Dothan = wrong????

[DarkKnight69]

I own a bloody Dothan on a P4P800 and I have a few things to say, since He has a way of starting flame wars.

1. Dothan has proven to me that it is a very good gaming processor...

However, this has just forced my support in the direction of AMD. Dont get me wrong, I absolutly love this processor in gaming, but it proves to me that efficient chips (AMD) are better for gaming.

2. Dothan eats the SuperPI time. If you wish to compete in 1M with me my score it 27.578.

SuperPI Proves NOTHING...How many people calculate digits of Pie in real life????

3. It has proven itself in 3dMark01. I have scored over 25k, that is a very nice score of a 9800Pro. With an X800XL stock speed I almost put in a 30k.

It is in no way THE chip to have though I am saying the GAME ONLY price/performance is unmatched with anything AMD can offer for under 500$. Period!



System
Dothan 730 1.6Ghz @ 2.7Ghz (225Mhz)
Tracer PC4000 1:1 2.5-2-2-5
Hercules 9800Pro 128Mb 425/375

 

[stratman]

I got a dothan, not overclocked though.

"It is in no way THE chip to have though I am saying the GAME ONLY price/performance is unmatched with anything AMD can offer for under $500. Period!"

Well, at 2.7ghz for the price of your chip, it might have more value than any AMD chip, but a A64 3000+ chip overclocked (which is cheaper than your 1.6 dothan) I think rivals your price/performance ratio.

I run my dothan undervolted significantly, and underclocked when I don't need the extra, it is an amazing chip. Power to us dothan users

 

[Viditor]

It is in no way THE chip to have though I am saying the GAME ONLY price/performance is unmatched with anything AMD can offer for under 500$. Period!

Can't say I agree with you, though it is a good chip...
Let me give specifics:

1. Dothan 755 street price is $319
Venice 3200 street price is $197

So the Dothan is ~40% more expensive.

2. Games benchmarks listed here (AT).
(all benches at HQ)

Doom3
Dothan 85.0 FPS
Venice 90.3 FPS

AMD is ~6% faster

Halo
Dothan 85.2
Venice 87.0

AMD is 2% faster

UT 2004
Dothan 55.2
Venice 58.7

AMD is 6% faster

Wolfenstein:ET
Dothan 85.5
Venice 93.1

AMD is 8% faster

 

[fatty4ksu]

Dothan is a notebook proc, that is what makes it soo amazing.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
Dothan is a notebook proc, that is what makes it soo amazing.

Except that the Turion64 will give the same results and uses the same power as the Dothan...

Edit: I should add that the major advantage of the Pentium-M right now is that it's been in the market for a good long time, and there are plenty of laptops to choose from. The Turion64 is a relative infant, so you really have to search to find a good laptop with it.
Laptop designs are usually locked in for the year by January, so AMD really left the release too late for 2005 to be very effective.
However, for 2006, they are already showing samples of the upcoming Turion dualcore chips...I expect that we will see quite a few Turion based laptops next year.
The good part of this is that we can get some real battery usage comparisons at last!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Viditor
Except that the Turion64 will give the same results and uses the same power as the Dothan...

Not exactly true

Dothan operates around 27 watts. Most of the Turion are 35W spec'd with the exception of a few 25W rated ones. And battery life (even on the 25W) appears to be rather lacking compared to Dothan.

Performance-wise I don't see a big difference but battery life is king in notebooks.

 

[JEDIYoda]

6 postsd so far and not a flaming word in the bunch!!

So far so good!!

Its a welcome change let me tell ya!!

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Not exactly true

Dothan operates around 27 watts. Most of the Turion are 35W spec'd with the exception of a few 25W rated ones. And battery life (even on the 25W) appears to be rather lacking compared to Dothan.

Performance-wise I don't see a big difference but battery life is king in notebooks.

Not exactly true...

You're quoting TDP, not actual operational power.
The TDP is only a guideline number that AMD and Intel give to OEMs for system design...
The 2 companies use wildly different guidelines for those numbers.
AMD's TDP is based on the absolute theoretical max for both conditions and usage, while Intel specifically states in their spec sheets that they do not. They use an expected heat amount under full load under typical conditions...
For example, the Venice 3000+ has a TDP of 67w, but actually operates at only 30w under full load, while the P4 Prescott 3.2 has a TDP of 103w and actually operates at near that level under full load.

Edit: sorry, I should have put in links as well...
This is the Lost Circuits link
You should check out the article...they actually did a marvelous job in isolating the CPU power. Difficult job to do (glad it wasn't me)!

Edit #2: Oops, forgot the OTHER link...sigh...getting old.
SilentPCReview

It has the definitions of TDP from AMD and Intel (I'm too lazy right now to dig through data sheets...)
AMD Definition:
?Thermal Design Power (TDP) is measured under the conditions of TCASE Max, IDD Max, and VDD=VID_VDD, and include all power dissipated on-die from VDD, VDDIO, VLDT, VTT, and VDDA.?

