A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » Overclocking AMD Processors
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bye bye AMD



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 24th 03, 08:46 PM
Courseyauto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


As of the time of the article, the P4 3.2 EE hadn't even been released
yet. And I still don't think it's been released. The 3.2 was the only
reven announced so anythuing over that speed is an overclock. He
represents this with darker colored bars in the benchmarks. BTW, I don't
really care which one wins, I won't be buying one anytime soon anyway.:-)

-

I dont understand AMD's reason for the 64 but there sure wont be many
sold,kind of a pointless exercise. The P4 2.4chas to be the buy of the
century right now,hyperthreading,and overclocks like crazy for about $170.
  #22  
Old September 24th 03, 09:26 PM
YanquiDawg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

From a performance perspective, the P4EE beats the A64 in most
benchmarks in 32-bit at least, and as 64-bit is total pie-in-the-sky at
present, this is really all that matters.



  #23  
Old September 24th 03, 11:38 PM
Aster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Toby Groves" wrote in message ...
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.


And I don't have faith in the average "journalist". Many journalists
are repeating the dubious claim that the processor "won't make much of
a difference for web browsing or word processing for the average
user".

They just wade through the simple fact that the processor will not
work unless paired with the motherboard made for it, which is very new
in design, including such enhancements as ATA serial connections in
some instances.

I suspect that many computer users would benefit just from the new
motherboard, let alone the chip. Putting some of the "windows bloat"
in the background (virus scanners, other tsr applications, firewalls,
etc.) that would save me 10 minutes a day is in my opinion just as
useful as a one week vacation every year.

I think AMD is getting the short end of the marketing stick, I hope it
gets a little bit upset about it. Without AMD, Intel has no incentive
to compete.

So, evaluate about the improvements you will get with the new
motherboard, the new operating system (XP enhanced), and the chip, I
think all those things combined will paint a better picture for those
who "just do word processing or browse the web". Browsing the web
with several applications can slow some people down.

In my opinion, it is harder to figure out if a dual processor system
is better than the 64 bit processor system, I think that is the
challenge to AMD marketing.
  #24  
Old September 24th 03, 11:43 PM
rstlne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


now like
I guess depending on how it's used, it's the same.. 16,000 lines of data for
both processors, but I am just kinda blindly assuming that it's like a
simple stack..


  #25  
Old September 25th 03, 12:03 AM
Wes Newell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:43:53 +0100, wrote:


"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

But it has 2 megs of L3 cache.:-)
That's the new P4 EE. Release date?

The Athlon64 has 1024k L2 cache

and 0 L3.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html
  #26  
Old September 25th 03, 12:19 AM
Wes Newell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

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.:-)

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html
  #27  
Old September 25th 03, 07:39 AM
Toby Groves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Never anonymous
Bud writes
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.


Hmm, must of missed that, my bad
--
Toby
  #28  
Old September 25th 03, 07:39 AM
Toby Groves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #29  
Old September 25th 03, 07:43 AM
Wes Newell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 01:22:45 +0000, Never anonymous Bud wrote:

Having skipped an E.L.F. meeting to be here, "Wes Newell"
scribbled:

It's a 64bit cpu. That's reason enough to buy one if you need real power.


Explain exactly how a 64 bit CPU is 'more powerful'.

Now let me think... I wonder why we're not still using 8bit 8088 cpu's.:-)
Data reads of 8bit cpu=1 byte per read.
Data reads of 32bit cpu=4 bytes per read.
Data reads of 64bit cpu=8 bytes per read.
Next compare register size, etc., etc, etc.

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.:-)


That's what *I* call wishful thinking!

Not really. It's a proven fact. That would equate to about a 3600+.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html
  #30  
Old September 25th 03, 07:56 AM
Gary Sinnott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:03:08 GMT, "Wes Newell"
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:43:53 +0100, wrote:


"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

But it has 2 megs of L3 cache.:-)
That's the new P4 EE. Release date?

The Athlon64 has 1024k L2 cache

and 0 L3.


I like the idea of the L3 cache - not enough room in the L1, so pull
it into L2. Oh, not enough room in the L2, so pull the required data
into L3. Okay, so it won't take many extra clock cycles but that's
the thing - it takes EXTRA. Why did Intel panic build an L3 cache
onto their chips? Why not increase the size of the L2 instead?

Not only but also, I keep hearing how the new A64 is crap compared to
a clocked-to-3.6GHz Intel P4. And? Has everyone who has a poke at
AMD forgotten that the A64 is running @ 2.2GHz and can beat the Intel
CPU in most things except what seems to be some multimedia and all
Hyperthreading apps. Whoop-de-do. Hyperthreading is exclusively
Intel based - so AMD won't get a look in there. What if AMD could
include it?

I used to run Inel and only Intel. Now I find my old Athlon 800A can
beat my Celeron 1GHz in anything I care to run on either platform. I
also have a little contest running between (another) two of my AMD
based systems against a friend's two somewhat faster Intel systems -
all running SETI @ home. I'm keeping ahead of him even though he
doesn't spend a fair amount of time playing CPU/video intensive games
and I do.

My better half is running an Athlon XP 2000+ (christ, I hate the
numbering system they went with) against another friend's P4 2.6GHz
box, still using SETI @ home as the weapon of choice. Her score this
month is 135 against his 89 - and she's only got 256MB of PC133
against his sooper dooper 512 DDR (whatever) MHz stuff.

I'm not knocking Intel CPUs - they *do* have their uses and are pretty
good but, in this household, they would tend to be used as a
replacement for drawing pins in the corkboard on the wall - holding my
wish list of computer parts probably.

Gary


--------------------------------------------------
Reply to gary at data dot mildenhall dot com
--------------------------------------------------
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.