backtop

Hardware I'm Dreaming of a 3.0GHz Athlon 64 X2
Sven Olsen (Blog) - January 24, 2007 1:14 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 139 comment(s) - last by Pirks.. on Feb 1 at 11:55 PM
AMD isn't ditching 90nm just yet

Remember the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ processor that was supposed to be unveiled late last year?  Yep, it's still going to happen.

Earlier this week AMD added the Athlon 64 6000+ SKU to its distributor roadmap along with several Energy Efficient low power CPUs -- the single-core EE 3800+ and 3500+.  The 6000+ chips are scheduled for a late February launch and will be based on the 90nm node, while the EE CPUs are slated for the 65nm node.

AMD's previous roadmaps indicated the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ is a 2x1MB L2 cache component with a 125W TDP.  3.0GHz is the next clock frequency in AMD's portfolio, so it would also be reasonable to expect the 6000+ to debut at this core frequency. The new chip will be a Socket AM2 exclusive CPU.

The Energy Efficient 3800+ and 3500+ will be clocked at 2.4GHz and 2.2GHz respectively, and carry at TDP of 45W.

The most recent roadmap updates gave no reason for the chip delay.  Barring no problems with the Stars and Cities cores slated for the middle of this year, the 6000+ will be the last Athlon 64 X2 processor on the high end.

Pricing for the 6000+ is expected at $607 per chip in quantities of 1,000.  The Athlon 64 3800+ and 3500+ will sell at $101 and $91 in quantities of 1,000.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By ScythedBlade on 1/24/2007 7:48:53 PM , Rating: 3
Well, I just spent a lot of time reading and downmodding Pirk's comments. I'm not even going to bother to outdue him, because the way I win all these comments, without even caring about mod points, is dragging them to xtremesystems.com. Then, he gets slaughtered by the legends who do know the stuff.

Anyway, a 3.0 Ghz still performs pretty poorly, and not worth 600 dollars. Heck, an E6400 with 2MB of ram still holds up to a 2.8 Ghz, while winning most (by most, I'm not talking about 2/3 ... its more like 85%) of the benchmarks. While they did release it, it's probably more for the benchmark.

Now here's the counterpost to Pick's framerates. A) There are dual core utilized games out there now ... heck WARCRAFT III just became dual-core optimized just a few days ago, so forget single core/ B) When you compared the frame rates, your comparing it to them by ratio. That's a pretty incorrect way. You can pick ANY game you want, and they're usually GPU limited. It's only on the extremely high graphic, high resolution (2k by 1k) pixels, that you start to see a GPU like 8800 limited by CPU power ... THEN you can actually compare.




By Rabbagast on 1/25/2007 3:18:21 AM , Rating: 2
You can pick ANY game you want, and they're usually GPU limited. It's only on the extremely high graphic, high resolution (2k by 1k) pixels, that you start to see a GPU like 8800 limited by CPU power

Actually its the other way around. Thats why they normally test CPU performance in games with low res...


By Rabbagast on 1/25/2007 4:34:34 AM , Rating: 2
I wasn't supporting you, just correcting a detail. You still need a fast multi core cpu for gaming. The games which take advantages of multi core are just now starting to appear. Supreme Commander and Half Life episode 2 being two examples. I can not find any good reason at all to by a single core cpu now, either for gaming or any other use! And socket 939, you can't be serious?!


By Rabbagast on 1/25/2007 5:35:57 AM , Rating: 2
The question then is, do you want to upgrade twice per year or once every two or three years?
Going with a s939 cpu that means you have to buy new memory and mb + the new cpu. Buy a descent c2d and you don't have to upgrade for a long time.
I have been gaming on a PC for 20 years so I have done a bit of upgrading in my time...


By stromgald on 1/25/2007 11:25:44 AM , Rating: 2
Oh come on, now you're bringing the monitor into the equation? Just keep it simple.

The lowest C2D available, E4300, beats the 3700+ at stock speeds (keeping things equal here) by a wide margin in just about all games. Use tomshardware, ananadtech, or any other website's benchmarks, the lowest Core2Duo (whether E4300 or E6300) will beat the single core A64 3700+. It's the same result everywhere. This is true even after overclocking is involved (which you mentioned in your first post) since the lower end C2Ds overclock equal if not better than the A64s. Quit whining for benchmarks and put up some legitimate ones yourself instead of comparing things at different costs and performance, boxed vs. OEM, and overclocked vs. stock.

The ONLY thing you've been complaining about that has any legitimacy is that the lowest Core 2 Duo is 2x as expensive and only gets less than 1.3x the performance. While this is true, its also a simple fact for almost all new technology (and most certainly processors) that a small increase in performance will have a larger percentage increase in cost.


