performance improvements will be negligible.
    Reply
  • Furen - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    Also, having all that extra bandwidth available allows AMD to throw quad-core on the same socket without much problem (maybe 1H07... whatever everyone says I doubt AMD will let Intel have the quad-core advantage for a year, I'd say we'll see very low volume quad-cores as close to Intel's Kentsfield/Cloverton as humanly possible). I know we've heard that AM3 is coming next year (from, who else?, The Inquirer) but considering that the DDR3 spec is not finalized quite yet and just how slowly AMD jumped into the DDR2 bandwagon I'd say we won't see it until 2008 at the earliest. Reply
  • Axloth - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    I think there is also marketing side. There are lots of people "unaware" of ddr1-ddr2 comparison. And they probably think that ddr2 "must" be better than ddr1 because of that that "2". Like: ddr2 is upgrade or next generation of ddr1 so its gotta be much faster. Also, they might go for intel because intel uses ddr2 and amd only ddr1... And they think intel's better thanks to ddr2, disregarding cpu qualities of both amd and intel. Reply
  • pzkfwg - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    If DDR2-800 barely beats DDR-400, I was wondering if the AM2 socket could actually be slower than 939 DDR-400 when using DDR2-667 !?! Knowing that a very large amount of people would buy cheaper AM2 system with DDR2-667, that would be ridiculous! Reply
  • mino - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    YES and NO.

    Remember most people buy generic CL3 or CL2.5 DDR400. IMHO generic DDR2-666 should be ona par with that.
    Reply
  • soydios - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    So, the X2 4200+ will not run the memory at full speed. How safe would it be to overclock from 200x11=2200MHz DDR2-733 (2200/6=366x2=733) to 219x11=2200MHz DDR2-803 (2409/6=401.5x2=803) using OCZ DDR2-800 RAM and an Asus Xpress3200 motherboard? Reply
  • Furen - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    I'd say that you can very likely get away with that overclock with pretty much every 4200+ as long as the motherboard allows you to do it. Reply
  • mino - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    Safe as safe. At least from the point it won't blow up :)

    As for stability it all depends on the motherboard.
    Reply
  • peternelson - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link


    I see no benchmarking in 64 bit mode.

    This is the future, and for maths, Intel's 64 bit was more of a lame copy of AMD 64 bit performance.

    In future this will be increasingly important so even if 32 bit performances are comparable, I'd want to make sure the picture is the same running 64 bit apps.


    Also you summarise "same performance, faster memory, less power". True, but you FORGET one of the main benefits: Pacifica Virtualisation.

    True hardware virtualisation adds to the actual WORK you can keep that processor busy with. It saves time by letting you switch OS instances without rebooting timewasting.

    As it is hardware based VT you should even be able to virtualise an UNMODIFIED OS like Win XP, maybe even Vista!

    So please play with Xen3.

    As you say virtualisation "works" then it is a BIG factor for me in choosing AM2 over 939, (all other things being equal).

    Also the fastest 939 chips have been produced, and AM2 is reaching higher models now.

    So if you want the VERY fastest, it is only available on AM2.

    Don't forget: Not just performance, but performance PER WATT. For these AM2 chips that is similar to 939.

    However, the announcement of 65W EE and EVEN 35W SFF EE!!! are significant compared to the standard 89W

    Intel seem to be positioning Conroe as being "33% better" on performance per watt. However, Conroe isn't even here but when it is, it may not be able to compete with AMD low power offerings.

    Also consider the whole system for conroe vs AMD. Because that AMD power INCLUDES the memory controller, whereas Intel doesn't. The whole motherboard etc may use less power.

    Also in terms of entire system cost, motherboards for AM2 appear to be a bit cheaper than their Intel equivalents, which may offset the current high prices of AMD processors.
    Reply
  • fitten - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    You should check out the Woodcrest (server targeted Conroe core) previews for power measurements. Performance per Watt, Woodcrest wins (and will be available in 3 weeks)... Absolute power usage under load, Woodcrest wins... and note that the power measurements are for the complete system (video card and HDDs included). (Deep power conservation couldn't be tested on Woodcrest because the parts didn't have it enabled as they were engineering samples.)

