AMD wins back performance crown

See benchmarks at:

http://www.amdzone.com/
http://www.anandtech.com/

Opteron at 2.0Ghz is categorically faster in the great
majority of benchmarks compared to the 3.2Ghz P4
with HyperThreading enabled.

Memory performance is also superior, something
quite new. Since the intro of the P4, even in the
days of the unremarkable Willamette core, Intel had
much better memory performance thanks to higher
FSB throughput because traditionally, the memory
controller was on the Northbridge chip which was
connected to the CPU via the FSB. Opteron's
on-die 144-bit memory controller (72-bit ECC dual
channel) puts that old school to rest, neatly
circumventing that bottleneck.

If AMD spreads the news, is able to lower prices,
and releases the desktop version in time, it may
stand a chance in the struggle with Intel.

If AMD spreads the news, is able to lower prices,
and releases the desktop version in time,

They've already failed at all of these. It should have been out months
ago; motherboard manufacturers and oems are *still* taking a wait-and-see
attitude; there's no 64bit Windows ready; and the delay has been a gift to
Intel, allowing them ample time to ramp and tweak the P4 til any Athlon64
speed advantage is gone, not to mention the cool new features they've added.

Who's going to buy an expensive 1.8ghz Athlon64 that is barely on a par with
an P4-3200, and still loses in the all-important media benchmarks? Not me,
not until it's shown this thing can overclock reliably to 2.5ghz anyway.

rms

"Roger Squires" wrote in message
news
If AMD spreads the news, is able to lower prices,
and releases the desktop version in time,

They've already failed at all of these. It should have been out
months
ago; motherboard manufacturers and oems are *still* taking a wait-and-see
attitude; there's no 64bit Windows ready; and the delay has been a gift to
Intel, allowing them ample time to ramp and tweak the P4 til any Athlon64
speed advantage is gone, not to mention the cool new features they've
added.

Who's going to buy an expensive 1.8ghz Athlon64 that is barely on a par
with
an P4-3200, and still loses in the all-important media benchmarks? Not
me,
not until it's shown this thing can overclock reliably to 2.5ghz anyway.

rms

you shouldnt buy into the "2.5" ghz thing..
I mean if the a64 is running at 2ghz then that would be like a 4ghz system
(kinda sorta) ..

One big problem is that intel was saying DO NO RELEASE working boards for
AMD.. Keep your boards in development and dont release them....
Now I cant give you proof of that, that's illegal BUT that is what other
company reps have been reporting..
Support the new 64bit amd chips and expect to loose INTEL research money
If that's not the case then tell me why MSI are the only company that
released their Opteron mobo (only company as in the big home retail market)
So much of it is down to big brother.. Amd does a horrible job at
advertising too, their PR sucks ass..
This is a direction that technology needs to move in and I have to say that
I think it's great that AMD have decided to do it, I just hope that they
have more luck than the Alpha systems..
The fact that we are still 1 month away from release of these chips means
that we will see some improvements before it hits the market.. Plus all
benchmarks now are not going to be design'd around the chip and they'll not
show the true potential of it.. I think writing benchmarks design'd to
"test" things like MMX and such was pretty lame, It worked great for INTEL
for so many years.. having benchmarks that are made around their chips.. So
lets see a 64bit os benchmark and then see how it compares on the p4
systems.. ohh wait, the p4's wont run it.. they score the worst mark?

"Roger Squires" wrote in message
news
If AMD spreads the news, is able to lower prices,
and releases the desktop version in time,

They've already failed at all of these. It should have been out
months
ago; motherboard manufacturers and oems are *still* taking a wait-and-see
attitude; there's no 64bit Windows ready; and the delay has been a gift to
Intel, allowing them ample time to ramp and tweak the P4 til any Athlon64
speed advantage is gone, not to mention the cool new features they've
added.

Who's going to buy an expensive 1.8ghz Athlon64 that is barely on a par
with
an P4-3200, and still loses in the all-important media benchmarks? Not
me,
not until it's shown this thing can overclock reliably to 2.5ghz anyway.


I can't disagree with Roger. I'm a long time AMD fan, but a few months ago
I jumped to an Intel 2.8, 800 FSB, and I have to say It's a pretty sweet
setup. The Athlon64 may be a little too little a little too late for the
reasons Roger points out. Hopefully AMD will come through with a processor
that's competitive cost and performance wise sometime soon, because they're
probably the only thing standing between us and paying $thousands$ for an
Intel processor.

