HAHAHA Had to laugh Intel sad :( Need cookie.

[cbehnken]

Benches up!

Intel looses almost everything.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397&p=1

 

[Lithan]

huh? What are you talking about?

edit: my bad didn't see subtext. Reading now.

 

[TStep]

The dual core desktop prices are a little hard to swallow though. Will be interesting to see what the market will bare. This hobby is really starting to get expensive.

 

[cbehnken]

yeah they are expensive, at least for now.

 

[Lithan]

Meh, Intel's dual core chips are cheap but get their asses kicked in everything single threaded and most multithreaded.
Amd's are a ripoff and get beat by A64's in the single threaded stuff (except encoding), and the EE's in about half the multithreaded stuff.
And the benchmarks they use for multitasking are STILL assinine, vividly pointing out how useless Multiproc/multicore is for desktop systems. Lord knows I always am sure I start compressing a video file before I start playing some Doom 3. That's just common sense.
The one good thing that will come of this? All the Hyperthreading pushers will finally shut up about how much they NEED to play video's, mp3's, surf the web, burn cd's, and compress avi files in the background while they game because now AMD beats Intel at it. And we will return to the days where anyone who complains about not being able to burn cd's while they play video games get's ridiculed and (hopefully) sterilized.

 

[sunilv]

hopefully the prices of AMD 64 X2 go down but no matter what the price is AMD 64 X2 4400+ seems really good. It beat Pentium D in almost everything (except in 3D rendering + multitasking).

It is funny that Intel is playing the "bang for the buck" game, not AMD.
The plates just turned.

But from performance stand point AMD is really good.

 

[Leper Messiah]

You have to think it from AMD's POV. For so many years, they were losing money on this whole processor thing. Now they need to make it back. Its not that prohibitive on the desktop end, but the server end is yowzers! when a 3000+ venice is retailing for $179.00, what do you expect? A 1.8ghz part would still be in the $350 to $400 area.

 

[MobiusPizza]

Note that the AMD64 X2 preview was conducted with an Opteron processor. The performance of a real AMD 64 X2 would be higher due to the use of non-ECC memory and tighter timings.

 

[Lithan]

The huge gains with the dual core in encoding, is that due to sse3 (other then HT) support or multithread support do you suppose?

 

[Duvie]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397&p=17

exactly this is what I was predicting and what I was waiting for.....

i am sorry but whoever is doing amd reviews lack any forethought.....4400+ os 2.2ghz right???? DUHHHH Use a fvcking 3500+ CHIP THEN DAMMIT....We can get a sense of scaling and if the apps are even the slightest bit optimised for mutithreaded....


http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397&p=22

What is going on on this page....I think somebody doesn't have something right...It defies llogic here in that first suite of test....goofy as hell...

Intel looses almost everything.

I dont think so!!! It is better then it has been in the single core environment and it dominants more so on the non HT (non uber expensive model) but it is not that bad for INtel....We will see as each ramps them up. IN thoery we think Intel will have to top out around 3.8ghz casue they have with the prescott single cores....I think AMD has mopre longevity, but INtel may just switch to 65nm faster....

 

[Appledrop]

wow. i am now sold on dual core... Imagine the performance in multi threaded games with a64 X2 and AMR r520s. time to start earning some £££ me thinks!

 

[Duvie]

I think the price is not good......IAMD is near 200% the initial core and sorry it doesn't translate at current to that in many of the apps....I am disappointed!!!

Something else is fvcked up...Wy would it be such a small premium for 1mb more of l2 cache (512 per cpu)...look at the ratio per 2nd core...It is better to get the more cache one....

I hope prices are wrong and will be adjusted cause I think Intel is going to win this round....One can take loses like the 840 did because the price is 60% the cost of the athlon one....Maybe they need to show us a 4000+ or 4200+ model which may be closer in performance to the 840 and hopefully price...

OPteron pricing ?$%^&%*$

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397&p=3

Yep they priced themseles right out of ther market...look at the premiums for the 2nd core there....ouch!!! I amy have made a mistake waiting for this!!!

 

[cbehnken]

Of course the prices are going to come down. It's all supply and demand. If no one buys these things then the price will drop.