    Also, check out the 64bit vs. 32bit comparisons in programs like Cinebench 9.5. Seems Woodcrest 64bit gives a nice boost there (showing that it isn't just a 'lame copy').

    You also seem to forget that Intel already has virtualization extensions out in currently shipping processors (much less Conroe+).

    As far as price, there have been price lists published already. High end Conroe parts are already listed for 1/2 the price of the high end AMD parts... at $500 that gives another $500 for purchase of a motherboard before it touches just the CPU cost of the AMD... I doubt that the motherboards will be that expensive.

    I have 7 AMD machines (four are Athlon64s or X2s) but right now, it looks like my next machine will be a Core2 one. AMD needs to get an answer out... soon. K8L isn't going to cut it. Sure, it'll be good at FPU but the vast majority of work done by CPUs is integer, which are what the majority of improvements are in Core2 (not that they don't have good FPU improvements). So, if you're in a government lab running FPU intensive simulations, K8L may be for you. If you're anyone else, K8L as it has been described looks kind of anemic and not a match for Core2.

    Maybe the real K8L will surprise us, who knows, but it is at least 6 months away (if not longer). By that time, Intel will already be 25% into it's 2-year cycle for the next Core derivative chip (probably farther, time between releases is set to 2-years). AMD looks to be in a bad situation right now... If they have something they're keeping secret, IMO, they need to at least tease us with it. K8L is not a tease, it's only slightly more than a stifled yawn. The longer they go without giving us something to look forward to, the more it looks like they are in major trouble.
    Reply
  • Accord99 - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    [quote]Don't forget: Not just performance, but performance PER WATT. For these AM2 chips that is similar to 939.

    However, the announcement of 65W EE and EVEN 35W SFF EE!!! are significant compared to the standard 89W

    Intel seem to be positioning Conroe as being "33% better" on performance per watt. However, Conroe isn't even here but when it is, it may not be able to compete with AMD low power offerings. [/quote]
    Given that Woodcrest 3.0GHz has a TDP of 65W, which is borne out by power measurements conducted by Techreport and 2CPU, it's likely that a Conroe that matches the performance of the 35W X2 will at the very least, also match it in power.
    Reply
  • soydios - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    AMD motherboards are less expensive because they don't have to put in a memory controller.

    AMD processors are more expensive for 2 reasons:
    - integrated memory controller takes up more die space (offset by cheaper motherboard)
    - AMD is still using 90nm on 200mm wafers, while Intel is using 65nm on 300mm wafers (Intel gets more CPUs per wafer bigtime)
    Reply
  • peternelson - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link


    Sempron AM2 can do memory up to DDR2-667

    Dualcore AM2 can do memory up to DDR2-800

    However, PLEASE CHECK SINGLE CORE MEMORY SPEED (multiplier issues aside) which you say limited to 667 whereas I got the impression they can also do 800 like dualcores. Correct as necessary.
    Reply
  • smitty3268 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    I accidentally hit the "not worth reading" button, so I'm writing this comment to undo it :) Reply
  • fikimiki - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    There are a couple of reasons for that:
    - K8L photo had a Z-RAM implemented, so they are using this kind of cache for a quite long time.
    - Shared L3 should help Athlon64 in matching Super-Pi and overall performance.
    - Usage of Z-RAM will reduce cache die size by 75% with no architectural changes.

    So FX-64 to beat fastest Core 2 just needs 4MB of cache...
    Easy trick but can be useful to survive till 65nm production...
    Reply
  • Questar - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    quote:

    K8L photo had a Z-RAM implemented, so they are using this kind of cache for a quite long time.


    It's not going to be Z-RAM. Z-RAM won't even be in K8L.

