HAHAHA Had to laugh Intel sad :( Need cookie.

[PetNorth]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: PetNorth

Originally posted by: 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...

hmmm, pay a 180-200% premium?

A64 X2 4400+: $581
A64 X2 4200+: $537
FX-55: $837 (Monarch)
3800+: $389 (Monarch)


And now view it from this POV:

Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2,2GHz/2x512Kb L2: $537
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2,2GHz/2x1MB L2: $581
2x Opteron 248 2,2GHz/2x1MB L2: $950 (Monarch)

Athlon 64 X2 4600+ 2,4GHz/2x512Kb L2: $803
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2,4GHz/1MB L2: $1,001
2x Opteron 250 2,4GHz/2x1MB L2: $1,384 (Monarch)

Or what do you want? that AMD regale you an outstanding performer?

Sure, AMD at this moment hasn't announced a "value" desktop dual core ($250-300). Thats the fail. Anyway, perhaps, in June will. But these DC models perfomance/ratio price is really very good. Don't be wrong.

What part dont you get??? I said from the AT review...Go to like the 4th page where they break don the premium for the 2nd core...Do the math and you will see the 180-200% premium I am talking about...I did not say over the 3800+ or FX55

You said:

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???

Anyway, I take AT review 4th page, and I make some numbers about AMD/Intel one to two core price increase:

AMD part

A64 2.4/1mb SC: $643
A64 2.4/2x1mb DC: $1001
Price increase: 55.67%

A64 2.4/512mb SC: $424
A64 2.4/2x512mb DC: $803
Price increase: 89.39%

A64 2.2/1mb SC: $329
A64 2.2/2x1mb DC: $581
Price increase: 76.60%

A64 2.2/512mb SC: $272
A64 2.2/2x512mb DC: $537
Price increase: 97.43%

Overall increase: 79.77%


Intel part

P4 SC 3.2 : $218
P4 D 3.2: $530
Price increase: 143.00%

P4 SC 3.0 : $178
P4 D 3.0: $316
Price increase: 77.53%

P4 SC 2.8: $163
P4 D 2.8: $241
Price increase: 47.85%

Overall increase: 89.46%


hey! isn't P4 EE! let's see:

P4 SC 3.2 : $218
P4 EE 3.2: $999
Price increase: 358.00% LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, let's omit this Intel disparate. I'm a good guy hehe


So, resuming:

AMD price overall increase: 79.77%
Intel price overall increase: 89.46%


Your point was?

 

[Lithan]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Let me submit this for everyone's edification; The simulated 4400+ 2.2ghz 1mb cache does damned good against the P-D 840 3.2ghz, the real one will likely perform slightly better due to ram. Now, the 3.2ghz 840 is listed in that chart for $530 and the X2 2.2ghz 1mb cache 4400+ $581

Where is the fvckin' problem with the pricing there?????? The difference is Intel will bring in even lowered clocked, lowered priced offerings, that's great! But most will need a new board and ram for the P-D eh?

Main problem with pricing is that I'm an overclocker, and I don't care that amd's $500 proc beats Intel's $500 proc. There's no chance in hell I'm buying either. Of course, I suspect the Amd will have a <$250 dual core before I see anything that makes me even slightly want a dual core rig... such as a game that gets noticable performance improvements from dual core.

 

[Lonyo]

If you already have a socket 939 motherboard, AMD is cheaper than Intel.
If you are buying a whole new system, it is another matter (price premium on DDR2 will up the Intel price slightly, motheboard costs unknown)
Current S939 users can upgrade their current systems though, so a $580 dollar AMD X2 will be price/perf comparable with a $300 Intel chip ($300 + motherboard + RAM)

 

[Duvie]

"AMD price overall increase: 79.77%
Intel price overall increase: 89.46%


Your point was? "


My point was 1.8-2x premium or 80-100% is too much to pay based on the benchmark results.....Techreport's review was better for the next part but how many apps deliverd 79.7% gain let alone even close to it....ON average I bet the gain was not even 40-50%. So to me the price doesn't fit....