Supertimer wrote:

See benchmarks at:

http://www.amdzone.com/
http://www.anandtech.com/

Opteron at 2.0Ghz is categorically faster in the great
majority of benchmarks compared to the 3.2Ghz P4
with HyperThreading enabled.


I'm not an Intel fan of any measure and I go out of my way to buy AMD...
But...

The real comparison will be between the Opteron and the up comming P4 that's
due towards the end of the year. The not yet released p4 will be the
"complete" chip that Intel was going to originally ship as the current P4
offering. It's going to be a killer I'm afraid.


************************************************** ****************************
Registered Linux User Number 185956
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...ff&group=linux
Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net
This email account no longers accepts attachments or messages containing
html.
7:07pm up 38 days, 5:05, 3 users, load average: 0.02, 0.04, 0.00

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:52:13 -0400, "Frank Weston"
wrote:

Hopefully AMD will come through with a processor
that's competitive cost and performance wise sometime soon, because they're
probably the only thing standing between us and paying $thousands$ for an
Intel processor.


That will happen only if you want the fastest processor going. What
we have right now is a really anomalous situation where the world's
fastest CPU to be found outside a Cray can be had for chicken feed.
*That* situation isn't going to last because it isn't sustainable,
regardless of what happens to AMD.

Opteron is an interesting wild card, but it will probably do more to
cause anxiety among Intel execs than to save AMD's hide. My suspicion
is that AMD is not nearly as enthusiastic about Athlon64 as are its
hobbyist cheerleaders, because I think AMD knows full well that its
long term survival is more tied to competing with Centrino for the
mobile/low power market that is growing than it is to competing for a
desktop market that is shrinking.

RM

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 03:45:48 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
wrote:


You must NOT be looking at the test *I* am looking at!

On AMDZone, they link to a test at www.extremetech.com,
between a 1.8 Opteron, an XP3200+, and a P4 3.2HT.

The P4 beats the Opteron HUGELY in the tests that count,
even the XP beats the Opteron in almost half the tests,
including productivity.


The Opteron ONLY excels in multi-processor settings.



1.8 Opteron is not the same as 2.0 Opteron. And who gets to say what
tests "count"? I don't do any media encoding/content creation/3d
rendering, probably only a small fraction of PC users do. What most
people notice when using a PC is the general responsiveness of the
system with word processing software, spreadsheets, database software,
browser use, game use, etc. Many of the benchmarks in reviews are
designed to use Intel features such as hyperthreading or SSE2. People
obviously need to look at the end uses of their machine when making a
choice. If you are committed to using Intel-optimized applications
you need to invest in an Intel system.

What will be the real story, is Athlon64 vs Prescott. Prescott may be
unbeatable if Intel can get it out the door.

"Never anonymous Bud" wrote in message
...
Separating himself from Baghdad Bob, "Frank Weston"

whined:

I can't disagree with Roger. I'm a long time AMD fan, but a few months
ago
I jumped to an Intel 2.8, 800 FSB, and I have to say It's a pretty sweet
setup.

I went with a P4 2.6HT last week, and it's VERY nice.

In addition to running 2 Seti@home clients as fast as my XP2500 runs one,
it's just stunning with Encarta 2004, NO stalls, stutters, or slowdowns no
matter HOW fast I change what I'm looking at.

It's a pity both open Seti clients are fighting for the same cache space
inside the CPU.
Seti shall run faster with HT turned off in the BIOS, go give it a try...
Happy with this XP2500 (210X10.5), so what if it takes 1hr56min on average
to complete a unit *8)






To reply by email, remove the XYZ.

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

It's your SIG, say what you want to say....

rstlne wrote:


"Roger Squires" wrote in message
Not
me,
not until it's shown this thing can overclock reliably to 2.5ghz anyway.

rms

you shouldnt buy into the "2.5" ghz thing..
I mean if the a64 is running at 2ghz then that would be like a 4ghz system
(kinda sorta) ..

Not even kinda sorta..

http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=112


--

Stacey

Bitsbucket wrote:

You know,
I think that all the marketing hype has gone to allot of heads,

Yep, very few people need what a $40 XP1700 can take care of. Only reason I
ever need more "juice" is for doing video rendering, the rest is easily
handled by almost any system today.
--

Stacey