NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Forums - General › SURPISE OF THE YEAR!!!! --Dual Core A64 launch TOMORROW
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SURPISE OF THE YEAR!!!! --Dual Core A64 launch TOMORROW - Page 3

post #41 of 70
4/21/05 at 4:30pm
Thread Starter 
Continued:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2397&p=1

Benches: Keeping in mind that the test sample was a 4400+, two speed ratings slower than the fastest that will be available this quarter, the 4800+



....



....



....



....



....



....



....



....



....



....



....

Beating Intel's best chip even in media encoding



....

And in Content Creation



....

Although loses out on MovieMaker



....

But Reigns supreme in Audio and Dvix Encoding



....



....



....



....

Still lags behind single cored FX in gaming:



....



....



....



....



....



....



....



....

The P EE 840 still leads in most rendering apps.



....



....



....



....



....

In code compiling, it absolutely owns the P EE 840



....

In multitasking, the Pentium EE and the 4400 trade off leads, but with the 4400 taking the majority:















Quote:
Originally Posted by anandtech
On the desktop side, we are extremely excited about the Athlon 64 X2. The 4400+ we compared here today had no problem competing with and outperforming Intel's fastest dual core CPUs in most cases, and at a price of $581 the 4400+ is the more reasonably priced of the X2 CPUs. That being said, we are concerned that availability of the lower cost X2 CPUs will be significantly more limited than the higher priced models. At the ~550 marker, your best bet is clear - the Athlon 64 X2 will be faster than anything Intel has for the desktop.

What's quite impressive is how competitive the Athlon 64 X2 is across the board. With the Pentium D we had to give up a noticeable amount of single threaded performance (compared to Intel's top of the line Pentium 4 CPUs) in order to get better multithreaded/multitasking performance, but with AMD you don't have to make that sacrifice. Everything from gaming to compiling performance on the Athlon 64 X2 4400+ was extremely solid. In multithreaded/multitasking environments the Athlon 64 X2 is even more impressive; video encoding is no longer an issue on AMD platforms - you no longer have to make a performance decision between great overall performance or great media encoding performance, AMD delivers both with the Athlon 64 X2. Also keep in mind that the performance preview we gave of the Athlon 64 X2 today is actually a very conservative estimate, the shipping Athlon 64 X2 CPUs will run with regular DDR memory and with much faster motherboards - meaning you should be prepared to be impressed even further down the road.
But all this won't come cheap:
Quote:
Originally Posted by anandtech
The real problem is that AMD has nothing cheaper than $530 that is available in dual core, and this is where Intel wins out. With dual core Pentium D CPUs starting at $241, Intel will be able to bring extremely solid multitasking performance to much lower price points than AMD will.
So it remains to be seen, how the X2 will do in the real market, but in tests, they certainly seem to be world beaters.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 70
4/21/05 at 5:02pm
Hmmm...I would think the 4400+ is only one step slower than the fastest, 4800+.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 70
4/21/05 at 5:12pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltawalkerl
Hmmm...I would think the 4400+ is only one step slower than the fastest, 4800+.
Perhaps bad choice of word on my part, I don't just mean CPU clock.

There are four steps:

4200+ 2.2 GHz 1MB L2
4400+ 2.2 GHz 2MB L2
4600+ 2.4 GHz 1MB L2
4800+ 2.4 GHz 2MB L2

Reply
Reply
post #44 of 70
4/21/05 at 5:29pm
Ah...good point, there's something I've been wondering in that.

So we have these two parts:
4400+, 2.2GHz, 1MB/core
4600+, 2.4GHz, 512KB/core

They differ in their PR numbers by 200. This seems to be against conventional AMD wisdom, which usually states that such two processors should perform similar to each other. Consider, for example, the 3700+ San Diego and the 3800+ Venice. They have the same speed/cache as each core on those dual core procs above, and yet they only differ in their PR ratings by 100. Something is weird about the labeling of the 4400 and 4600, IMHO...
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 70
4/21/05 at 5:35pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltawalkerl
Ah...good point, there's something I've been wondering in that.

So we have these two parts:
4400+, 2.2GHz, 1MB/core
4600+, 2.4GHz, 512KB/core

They differ in their PR numbers by 200. This seems to be against conventional wisdom, which usually states that such two processors should perform similar to each other. Consider, for example, the 3700+ San Diego and the 3800+ Venice. They have the same speed/cache as each core on those dual core procs above, and yet they only differ in their PR ratings by 100. Something is weird about the labeling of the 4400 and 4600, IMHO...
There must be a performance difference, since AMD uses P-rating, not clock speeds as a guide to number parts.

