AMD: 400 Mhz in one year?

[RedShirt]

Last year, around this time, I put together my system with a Thunderbird 1.33 GHz and the 1.4's were out. I think it was a little later in the summer, maybe August, but its mightly close to a year ago.

I understand that AMD has made improvements to its core and has added SSE and whatnot, but I believe that the XP's and the Thunderbirds are pretty much the same minus the SSE inclusion.

I know I might be stating the obvious, but with those PR ratings, its sometimes easy to miss this fact. I found myself wanted to upgrade my 1.33 to an Athlon XP 1800+ for 83 bucks, but then noted that it's only 200 mhz faster than what I got.

Now it would be faster in SSE applications, but still... I could not justify spending that just for SSE...

Sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but I didn't realize this until just a couple days ago, about how AMD processors of last year are almost as fast as the ones out now.

Edit: I am wrong about there only being SSE added, Insane3D pointed out a couple other enhancements... But I still stand behind the general idea of my statement

 

[TimeKeeper]

Beat you to that, I realized the "speed issue" on AMD 2 weeks ago. ;p
Now I am a happy P4-1.6a owner.

 

[AShadeOfClear]

Last year, around this time, I put together my system with a Thunderbird 1.33 GHz and the 1.4's were out. I think it was a little later in the summer, maybe August, but its mightly close to a year ago.

Same here, running a 1.33 that i got last summer. Felt like looking into whats available, but doesn't seem to be much imrpovement. I'll wait till next summer.

 

[Insane3D]

understand that AMD has made improvements to its core and has added SSE and whatnot, but I believe that the XP's and the Thunderbirds are pretty much the same minus the SSE inclusion.

Wrong. There was 4 major improvements over the Thunderbird core that makes the XP faster clock for clock and a better choice over a similar speed Tbird. They are..

1) Full support for Intel's SSE instructions
2) An improved hardware data prefetch mechanism
3) Enhancements to the Athlon's Translation Look-aside Buffers
4) Lower power consumption & on-die thermal diode

Now, you mentioned the SSE already. but you seem to forget the other important features that were added. The one that has the biggest improvement in actual performance boost is the data prefetch. This really makes the XP better utilize the bandwith the DDR allows over the older Tbird core. The enhanced TLB's also contribute to more efficient bandwith use.

Also, you forget the other things like the XP's running cooler, mostly due to having a ~10% larger die size which increases the contact area between the CPU and the HSF. The new core also supports features like Power Now!, for use in mobile applications, and now has an internal thermal diode to accurately read the core temperature. They also switched from the dated cermamic packaging to the much more common organic packaging.

I understand what you are trying to get at, but you are over-simplifying a bit by saying there is no real benefit of an XP over a Tbird other than SSE.


Edit: You might to take a look at these articles to get a better understanding of the core differences.

AMD's Athlon XP: Great performance, poor marketing

AMD 760MP & Athlon MP - Dual Processor Heaven

The second improvement the Athlon MP offers over the Athlon is its improved data prefetch mechanism. This feature allows the Athlon MP to automatically take advantage of otherwise unused FSB bandwidth for prefetching data that the processor thinks it may be requested to gather, before it is actually instructed to do so. This increases the Athlon MP?s dependency on a high-speed FSB and memory bus as well, and it also accounts for the majority of the Athlon MP's performance advantage over the Athlon. As we?ve noticed in the Pentium 4's performance characteristics, data prefetch can help in applications that require a great deal of bandwidth and have easily predictable memory accesses, such as video editing or more specific to this article, 3D rendering and database serving. Data prefetch is actually quite useful in the case of the Athlon MP since its chipset platform offers a considerable amount of FSB bandwidth, which is more easily consumed with data prefetch enabled, but more on that later.

The third improvement offered by the Athlon MP is a set of three enhancements to the processor's Translation Look-aside Buffers (TLBs). As taken from AMD?s tech docs on the Palomino core, the three TLB enhancements are:

1. The L1 Data TLB increases from 32 to 40 entries
2. Both the L2 Instruction TLB and L2 Data TLB use an exclusive architecture
3. TLB entries can be speculatively reloaded

As you will remember from our initial story on the Athlon 4 processor, the task of the TLB is to cache translated memory addresses. This translation process is necessary for the CPU to gain access to the data stored in main memory, and by caching the translated addresses, it becomes much quicker to find data in main memory.

The first improvement comes by increasing the number of entries in the L1 Data TLB. This increase allows for a greater hit rate (probability of finding what the CPU needs in the TLB) in the L1 Data TLB. You will also remember that the Pentium III has a L1 Data TLB with significantly more entries than even the new 40 entry TLB on the Athlon MP.