    “We’ve looked at data from Innovative Silicon and it looks very promising. We still need to assure ourselves that this will work in our own application. We need to see how it scales and we need to make our own test vehicles,”

    Jones, an executive experienced in intellectual property licensing, also declined to comment on AMD’s timetable for introduction of Z-RAM but offered a more general perspective. “In the past it has been two years from when you sign a deal to when it is in production.”


    http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jht...">http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jht...
    Reply
  • munky - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    I think the June trick AMD will pull out is the Clearspeed coprocessor. It definitely won't affect many users, but for those who do invest in the technology, it could provide a decent boost in number crunching power. Reply
  • peternelson - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link


    Clearspeed are working on being one acceleration solution, yes, but the already launched acceleration on socket 940 is companies offering plug in Xilinx4 FPGA on hypertransport.

    I hope that gets re-engineered onto socket F pretty quickly. We may see announcements once socket F is actually launched in July.
    Reply
  • darkdemyze - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    z-ram isn't due for AMD procs for quite some time, I doubt this is their plan for June.. Reply
  • mlittl3 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    Basically this is what I said above for my guess of the "trick" AMD will use. Anand said it will only affect some high-end users, read FX series so it can't be price cuts as some have suggested (that would effect everyone). Adding L3 cache is the only performance improvement I can think of that doesn't require changing the microarchitecture of the cores (well at least not a big change).

    However, TDP is still an issue here as someone above suggested. I don't know how much more power it takes to run L3 cache. Last time AMD did it was on K6 and power wasn't really measured back then.

    By the way, please ignore Questar's comment below about z-ram being pig slow. I really don't think he knows what he is talking about. /shields eyes from incoming Questar flame
    Reply
  • johnsonx - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    K6-III did not have L3 cache. It had L2 cache, making the cache that all socket-7 boards had then an L3 cache.

    So, let's stop saying things like 'AMD hasn't done L3 cache since K6-III', etc.
    Reply
  • mino - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    Well, IMHO the point is AMD has used exclusive 3-level cache structure in the past so they have som experience with thi arrangement. Reply
  • Questar - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    No flame here, look it up for yourself.

    Z-RAM has high capacitive loading, which results in slow speed.

    At 4MB it'll run half the speed of SRAM.
    Reply
  • Questar - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    Large amounts of Z-RAM are pig slow. Reply
  • Ecmaster76 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    Seriously, the one area an Athlon X2 would be bandwidth starved and does it get tested in the preview? NO
    In the review? NO

    How long ago did we know that the K8 was not bandwidth limited in single application usage? YEARS


    So yeah, DDR2 din't increase the 3dMark, big surprise
    Reply
  • mlittl3 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    I think 3dMark06 is multithreaded now so all available cores and bandwidth should be used within the limits of the program. I could be wrong about this however. Reply
  • Ecmaster76 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    3Dmark06 is almost completely GPU limited. The 3Dmark CPU score did increase a bit, but I really was referring to graphics benchmarks in general. Reply
  • cscpianoman - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    I was just noticing the performance differences between the FX and the EE. In some cases the FX tromps the EE by "gasp" 30%! In other cases the EE makes it's mark. This is part of the reason I am skeptic on Conroe. Yeah it's good. But I always take what Intel, or AMD for that matter, with a grain of salt. Just today we saw the 30% advantage translate down to about 15%. This seems just like any other generation change where 15% is to be expected. The current hype for the Conroe is a product of Intel's excellent marketing dept. Reply
  • mlittl3 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    Until K8L (which will have microarchitectural improvements), there are a few things that could allow AMD to look good against Core 2.

    1) Price drops so that comparable K8 and Core 2 processors are the same price giving the same performance/$ ratio (this metric is important for the budget constrained)

    2) Nov. '06 release of 65 nm AM2 processors so that K8 and Core 2 processors will have the same performance/watt ratio (65 nm could give K8 a 20% drop in power and with Core 2 being 20% faster, they will have the same performance/watt ratio which is popular now). Also, everytime AMD transitions to a new die process they add some minor bug fixes and minor memory/microarchitectural enhancements which could also boost performance by a few percent.

