Bye bye AMD

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:37:13 +0000, Never anonymous Bud wrote:

Having skipped an E.L.F. meeting to be here, "Toby Groves"
scribbled:

I have since wondered whether the 3.6Ghz was in fact an overclocked CPU,
as at the time of reading I assumed it was a released product. I don't
remember the review stating this, if indeed it was the case, which is
extremely naughty.

They clearly state that the 3.4ghz P4 they had wasn't multiplier-locked,
so they upped the speed to 3.6ghz exactly as Intel will, soon.

They didn't have a 3.4GHz P4EE. It was a 3.2GHz. And it was just a demo
chip. It hasn't been released yet to my knowledge. And what's it going to
cost? I read about $850 somewhere.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html

Well why haven't Intel done that yet???
Infact why haven't they released the P4EE 3.2Ghz yet???

AMD could ramp up clock speeds the same.... Once yeilds get a bit higher...

INTEL: 3.2Ghz to 3.6Ghz, a difference of 400Mhz is: 12.5% increase in
clock speed
AMD: 2.2 + 2.2 * 12.5% = 2.475Ghz: 275Mhz increase

400 / 275 = 1.45

So even if the INTEL system scales the same as AMD's with increased clock
speed (which it doesn't) then INTEL has to increase their P4 chip by 1.45Mhz
for every 1 Mhz AMD does....

But that's if you assume the P4EE 3.2Ghz is as fast as the A64FX @ 2.2Ghz



"Never anonymous Bud" wrote in message
...
Having skipped an E.L.F. meeting to be here, "Toby Groves"

scribbled:

I have since wondered whether the 3.6Ghz was in fact an overclocked CPU,
as at the time of reading I assumed it was a released product. I don't
remember the review stating this, if indeed it was the case, which is
extremely naughty.

They clearly state that the 3.4ghz P4 they had wasn't multiplier-locked,
so they upped the speed to 3.6ghz exactly as Intel will, soon.





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....

Ah, but some of us are forgetting that INTEL's P4 uses an inclusive cache
scheme where AMD's chips use an exclusive scheme....
What does this mean???

P4EE - L1: 8kb [Trace Cache] ( I think! ) :-)
- L2: 512kb
- L3: 2048kb
Inclusive means that the entire contents of L1 cache is in L2, and the
entrie contents of L2 cache is in L3.
Meaning only 1528kb of cache is really useful.... But the L3 cache has
pretty bad latency compared to L2 cache...

Athlon 64 - L1: 128kb
- L2: 1024kb
Meaning only 1152kb of cache is useful.... And L2 is very low compared to
INTEL's L3 cache....
Plus with the onboard memory controller a L3 wouldn't give that much of
boost for Athlon 64's anyway...

-----
Mark


"Never anonymous Bud" wrote in message
...
Having skipped an E.L.F. meeting to be here, "rstlne" .@. scribbled:


"YanquiDawg" wrote in message
...
Doesn't the new P4 have 2 or 3 MEGABYTES of extra cache? It's not a big
surprise it beats a CPU at lesser mhz and lesser cache.


it has 512k L2 cache
L2 doesnt mean 2 megs

The Athlon64 has 1024k L2 cache

The P4EE has 2 megs of L3 cache.





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....

Toby Groves wrote:

In article , chrisrobin
writes

Your Ranting. Dont believe the hype.


I'm not ranting and I'm not listening to any hype, I'm voicing my
reaction to the first real-world reviews of the new processor, and I
have to say it's very underwhelming at present.


I wonder how many people will really notice the difference anyway?
You give the normal computer user a computer running at 1 Ghz and then
put them onto another running at 3Gzh, I bet they will not even realise.
It is only people that are really into the hardware that will notice,
the ones who want high power and then there got to be a bottle neck
somewhere. I got a 2500Barton XP AMD, and my brother got a 2.5Ghz Intel
P4, The only thing that comes out faster on his is the video card and it
every day use it is not noticable.

