This is an idea I'm just throwing out for your amusement and discussion.
I've had a few looks at Sempron64s lately. It's amazing how well they do for their price.
How well they do against the cheaper A64s.
Se64, Cheap 754 MB, 1GB, large hd, DVD-RW, 6600GT or X800GT, it all comes together at around $600. And that's a pretty good and capable system.
Is the maybe 20% - 25% better performance of a more 'edge' single core s939 A64 system at maybe twice the cost really significant enough?
It's an old question and you don't have to answer it. I don't want you to answer it. We have all come up with some answers to that, again and again. No, it's rethorical, and intended as background for this:
Singlecore clockrate is one kind of performance advantage. Dual core is another.
Let me put it like this - I think you're likely to be much happier with the dual core kind of performance advantage, in the long run.
So, doesn't that make the A64 look squeezed out of relevance, between the Se64 and X2?
Single core improves AMD's production volume, of course. And A64 single cores span the price range of interest for a large market group.
But are AMD moving towards dual core aggressive and fast enough?
The Manchester core is cost reduced, only 147 mm^2 compared to Toledo's 199 mm^2.
But is that going far enough?
A dual core reduced to 2 x 256KB L2 could maybe be ~121 mm^2, using a simple geometric estimate, and a 2 x 128KB L2 ~108 mm^2. And why be so particular about clockrate? Bring out 1.8GHz and 1.6GHz if it increases yields.
...And raise the price on X2 3800+. Because I suspect it's artificially low. For market positioning reasons. Not a good thing if you have to do that to your big seller.
I've had a few looks at Sempron64s lately. It's amazing how well they do for their price.
How well they do against the cheaper A64s.
Se64, Cheap 754 MB, 1GB, large hd, DVD-RW, 6600GT or X800GT, it all comes together at around $600. And that's a pretty good and capable system.
Is the maybe 20% - 25% better performance of a more 'edge' single core s939 A64 system at maybe twice the cost really significant enough?
It's an old question and you don't have to answer it. I don't want you to answer it. We have all come up with some answers to that, again and again. No, it's rethorical, and intended as background for this:
Singlecore clockrate is one kind of performance advantage. Dual core is another.
Let me put it like this - I think you're likely to be much happier with the dual core kind of performance advantage, in the long run.
So, doesn't that make the A64 look squeezed out of relevance, between the Se64 and X2?
Single core improves AMD's production volume, of course. And A64 single cores span the price range of interest for a large market group.
But are AMD moving towards dual core aggressive and fast enough?
The Manchester core is cost reduced, only 147 mm^2 compared to Toledo's 199 mm^2.
But is that going far enough?
A dual core reduced to 2 x 256KB L2 could maybe be ~121 mm^2, using a simple geometric estimate, and a 2 x 128KB L2 ~108 mm^2. And why be so particular about clockrate? Bring out 1.8GHz and 1.6GHz if it increases yields.
...And raise the price on X2 3800+. Because I suspect it's artificially low. For market positioning reasons. Not a good thing if you have to do that to your big seller.