More articles on the launch:

http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news...le.php/3499366
http://htmlfixit.com/?p=601
http://www.bio-itworld.com/news/042105_report8193.html
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 70
4/21/05 at 6:35pm
LOL! OMG!!

Pictures say a thousand words, but also use a million bytes.....

You know, most people just give a link.

sheesh!!!!!!! lololol
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 70
4/21/05 at 6:41pm
Definately. Just give the link next time, man.

Especially since you also posted almost the entire text of the article!

A little clicky never hurt anyone.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 70
4/21/05 at 7:09pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karma
Definately. Just give the link next time, man.

Especially since you also posted almost the entire text of the article!

A little clicky never hurt anyone.
It was actually only a small portion of the text, since the actual review is 27 pages long.

But I got your point, I will not post so many jpegs next time.
Anyways, if the server really lacks HDD space, I would gladly offer some once I rebuild my main rig with an A64 X2
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 70
4/21/05 at 7:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardBall
But I got your point, I will not post so many jpegs next time.
Anyways, if the server really lacks HDD space, I would gladly offer some once I rebuild my main rig with an A64 X2
touche!
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 70
4/21/05 at 8:37pm
Why would they make dual cpu for laptop? That would simply increase the weight (or size). Dual cpu should only be for desktop.

And also, you guys made a point of Athlong fx 55 is the best (fastest?) cpu for laptops, now is this cpu out? and which laptops have it right now?
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 70
4/21/05 at 8:55pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNE
Why would they make dual cpu for laptop? That would simply increase the weight (or size). Dual cpu should only be for desktop.
If you don't like DC laptops, just don't get one, no need to gripe about why others want it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DNE
And also, you guys made a point of Athlong fx 55 is the best (fastest?) cpu for laptops, now is this cpu out? and which laptops have it right now?
Who? which thread are you reading? What are you on?
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 70
4/21/05 at 9:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardBall
If you don't like DC laptops, just don't get one, no need to gripe about why others want it.




Who? which thread are you reading? What are you on?

oops, I was jusy saying what I think, never intended to tell others not to get it.
On the graphs that u posted, fx55 was also being compared in them
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 70
4/21/05 at 10:05pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNE
On the graphs that u posted, fx55 was also being compared in them
Well, many bench reviews compare many CPUs with eachother, not necessarily all coming from the each segment.

I see what you are saying now, but that's just the way benchmarks work. Plus, all of the A64 up there can be used in desktops or DTRs, just requiring a different packaging for the HSFs.

Cool
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 70
4/21/05 at 10:05pm
I think AMD have priced themselves out of the market with the X2. This is kinda disappointing, really, because the X2 performs so well. Now that the encoding crown has been stolen, there's literally not one benchmark where AMD doesn't equal or better Intel.

Realistically, though, the pricing amounts to a paper launch -- a way to compensate for limited volume. I can't see dual-core from AMD being affordable for a long time, unfortunately. We'll be lucky to see reasonably priced chips by the end of the year, but here's hoping. Who says AMD doesn't play the paper game.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 70
4/21/05 at 10:13pm
I actually think the AMD X2s are reasonable priced. Intel's dual core offerings seems to be priced low because they contain cores that are a few tiers below their single-core offerings. Each core of the Pentium D 840, for example, is two tiers behind the top of the line of the Pentium 4 6xx Series, the 660. On AMD's side, we have the 4400+, which is also two tiers behind the top of the line in the Venice/San Diego series (for each core ), i.e. the San Diego 4000+. And reasonably enough, both processors are priced around $550 (although the 840 is a little below $550 while the X2 4400+ is a little above $550). So the pricing on the two companies are on par with each other. AMD's dual cores seem to be priced higher because, if we have the 840 and 4400+ as reference points, AMD have two processors above the 4400+ while Intel have two processors below the 840. Call it a phase shift, lol...
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 70
4/21/05 at 10:15pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurorix
I think AMD have priced themselves out of the market with the X2. This is kinda disappointing, really, because the X2 performs so well. Now that the encoding crown has been stolen, there's literally not one benchmark where AMD doesn't equal or better Intel.

Realistically, though, the pricing amounts to a paper launch -- a way to compensate for limited volume. I can't see dual-core from AMD being affordable for a long time, unfortunately. We'll be lucky to see reasonably priced chips by the end of the year, but here's hoping. Who says AMD doesn't play the paper game.
If history holds true, AMD always drops price about 30% from the top of the line, and 30-45% on average across their line of CPUs, 7-10 weeks after the new line becomes available. If this axiom still holds true, that means at the latest, by mid-August, some affordable X2 s should become available to the general public, and that's when I'm planning on rebuilding my rig. So I think if you planned it out, you will discover that there is a method to this madness.

