Dothan pumping all-comers in the behind at THG...

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: sangyup81
I don't trust Tom's for AMD vs. Intel reviews. If another reviewer has similar results, I'll buy it.

770 @ 2.7ghz
Power Consumption
Benches - 2.7 dothan SMOKES FX55 (at games that is)

Although the cost of an Asus 865 board ($100-120) + $50 adapter + $600+ 770 processor doesn't really make this a good choice.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: stevty2889
Now if they can improve performance in the dothan's weaker areas with the next generation stuff, it can be a real contender, and they aren't execatly priced well for desktop usage either.

Whine whine whine... even after rocking in all the benchmarks it's still not good enough. Well good news for you then, it WILL only get better.

It's hardly whining, it's stating facts. Dothan is a great chip, but it's still lacking in FPU performance, so for a lot of applications it just is quite up there, and it's priced as a high end mobile chip, so it's hardly inexpensive. That said, the next generation Merom stuff has great potential, as it will do well in the areas it's already doing well in, and if done properly will catch up where it's lacking, making it a great contender. And I am hardly any kind of fanboy, if you look in my sig I have 4 computers all with P4's, but I have seen my share of A64 systems in action, and they are by far the best price/performance right now.

 

[sangyup81]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: sangyup81
I don't trust Tom's for AMD vs. Intel reviews. If another reviewer has similar results, I'll buy it.

770 @ 2.7ghz
Power Consumption
Benches - 2.7 dothan SMOKES FX55 (at games that is)

Although the cost of an Asus 865 board ($100-120) + $50 adapter + $600+ 770 processor doesn't really make this a good choice.

I talk about how I don't trust Tom's and you give me that GamePC.com crap? Both those guys have tried to claim the P4-EEs were better than the Athlon64s. That doesn't do very much for their credibilities.

 

[PetNorth]

LOL

Gamepc is one of the crappiest around the web. I simply can't choose which one is the crappy champion, if THG or gamepc...

hahaha! I forgot it. talking about power consumition and THG. Were are winchester or Venice numbers? have THG missed them suddenly? my god...

 

[jbh129]

For overclocking the 730 seems to be the sweet spot at around $250. It hits 2.4 on air easily and can clock much higher. Check out xtremesystems for more info on what this little guy is doing. It may not be well rounded but it certainly isnt expensive. I am so tired of the noobs making this comment. You dont need to be highest model in the line to OC.

 

[cbehnken]

Originally posted by: jbh129
For overclocking the 730 seems to be the sweet spot at around $250. It hits 2.4 on air easily and can clock much higher. Check out xtremesystems for more info on what this little guy is doing. It may not be well rounded but it certainly isnt expensive. I am so tired of the noobs making this comment. You dont need to be highest model in the line to OC.

noobs in this thread are you bud.

You can get a venice $150.00 that will easily hit 2.4 and probably a lot more. Makes the dothan look "relatively" expensive then doesn't it?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: stevty2889
Now if they can improve performance in the dothan's weaker areas with the next generation stuff, it can be a real contender, and they aren't execatly priced well for desktop usage either.

Exactly....

That and ppl comparing OC'd cpus to non oc'd cpu...Totally retarded!!!

Mind not using that word Duvie? Thanks.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Zebo
As a side note: More proof sythetic benchmarks are absolute trash.. Dothan gets stomped in them, really the 3dmarks, while at the same time dominating games and many other real world apps. The P4 leads nearly all synthetics but is no where near the top on anything really...

Obviously Intel has'nt told these synthetic makers on thier bankroll how to optimize yet for the Dothan.

Toms sucks BTW- waaay to few tests..none which AMD realy shine in.. no 90nm AMD chips tested which hurts it's power numbers big time since 90nm uses half the power as 130nm chips. He likes to "game" the results over to Intel. Always has, every review I can point to an example. I'll wait first for a real intel desktop release, and for a real site to review it.

Your exaggerating. And I'm not exaggerating that your exaggerating.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410&p=2

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: PetNorth
LOL

Gamepc is one of the crappiest around the web. I simply can't choose which one is the crappy champion, if THG or gamepc...

hahaha! I forgot it. talking about power consumition and THG. Were are winchester or Venice numbers? have THG missed them suddenly? my god...

Why not go straight for the Turion numbers? Which the PM still gives a throttling in power consumption. The Turion does better than any other desktop AMD processor in power consumption and does catch up to the PM (almost but not quite). So don't you worry bout the Venice or Winchesters. Go straight for Turion.

 

[PetNorth]

ouch... I'm afraid you are talking about turion gamepc numbers...

