• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

4000+ Only 2.4Ghz !!!!!

C

clarkey01

Diamond Member
I am an AMD fan but iv losing faith with this " 512K = 200+ ratings points", the 4000+ was suppose to be 2.6 Ghz, I dont think the 3800+ is worthy of its name, man Im tired, Im off to bed !
 
I agree with you man, I think that the whole cache thing isn't really that deserving. Back when the ClawHammer 3200+ was out it was pretty shaky basing its rating off a cache boost, thats why I bought the Newcastle version which actually runs at 2.2ghz 🙂
 
the intel chips are so much easyer to understand with them making it simple for pc buyers alike to get. i no amd is much better (i have a 3400+ a64) and it was so confusing to me that i almost just boaught something blinedly


but i still dont fully understand all the number stuff they have and probably never will.


good luck
 
Originally posted by: igblack
the intel chips are so much easyer to understand with them making it simple for pc buyers alike to get.
Click to expand...

not anymore. i'm having a terrible time trying to get used to intel's new names like the P4 530 and etc. amd and intel both know that mhz is not everything and if they continue to go by actually mhz in their names, problems will arise since 99% of the people out there dont know how amd at 2.2ghz is faster then intel's 3ghz.
 
Ya, the new Intel rating makes no sense whatsoever, except that the higher model is faster than the other model. Compared to pre-existing or Athlons though it makes no obvious sense.
 
It's because AMD is having some trouble ramping up the clock speed. Intel isn't only one with clock problem.
 
eh, AMD's model numbers are based on perfomance of an equally performing (theoretical) Athlon (as in before the XP models) the P4 has ramped up in speed and has a higher arc to it's increase in frequency than the XP line. so the faster Intels get the more the gap in performance equality based on AMD's model numbers, I thought this was old news. the 2500+ puts a hurt on the 2.67P4, but the 3000+ and above are actually lower in performance (on average) than the ~equal~ speed P4's.
 
Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
eh, AMD's model numbers are based on perfomance of an equally performing (theoretical) Athlon (as in before the XP models) the P4 has ramped up in speed and has a higher arc to it's increase in frequency than the XP line. so the faster Intels get the more the gap in performance equality based on AMD's model numbers, I thought this was old news. the 2500+ puts a hurt on the 2.67P4, but the 3000+ and above are actually lower in performance (on average) than the ~equal~ speed P4's.
Click to expand...

that was because the xp line was made for competing wtih intel's P4 with 533mhz fsb and single channel ram. when they came out wtih teh 800fsb and dual channel ones, that's when the xp line started hurting, but price for performance was always amd's goal.
 
fx 55 will be 2.6Ghz but on a 130 nm process & the 4000+ will be 2.4Ghz on a 90 nm process with 1 Meg Cache ( basicly a fx 53). These numbers wont stand up, its B.S, this has really made me think.

loads of sites have shown a 512k cache only offers a 3% boost @ most in nearly all apps, I know this, my freinds in the Biz know this, AMD KNOWS THIS!.

I do kno w 90 nm will come with some improvmenets butthere only minor, we say clock speed doesnt matter, but a 200 Mhz jump for a K8 does more then a 200 Mhz jump in any netburst CPU, if only the 4000+ was running @ 2.6 Ghz, I barely believe the 3800+ name with it only running @ 2.4Ghz. AAAAAAAAAAhhhh
 
when they bring out the fx-55 they will stop making the fx-53 ,,which will become the 4000+

that is the best way i can look at it.
 
From a roadmap I found here :

http://www.laneros.com/showthread/t-16968.html

64-Bit 939Pin 90nm 512KB Cache (Winchester):
A64 4000+ 2.5Ghz (Q4 2004)
A64 4200+ 2.625Ghz (Q4 2004)
A64 4400+ 2.75Ghz (2005)
A64 4600+ 2.875Ghz (2005)
A64 4800+ 3.0Ghz (2005)
A64 5000+ 3.125Ghz (2006)

Also I PREDICTED this about not being able to scale as much as AMD had hoped, ( sorry for the 4 posts) plus i started a thread which no1 asnwerd !