The next Athlon MP TLB enhancement comes by moving the L2 TLBs to an exclusive architecture. This means that data contained within the L1 TLBs is not duplicated in the L2 TLBs, which obviously saves space in the L2 TLBs meaning that they can be used to store even more translated addresses. The downside to this exclusive architecture is that there is a latency sacrifice that is made since the addresses aren't duplicated in the L2 TLBs.

The final improvement is that the TLB entries can be speculatively reloaded. This means that in the event that an address is not found in the TLB, the address can be loaded into the TLB before the instruction that requested the address is finished executing. On older Athlon cores, this was not possible, resulting in a bit of a performance hit in this situation.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

understand that AMD has made improvements to its core and has added SSE and whatnot, but I believe that the XP's and the Thunderbirds are pretty much the same minus the SSE inclusion.

Wrong. There was 4 major improvements over the Thunderbird core that makes the XP faster clock for clock and a better choice over a similar speed Tbird. They are..

1) Full support for Intel's SSE instructions
2) An improved hardware data prefetch mechanism
3) Enhancements to the Athlon's Translation Look-aside Buffers
4) Lower power consumption & on-die thermal diode

Now, you mentioned the SSE already. but you seem to forget the other important features that were added. The one that has the biggest improvement in actual performance boost is the data prefetch. This really makes the XP better utilize the bandwith the DDR allows over the older Tbird core. The enhanced TLB's also contribute to more efficient bandwith use.

Also, you forget the other things like the XP's running cooler, mostly due to having a ~10% larger die size which increases the contact area between the CPU and the HSF. The new core also supports features like Power Now!, for use in mobile applications, and now has an internal thermal diode to accurately read the core temperature. they also switched from the dated cermamic packaging to the much more common organic packaging.

I understand what you are trying to get at, but you are over-simplifying a bit by saying there is no real benefit of an XP over a Tbird other than SSE.

You summed it up pretty damn well Insane!..

I agree the XP may not have moved that much, but still a nice step over the T-bird...Bartons should be floating along soon which will help..

 

[Gstanfor]

There is a fair bit more to the palomino & thoroughbred cores than just SSE support.

The most important extras over the thunderbird core is the data prefetch capability along with improved TLB buffers. These allow a performance increase far greater than raw megahertz numbers would suggest.

Greg

 

[RedShirt]

Ok, I stand corrected... I was wrong in my statement...

But still...

 

[RedShirt]

I mean looking at the benchmarks starting Link the Thunderbird 1.4 GHz is pretty darn close to a Athlon XP 1.4 GHz in most benchmarks.

Edit: Or shall I say most benchmarks based on things I use my PC for... In some of the benchmarks, the XP does do a lot better...

 

[CrazySaint]

Originally posted by: RedShirt
I mean looking at the benchmarks starting Link the Thunderbird 1.4 GHz is pretty darn close to a Athlon XP 1.4 GHz in most benchmarks.

Edit: Or shall I say most benchmarks based on things I use my PC for... In some of the benchmarks, the XP does do a lot better...

Um, consider the source (THG) I mean, there's obviously something wrong with their benchmarks when an XP 1800+ gets beaten by an XP 1500+! Anyway, from the benchmarks I've seen, the XP is about 10% faster clock for clock than the TBird in *most* benchmarks. There are a few cases where the two are *extremely* close, but by and large the XP is about 10% faster than the TBird.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: RedShirt
I mean looking at the benchmarks starting Link the Thunderbird 1.4 GHz is pretty darn close to a Athlon XP 1.4 GHz in most benchmarks.

Sure, but there are other benchmarks that show a big difference. For instance, take a very bandwith dependant DC project like Seti@Home. A 1.4ghz Tbird takes ~5hrs to complete a work unit, while a 1.2ghz MP takes less than 4 hours. Now, these are very general performance comparisons, and the performance could fluctuate a bit depending on several factors, but you get the idea. In general use, there is not a big difference between the two, but in cases where bandwith is at a premium, the new core does much, much better. This is strictly talking about performance.


You really also must consider the other factors like better cooling properties, reduced power consumption, and the addition of a thermal diode and thermal protection (with motherboard support). The Athlon is not anything like the P4, and was not designed to reach super high speeds. The shorter pipeline and design of the XP make it much more efficient from a IPC point of view, allowing the 1.4ghz XP to generally hang with a 2.0ghz P4 that has a 600mhz advantage. These same reasons also limit the speeds the XP core can reach.