    3) Continual improvements to DDR2 latency might yield a 2-2-2 DDR2 800 memory module which will probably benefit K8 more (maybe ~5% improvement) than Core 2 but this is a wild guess here and I don't know if it is even possible. However, DDR400 latency started around 4-4-4 and dropped to 2-2-2 so it could happen.

    With the same performance/price and performance/watt as Core 2, K8 could stay competitive and OEMS and users decide on which company (if not both) they would like to do business with. This is all speculation and of course everyone is more than welcome to rip my reasoning to death.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    I seriously doubt we will ever see DDR2-800 running at 2-2-2 timings. (Feel free to quote me on this in the future and make fun of me if I'm proven wrong. :-)) Just think how long we had DDR memory around, and no one ever managed to create 1-1-1 DDR-400 memory. I do think we will see 3-3-3 DDR2-800, and possibly even higher bandwidth with those timings. In fact, we almost have that already judging from my experiences so far with socket AM2. (I can post and run benchmarks, but I wouldn't call the system 100% stable.) Reply
  • mlittl3 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    LOL! I will! Reply
  • MacGuffin - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    From Patriot's PDC22G8000+XBLK Rev. 2 review on PCSTATS.
    Rated for DDR2-667 @ 3-3-3-9 (Maintains those timings through DDR2-940!)
    Rated for DDR2-1000 @ 4-4-4-12 (Goes Up to DDR2-1020!)
    Completely stable on the Intel platform they used. It's extremely expensive (saw it for $400+ at NewEgg). But yes, it is possible to run 2GB at these timings already. Its just extremely expensive.
    Reply
  • EdisonStarfire - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    any opinions on AMD offering a Clearspeed solution as stop-gap in the high end desktop arena ? Reply
  • Griswold - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    The bottom line is, we now know what we knew last fall, or rather (rightfully) assumed.

    quote:

    AMD does have one last trick up its sleeve before the end of the year, and you will hear about it in June. It's not K8L and it's not going to affect the majority of people, but it is an interesting stop gap solution for the high end in 2006...


    Now you made me curious. Could that be the "noise in june" which Henri Richards mentioned in a Register interview earlier this month?

    Reply
  • smn198 - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    It is called quad-core. Reply
  • temp2 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link


    The extremetech.com article has a similar teaser at the end, but it is slightly more specific:

    "And given recent discussions with AMD, we can safely say that the company hasn't launched its last FX series CPU for the year quite yet."
    Reply
  • mino - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    This provided, 3.2 or even 3.4 FX's on 65nm are on the way... Reply
  • Scrogneugneu - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    Beware the mighty Sempron FX 32 ! Reply
  • mino - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    2 options:
    1) Quad-core K8 (on 65nm)
    2) High-speed 65nm DC's(improbable)

    BTW what I understand FX-64 is on the way in a few months(july-august). Seems rev. F cores could handle 3.0, just 125W TDP may be the issue.
    Reply
  • peternelson - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link


    Well, I don't think it's a QUAD CORE K8 (aka "Deerhound") because that is not due until late 2007.

    And dualcore K8L is not until 1H/2007.

    We need to choose something happening THIS year.
    Reply
  • mino - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    Actually AMD can made Quad-core CPU's even on 90nm if they need to. The core will be huge, yields poor but IMHO 2.2G Quad at 90nm is possible within 125W TDP.