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...8&threadid=1389478

I wasnt wrong was I when i said " You have to remember back in the K7 days, one of the reasons the performance crown was lost was due to the lack of ability to scale, the .13 micron process was fine, but you noticed the athlon xp only went up in 66 Mhz jumps or around that for another 100+ points, which is true and deserving with the higher IPC, however when the thorton core hit 2Ghz ( 2500+ and later the 2800 was it ? 2.25 Ghz ?) AMD knew the K7 was running out of headroom for clock speed. Enter barton core, slap more cache on and drop some clock speed for reserve and take smaller jumps, and maybe a few more Mhz for the FSB. If the throton had carried on, a 3200+ would have been more like 2.5ghz, maybe this could have been achieved "
 
AMD is confusing because between tbred's, bartons, newcastles, and clawhammers, they have like 35 chip's between 1.8 and 2.4 ghz right now.
 
Originally posted by: clarkey01
R.I.P AMD's short lived performance crown

THEY SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT AGAIN, SURPRISE !
Click to expand...

Intel still can't get the 3.6GHz Prescott rolled out in quantity (even the 3.4 was totally de-listed last time I checked Newegg) and AMD is supposedly selling all the A64s they can make, so they have little reason to up the ante. I do agree that the PR is getting ridiculous again, though.
 
I don't think its the fact that amd can't ramp up the clock on thier chips its the fact that they don't have too. since intel doesn't even have a 3.8 or 4ghz chip to compare to the 3800 and 4000 they are taking advantage of that and fudging the PR raitings a bit. if intel somehow came out with a 4ghz chip soon amd I think would be more than able to get a 2.8ghz 90nm part out the door to squash it into the ground
 
Originally posted by: clarkey01
From a roadmap I found here :

http://www.laneros.com/showthread/t-16968.html

64-Bit 939Pin 90nm 512KB Cache (Winchester):
A64 4000+ 2.5Ghz (Q4 2004)
A64 4200+ 2.625Ghz (Q4 2004)
A64 4400+ 2.75Ghz (2005)
A64 4600+ 2.875Ghz (2005)
A64 4800+ 3.0Ghz (2005)
A64 5000+ 3.125Ghz (2006)

Also I PREDICTED this about not being able to scale as much as AMD had hoped, ( sorry for the 4 posts) plus i started a thread which no1 asnwerd !

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...8&threadid=1389478

I wasnt wrong was I when i said " You have to remember back in the K7 days, one of the reasons the performance crown was lost was due to the lack of ability to scale, the .13 micron process was fine, but you noticed the athlon xp only went up in 66 Mhz jumps or around that for another 100+ points, which is true and deserving with the higher IPC, however when the thorton core hit 2Ghz ( 2500+ and later the 2800 was it ? 2.25 Ghz ?) AMD knew the K7 was running out of headroom for clock speed. Enter barton core, slap more cache on and drop some clock speed for reserve and take smaller jumps, and maybe a few more Mhz for the FSB. If the throton had carried on, a 3200+ would have been more like 2.5ghz, maybe this could have been achieved "
Click to expand...

looks like AMD will be making the jump to 250mhz FSB judging by those speeds next year. should be a ok performance boost from that.
 
Maybe I'm an optimist but maybe the .09u A64 has design improvements that give it a greater IPC over the Newcastle or Clawhammer.

Wait for the benches.
 
Originally posted by: BlvdKing
Maybe I'm an optimist but maybe the .09u A64 has design improvements that give it a greater IPC over the Newcastle or Clawhammer.

Wait for the benches.
Click to expand...

well thier is a 5% boost supoubly over the .13 clock for clock. and it looks like the .9 are going to be released soon at 250fsb also which will also give a boost
 
Originally posted by: clarkey01loads of sites have shown a 512k cache only offers a 3% boost @ most in nearly all apps, I know this, my freinds in the Biz know this, AMD KNOWS THIS!.
Click to expand...

200/3200 (200 being the quoted PR boost for an enlarged cache, 3200 being a lower-end PR rating) = 6.25%

Why is this a lie? 3% should lie well within the testing margin of any performance benchmarking suite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top