By Pirks on 1/25/2007 1:20:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
you're bringing the monitor into the equation?
yeah, why not? if there is no practical sense in bringing your framerates above 60 because you WON'T NOTICE that on your 60Hz LCD - why waste money on expensive CPU when there are always not less expensive GPUs which DO help with making games look and feel better? why not waste money on GPUs instead of CPU? seems like more important thing for 3D games, especially on 30" 2560x1600 LCD monitors


By PrezWeezy on 1/25/2007 5:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well LCD's are notorious terrible for gamming to begin with. I prefer my old CRT with a 125Hz refresh. The picture is far clearer, much brighter, has more depth and the refresh is better. On top of that though, the human eye really only sees 24FPS. The reason you get a better picture from higher frame rates is because the image difference between each frame is less, making a clearer movement. I like higher refreshes because I can see the lines even at 75Hz, but that doesn't mean that if you have a game running at 75 FPS and a game running at 100 FPS on a 75Hz monitor you wont see a difference.


By PrezWeezy on 1/26/2007 1:16:02 AM , Rating: 2
Well I've got a 22" running 1280x1024 and I love it for my games. But it does make a huge difference. I've seen two game side by side running at different frame rates (both over 100) on an LCD, and the difference is abundantly clear. And just so you know, I have always been a fan of Intel. Not because they have been faster, but because I used to have huge problems with AMD's overheating and burning out. Even at stock speeds. They were very well known for having that problem. Intel CPU's have always been much more stable since the architecture split. I did admit that AMD was faster, but I never wanted to risk it. I did recently build an AMD 4800+ X2 for a friend and it was a very nice machine that I wouldn't mind having myself. However that was before the C2D was big and AMD was still the best. I guess I'm less of an Intel fanboy, and more of an AMD hater.


By Pirks on 1/26/2007 4:28:45 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I've seen two game side by side running at different frame rates (both over 100) on an LCD, and the difference is abundantly clear
Did you compare 120 Hz CRT with 60Hz LCD? If yes, well, maybe you can see the difference. But would you see the difference between 60 FPS game and 120 FPS game ON THE SAME 60 Hz LCD? I bet not! 'Cause 60 Hz refresh rate of LCD screen will PHYSICALLY prevent your eyes to see anything faster than 60 FPS. You CANNOT see 120 frames per second if your LCD monitor ONLY SHOWS YOU 60 frames per second, isn't that obvious??


By PrezWeezy on 1/26/2007 7:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
I, unlike you, try to keep things even for comparisons. Yeah it was the same 60Hz screen. But if you think for a second that because you have a 60Hz screen your computer will automaticaly adjust and run a game at a perfect multiple of 60 (i.e. 60, 120, 180) you're insane. Think about the overlaps. I might have a game running at 134 FPS. Now it starts to get a little different because your refresh and your FPS aren't synced up. Thats why games run smoother at a higher FPS, even with low refreshes. It doesn't just skip every other screen, it refreshes whenever it can and the more frames you have for it to refresh on the smoother the picture.


By Pirks on 1/26/2007 9:19:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It doesn't just skip every other screen, it refreshes whenever it can and the more frames you have for it to refresh on the smoother the picture.
but it's the same whether the game frame rate is 61 FPS or 6001 FPS - any game frame rate above 60 will lead to the following fact - EVERY time the monitor is about to display a new frame - the frame is there waiting. so if you have monitor that's displaying 60 frames per second - you are GUARANTEED that your monitor shows DIFFERENT frame EVERY time it refreshes the screen. THIS fact alone guarantees you as smooth gameplay as possible.

now, there is this tiny discrepancy between frames that is caused by frames in game being not in perfect sync with monitor refresh rate. I know that it does exist, however the important moment for me here is that MY EYES were never able to figure that out when frame rate was above 60 FPS. I noticed that as long as my framerate reaches 60 FPS or so - my eyes see ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between 61 FPS, 98 FPS or 122 FPS, and this was on my 120 Hz CRT monitor! so I thought if my eyes can't see the difference between 60 FPS and higher FPS - than so is true for everyone else. can your eyes distinguish between 60 Hz, 90 Hz and 120 Hz frame rate in games?


By PrezWeezy on 1/31/2007 2:43:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yes they can. I can see the difference. I can also tell the most minute difference between colors. I happen to be an audiophile as well, so I can tell the difference between a $200 system and a $500 system. Just because you can't see the difference doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


By ScythedBlade on 1/25/2007 5:04:01 AM , Rating: 3
Dude, there's a game where only c2ds can get past 32 fps nub ... XD, it was on tech report, with its 8800 GTX and GTS SLI ...


By Pirks on 1/25/2007 5:13:53 AM , Rating: 1
care to provide a link? never heard about this XD thing.


And...
By Aversio on 1/24/2007 1:29:46 PM , Rating: 2
who's going to buy it? Maybe a few hardcore AMD fans but seriously, its a little late now. And 90nm! Good luck. Had they came up with this on the 939 platform I'd probably be running one right now.




RE: And...
By mlittl3 on 1/24/2007 2:24:44 PM , Rating: 1
People bought flamethrower Prescotts when AMD had the superior architecture. Hell, Intel's marketshare never dipped below 75% even before C2D's came out. How do you explain that? (see my post below). Remember these companies sell to other people besides Dailytech readers.


RE: And...
By stromgald on 1/24/2007 3:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
The main reason Intel kept market share even with the Prescotts is because they had signed contracts with Dell and other large manufacturers to use only Intel and get a price discount. Whether that was fair business practices is up for debate. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it since stores and other manufacturers do it all the time. It was a simple contract between two companies that mutually benefitted both.