    Also AFAIK AMD has delayed 65nm at least for a quarter intentionally since what they need now is capacity on 90nm. They could not afford any (even short-term) production reduction at this moment. Provided in 3Q/06 FAB 36 is up and running at 10k starts the could afford to dedicate some of them for some high-end opterons and FX's.
    Reply
  • Furen - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    http://img.clubic.com/photo/00119525.jpg">http://img.clubic.com/photo/00119525.jpg

    Look at that and tell me how you can possibly fit twice that (90nm dual-core) in one package. Dual-core CPUs are huge to begin with, doubling the number of cores would probably require a pretty big drop in L2 sizes (think 256KB per core...). AMD still is production limited and designing a quad-core chip without going to 65nm would pretty much doom it to being a VERY low-volume part. Heck, Intel's Conroe is huge as well, it's just on a smaller process (the 160sq. mm die size would correspond to something like 300+sq. mm on the 90nm process).
    Reply
  • jones377 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    It's called Socket F Reply
  • Griswold - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    I dont think so. Socket F isnt really a "secret" nor a stopgap solution. Reply
  • peternelson - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    I think we hear more about socket F in June and it launches July.

    But that's not what this is alluding to.

    There was an announcement of a roadmap change from Q1/2007 to DECEMBER 2006.

    If I remember right it was two AM2 processors on 65 nanometre process.
    Reply
  • jones377 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    Perhaps not, but it's coming out at around that timeframe. Anything else and we would have gotten wind of it long ago. Reply
  • mlittl3 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    A couple of things before I give my guess about the stopgap solution...

    1) K8L as state above WILL HAVE microarchitectural improvements. This has been all over the internet.

    2) AMD's processor pricing page states that the X2 5000+ and FX-62 will be available for both 939 and AM2. I don't know if they messed up but if not, it looks like 939 users can upgrade yet again.

    Okay, here's my guess for the stopgap solution...drum roll...L3 cache. I think AMD will release a 2.8 revised FX-62 with L3 cache or an ahead of schedule 3.0 GHz FX-64 with L3 cache. Just my guess.
    Reply
  • AllYourBaseAreBelong2Us - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    The stopgap solution is the 65nm process that will allow AMD to ramp up the speed a bit more and get better TDP ratings.
    Reply
  • Griswold - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Okay, here's my guess for the stopgap solution...drum roll...L3 cache. I think AMD will release a 2.8 revised FX-62 with L3 cache or an ahead of schedule 3.0 GHz FX-64 with L3 cache. Just my guess.


    Sounds conceiveable indeed. Though, the latter option would probably blow TDP out of proportion on 90nm.
    Reply
  • mlittl3 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    Yeah, that is a problem but Anand did say "trick up its sleeve" so maybe they have one last 90 nm manufacturing process that's better than today's. I've read some articles about L3 cache coming for AMD and one inquirer.net article (take with grain of salt) that says AMD will ramp clock speeds fast. Maybe the trick will have something to do with these factors. Who knows? Reply
  • darkdemyze - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    Whatever it is I'm interested in reading about it Reply
  • Regs - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    Whatever it is, it's going to be expensive. Reply
  • TrogdorJW - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    Actually, I was sort of thinking that the "stopgap solution" might be to cut prices. God only knows that I would love to see a $200 X2 processor! Reply
  • Griswold - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    Well, they will have to drop prices at some point after core 2 is actually available. Reply
  • xFlankerx - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    Indeed, same results as expected. Maybe this will make the AMD fanboys shut up about "waiting to see what the final results are." NOTE: I have a AMD system, I'm simply addressing those that refuse to accept Conroe's superiority.

    Although...I must say that this "stop gap" solution by AMD has piqued my curiosity.

    But I believe that these say it perfectly;

    "One of its stipulations for sending out Socket-AM2 review kits was that the CPUs not be compared to Conroe."

    "We do get a sense of concern whenever Conroe is brought up around AMD."

    "So when Intel first started talking about its new Core architecture, we turned to AMD for a response that it surely must have had in the works for years, but as you all know we came up empty handed."