Intel Definitions:
?The numbers in this column reflect Intel?s recommended design point and are not indicative of the maximum power the processor can dissipate under worst case conditions.?
?Analysis indicates that real applications are unlikely to cause the processor to consume maximum power dissipation for sustained periods of time. Intel recommends that complete thermal solution designs target the Thermal Design Power (TDP) indicated in Table 26 instead of the maximum processor power consumption. The Thermal Monitor feature is intended to help protect the processor in the unlikely event that an application exceeds the TDP recommendation for a sustained period of time.?

Cheers,
Charles

 

[Aenslead]

I agree with Viditor; AMD measures on the max TDP, whereas Intel does it on the "average", which happens to be when the processor at 0% load.

Also, Turion64 is no more than a Newcastle Athlon 64 skt 754 with power consumption enhancements. I wonder what could we do if we got one of these Turions and put them on an ASUS, MSI or ABIT...

 

[Viditor]

One thing that I forgot to mention though...Pabster, you're correct on the battery comment at the moment. But, the reason for that isn't the CPUs, it's the laptops themselves...
At these levels, the CPU is no longer (by a long shot) the biggest draw on power in the laptop. Contrary to what most people believe (including myself, until recently), the Centrino does a bit more than brand the wireless/CPU/chipset...there are actually some very nifty power saving designs in Centrino as well. I'll see if I can get a link tomorrow...
I don't think it's anything that a clever OEM couldn't do as well, but we shall have to wait and see next year when the Turion laptops start really coming out (expect them starting in Jan/Feb).

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Aenslead
Also, Turion64 is no more than a Newcastle Athlon 64 skt 754 with power consumption enhancements. I wonder what could we do if we got one of these Turions and put them on an ASUS, MSI or ABIT...

Or DFI. People have already been using "pre-Turion" mobile chips in desktop boards, why not Turion?

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: Aenslead
Also, Turion64 is no more than a Newcastle Athlon 64 skt 754 with power consumption enhancements. I wonder what could we do if we got one of these Turions and put them on an ASUS, MSI or ABIT...

Or DFI. People have already been using "pre-Turion" mobile chips in desktop boards, why not Turion?

Because the Athlon64 is such a stellar performer already, it's much less desirable (IMO) to put a Turion in an A64 board than a Dothan into a P4 board. Also the A64 consumes reasonable amounts of power; the Prescott consumes absurd amounts of power, which is another reason to find a replacement.

 

[stevty2889]

Viditor is right, part of what helps centrino notebooks with power savings is the chipset/wireless, the Turion and Penitum-M are pretty close in power usage. I have a pentium-m in a SFF system, and it makes for a great portable gaming system. I have the 730(1.6ghz 400mhz FSB) and it does 2.4ghz on stock voltage with the dinky heatsink that comes with the CT-479 adaptor. Works great for games, and was only 8 minutes behind my X2@2.475ghz encoding DivX using autoGK(using a single core on the X2 of course, with both cores they aren't even close). It's a decent chip, but over all the A64 still has the best bang for the buck. With them so close at encoding, I'm interested to see how a dual core yonah would do, but I'm sure they will be expensive.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Aenslead
I agree with Viditor; AMD measures on the max TDP, whereas Intel does it on the "average", which happens to be when the processor at 0% load.

Also, Turion64 is no more than a Newcastle Athlon 64 skt 754 with power consumption enhancements. I wonder what could we do if we got one of these Turions and put them on an ASUS, MSI or ABIT...

Actually, Turion isn't a Newcastle, it's a Rev E4 processor...(Venice)

 

[Farmer]

27.578 seconds?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Viditor
One thing that I forgot to mention though...Pabster, you're correct on the battery comment at the moment. But, the reason for that isn't the CPUs, it's the laptops themselves...
At these levels, the CPU is no longer (by a long shot) the biggest draw on power in the laptop. Contrary to what most people believe (including myself, until recently), the Centrino does a bit more than brand the wireless/CPU/chipset...there are actually some very nifty power saving designs in Centrino as well. I'll see if I can get a link tomorrow...
I don't think it's anything that a clever OEM couldn't do as well, but we shall have to wait and see next year when the Turion laptops start really coming out (expect them starting in Jan/Feb).

Yep, certainly, if you have a GeForce 6800 Go in the notebook (for example) your CPU (be it Dothan or Turion) ought be the least of your power consumption worries

I'd like to see a wide selection of Turion-based notebooks out there. But Intel really has a lock -- not just from the Centrino branding and advertising -- but the headlock on retailers and OEMs as well.

More competition = lower prices and more innovation for us consumers.

 

[DarkKnight69]

Originally posted by: Farmer
27.578 seconds?

Yes, here is a screenshot if you want one...

Pic

 

[DarkKnight69]

Could look at it from my view too:

retail 730:$199.00
athlon 3200venice:$197.00

Mine hit 2.7Ghz with a voltage up and stock cooling, never crosses 40degrees celcius.