However, I do agree with your other post, this is just a stop gap measure to milk the last bit of money out of the Athlon64 90nm line of chips. I'm not so sure about K8L reversing the C2D domination of AMD chips in performance, but that remains to be seen in the future.


RE: And...
By davidcadams on 1/24/2007 4:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
I love how we are calling Prescotts flamethowers and not mentioning the 125tdp of the x2 6000..... that WAS AMD's strong point, good performance, not a lot of heat..... my 3.2 prescott has a TDP of 88 if the presshot is a flamethrower, than the 6000+ is a cool blast of napalm. personally i would rather have a venice core, but i got a deal on this intel chip.


RE: And...
By glynor on 1/24/2007 5:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
They measure them differently. Can't compare AMD TDP to Intel TDP. You have to measure power draw at the wall, and there, the A64 architecture creamed the Prescott.


RE: And...
By Ardan on 1/24/2007 5:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that both companies define TDP in different ways when you say that. After all, AMD's TDP is the maximum amount of current it can draw under basically the absolute worst conditions. Intel's definition during Prescott, on the other hand, was "Thermal Design Power (TDP) should be used for processor thermal solution design targets. The TDP is not the maximum power that the processor can dissipate.?" You can find that in a datasheet for the prescott.

On several pages that try to measure the actual maximum, they usually come up around 100-115W for the 3.2Ghz Prescott core. A silentpcreview article, for example, got 111W max, while Intel's TDP is listed as 89W. It isn't a new article, so they had been comparing it in one instance to a 3800+ Socket 939, whose 89W TDP was higher than what they were able to get, 86.7W. They had noticed similar patterns in all of the Athlon 64s of the time, up to an FX-53. In another instance, a 2.8Ghz Prescott had an 89W TDP, but the max was 100W in their findings. Yes, that 6000+ has a higher TDP of 125W, but Intel wasn't rating their Prescotts the same way as AMD was their Athlon 64s. You can't just compare those numbers, you need to get the max for a prescott core as well, which apparently is around 100-115W for 3.2Ghz, to evenly compare their ratings.

I just thought I'd point that out, in case anyone forgot that. Have a good day. :)


RE: And...
By Ardan on 1/24/2007 5:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, I walked away for a minute while I was typing that reply and someone beat me to it! :)


RE: And...
By cgrecu77 on 1/24/2007 4:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
when I first saw the review of the C4300 I thought this is the CPU I need. I play mostly oblivion and I could use a faster CPU to go along with my new-used off ebay X1900 Crossfire. I have a 3700+ with 1mb cache and 2 gb of ddram.

However, when I started doing the math I realized that it will set me back 4-500 dollars to upgrade (I would need a good mb with crossfire support if possible, another 2 gb of ddram2 and the CPU). on ebay a mb+cpu like mines sell for less than $100 and I could probably get 140-150 for the ram.

Now what do I get for this amount? out of the box the same (or lower) performance and maybe 30% more if I overclock (which I said I'd never do again because invariably the computer becomes less stable a few months after you keep it overclocked + oblivion is very finicky with overclocked machines).
If I could keep my existing setup and just upgrade to a 2.8ghz X2 for $150-200 it would make much more sense for me. Unfortunately (or fortunately), because of all these reviews I can't get the thought of a 3.5 ghz C2D of my mind, so I'm stuck in undecision land. Since I don't really need an upgrade I will probably wait a few months to see the new AMDs, but if I had to do it today, I would stick with AMD for now because it's just not worth changing everything for a few percentage points.

If I had to start from scratch I would go the 4300 way for sure, but for an existing AMD user upgrading to intel is not a clear cut decision.


ROFL
By thepinkpanther on 1/24/2007 1:47:24 PM , Rating: 1
Funny post there.

Can only join the other person and ask, seriously you should stop smoking crack.

Have you watched gaming benchmarks the last 6-12 months time???

If you wanna have fast graphiccards then you need fast cpus and fast cpus is NOT single core anymore.

The most crazy cpu at the moment is likely the quad6800 or the e6800 processor for gaming. Really the single core has gotten into the grave. Oblivion uses dual core so games will feature multicores from now on.

That 6000+ should be cancelled fast. $600 lol excuse me for laughing.





RE: ROFL
By Naviblue on 1/24/2007 3:43:39 PM , Rating: 2
I simply get it out of my mind remembering when AMD first came out with their s939 cpu's and intentionally had them priced higher to "change their image of being a budget processor". My only question now is what happened to all that extra money? Oh that's right, you bought out ATi...I used to really like AMD too, because they were priced reasonably, now what? 600 dollars for a 3.0ghz processor that can't even take on the competition, wtf?

Don't think I'm a Intel fan or anything because I own both an AMD 4000+ and an X800 Pro, but the tides have changed. I really wish AMD would get back to their roots and what made them a popular company in the first place.


RE: ROFL
By coldpower27 on 1/24/2007 6:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well, they sort of are I mean, you can get the 3600+, 3800+ and 4000+ for less then the official price of the E4300 at 163 USD MSRP. 1xx, 138 and 158USD respectively.