There will always be a hight cost for the early adoptors, and that's why I'm almost never one of them. Rather get it 2 months later for a fraction of the price. It just takes a little patience not to jump the gun, in order to save a lot of dough.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 70
4/21/05 at 10:41pm
Speaking of method to madness, I just thought of something else as well:

It seems to me that AMD really has no reason to push dual-core so fast, at least in comparison to Intel, since their single-core processors are already the top performing parts. Intel, on the other hand, has nowhere else to go; Prescott has run out of headroom, so driving adoption of dual-core is a must.

In fact, Intel being so desperate to transition to dual-core may actually help AMD in the long run. The 820/830 is clearly targetted at the mainstream in order to get consumers to adopt dual-core tech as early as possible. I would imagine that by the time AMD is able to ship in volume, there should be a greater market for dual-core processors; if for no other reason than increased mindshare (multithreaded applications will take much longer to arrive). For the near-term, at least, it seems AMD can price the X2 as high as they like... it really won't make much difference one way or another.

These are interesting times.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 70
4/21/05 at 11:38pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurorix
In fact, Intel being so desperate to transition to dual-core may actually help AMD in the long run. The 820/830 is clearly targetted at the mainstream in order to get consumers to adopt dual-core tech as early as possible. I would imagine that by the time AMD is able to ship in volume, there should be a greater market for dual-core processors; if for no other reason than increased mindshare (multithreaded applications will take much longer to arrive). For the near-term, at least, it seems AMD can price the X2 as high as they like... it really won't make much difference one way or another.

These are interesting times.
Also keep one additional factor in mind:
  • When Intel customers intend to upgrade, they would definitely need to buy a new mobo with 945 or 955 chipset; which makes all of the previous mobos obsolete for upgrades. That means anther 150-250 in addition to the price of the CPU itself.
  • When AMD customers migrate over to DC, all they need to do is to upgrade the BIOS of their existing S939 mobo, and they are all set for Toledo, which would at least offset some of the high cost of the CPUs.
  • So when you really look at it, the prices of the Pentium Ds are not 250-550, but rather 400-800, depending on the combination of CPU/mobo you get. It doesn't sound as appealing of a deal when looking at it this way.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 70
4/21/05 at 11:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardBall
Also keep one additional factor in mind:
  • When Intel customers intend to upgrade, they would definitely need to buy a new mobo with 945 or 955 chipset; which makes all of the previous mobos obsolete for upgrades. That means anther 150-250 in addition to the price of the CPU itself.
  • When AMD customers migrate over to DC, all they need to do is to upgrade the BIOS of their existing S939 mobo, and they are all set for Toledo, which would at least offset some of the high cost of the CPUs.
  • So when you really look at it, the prices of the Pentium Ds are not 250-550, but rather 400-800, depending on the combination of CPU/mobo you get. It doesn't sound as appealing of a deal when looking at it this way.
I agree, but keep in mind you are assuming here that everyone is on 939 already. I'm not, for example, and neither are a lot of other people. So while the costs are about the same in the case of 939 --> 939, for everyone else, it is still a very expensive upgrade.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 70
4/22/05 at 12:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurorix
It seems to me that AMD really has no reason to push dual-core so fast, at least in comparison to Intel, since their single-core processors are already the top performing parts. Intel, on the other hand, has nowhere else to go; Prescott has run out of headroom, so driving adoption of dual-core is a must.

In fact, Intel being so desperate to transition to dual-core may actually help AMD in the long run. The 820/830 is clearly targetted at the mainstream in order to get consumers to adopt dual-core tech as early as possible. I would imagine that by the time AMD is able to ship in volume, there should be a greater market for dual-core processors; if for no other reason than increased mindshare (multithreaded applications will take much longer to arrive). For the near-term, at least, it seems AMD can price the X2 as high as they like... it really won't make much difference one way or another.

These are interesting times.
Agree !!

It is good to see AMD able to charge as they wish for top of the line product. They do, afterall, need the money. Didn't I just see Intel's revenue for Q1 was up 17%, and net income up 31%. And given that Intel is roughly 5 times the size of AMD . . .
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Notebook Forums - General
NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Forums - General › SURPISE OF THE YEAR!!!! --Dual Core A64 launch TOMORROW