Maybe here sometime soon Ill compare in gaming to a 3.2 @ 2.7 Ghz...(waiting for RMA on my 939 Mobo)

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Viditor
One thing that I forgot to mention though...Pabster, you're correct on the battery comment at the moment. But, the reason for that isn't the CPUs, it's the laptops themselves...
At these levels, the CPU is no longer (by a long shot) the biggest draw on power in the laptop. Contrary to what most people believe (including myself, until recently), the Centrino does a bit more than brand the wireless/CPU/chipset...there are actually some very nifty power saving designs in Centrino as well. I'll see if I can get a link tomorrow...
I don't think it's anything that a clever OEM couldn't do as well, but we shall have to wait and see next year when the Turion laptops start really coming out (expect them starting in Jan/Feb).

Yep, certainly, if you have a GeForce 6800 Go in the notebook (for example) your CPU (be it Dothan or Turion) ought be the least of your power consumption worries

I'd like to see a wide selection of Turion-based notebooks out there. But Intel really has a lock -- not just from the Centrino branding and advertising -- but the headlock on retailers and OEMs as well.

More competition = lower prices and more innovation for us consumers.

Like my laptop....It can play games at high settings...very sweet...

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Pabster


Yep, certainly, if you have a GeForce 6800 Go in the notebook (for example) your CPU (be it Dothan or Turion) ought be the least of your power consumption worries

I'd like to see a wide selection of Turion-based notebooks out there. But Intel really has a lock -- not just from the Centrino branding and advertising -- but the headlock on retailers and OEMs as well.

More competition = lower prices and more innovation for us consumers.

Agreed...however, AMD really has to share the blame for not having Turion notebooks out there. Most laptops are finished designing and locked in by Jan/Feb each year...don't know why, but it's true. AMD didn't get Turion out fast enough to make it to the OEMs for a 2005 release...

 

[Pabster]

That is true. Perhaps AMD had conceded defeat to the Pentium M a bit too early? Or maybe Turion just wasn't ready at that point.

Jan/Feb 2006 looks more promising. Let us hope

 

[Acanthus]

It is my understanding that turions are nothing more than undervolted A64s.

The "Turion" brand name pretty much stands for an undervolted processor, and some AMD thermal and power guidlines have been met by the OEM, to gain the right to use the "brandname".

Its much like centrino, with the exception of centrino having a dedicated chip for the mobile design as opposed to an undervolted desktop cpu.

 

[Banzai042]

So if the TDP ratings on the Turon vs the Dothan can't be accurately compared, then which one really uses less juice? I'll admit that for laptops the Dothan is a great core, but realisitically my 3400+ newcastle beats a 2.0 GHz dothan at stock speeds, and it's a year old. If intel could get a 64-bit Dothan out at higher clock speeds with pricing that competes with the A64 then Intel would have a very serious competetor to AMD.

 

[Lithan]

Originally posted by: Viditor

It is in no way THE chip to have though I am saying the GAME ONLY price/performance is unmatched with anything AMD can offer for under 500$. Period!

Can't say I agree with you, though it is a good chip...
Let me give specifics:

1. Dothan 755 street price is $319
Venice 3200 street price is $197

So the Dothan is ~40% more expensive.

2. Games benchmarks listed here (AT).
(all benches at HQ)

Doom3
Dothan 85.0 FPS
Venice 90.3 FPS

AMD is ~6% faster

Halo
Dothan 85.2
Venice 87.0

AMD is 2% faster

UT 2004
Dothan 55.2
Venice 58.7

AMD is 6% faster

Wolfenstein:ET
Dothan 85.5
Venice 93.1

AMD is 8% faster

Yeah it's retarded to buy a dothan to run STOCK in a desktop. Buy a 730-760 ~$200-300 retail... an run it at at 233+FSB 1:1 with bh5... then it beats Athlons pretty solidly in most games. But it is hard to get to work right. The chips have lots of consistancy issues that I've never seen in a chip before (I blame the fact that we are running them at speeds the cores were never meant to run at, with memory they were never meant to run with and on chipsets they were never meant to run on.)

Originally posted by: Aenslead
I agree with Viditor; AMD measures on the max TDP, whereas Intel does it on the "average", which happens to be when the processor at 0% load.

Please dont behave like the intel fanboys and spread misinformation like this. Amd DOES rate at 100% load (on desktop procs anyway. I haven't looks at their rating system for notebooks). Intel doesn't rate at 0% though. They rate at 75% because they judge that as the heaviest thermal load a proc's cooling solution would even have to deal with for any sustained period of time with normal use. Also note that NEITHER of these are ratings of power consumed, but rather thermal energy disipated. And seeing as Dothans have more cache and shorter pipes, it would actually seem that their TDP would be further from their actual usage (at load) than AMD's. That said, assuming AMD rates notebook procs @ 100% like desktop procs then Dothans themselves should consume MORE power at full load than Turions. But tests have shown Dothan lappies have longer battery life than AMD lappies. Most likely it is because they are testing GREAT ultramobile Intel lappies (700m) and there is no real competition for them available with AMD.

 

[linkgoron]

DarkKnight69... I'm sorry but you did not start with "It Is True!", Maybe you're lying?