 

[Gstanfor]

Actually, I am wondering if reducing the TLB's back to around thunderbird levels is how AMD plans to get more performance out of Barton (the 512K L2 cache would almost totally compensate for what you lose with the TLB's).

It's interesting that the P3 hit a 1gig brick wall and it had many more TLB's than Palomino does. When the P3 came back as the improved Tualatin, the most noticeable change besides a die shrink was the different cache methodology employed.

In other words, my gut feeling is that the current Athlon's cache sub-system is what is holding it back at present, not the core engine of the cpu.

Greg

 

[RedShirt]

Well then... Perhaps I should scrape up 83 bucks for a 1800... maybe... The XP's do a lot better in some things, but then, when the memory bandwith is a factor, they don't... Ack! I think I'll still stick with my 1.33 for a while longer. I'm just used to upgrading every year, and this year, I guess I won't

My system is still pretty nice for being 1 year old, system started out as:
Athlon 1.33
512MB Crucial DDR
60 GB IBM 60GXP Hard drive
Gainward GF3 (reg Geforce 3)
Samsung 900NF
GTXP sound
etc etc....

The only thing that has changed in one year is I sold my GF3 cause I paid way too much for it at the time (sold it for a lot of money) and I later got a Radeon 8500 64MB card. And that is IT! That is still a decent system by todays standards, and its a year old, and excluding the videocard, it didn't cost all that much money to make a year ago.

Now I have some summer money, and no need to upgrade I guess I did get that second 900NF monitor using this deal.

I guess I've never been in the situation, that after a year of having a computer, not feeling the need to upgrade it. It is a very strange feeling and I hope I don't have it next year.

 

[Insane3D]

Well then... Perhaps I should scrape up 83 bucks for a 1800...

Nah, snag a 1600+ OEM from Newegg for $70 shipped. The latest AGOIA stepping is o/cing to the 1.8-1.9ghz range.. I just snagged one to switch out a 1.4ghz Tbird @ 175mhz FSB. I'm hoping the 1600+ will just crank right up to 170-175mhz FSB for a ~1.8ghz speed.

Just curious, what chipset are you running? If it's an early DDR chipset like the AMD761 or a early Via KT266, I would spend the money on a good KT266A/KT333 board first.

 

[bozo1]

RedShirt - in my opinion, if you have $83 sitting around and want to play, go for it. However, I once went from a 1.33 T-Bird to an 1800+ on the same system and the difference was not even noticeable. I do heavy Photoshop & Premier stuff and even for those, the difference was minimal. Moving to a dual 1800+ box most definitely made a big difference in those two apps but the 1.33 to 1800+ didn't do much. Personally, I'd look at what you do and put that money where it would benefit the most for you and wait until AMD overcomes their current MHz bog.

 

[aka1nas]

Thats not a bad system at all. I recently upgraded from a 1.33 Tbird to an 1800+ myself, and while it is a noticeable performance jump in critical stuff, it not huge. If you really want to get the most life out of the system, i'd hold on for another 6 monthish and wait for Barton, whihc may be the last socket A chip. Thouroughbred may also be worth looking into once its really available(I havent seen one for sale yet, and I think the reason is that AMD is still ironing out the bugs in their .13 micron process, thus explaining the really horrible benchies on the samples that have been seen so far). Hopefully, once they fix that, the T-breds will start showing sime performance benefits.

 

[RedShirt]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Well then... Perhaps I should scrape up 83 bucks for a 1800...

Nah, snag a 1600+ OEM from Newegg for $70 shipped. The latest AGOIA stepping is o/cing to the 1.8-1.9ghz range.. I just snagged one to switch out a 1.4ghz Tbird @ 175mhz FSB. I'm hoping the 1600+ will just crank right up to 170-175mhz FSB for a ~1.8ghz speed.

Just curious, what chipset are you running? If it's an early DDR chipset like the AMD761 or a early Via KT266, I would spend the money on a good KT266A/KT333 board first.

I'm running an AMD 761... which is still OK... Do those 1600+ processors come factory unlocked? I'm guessing not, as my Crucial RAM will not go much above 133 MHz bus.

I still like this board, it is better than the SIS 735 chipset in preformance, and that is much newer, and many people were upgrading their systems with that 6 months ago.

As far as the KT333 goes, sure, that has better preformance, but it's VIA....

 

[RedShirt]

Originally posted by: aka1nas
Thats not a bad system at all. I recently upgraded from a 1.33 Tbird to an 1800+ myself, and while it is a noticeable performance jump in critical stuff, it not huge. If you really want to get the most life out of the system, i'd hold on for another 6 monthish and wait for Barton, whihc may be the last socket A chip. Thouroughbred may also be worth looking into once its really available(I havent seen one for sale yet, and I think the reason is that AMD is still ironing out the bugs in their .13 micron process, thus explaining the really horrible benchies on the samples that have been seen so far). Hopefully, once they fix that, the T-breds will start showing sime performance benefits.