    Those just say it all for me. Seems like AMD's in trouble. From what I've been reading, K8L doesn't bring in architectural changes either. Sure you get Quad Cores, L3 cache, FB-DIMM support, DDR3, and faster HyperTransport, but if AMD doesn't improve on it's performance-per-clock efficiency, then Intel's Quad Cores (due almost 9 months before AMD's) are going to rule supreme yet again.
    Reply
  • Griswold - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Those just say it all for me. Seems like AMD's in trouble. From what I've been reading, K8L doesn't bring in architectural changes either.


    Maybe read up on it first.

    Memory mirroring, data poisoning, HT retry protocol support, doubled prefetch size (32byte instead of 16), 2x 128bit SSE units (instead of 2x 64bit), out of order load execution, Indirect branch predictors and a handful new instructions sure sounds like a few architectural changes and not just a simple revision stepping.
    Reply
  • rADo2 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    Sorry, links again:

    Intel Conroe @ 3.9GHz: SuperPI 1M - 12.984s
    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php...">http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php...

    AMD FX-57 @ 4.2GHz: SuperPI 1M - 21.992s
    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php...">http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php...
    Reply
  • MadAd - Monday, May 29, 2006 - link

    Try measuring like for like and then come back with your silly benchmark comparison. EG use a superpi data size that will fit on BOTH cpus caches, not just conroes and then compare performance.

    With the FX57 having just a 1M cache its bullsht smoke and mirrors saying the 1M superpi is slower, o rly? perhaps thats because it takes more than 1M to hold both the feature and data sets on a 1M superpi.

    muppet
    Reply
  • rADo2 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    K8L is just a marketing, nothing else. Have you seen K8L CPU? No? AMD is about 2x slower than upcomming Conroe, so they have to spread some fud, to keep their fanboys happy...

    This is the magical performance I am speaking about, AMD cannot come even close:

    Intel Conroe @ 3.9GHz: SuperPI 1M - 12.984s
    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=99...">http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=99...

    AMD FX-57 @ 4.2GHz: SuperPI 1M - 21.992s
    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=100...">http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=100...

    I own X2 4400+ myself (it was a good choice in 6/2005), but within last few months AMD is a very bad choice, as for the price of quite obsolete singelcore AMD you can buy dualcore Intel D930 @ 65nm, and later Conroe. I think only AMD fanboys are buying AMD now, AMD has the worst price/value ratio, and Conroe will only make this gap wider.
    Reply
  • Griswold - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    Oh and yea, I run superpi all day long because its such a valuable application that earns me money! :P Reply
  • rADo2 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    SuperPI tells A LOT about gaming performance ;) Reply
  • mesyn191 - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    SuperPi tells you nothing except how well a CPU runs SuperPi, its not a benchmark.

    Its also about as in cache and branchless as your gonna get BTW so the performance increases you can get on it by simply scaling clockspeed are impossible as well.
    Reply
  • Questar - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    SuperPi is an outlier in Conroe benchmarks. Reply
  • Griswold - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    O rly? Reply
  • Griswold - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    Blablabla... Reply
  • absolsp - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    As suspected, not much of performance gain. Happy with my existing AMD setup. Reply
  • tony215 - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    likewise, I will be sticking with my 939 venice set-up until conroe is released. Even then, I will wait for some more independent conroe test/reviews before going with Intel. Reply
  • Locutus465 - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    After reading reviews of the new chipset offerings from nVidia and ATI, personally I'm glad I'm running an nForce 4 s393 board. Seems to me the new AM2 chipsets and boards are going to need some maturing before they get good. The new solutions were *not* deffinitivly better than what is out there for s939. In fact, nVidia's offering in my opinion was particularly lack luster in terms of actual performance (compared to the older nForce 4 platform). Reply
  • Puddyglum - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    Do these results really warrant a change of architecture? I wonder if there is some bottleneck keeping the performance stuck where it was with the 939's. Reply
  • Questar - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    It's not an architecture change.

    It's a new socket to support DDR2 memory, that's it.
    Reply
  • xFlankerx - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    Athlon 64s simply don't need the additional bandwidth provided by DDR2. They aren't as starved for it as Pentium 4s. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now