The high end typically will be a poor deal, The Athlon XP 3200+ was priced at 464USD when Intel had the Pentium 4 C 2.8GHZ which was the equivalent for 278USD. The lower end comparison was a bit better the Athlon XP 2800+ went for 180USD and the Pentium 4 2.4C went for 178USD.

They are priced more reasonably these days but the comparison gets bad as you head into higher end territory.

Current Price Comparisons
Core 2 Duo E4300 vs Athlon 64x2 4000+ 163USD vs 158USD
Core 2 Duo E6300 vs Athlon 64x2 4200+ 183USD vs 173USD
Core 2 Duo E6400 vs Athlon 64x2 4600+ 224USD vs 215USD
Core 2 Duo E6600 vs Athlon 64x2 5200+ 316USD vs 295USD
Core 2 Duo E6700 vs Athlon 64x2 5600+ 530USD vs 505USD

Actual Necessary Performance to Match
Core 2 Duo E4300 vs Athlon 64x2 4200+
Core 2 Duo E6300 vs Athlon 64x2 4400+
Core 2 Duo E6400 vs Athlon 64x2 5000+
Core 2 Duo E6600 vs Athlon 64x2 5800+
Core 2 Duo E6700 vs Athlon 64x2 6400+


Hey
By nerdboy on 1/24/2007 1:54:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yes socket AM2 supports DDR2. Yes it's about time we got a 3 GHz processor from AMD. AMD the former king of performance. Yes I say the former king of performance it saddens me :(. Intel is just dominating AMD right now and I am hoping AMD will come up with something. I also am wondering why AMD isn’t moving down to 45 nm like Intel is, does any body know?




RE: Hey
By Desslok on 1/24/2007 1:56:25 PM , Rating: 1
They are working on it, but they just got 65nm to production a couple months ago. From the estimates I have seen they won't be at 45nm for another year.

Please correct me if I am wrong.


RE: Hey
By sviola on 1/24/2007 3:05:48 PM , Rating: 1
That's because AMD still hasn't got the process technology.

They are about 18-24 months later than Intel on process technology, but they have made some partnership with IBM to close the gap.


Dreaming of a 3GHz X2?
By haelduksf on 1/24/2007 5:32:29 PM , Rating: 4
I have one already.

Of course, if you're dreaming of a 3GHz X2 with a warranty, you'll have to wait a bit.




ROFL
By thepinkpanther on 1/24/2007 1:47:24 PM , Rating: 1
Funny post there.

Can only join the other person and ask, seriously you should stop smoking crack.

Have you watched gaming benchmarks the last 6-12 months time???

If you wanna have fast graphiccards then you need fast cpus and fast cpus is NOT single core anymore.

The most crazy cpu at the moment is likely the quad6800 or the e6800 processor for gaming. Really the single core has gotten into the grave. Oblivion uses dual core so games will feature multicores from now on.

That 6000+ should be cancelled fast. $600 lol excuse me for laughing.





RE: ROFL
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/24/2007 2:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yea for 500 bux u can get a Q6600 Intel quad-core on the LGA775 socket (Intel standard for 3 years now).


Makes sense from a business POV
By mlittl3 on 1/24/2007 2:22:53 PM , Rating: 1
I think this CPU is more of a placeholder than anything else. AMD needs to squeeze out performance wherever possible until the K8L architecture comes. This 3.0 GHz CPU will be 90 nm at first but will be transitioned to 65 nm and have more reasonable power consumption. Since AMD doesn't advertise nanometers but rather performance they will just quietly replace the 90 nm version with the 65 nm and say all along that they have the CPU performance to be at least on par with Intel.

As far as the price, AMD just recently reduced the prices of their low-end to mid-range X2's (I just bought the 3800+ S939 for $145 on Newegg, the AM2 version now goes for $135). This leaves a hole between the 2.6GHz CPUs and the 2.8 GHz CPUs of $200. I think AMD will reduce the price of the 2.8 GHz to $385 and $405 for the 512K and 1MB versions, respectively and price the 3.0 GHz 512K and 1MB versions at $485 and $505, respectively (half the price of their FX counterparts).

If this is the case, then the decision will come down to a 3.0 GHz X2 at 90 nm with 65 nm to come at $505 and the 2.66 GHz C2D at $530. Both of these processors are more than enough to do whatever so existing AM2 motherboard owners will probably just upgrade rather than switch to C2D and some people looking for new computers won't be as knowledgeable as Dailytech readers and buy the higher clocked AMD CPU thinking it is faster.

I'm sure this is what AMD hopes buyers will do and most certainly they will. After about 6 months, K8L processors will be out and the whole AMD/Intel situation will reverse itself for a little while.

That's my $0.02.




By coldpower27 on 1/24/2007 3:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that AMD has just in the past few days officially dropped the prices of it's processor line.

If the 6000+ is going to be introduced at 607USD, then likely the 5800+ will come along as well at 577USD, if the current trends are to be assumed.