 

[slash196]

If intel is really putting all it's eggs into dual-core, then we may never see Dothan leap to desktop. Unless it scales extremely well to multiple cores. That'd be interesting to see...

 

[PetNorth]

keysplayr2003, look at this:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=59500&page=16&pp=25

Turion desktop system. 25W TDP. Passive cooling, fanless system

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: Aenslead
So it did well in an area. Great. Now lets go back to the best all-around processor...

im gonna save this quote and use it against every AMD fanboy once the inevitable happens. LOL what a great line... intel good?!? blasphemy!!!!

I think you misinterpret people's reasons for liking AMD. I know in my case I don't like AMD, I like MONEY. And AMD lets me have performance while keeping more of it in my pocket.

When Intel let me do that (PPro 150 OC to 200, Celeron 300A OC to 450) I owned intel systems, when AMD has let me do that (Duron 600 OC to 950, xp1700+ OC to 2300, etc...) I owned AMD systems.

I am a money fanboy... best overall processor for my needs at the lowest cost.

 

[Zebo]

Sigt materiaL

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: PetNorth
ouch... I'm afraid you are talking about turion gamepc numbers...

Am I?

Straight from AMD?


You will note that the MT series Turion are AMD's Ultra low power processors. AMD of course did not include the Pentium M Ultra Low power models in that chart. For good reason.

Just trying to show that you can ignore GamePC if it holds no merit for anyone. Cast it aside. It makes no difference at this point. I thought Toms did a better job this time with proper ram timings. You know, the thing that everyone complained about before.

 

[PetNorth]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: PetNorth
ouch... I'm afraid you are talking about turion gamepc numbers...

Am I?

Straight from AMD?

oh my god!! that's gamepc crappy article!! LOL

And about AMD link. Yeah... 25W and 35W TDP (integrated memory controller included) Where's the issue?

I only see crappy gamepc issue hehe

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: PetNorth

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: PetNorth
ouch... I'm afraid you are talking about turion gamepc numbers...

Am I?

Straight from AMD?

oh my god!! that's gamepc crappy article!! LOL

And about AMD link. Yeah... 25W and 35W TDP (integrated memory controller included) Where's the issue?

I only see crappy gamepc issue hehe

So what is wrong with the GamePC power consumption graph? exactly?

And what significance is the (integrated memory controller included) hehe

And where do you think a Winchester and Venice would end up on that graph?
That was my whole point really. To ease your mind about the 2 processors Toms didn't show.

Anyway, I'll just say that you win. Not in the mood to brawl over this BS. Kudos.

 

[PetNorth]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: PetNorth

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: PetNorth
ouch... I'm afraid you are talking about turion gamepc numbers...

Am I?

Straight from AMD?

oh my god!! that's gamepc crappy article!! LOL

And about AMD link. Yeah... 25W and 35W TDP (integrated memory controller included) Where's the issue?

I only see crappy gamepc issue hehe

So what is wrong with the GamePC power consumption graph? exactly? Turion MT-34, 25W TDP; Dothan 770, 27W TDP (without ondie mem controller, + 4-5W I'd say); Athlon 64 s754 3400+ 89W TDP. Don't you really feel something is crapp with this web?

And what significance is the (integrated memory controller included) hehe I said it above

And where do you think a Winchester and Venice would end up on that graph? about 45% less power than Newcastle -see Venice lostcircuits.com article-. And this with a pure desktop CPU, not a Mobile one
That was my whole point really. To ease your mind about the 2 processors Toms didn't show. In a "desktop" CPU power consumition chart, not to include AMD 0.09mm desktop is pure crap and misleading IMO

 

[Concillian]

Guys, a Turion is just a Venice core with the voltage turned down.

These Venices that OC to 2700, will do 1800 at 1.1v just like the Turions. There's nothing magic about the fact that dropping voltage signficantly reduces power consumption. Dothans are the same thing, if they were desktop chips they would run a few tenths of a volt higher and top out 5-600 MHz higher than they do right now.

Realistically the Dothan isn't that different from an A64, aside from the rather abysmal FPU, left out primarily because how many people buy laptops for running large scale FPU heavy analysis?

If Intel were to make a "desktop Dothan" they'd beef up the FPU unit, which would put it pretty much on a par with the A64 wouldn't it? Doing so would get us back to P3 vs. Athlon days when the performance and power usage difference between AMD and P3 was pretty minimal.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: sangyup81
I don't trust Tom's for AMD vs. Intel reviews. If another reviewer has similar results, I'll buy it.