I didn't expect to be able to buy one of these in the first two months. After that I'm sure the prices will be much more competitive.

 

[Duvie]

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/opteron-x75/index.x?pg=1

I will be scraping my plans for the dual core dual opteron setup...I will not pay that premium for waht is obviously shown as very little use for 4 threaded apps (workstation type).....It should have been 1.6x the single cor ecost...AMD is a bunch of idiots....Pay 3x more for a handful of apps....Yeah right!!

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Of course the prices are going to come down. It's all supply and demand. If no one buys these things then the price will drop.

I didn't expect to be able to buy one of these in the first two months. After that I'm sure the prices will be much more competitive.

They have a long ways to go down in my opinion.....IN the past prices for FX lines at launch and where they setle is not that big...The only big jump is when amd is pricing for the next FX chip to come into line...

 

[Acanthus]

Once again they use the timedemo for doom 3 that doesnt take advantage of multithreading, yey AT!

 

[cbehnken]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Once again they use the timedemo for doom 3 that doesnt take advantage of multithreading, yey AT!

I think that was the point. They want to show apps that doen't take advantage of multithreading to provide real world speed estimates.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: cbehnken

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Once again they use the timedemo for doom 3 that doesnt take advantage of multithreading, yey AT!

I think that was the point. They want to show apps that doen't take advantage of multithreading to provide real world speed estimates.

But if they didnt use a timedemo, it wouldve shown real world performance in doom 3, not benchmark performance with SMP disabled and half the engine not running.

 

[jbh129]

price/performance = Intel wins

Not looking good for AMD on the desktop side.

 

[deveraux]

I agree that AMD's prices are now not competitive. However, if you look at the overall cost for building a system, the overall cost of other "Intel" components such as new mobo and DDR2 will make the difference slightly less. Also, AMD are now the performance king, especially with their X2 procs. In all honesty, they are finally in the position to charge more for their processors which AMD will need in order to stay competitive.

I'm not saying I like this, in fact, I hate it since I have been looking forward for DC procs for a long time. But try to understand AMD's position as well. Also, I rather enjoy the fact that AMD whipped Intel even in the video encoding arena and finally can claim overall winner with Intel losing their last strong hold.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[PetNorth]

I've made some numbers with Anand preview. Comparying real apps, games and multitasking tests (I've omitted winstones, sysmarks and worldbenchs. I don't confide in them).

I've compared same range price: A64 X2 4400+ 2,2GHz Vs. P4 D 3.2GHz ($500-600).

OK, here it is:

-AutoGK/DivX: A64 X2, 4.37% faster than Pentium D.
-AutoGK/XviD: 9.78% faster.
-WM Encoder: 10.92% faster.

-Doom 3: 13.31% faster.
-Splinter Cell: 2.66% faster.
-Half Life 2: 25.34% faster.
-Halo: 29.08% faster.
-Unreal Tournament 2004: 17.27% faster.
-Wolfenstein: 14.14% faster.

-3DSMax 6/SPEC - rendering composite: 16.29% faster.
-3DSMax 6 - rendering 3dsmasx5.rays scene: 15.31% faster.
-3DSMax 6 - rendering cballs2 scene: 13.59% faster.
-3DSMax 6 - rendering singlepipe2 scene: 15.34% faster.
-3DSMax 6 - rendering underwater scene: 10.43% faster.

-Compiling Firefox: 28.18% faster.

-DVD Shrink + Multitasking scenario: 15.20% faster.
-File compression + Multitasking enviroment: 18.72% slower.
-Outlook PST import + Multitasking enviroment: 8.48% slower.
-Web browsing + Multitasking enviroment: 17.38% faster.
-3D Rendering + Multitasking enviroment: 46.02% faster.
-Compiling + Multitasking enviroment: 25.27% faster.
-DVD Skrink + Multitasking enviroment: 15.57% faster.
-Doom 3 + Multitasking enviroment: 36.19% faster.
-Spinter Cell + Multitasking enviroment: 16.21% faster.


So:

A64 X2: 22 wins.
P4 D: 2 wins.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: cbehnken

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Once again they use the timedemo for doom 3 that doesnt take advantage of multithreading, yey AT!