It will also depend on when the next AMD price drop will happen, as you are aware in Q2 Intel will be making some price drops of it's own. The E6700 will fall to 316USD, with the Q6600 taking the place of the 530USD price point.

It is also not to likely we will see beyond 2.8GHZ stock form the 65nm K8's but we will have to see, 3.0GHZ will simply be a 90nm grade only with a direct transition to K8L in Q3 2007. I believe 3.0GHZ will be enough to sustain them until the advent of K8L desktop derivatives.

The other issue is, most advertised systems, in retail aren't this high level SKU's at all, have you even seen any systems based on the 5400+, 5600+ let alone the to be released 6000+?


i own a core 2 e6400
By pillagenburn on 1/24/2007 4:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
I own a core 2 e6400 at 3.2ghz... stock cooling, stock voltage.

that's over a 1GHz overclock, rock solid stable. I also got an Intel system because of the fact that I can put a quad core cpu on this board (p5w DH Deluxe) in the future if I so choose. Intel has the better cpu and platform right now, that's just how it goes. AMD will come around, maybe not in one month or two or five, but it will inside of a year or so. Which will I choose then? whichever can get me the performance of a $500+ chip for <$200 via overclocking.

that's just how I roll. Also, Intel has onboard DDL (which I am currently using) and it absolutely ROCKS. Props to Intel for making a great product. Props to AMD for bringing stiff competition throughout the years; I previously owned an opty 165 @ 2.5GHz. Noticeable difference for sure.




Ok
By ajfink on 1/24/2007 10:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
The 6000+ will be competitive with and sit around the E6600 or barely above in terms of OVERALL performance, but the E6600 sells for half that price. Stars can't come too soon.




What about the Core 2 Quad?
By Domicinator on 1/24/2007 4:24:56 PM , Rating: 1
The EQ6600 Core 2 Quad processor is out now, and in Q2 will be dropping price to about the $500 range, according to Intel. If this is true, I will never be spending a dime on a dual core processor again. I will be getting that quad core as soon as the price drops.

$600 for an AM2 X2 dual core is nuts.




amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By Desslok on 1/24/2007 1:40:31 PM , Rating: 5
Ok there fan boy.

600 dollars is the best bang for the buck?

Put the crack pipe down and come back to reality.

Lets see the 6000+ smoke anything except your wallet.



RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: amd rules single core
By lufoxe on 1/24/2007 2:15:04 PM , Rating: 4
I am no intel fanboy, I own myself a athlon x2 4200+, so noone can accuse me of this, BUT, c2d is a very good chip, and while AMD used to be the king when it comes to gaming the crown has been taken by intel. Keep in mind a64 is previous generation architecture and things may change when k8l comes out.
Proof is here:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html
and here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
and here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

as I said I am no Intel fanboy, BUT I do not live in denial.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: amd rules single core
By Desslok on 1/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 3:58:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And that proves your point how?
and A64 being 20% slower for ONE THIRD of a price of Intel's C2D proves my point now? Or not? Yes, this is a good question for you - do you think it proves my point or not? Please explain why. Thank you.
quote:
939 is a dead socket, where is your upgrade path?
You didn't notice a whole line of faster single core and dual core S939 CPUs way above that A64 4000? Do we look at different worlds/parallel dimensions or something? :o)
quote:
Why are you calling people names? Usually that is reserved for people that can't prove their point. Oh wait.
Why are those people downmodding my repost of tomshardware benchmarks? Usually that is reserved for people who can't understand what is written in the post they downmod. Oh wait.


RE: amd rules single core
By robert5c on 1/24/2007 4:10:30 PM , Rating: 1
scroll down to my reply to you for your answers on proving your point

and 939 is a dead socket, if you buy a slow processor in the socket, of course there will always be the faster processors to move up to...but with a core2 and lga775 you can buy the FASTEST processor now, and still be assured to move up to new processors coming out...no new processors are coming for 939...thats what he meant and you know it.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: amd rules single core
By robert5c on 1/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: amd rules single core
By slacker57 on 1/24/2007 6:04:20 PM , Rating: 5
Okay, I'm not going to read to the end of this thread, because I know how it's going to play out. I may regret trying to assist Pirks because he usually comes off as a guy who just wriggled his way out of a straightjacket, but I think the rest of you are missing the point he's trying to make, which is that a single core A64 4000+ (for example) has a better price/performance ratio than a new C2D in terms of current gaming. Nowhere is he talking about upgrade path or anything like that. You're making it more complicated just because he's a wacko and you want to prove him wrong. If you trust (which, obviously, is only one option) solely the numbers he presented, and you consider solely the point he's looking at without considering anything else, then his point can be well taken.

Now, do his points have 0 bearing on the article in question? Yes.

Is he unnecessarily pugilistic? Maybe.

Is he a nut-job? Quite likely.

But as far as the numbers he threw at you, you have to admit there is some sense to them. Not as much when you add in all the other logical factors one should add in when buying a processor, but I think he should get the benefit of the doubt for using even as much logic as he has here.



