GamePC:Opteron 244/NForce3 article.

[Remedy]

link.

 

[jm0ris0n]

Nice

 

[ethebubbeth]

VERY nice

 

[txxxx]

mmmmmm I do wonder how much more responsive general day to day usage is with a on-die memory controller...

 

[Megatomic]

And I just got to the point where I thought I'd be happy with my computer for a while... :brokenheart: nForce3 and Opteron 146 sure sounds exciting to me right now.

 

[Lyfer]

Performance looks good, but how much is an Athlon64 1.8GHZ vs a P4 3.2C?

 

[tweeve]

ok i know what my new computer is going to be Good Bye Intel, Hello AMD

 

[grant2]

It seems to be generally hanging out with a 2.4-2.8ghz xeon... that's not too impressive, where's the motivation for companies to abandon reliable intel?

 

[dexvx]

Am I the only one unimpressed?

 

[Megatomic]

Did you guys read the pages pertaining to gaming performance?

 

[bjc112]

Looks good,

Why is the CPU benchmark in Sandra so low ?

 

[Megatomic]

Sandra likes high CPU freq. not high IPC.

 

[Pariah]

What's so appealing about "upgrading" to a slower CPU? Let's see how well AMD can ramp up clock speed before we crown the AMD64 anything that interesting because as of now, the performance doesn't merit any sort of congratulations.

"Did you guys read the pages pertaining to gaming performance?"

Yea, a 0.8fps advantage in Warcraft III, slower than Intel in Freelancer and NOLF2, and a 2.6fps advanage in Unreal 2003 run at a paltry 1024x768 resolution. So what?

 

[Megatomic]

Originally posted by: Pariah
Yea, a 0.8fps advantage in Warcraft III, slower than Intel in Freelancer and NOLF2, and a 2.6fps advanage in Unreal 2003 run at a paltry 1024x768 resolution. So what?

All done at a 1.4GHz disadvantage in actual CPU freq. Plus there some nice little observations about power consumption/noise. Did you see them?

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Megatomic

Originally posted by: Pariah
Yea, a 0.8fps advantage in Warcraft III, slower than Intel in Freelancer and NOLF2, and a 2.6fps advanage in Unreal 2003 run at a paltry 1024x768 resolution. So what?

All done at a 1.4GHz disadvantage in actual CPU freq. Plus there some nice little observations about power consumption/noise. Did you see them?

1.4Ghz "disadvantage" is irrelevant. Overall performance is the only relevant factor.

The cooling/noise is probably more due to its better copper heatsink/fan combo versus the aluminum one thats default for the Pentium 4. What you're saying is that the next generation AMD proc is about as good as the dying socket478 Pentium 4. Hardly impressive.

Sandra likes high CPU freq. not high IPC.

BS. A Pentium-M 1.6Ghz scores as high as a Pentium4 2.4B proc.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Am I the only one unimpressed?

i too am very umimpressed. why would i pay an arm and a leg for a 244 when i can get better gaming performance with a 3.0C? or why not just a 3.0 ghz xeon for a workstation???

 

[Xionide]

Originally posted by: Pariah
What's so appealing about "upgrading" to a slower CPU? Let's see how well AMD can ramp up clock speed before we crown the AMD64 anything that interesting because as of now, the performance doesn't merit any sort of congratulations.

"Did you guys read the pages pertaining to gaming performance?"

Yea, a 0.8fps advantage in Warcraft III, slower than Intel in Freelancer and NOLF2, and a 2.6fps advanage in Unreal 2003 run at a paltry 1024x768 resolution. So what?

Listen, its not about the performance right now. People are seeing these rates at a low clock speed and are thinking about the FUTURE these processor's have. If they released a processor like that at 2.5ghz it would give intel an uber b!tch slap.

-Xionide

 

[Xionide]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Megatomic

Originally posted by: Pariah
Yea, a 0.8fps advantage in Warcraft III, slower than Intel in Freelancer and NOLF2, and a 2.6fps advanage in Unreal 2003 run at a paltry 1024x768 resolution. So what?

All done at a 1.4GHz disadvantage in actual CPU freq. Plus there some nice little observations about power consumption/noise. Did you see them?

1.4Ghz "disadvantage" is irrelevant. Overall performance is the only relevant factor.

The cooling/noise is probably more due to its better copper heatsink/fan combo versus the aluminum one thats default for the Pentium 4. What you're saying is that the next generation AMD proc is about as good as the dying socket478 Pentium 4. Hardly impressive.

Sandra likes high CPU freq. not high IPC.

BS. A Pentium-M 1.6Ghz scores as high as a Pentium4 2.4B proc.

Think about what your saying here. Intel is best buds with microsoft because they optomize software for there processor. And you can bet that microsoft isnt the only company that does that, like maybe Sandra.

-Xionide

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Xionide

Originally posted by: Pariah
What's so appealing about "upgrading" to a slower CPU? Let's see how well AMD can ramp up clock speed before we crown the AMD64 anything that interesting because as of now, the performance doesn't merit any sort of congratulations.

"Did you guys read the pages pertaining to gaming performance?"

Yea, a 0.8fps advantage in Warcraft III, slower than Intel in Freelancer and NOLF2, and a 2.6fps advanage in Unreal 2003 run at a paltry 1024x768 resolution. So what?

Listen, its not about the performance right now. People are seeing these rates at a low clock speed and are thinking about the FUTURE these processor's have. If they released a processor like that at 2.5ghz it would give intel an uber b!tch slap.

-Xionide

it would be a uber b!tch slap to my wallet too. i cant imagine how much that would cost

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Xionide

Think about what your saying here. Intel is best buds with microsoft because they optomize software for there processor. And you can bet that microsoft isnt the only company that does that, like maybe Sandra.

-Xionide

If you know anything about politics, you should know that Intel is far from Microsoft's best buddy. A lot of Intel's top brass is very agitated in the price war with AMD that is cutting profits near the red-zone, making PC's as cheap as ever. And guess what PC component has a near constant and ever rising cost? Windows.

About Sandra. I was running a 1 year old version in which the Pentium-M wasnt even available. The newer Sandra builds have it closer to a 2.66 P4. So unless the folks at SiSoft can magically make optimizations for a product that is not out yet, I highly doubt its "well optimized".

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: Xionide
Listen, its not about the performance right now. People are seeing these rates at a low clock speed and are thinking about the FUTURE these processor's have. If they released a processor like that at 2.5ghz it would give intel an uber b!tch slap.
-Xionide

When? When is the most important question. When AMD gets it to 2.5GHz, whose to say where Intel will be at? A Prescott with larger L1 and L2 caches and improved microarchitecture might very well improve upon the Northwood as much as the K8 improved upon the K7, thus setting up a repeat of Northwood versus TBred/Barton.

A 1.8GHz Athlon 64 released in 2002 would have been dominant, but released in 2003, its now just "competitive".

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: Megatomic
Sandra likes high CPU freq. not high IPC.

Thanks.

 

[Tab]

Not impressive? When a 1.8 scores around a 3.0C I am impressed.

 

[Corporate Thug]

who cares??? the 1.8 costs more than the 3.0C.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Not impressive? When a 1.8 scores around a 3.0C I am impressed.

Yes, it is impressive... But unless AMD can ramp that clock speed up over time to at least 3.0ghz... They are going to have issues when Intel is @ 4.0ghz + with 1 mb cache...