770 @ 2.7ghz
Power Consumption
Benches - 2.7 dothan SMOKES FX55 (at games that is)

Although the cost of an Asus 865 board ($100-120) + $50 adapter + $600+ 770 processor doesn't really make this a good choice.

Have you INtel Dimwits realized yet...and I know some of you are rather slow ( I dont want to use the "R" word) but in the test I have seen that you have linked 2.5ghz and 2.7ghz dothans dont seem to scale well...look at the numbers from the 2 to the 2.13 to the 2.7...That doesn't look good ppl...Dont even come close to linear.... 2.13 to 2ghz was good though....Limitations obviously...


Edit:

oh yeah these fvckers!!!

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=770ct479&page=5

Run the Dothan at cas 2-2-2 and run the AMD at cas 3-3-3....hey thanks guys



Multimedia apps scale well and so do CAD apps... Too bad multcore will officially end the need for single core chips to do this on top of it 600-700 dollar chips to do it and to do it 40-50% slower now....

Also Gaming doesn't scale well but that may be a limitation of not being able to run 400ddr which is probably what the dothan needs...being starved most likely.....

idiot gaming sites when trying to show cpu architecture should run games in 640x480 to take gpu bottlenecks out of the eqaution and we can see the power of the cpu....

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

So what is wrong with the GamePC power consumption graph? exactly?

It doesn't make sense.

They compare two processors with similar TDP of around 30W and find about a 30W difference between the two.

I don't really care who 'wins' the comparison, but it doesn't take a statistics genius to figure out that the largest source of the difference in consumption is probably not the processor in that case.

 

[Insomniak]

I don't think it's any kind of news that Dothan is by far Intel's strongest processor right now. If they had used it instead of Prescott for the P4, they would be doing MUCH better against AMD right now, at least in terms of performance.

The nutshell version is that Dothan was created by one of Intel's extremely talented groups of engineers and recieved minimal attention from the know-nothing suits that only care about stock prices. Prescott on the other hand was shoved out the door by the bean counters because P4 is the big cash crop, and all the engineers saying continuing the NetBurst line is a mistake don't really matter.

Well, the proof is in the pudding - Dothan has a couple areas where it doesn't perform so hot, but it's a damn far sight better than Prescott, and that's not just in performance - it stands true in power consumption and heat dissipation as well. As far as I'm concerned, some desk jockey suits at Intelligence Electronics got their butts handed to 'em on a silver platter with all the trimmings by a batch of bottom-of-the-food-chain engineers.

And I couldn't be happier about that.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
The nutshell version is that Dothan was created by one of Intel's extremely talented groups of engineers and recieved minimal attention from the know-nothing suits that only care about stock prices.

idc @ haifa gets a ton of attention and receives pretty much all the funding they want. just like oregon.

it's not that the oregon team is "untalented", or the israeli team is "better". oregon got shafted with a crap project thx to mgmt.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: sangyup81
I don't trust Tom's for AMD vs. Intel reviews. If another reviewer has similar results, I'll buy it.

770 @ 2.7ghz
Power Consumption
Benches - 2.7 dothan SMOKES FX55 (at games that is)

Although the cost of an Asus 865 board ($100-120) + $50 adapter + $600+ 770 processor doesn't really make this a good choice.

Have you INtel Dimwits realized yet...and I know some of you are rather slow ( I dont want to use the "R" word) but in the test I have seen that you have linked 2.5ghz and 2.7ghz dothans dont seem to scale well...look at the numbers from the 2 to the 2.13 to the 2.7...That doesn't look good ppl...Dont even come close to linear.... 2.13 to 2ghz was good though....Limitations obviously...


Edit:

oh yeah these fvckers!!!

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=770ct479&page=5

Run the Dothan at cas 2-2-2 and run the AMD at cas 3-3-3....hey thanks guys



Multimedia apps scale well and so do CAD apps... Too bad multcore will officially end the need for single core chips to do this on top of it 600-700 dollar chips to do it and to do it 40-50% slower now....

Also Gaming doesn't scale well but that may be a limitation of not being able to run 400ddr which is probably what the dothan needs...being starved most likely.....

idiot gaming sites when trying to show cpu architecture should run games in 640x480 to take gpu bottlenecks out of the eqaution and we can see the power of the cpu....

that was why i posted on the THG article, cos they run the A64 (or seem to) with decent mem timings on a decent chipset...

 

[Lithan]

No Call of duty bench. Sucks.Also note that they overclocked EVERY p4 and NO AMD. God does anyone still take that moron seriously?