RE: amd rules single core
By robert5c on 1/24/2007 6:09:20 PM , Rating: 1
read just a couple more of my replies to him


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 6:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you trust (which, obviously, is only one option) solely the numbers he presented, and you consider solely the point he's looking at without considering anything else, then his point can be well taken
hey slacker, you're smart! seriously, i'm not making fun or something. this is what I'd like to see here - if you downmod me than state precisely the place you don't like in my post and the place you do like, so that you reply seems at least reasonably balanced. everyone makes mistakes, but nobody likes fanboys, and I don't think I look like one because I never said any bullshit like amd smokes intel or something. you're 100% correct I stated just one market segment (single core gaming), 'cause intel clearly smokes amd in many other segments


RE: amd rules single core
By stromgald on 1/24/2007 7:17:46 PM , Rating: 1
Just as a note: price/performance is not linear. Whether 10 fps or 10 second faster encoding times is equivalent to $50 or $100 in price is up to each buyer.

That's why its pointless to compare a single core A64 to a Core 2. The main problem I have with his numbers is he's basically comparing two different things. You can't expect the price/performance of a Core 2 to be the same as a single core A64, just like how the price/performance of an FX-60 is much worse than a single core A64. It's a ridiculous comparison.

The problem is that he's not willing to make a fair comparison (i.e. keeping cost or performance equal), because that will blow his fanboy mentality out of the water.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 7:34:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
its pointless to compare a single core A64 to a Core 2
sure it is, especially when tests show that actually single core AMD in single core games beats dual core Intels that are MORE expensive (read my comparison of $75 boxed AMD with $100 boxed Intel below, I just posted it). close your eyes Intel fanboys, you haven't seen these bad bad benchmarks, Intel is god and stuff...
quote:
The problem is that he's not willing to make a fair comparison (i.e. keeping cost or performance equal)
I think this is YOU who is afraid to compare $75 BOXED AMD A64 3700 San Diego with ANY BOXED dual core Intel CPU for the SAME PRICE of $75, I don't care which intel dual core you pick. I even know why you're afraid - because AMD will smoke it again if you run single core game benchmarks on it.

Just confess this is the reason you are afraid to compare them and let's close our discussion here :) Or is there any other reason you're afraid to compare them? I'm listening.


RE: amd rules single core
By Thorburn on 1/24/2007 8:40:46 PM , Rating: 1
Errrrm, the whole reason the FX series of Athlon's moved from dual core to single core was that even though the clock speed dropped (2.8GHz single core for the FX-57, 2.6GHz dual core for the FX-60) was because the majority of applications and games ran faster on dual core.

Whats more right now a single core Athlon 64 is not available at higher speeds than the dual cores, so performance is hardly going to increase.

Unless you are looking at the really budget end of the market Intel is ahead, and once since core Core 2 based chips hit the market that'll probably be covered as well.

Stop digging yourself a hole and just admit you are wrong.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/25/2007 12:13:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the whole reason the FX series of Athlon's moved from dual core to single core was that even though the clock speed dropped (2.8GHz single core for the FX-57, 2.6GHz dual core for the FX-60) was because the majority of applications and games ran faster on dual core
nope, it was because heat dissipation in dual core is much more than in a single core (more trasistors -> more heat), so this has to be compensated by lowering clock frequency, otherwise your CPU will melt down.
quote:
right now a single core Athlon 64 is not available at higher speeds than the dual cores, so performance is hardly going to increase
single core usually overclocks better than dual core because it dissipates less heat, hence I expect my single core A64 san diego reaching higher clock frequency than any dual core A64 with 1MB cache per core given equal cooling. and higher clock frequency results in higher performance in single threaded apps and games.


RE: amd rules single core
By stromgald on 1/24/2007 8:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, weren't you the one who made the bad comparison? I made two comparisons that showed that Intel beat AMD. In that same post, I mentioned that when you get down under $225, AMD could probably match Intel.

I never said Intel had a chip for ~$75 that could beat the 3700+ San Diego. I've qualified that in each of my posts that I was talking about chips >$200. When you get down to $100, I'm sure AMD can beat Intel because you can't find a Core 2 chip that cheap. It's one generation better than the A64 series and you won't find it for that cheap.

Just face the facts that you've gone from talking about AMD single cores beating price/performance than Intel's new chips to saying that for under $100 chips, AMD still rules.

I'm not a fanboy. My two computers have A64 3200+ and A64 3000+ single core chips. I buy what's good. Two years ago, those chips were at my price/performance sweet spot. Right now, Intel beats AMD for just about anything more than $200 and that price point will get lower when the E4300 comes out. AMD and Intel are probably evenly matched from $100-200 and I'd say AMD wins at sub-$100.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/25/2007 1:30:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I made two comparisons that showed that Intel beat AMD
your comparison was for multithreaded games, while my original post was about single threaded games and applications
quote:
I've qualified that in each of my posts that I was talking about chips >$200
in this case you probably should have skipped my posts and don't comment on them because I was not talking about CPUs above $200, it was VERY clear from my original topic with magic words "SINGLE CORE", I hope you noticed these words now.
quote:
Just face the facts that you've gone from talking about AMD single cores beating price/performance than Intel's new chips to saying that for under $100 chips, AMD still rules
I have never said AMD single cores beat intel C2D chips in general, I only said that single cores from AMD are better for single core gaming. when speaking about AMD Athlon FX single cores - I forgot to clarify that these are not always beating Intel price/performance wise, they'd rather beat them in future when ebay prices on them plummet down. if you introduce overclocking into the picture you change it again since overclocked $75 san diego 3700 is very competitive with much more expensive C2D in single threaded applications and games.