NOw I will concede new technology comes at a higher price initially...that is fine, but usually that new technology doesn't seell a whole lot either until it hits that mainstream price. AMD either needs to lower speeds to get closer to that price or get the prices down to be more indicative of actual performance increase.

then you look at the opterons...in probably the best place for these chips to take advanatge of apps that are multithreaded and we see up to 3x or 200% increases in price versus same single core chip.....not worth it, IMO, Then again you see the number of workstation type apps that cant seem to efficiently use more then 2 threads now and you see dual opterons doing better at a fraction of the price of 2 dual core opterons...Now if the opterons was designed wit dual core in mind how much does it really cost us to build the dual core chips??? That is the question.


I agree Intel's comparative chip is as high or higher of a premium, but they at least offer a low enough end chip for ppl to get in. Rumors had it the Toms dual core P4 oc'd quite well so getting a low end 2.8-3.0ghz and ocing looks like the bang for the buck.....I wont do it but that is how it looks.....


I think I will get my opteron machine and get 244's and try to OC them on the Tyan board to 252 levels and be happy.... dual core is not worth it currently....

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
If you already have a socket 939 motherboard, AMD is cheaper than Intel.
If you are buying a whole new system, it is another matter (price premium on DDR2 will up the Intel price slightly, motheboard costs unknown)
Current S939 users can upgrade their current systems though, so a $580 dollar AMD X2 will be price/perf comparable with a $300 Intel chip ($300 + motherboard + RAM)

To be fair that only works on an upgrade type....For those buying a new system right now with all new parts the cost is no better or no worse...maybe better for Ocers building new rigs cause the can get a lower end P4 and most likely clock it to much higher levels then the best most expensive P-D will be at the time...

 

[jbh129]

How could AMD expect to compete when people can by a dual core from a brand they trust (Intel) at a higher speed (ignoring the fact that it means nothing) for less money. Regardless of performance, this is a losing proposition for AMD in the mass market.

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: 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!!

My, my! Aren't we a tad upset?

Do not forget the plataform costs of migrating to a Dual core Pentium. It is then when AMD's solution (and pricing) don't look so bad at all.

For my releif, I do not multitask, not as much as you or AT define Multitasking, at least. I think mine is considered "Light" multitasking, where single processor still makes out quite fine and RAM is what matters.

Lighten up. Maybe dual core AMDs might still be on your book if you consider overall costs.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: Lonyo
If you already have a socket 939 motherboard, AMD is cheaper than Intel.
If you are buying a whole new system, it is another matter (price premium on DDR2 will up the Intel price slightly, motheboard costs unknown)
Current S939 users can upgrade their current systems though, so a $580 dollar AMD X2 will be price/perf comparable with a $300 Intel chip ($300 + motherboard + RAM)

To be fair that only works on an upgrade type....For those buying a new system right now with all new parts the cost is no better or no worse...maybe better for Ocers building new rigs cause the can get a lower end P4 and most likely clock it to much higher levels then the best most expensive P-D will be at the time...

Since you have a 939 board, you could just get a dual core CPU and be happy with it
Still wouldn't be much more than Intel's offerngs, and much less than a dual opteron.
Unless you need 2 systems, in which case why not go for 2 single CPU systems, keeping your current rig, and building another single CPU rig.

 

[ahock]

One thing that catches me from anands review is that he is not 100% confident that the system will be stable. Once this was read by any IT managers they will scare them away. For business point of view money is not an object but stability is.

AMD must take advantage of the 6 months lead they have. Pretty sure once Intel releases their dual core server, though for me it will not beat AMD offering but they will be more focus on features which they are all along been banking and making some headlines these early...... The *T that they have..... EMT64, IAOT, IAMT, VT, La Grande HT etc etc....

Do you think AMD have some offerings on these?

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Aenslead

Originally posted by: 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!!

My, my! Aren't we a tad upset?

Do not forget the plataform costs of migrating to a Dual core Pentium. It is then when AMD's solution (and pricing) don't look so bad at all.

For my releif, I do not multitask, not as much as you or AT define Multitasking, at least. I think mine is considered "Light" multitasking, where single processor still makes out quite fine and RAM is what matters.

Lighten up. Maybe dual core AMDs might still be on your book if you consider overall costs.

Hold On...I was upset big time, but I am not about to go Intel right now......


I may go venice on current system and try for 3ghz......I am trying to build a standalone work system and the goal was dual opterons.....I can get 2x 248s for under what they want for one dual core 175....I may only go route of 2 opteron (non dual core) until I can afford to have 4 cores....I dont want to go one socket opteron and reall hamper myself.....