Maybe I'll just wait for Hammer to be released, then buy the fastest XP out... no new mobo and good preformance, and probably way way cheap

 

[Insane3D]

I'm running an AMD 761... which is still OK...

Yeah, the 761 boards are ok, but they are probably one of the slowest Athlon DDR chipsets. Also, AMD stopped making the 761 for motherboard manufacturers, except for dual configurations of course. You are missing some things on that board to..mainly a dedicated, high speed interconnect between the southbridge and northbridge. All traffic between them uses the PCI bus which is not only bandwith limited, but is also sharing with all your other PCI devices.

As far as the KT333 goes, sure, that has better preformance, but it's VIA....

Well. so is your board. Take a gander down at the lower part of the board, specifically the southbridge chip...surprise! All AMD 761 based single CPU boards are "hybrids", they use a AMD northbridge and a Via southbridge...and the much maligned 686B at that. If you are one of those people that thinks Via is crap and unstable, then you are going to be pretty limited in your XP mobo choices for quite awhile since the AMD chipset is not produced anymore. You might want to look to the P4 for a future upgrade if that is the case.


Anyway, I agree with bozo1, save your money for something else if your current system is meeting your needs.

 

[Soulkeeper]

to many people bad mouth VIA around here
they have good products and put up some good competition
i have never had trouble with VIA boards

 

[RedShirt]

Insane3D,

Hehe, I know I have a VIA southbridge, it's the reason I got a GTXP instead of a SB Live at the time, but at least I don't have the VIA northbridge. Getting a new mobo would increase preformance, I certainly agree there, and I do not hate VIA or think that they are totally unstable, I did have an Abit KT7 (normal, 100fsb) before I had this AMD 761 based MSI K7master and it worked well. Its just when there is an opertunity to go non-VIA and get better preformance, I will choose that way, and back then it was AMD 761 or KT266 (the non "a" version).

Its just that when I do some gaming, I tend to run at higher resolutions, which is mostly Video Card limited, and preformance on this motherboard would be almost identical to preformance on another mobo.

Now maybe encoding a Divx movie, or working in Photoshop, a better motherboard would help, but I don't do that stuff very often and my current rig still works great. I'm just shocked that I don't feel the need to upgrade, this has never happened as I have always upgraded at LEAST once a year. I've been looking for a reason to upgrade and can't find one...

Edit: And I don't even feel "bragging rights" is a good enough reason anymore as in the past, this was sometimes the reason why I upgraded Back in the day I got the PII 400 when it was BRAND NEW, that processor was SO expensive when it came out, when we had lan parties and everyone was on their K6-2 300's or below I would brag about my 400 mhz BEAST! lol

Edit2: And if I was going to get a motherboard today, it would be KT333 based. VIA is fine, their only problem is they have to follow Intel's standards, everyone else licences from Intel, VIA likes to reverse engineer, which is great if they get it right, and sometimes they don't (KT266 for example, the non-a version).

 

[Johnnie]

i am running the 8K3A+ with a 1900+...very smooth runnin' rig

 

[aka1nas]

The only other thing I might check is that article Anand just did with all the GPUs and the CPU scaling. A 1.33Ghz T-bird may be limiting the performance of your Radeon 8500, though you would have to take a look at the graph to see if its significant enough to worry about(I don't remember if it was offhand, and I am too lazy to check).

 

[RedShirt]

Originally posted by: aka1nas
The only other thing I might check is that article Anand just did with all the GPUs and the CPU scaling. A 1.33Ghz T-bird may be limiting the performance of your Radeon 8500, though you would have to take a look at the graph to see if its significant enough to worry about(I don't remember if it was offhand, and I am too lazy to check).

I'm too lazy too. It runs everything I want to play, good enough for me. Those graphs and charts mean nothing to me until I start to get unplayable framerates

However... This could be reason enough to upgrade, because it would be a crime not to get max preformance out of my vid card. But I'm still gonna pass.

 

[Zugzwang152]

KT133 all da way!

 

[RedShirt]

aka1nas,

I checked out the article just for kicks, and this is what was said about the Radeon 8500:

"After 1.2GHz the 8500?s CPU scaling curve pretty much flattens out, and it?s after that point that buying a faster CPU will not result in a tangible increase in GPU performance."

Not even a reason to upgrade there.