right now if you look for middle end CPU you better stick with C2D dualcores, but middle end CPU is not a necessity for gaming, that was my point as well. if you think from the point of view of gaming you'll see my picture very clear - for such kind of gaming a cheap $75 A64 3700 will be lightning fast and when overclocked to 2.8 GHz it will compete with $300+ C2D chips easily :) it's all only about SINGLE THREADED stuff, of course. heck, you can even avoid any upgrades besides 3D cards if you're still on S939 - DDR memory is more than enough for games, and if you plug in a 8800GTX and nice 30" monitor - you'll get extra hot _BALANCED_ rig which would smoke any single threaded game for HUNDREDS of dollars less than those fashionable C2Ds. actually, I even doubt that I'll need to move to dual core for crysis - what if I overclock my $75 A64 san diego to 2.8GHz? maybe that'd be more than enough to get decent framerates from crysis, who knows... we'll see in six months or so, when crysis is out


RE: amd rules single core
By robert5c on 1/24/2007 10:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
man stop living in the past...i'm sure i can go back and find you a scenario that counters yours, but whats the point...yea the pIII beat what amd had at the time...ok SO? do we still use them, NO...should i go and buy one, NO

your changing your information as you go alone in order to fit a scenario when people have already told you that in some specs of the ultra budget market AMD wins, noone fights you there but you act as if you know more then us...

fact is that you use your computer for more then just single threaded gaming...and while you chose to overlook the system mark scores when comparing that doesn't make your statements are true...single core is not ruled by AMD as for some tasks other then gaming, even the P4 would beat up on AMD when speaking of processors at the same price point

this isn't all linear, you have to pay a premium for something better, its how the things that are worse get sold...want a better car, pay more....does the more expensive car perform at the same percentage as its cost difference, no...but do you want that care anyway, yes

so take the advice that everyone is telling you and understand that overall the best bang for your buck is in a core2duo...period


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/25/2007 1:41:10 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
so take the advice that everyone is telling you and understand that overall the best bang for your buck is in a core2duo
why you still fail to understand that I was not talking about OVERALL cpu performance, I was talking about ONE PARTICULAR AREA - single core gaming? what can I do if in this area A64 3700 which costs $75 is very competitive with much more expensive C2D? stop flaming me for something I have never said, ok? I never said AMD single cores are best CPUs ever made for every man and women on this planet!


RE: amd rules single core
By Tsuwamono on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 3:53:44 PM , Rating: 1
Tsuwamono, be my guest and show me some decent gaming benchmarks on anandtech, I mean benchmarks that compare some modern 3D games on A64 single core and C2D dualcores. So far I've only seen fanboys downmodding my posts and not a single number. Be first, if you can of course. I showed the numbers, now it's your turn. Show me your hard anandtech numbers or shut up. Thank you :)


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 4:31:45 PM , Rating: 1
Tsuwamono, please ignore my previous post to you, I've been actually replying to another guy and put your nick there by mistake. I'm really sorry. In fact, I can't add anythig to what you said, my experience with Intel and AMD is exactly the same as yours.


RE: amd rules single core
By vbNetGuy on 1/24/2007 5:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tsuwamono, be my guest and show me some decent gaming benchmarks on anandtech, I mean benchmarks that compare some modern 3D games on A64 single core and C2D dualcores. So far I've only seen fanboys downmodding my posts and not a single number. Be first, if you can of course. I showed the numbers, now it's your turn. Show me your hard anandtech numbers or shut up. Thank you :)


So you were only bashing Tsuwamono because you thought he was someone else, Nice!


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/24/2007 8:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
If someone downmods you and then comments in the article, their votes get canceled out.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 10:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
ok, that soothes me somewhat, thanks for clarification Kristopher :)


RE: amd rules single core
By Tsuwamono on 1/24/2007 8:51:07 PM , Rating: 1
its cool Pirks dont worry about it. i know what its like to be on the defensive constantly when you say something other then "OMGZORS Core 2 Duos ROX MY SOX! They totally PWN in my Fatal1ty motherboard with my Fatal1ty cooler. OMG i got to 4 ghz... zors..."

You should try other tech sites that are more understanding like www.xtremesystems.org or www.bioxion-tech.com


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By therealnickdanger on 1/24/2007 3:51:20 PM , Rating: 3
I "downmodded" you just for being an arse about it. Your benchies I take no issue with. Althon is a great value, it's just not the best choice for everyone. I happen to use a lot of multi-threaded apps where my E6300 stomps all over the single-core Athlons. It's apples to oranges. Add to that the INSANE overclock I can easily achieve with my E6300, all talk of "bang for buck" shifts with certainty into Intel's camp. Move into the X2 Athlons, my CPU still dominates when OC'd.

