Preview of the Athlon 64 X2 here:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzY2
- It's basically two Athlon 64 cores side by side
- All 939-pin motherboards already supports it (with a bios flash)
- Power consumption is more or less the same as previous single core A64's
- Which means no extra cooling required
- Kicks the Pentium Extreme Edition 840's ass
- All at a (probably) quite reasonable price point
Sounds fucking great to me.
AMD produces some dual core ownage
Re: AMD produces some dual core ownage
gimme,gimme, now!Grudge wrote:
Sounds fucking great to me.
:icon14:
-
Freakaloin
- Posts: 10620
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am
If you look at the tech behind A64 x2 (dual-core) you'll see AMD did a much better job of it than Intel (who have basically superglued two P4s together). It get's worse for Intel since AMD will be pitching it's single core A64's against Intels Dual-core range, ie from AMDs perspective Intel are that far behind. Now if Dell would only drop Intel that would put the cat amongst the pigeons, but I guess it ain't gonna happen since Intel all but give Dell chips.
Hat's off to AMD anyways :icon31:
Hat's off to AMD anyways :icon31:
Wrong. Dual core technology is highly noticable in daily use.Freakaloin wrote:if u own an a64, u have no reason to upgrade for a while...unless ur a moron...
THat article seems to repeat the usual AMD vs Intel shlock; AMD has faster memory access, making it score a touch higher in games, but Intel has the pure processing power.
Personally, I'd like to see Intel attempt to do what AMD is doing by eliminating the FSB and putting in ondie with the CPU. :icon14:
That article sums up hyper-threading pretty good;
HyperThreading Vs. No HyperThreading
I have used two Intel-based systems with HyperThreading in the last year as well as utilizing an Athlon 64 FX-53 that is now known as the Athlon 64 4000+ in its 939-pin processor form that was used here today for the previous comparisons. I just recently went back to a 3.6GHz Pentium 4 from the FX-53 so I have some real world hands on experience with both platforms. My past experiences have lead to how we conducted our hands on real world testing with both of these dual core systems. The reasoning behind our multitasking benchmarks on the previous page was derived from my own need to use the computer while encoding video.
With my Athlon 64 FX-53 system, I simply could not go about my daily business of running HardOCP, HardForums, and Ratpadz while encoding DivX. Back in July of 04, I built myself an Athlon FX-53 system to play DOOM 3 on. Also at the time, I was in middle of moving my DVD collection to DivX in order to use it on a “video jukebox” I was building for the living room.
On my previous 3.2GHz Pentium 4 system with HyperThreading, I could easily start a DivX encode using Dr. DivX and then go about my other normal daily tasks that for the most part are not CPU intensive. On my Pentium 4 system with HyperThreading, the DivX encode was all but transparent. Of course, you could not run another heavily CPU dependent application and expect the same smooth user performance. Trying to do my daily work on my FX-53 box while encoding DivX left me with an unresponsive user interface that was slow and laggy. I was simply not able to get my multitasking workload done without a large amount of frustration.
Do keep in mind that only the high end Extreme Edition Intel Pentium dual core processors will have HyperThreading enabled, but as you have seen on the previous pages, there was hardly an instance that HyperThreading lead to a performance advantage in benchmarking in the world of dual core processors. As will be discussed in the next section, I could not find anywhere that I saw a real world difference in computing experience provided by dual core HyperThreading compared to our dual core AMD X2.
For anyone that is a multitasker that does not put a huge priority on gaming, the single core Pentium 4 ends up being a better choice for the heart of your system if you are not considering a dual core processor. Even if not running video encodes while you are computing, I find that a HyperThreading processor provides a smoother single core computing experience.
Re: AMD produces some dual core ownage
You're correct about everything but price is the weakest factor. The low end X2 (4200+) will start at $500, and the high end (4800+) will go for $1000. A bit too expensive for my tastes. My guess is that AMD isn't putting the dual core into the mainstream price range (~$150-300) because they will have limited quantities to begin with. I imagine it be around early 2006 before we see the X2's go into that range. But this could be earlier, depending on how successful Intel in getting their dual cores into the mainstream.Grudge wrote:Preview of the Athlon 64 X2 here:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzY2
- It's basically two Athlon 64 cores side by side
- All 939-pin motherboards already supports it (with a bios flash)
- Power consumption is more or less the same as previous single core A64's
- Which means no extra cooling required
- Kicks the Pentium Extreme Edition 840's ass
- All at a (probably) quite reasonable price point
Sounds fucking great to me.
I'm definitely making the X2 part of my next system, when the price gets right
-
Kills On Site
- Posts: 1741
- Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2003 7:00 am
Well how can you put two P4s together into the P4 Dual Core processors?bag0shite wrote:If you look at the tech behind A64 x2 (dual-core) you'll see AMD did a much better job of it than Intel (who have basically superglued two P4s together). It get's worse for Intel since AMD will be pitching it's single core A64's against Intels Dual-core range, ie from AMDs perspective Intel are that far behind. Now if Dell would only drop Intel that would put the cat amongst the pigeons, but I guess it ain't gonna happen since Intel all but give Dell chips.
Hat's off to AMD anyways :icon31:
I ask this because P4s with single cores are 32-bit, P4s with dual cores are 64-bit......
[size=92][color=#0000FF]Hugh Hefner for President[/color][/size]
-
Kills On Site
- Posts: 1741
- Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2003 7:00 am
Intel Roadmap
The only dual core processors, the 840s are 64-bit. Some single core P4s are 64-bit of course, but you can't claim that Intel is fussing two old P4 chips.
Also Intel Dual Core Products
The only dual core processors, the 840s are 64-bit. Some single core P4s are 64-bit of course, but you can't claim that Intel is fussing two old P4 chips.
Also Intel Dual Core Products
[size=92][color=#0000FF]Hugh Hefner for President[/color][/size]
Where AMD differs a tremendous amount from Intel in the dual core department is that AMD did not just "glue" two of their high performance processors together. In fact, if you talk to Fred Weber, AMD CTO, he will tell you that AMD has been planning for dual core CPUs for a long time and the fact of the matter is that AMD's superior dual core design backs up that statement. AMD uses what they call Direct Connect architecture. Instead of two processor cores being saddled to one bus and run to a single memory controller as we see with Intel dual core technology, we have to remember that AMD Athlon 64 processors have the memory controller on the CPU die itself and therefore no “front side bus” is needed.