Toby Groves wrote:

In article , rstlne
?.?@?.? writes

It's not all about core speed
Intel says it is..
Intel funded reviewsites say it is..
Make your own mind up..


I'm perfectly capable, as is anyone on this group, of seeing through
Intel hype. Unfortunately the average punter isn't. I think AMD are
hoping that customers will see the "64" and think they must have that,
in much the same way as Intel have been selling P4s purely off the back
of the raw Mhz speed.


lets wait until these systems acutally start hitting the market and the
users will be able to tell the truth


I'm afraid I don't have your faith in the average consumer.

It is a good job we British got more sense then :-)
We do not go for big numbers, we prefer to look more into the specs and
what the system feels like to use.

right, AMD can't turn a decent profit. Look at their stock history.


"Toby Groves" wrote in message
...
In article , Wes Newell
writes
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:46:42 +0000, Courseyauto wrote:

I dont understand AMD's reason for the 64 but there sure wont be many
sold,kind of a pointless exercise.

It's a 64bit cpu. That's reason enough to buy one if you need real power.
Running 64bit apps, it'll blow away 32bit machines. Consider a 16bit cpu
(8086) compared to a 32bit cpu (386DX). And the platform will have more
room for expansion. This is the next generation.

My point was that, for the time being, there are no 64-bit apps or a
64-bit OS to run them on, so it's the processors 32-bit performance that
matters.

As and when 64-bit takes off, Prescott has the Yamhill 64-bit extensions
lying in wait, with which Intel can seriously rain on AMD's parade.

The P4 2.4chas to be the buy of the century right
now,hyperthreading,and
overclocks like crazy for about $170.

And I can beat it in most apps with a $43 AMD cpu overclocked to 2.4GHz.
Now that's what I call a buy.:-)

EXACTLY!

This is AMD's major problem! They are very popular amongst users such
as us because their processors are cheap and can be overclocked, but AMD
can't afford to sell cheap processors anymore. They need people to
start buying the more expensive ones if they are to make any real money,
and as long as you can buy a dirt cheap CPU and overclock the tits off
it, who the hell is gonna buy an A64?
--
Toby

Some of you are losing sight of the forest for the trees.

There are few 64 bit applications now.
There is no 64 bit Windows operating system now.
A 64 bit processor running in a 32 bit world is just wasteful and expensive.
It is debatable that AMD's 64 bit processors offer any performance advantage
over Intel processors.
After a few years when 64 bit becomes more commonplace, the current AMD
processors will be junk.

To regain the momentum in the enthusiast market, AMD needs a product NOW
that that can beat Intel, but at half the price. They are currently
offering nothing that fits that description, and it appears that Intel has
product waiting in the wings that will keep them ahead for the next year or
so.

I predict hard times for AMD.

about the price of an AMD-51FX.


"Wes Newell" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:37:13 +0000, Never anonymous Bud wrote:

Having skipped an E.L.F. meeting to be here, "Toby Groves"
scribbled:

I have since wondered whether the 3.6Ghz was in fact an overclocked CPU,
as at the time of reading I assumed it was a released product. I don't
remember the review stating this, if indeed it was the case, which is
extremely naughty.

They clearly state that the 3.4ghz P4 they had wasn't multiplier-locked,
so they upped the speed to 3.6ghz exactly as Intel will, soon.

They didn't have a 3.4GHz P4EE. It was a 3.2GHz. And it was just a demo
chip. It hasn't been released yet to my knowledge. And what's it going to
cost? I read about $850 somewhere.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html

Frank Weston wrote:

To regain the momentum in the enthusiast market, AMD needs a product NOW
that that can beat Intel, but at half the price. They are currently

That's insane - you want a BETTER product, CHEAPER? Wow, you don't want
much, do you?

Frank Weston wrote:

There is no 64 bit Windows operating system now.

Not quite, there is no *popular* 64bit Windows enviroment but there is
Windows 2003 Enterprise Server.