We have to be honest, for general PC use and gaming, any current single-core or dual-core CPU can get the job done. If you're on a tight budget, get a cheap A64. If your budget ain't that tight and you want to OC, buy a C2D.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By stromgald on 1/24/2007 4:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
It's not so much whether AMD has the best CPU for everyone or is better for most 3D games. Your comparison just isn't a fair comparison. It's apples to oranges. You have to keep either performance or cost the same to get an even comparison. Read my post below.

Basically if you're spending less than $200 for a CPU, AMD has the best bang for the buck. If you're willing to spend $225 or higher, Intel trumps AMD in gaming, and hardcore multithreaded processing.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By SexyK on 1/24/2007 4:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
E6300 and E4300 are both under $200 and offer much better value per dollar than anything AMD can offer at that price point, sorry to burst your bubble. You'd rather have a chip based on a 4 year old micro-architecture than a C2D?


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By gramboh on 1/24/2007 7:23:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
sometime later when my work load is mostly heavily multithreaded with a lot of dual core friendly games - then I just go to newegg and grab whatever has best bang for buck there from dualcores


No you don't, because you bought a dead socket (939) and won't be able to find best-bang-for-your-buck dual core in that platform! You will have to sell your outdated DDR, 939 board and CPU to upgrade to C2D 775 like every rational thinking person.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By swtethan on 1/24/2007 8:20:28 PM , Rating: 2
So how much can you get a dual core FX chip for? Last time I saw benchmarks.... a stock e6400 is tied to the FX-62, encoding and other benchmarks are also similar. http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=28...


Was your username in cpu/overclocking OCHungry by any chance? lol


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: amd rules single core
By swtethan on 1/24/2007 8:49:06 PM , Rating: 2
boxed NEW fx55 is $239 on the egg, boxed NEW fx-60 is $589, boxed NEW e6400 is $220 IIRC


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 9:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
boxed NEW fx55 is $239 on the egg, boxed NEW fx-60 is $589, boxed NEW e6400 is $220 IIRC
I know all this, it's still an issue of what workload do you have. suppose your single threaded app or game runs faster on single core AMD than on dual core Intel. some people prefer to go with AMD single cores because of that and upgrade to AMD or Intel dualcores later when they start running multitheraded apps/games. I still don't get it why this causes so much flame and downmodding. especially when these people already know that in general high-end Intel C2D CPUs are much more powerful than anything AMD got. looks like some Intel fanatics are way too twitchy here. cool it dudes, nobody is attacking Intel here.


RE: amd rules single core
By Pirks on 1/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: amd rules single core
By robert5c on 1/24/2007 4:06:35 PM , Rating: 4
wow man your so full of yourself...you use one example and think that explains it?

using the same two chips, the e6400 and your amd4000 sandiego

in quake 4
intel-159.0
amd-94.0

COD2
intel-166
amd-110

3dmark06 cpu score
intel-1892
amd-951

PCmark2005 CPU
intel-5489
amd-3502

also your prices are comparing a retail boxed version to a no heatsink oem version...wtf? since when are those prices similar? and it speaks to the how good this chip is if newegg no longer cares to carry the retail version.

so be correct, and report accurate not misleading facts
for this i'll move the prices to a retailer that holds both processors...zipzoomfly.com
amd 4000+ = $136 back order
intel e6400 = $221.50

now you also take in that on air cooling, all core 2 duo processors out today easily go to above 3.0ghz on almost every motherboard, you can adjust the benchmarks to the figures you see with the x6800...hows that for bang for your buck...and no the 4000+ doesn't scale as well so don't try.

lastly, look at the benches once more...the e6600 beats the fx62 every time...fx62 = $694 e6600 = $315.50
so wheres amd's bang for buck for gamer comparison?

and if your a gamer or not, its better to have more cores at the same speed then not...you can overclock a processor but you can't reengineer it.

noone wants to shoot the messenger, but when he's misleading and dead wrong, he might as well be shot, he's good as dead anyway.


RE: amd rules single core
By stromgald on 1/24/2007 4:08:00 PM , Rating: 4
quote:

Core 2 Duo - 58 frames per second
A64 4000 - 48 frames per second

Now let'd look at the price at newegg:

Core 2 Duo - $222
A64 4000 - $80


This does absolutely nothing to prove your point. It just shows that price increases exponentially with performance, which is common sense in any high tech market.

If you want to do a fair comparison find two equally priced chips from AMD and Intel and compare their benchmarks. And please, don't go picking the Prescotts and such, we already know the result of that. Here's what your comparison should be:

Core 2 E6600 - 67 fps
AMD FX-57 - 55 fps
At Newegg:
FX-57 = $319
E6600 = $316

Unfortunately, that AMD chip is single core.

If we move up to dual core and try to match performance instead of cost, the comparison gets even worse for AMD.
Core 2 E6400 - 58 fps
AMD FX-60 - 58 fps
At Newegg:
FX-60 = $525
E6400 = $222

Right now AMD has the better single core chips so they have the bottom end/less expensive part of the market covered. But mid to high range (i.e. $250+) chips, Intel dominates by a wide margin. Even in gaming.