I think that was the point. They want to show apps that doen't take advantage of multithreading to provide real world speed estimates.

Multithreading is real. Now if you were comparing PCMark2004 results then I would agree. But multithreading is real, and it is the future of computing... it SHOULD be tested when a new processor's main feature is centered around multithreading.

If they want to show dual core vs. single core in a single threaded app, they should have used two 2.2 GHz processors, not a 2.2 and a 2.6.

 

[MobiusPizza]

It's hard for AMD to offer competitive prices to Intel given that
i) The performance per core of the processors are higher than Intel
ii) The manufacutring capacity of AMD is MUCH lower than Intel. The current manufacturing lines are already saturated. They have to make room for the dual core products which have 50% less yields per wafer.
iii) AMD's still using 200mm wafers instead of 300mm ones which makes them less profitable than Intel
iv) The architectual design of the dual core products of AMD is more sophiscated than the Intel ones.

The situation is forgivable. Don't call them idiots.
Price would definitely fall when the Fab 30 wafer fabrication facility in Dresden, Germany operates in 2006

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: PetNorth
I've made some numbers with Anand preview. Comparying real apps, games and multitasking tests (I've omitted winstones, sysmarks and worldbenchs. I don't confide in them).

I've compared same range price: A64 X2 4400+ 2,2GHz Vs. P4 D 3.2GHz ($500-600).

OK, here it is:

-AutoGK/DivX: A64 X2, 4.37% faster than Pentium D.
-AutoGK/XviD: 9.78% faster.
-WM Encoder: 10.92% faster.

-Doom 3: 13.31% faster.
-Splinter Cell: 2.66% faster.
-Half Life 2: 25.34% faster.
-Halo: 29.08% faster.
-Unreal Tournament 2004: 17.27% faster.
-Wolfenstein: 14.14% faster.

-3DSMax 6/SPEC - rendering composite: 16.29% faster.
-3DSMax 6 - rendering 3dsmasx5.rays scene: 15.31% faster.
-3DSMax 6 - rendering cballs2 scene: 13.59% faster.
-3DSMax 6 - rendering singlepipe2 scene: 15.34% faster.
-3DSMax 6 - rendering underwater scene: 10.43% faster.

-Compiling Firefox: 28.18% faster.

-DVD Shrink + Multitasking scenario: 15.20% faster.
-File compression + Multitasking enviroment: 18.72% slower.
-Outlook PST import + Multitasking enviroment: 8.48% slower.
-Web browsing + Multitasking enviroment: 17.38% faster.
-3D Rendering + Multitasking enviroment: 46.02% faster.
-Compiling + Multitasking enviroment: 25.27% faster.
-DVD Skrink + Multitasking enviroment: 15.57% faster.
-Doom 3 + Multitasking enviroment: 36.19% faster.
-Spinter Cell + Multitasking enviroment: 16.21% faster.


So:

A64 X2: 21 wins.
P4 D: 2 wins.

great work now take that and compare it versus the 3800+ or FX55 and then tell us why we should pay a 180-200% premium.....How many of those apps id the FX55 beat the dual core by??? AMD already had leads...Th fact is they are doubling the price of current single core chips for nowhere near 2x performance. It also cost nowhere near double to make a dual core chip...So I say screw them and their prices at this point...

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: AnnihilatorX
It's hard for AMD to offer competitive prices to Intel given that
i) The performance per core of the processors are higher than Intel
ii) The manufacutring capacity of AMD is MUCH lower than Intel. The current manufacturing lines are already saturated. They have to make room for the dual core products which have 50% less yields per wafer.
iii) AMD's still using 200mm wafers instead of 300mm ones which makes them less profitable than Intel
iv) The architectual design of the dual core products of AMD is more sophiscated than the Intel ones.

The situation is forgivable. Don't call them idiots.
Price would definitely fall when the Fab 30 wafer fabrication facility in Dresden, Germany operates in 2006

I am not even looking at that I am looking at the price of the 2nd core on ATs page...I know they nbeat Intels 840 so I wouldn't mind paying up top 400 for it, but not closer to 600.....They dont win by enough to justify that....

As for ii and iii...I dont care, that is their problem...