I am not 100% sure about it....If they can come out with a dual 2ghz for aorund 450ish I am all over it.......The apps I run like 3dsmax, etc can gain 80-95% with 2nd core so it would take one heck of a single core speed....


THAT IS IT.....

Screw the 2nd system I will just get a dual core for this sytem and sell my 3000+.....To tied me over I may go with the venice chip.....I may actully get a cheap sckt 939 mobo and take this winnie over there and give it to my son for the "family PC" and place a dual core X2 here......


NOw I just hope they can OC...So I can have my cake and at it too.......


Ranting over!!!!!!


Dual 4400+ should act better then a dual core opteron 175 (in most instances) which they want 999 dollars for...So I guess opterons are too rich for my blood....The L2 cache doesn't matter in rendering now with A64's so I may go withthe 2x512kb model.....

 

[ssvegeta1010]

Now the question is; how well do they OC? (dual 2.6 cores )

 

[mi1stormilst]

This is all very exciting I have held on to my XP-2500M far to long...I hope before the year is out I will be tempted to spend $$$ to finally break out of my beloved Socket A. I have always recommended INTEL for video encoding...hehe looks like that bit of advice will require more thought in the future...

 

[mi1stormilst]

I almost forgot to mention I wonder what impact OC'ing will have on these bad boys...its possible AMD avoided the lower priced chips to keep us cheap skates from taking advantadge of them...nah we are not that important...hehe

 

[mi1stormilst]

Originally posted by: jbh129
How could AMD expect to compete when people can by a dual core from a brand they trust (Intel) at a higher speed (ignoring the fact that it means nothing) for less money. Regardless of performance, this is a losing proposition for AMD in the mass market.

Forgive jbh129 he thinks we here are "people" lol

Frankly I don't care what "people" do or think...I know what my needs are...as long as AMD keeps cranking out this great technology I will always have a place in my heart for them (-:

 

[jbh129]

I wasnt speaking about educated consumers but rather the general mass ignorance that buys stuffs.

 

[imported_Ged]

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!!

I decided a little while ago to wait for 1207 or whatever AMD calls their next socket. By that time dual core will be much faster than it is now for the same or lower cost, and 1207 will give me something else to consider.

Also, around the time that the 1207 socket comes to be AMD will supposedly be releasing their next gen core. At that time with 65 nm, a dual dual core K10 system might be the way to go to ensure a good upgrade path. Such a system might be decently priced because of the 65nm process and AMD having another fab up. Also, Intel's next gen might be out then too. If Intel gets it together, they could have a nice offering as well.

Right now Dual Dual Core Opterons probably aren't the way to go right now if you are just now building a system for something non-work related. If I had a Dual Opteron setup the upgrade path probably wouldn't kill me tho. And it's not that it will only improve a "handful of apps", 'cause if you actually use the Dual Dual Core Opteron setup you don't have it to play games, you have it to do work and the added performance in a few apps that pertain to your work would probably be worth it.

Edited text in bold.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jbh129
I wasnt speaking about educated consumers but rather the general mass ignorance that buys stuffs.

The ones that have to get a machine with the "Intel Inside" because of the great brainwashing Marketing job. Hmmm a lot of folks must watch a lot of TV in here too.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Ged

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!!

I decided a little while ago to wait for 1207 or whatever AMD calls their next socket. By that time dual core will be much faster than it is now for the same or lower cost, and 1207 will give me something else to consider.

Also, around the time that the 1207 socket comes to be AMD will supposedly be releasing their next gen core. At that time with 65 nm, a dual dual core K10 system might be the way to go to ensure a good upgrade path. Such a system might be decently priced because of the 65nm process and AMD having another fab up. Also, Intel's next gen might be out then too. If Intel gets it together, they could have a nice offering as well.

Right now Dual Dual Core Opterons probably aren't the way to go right now if you are just now building a system for something non-work related. If I had a Dual Opteron setup the upgrade path probably wouldn't kill me tho. And it's not that it will only improve a "handful of apps", 'cause if you actually use the Dual Dual Core Opteron setup you don't have it to play games, you have it to do work and the added performance in a few apps that pertain to your work would probably be worth it.

Edited text in bold.

Actually it is for personal work (side business) stuff but my app uses the 3dsmax engine and very much likes multithreading...actually one of the few apps that Techreport tested that pegged all 4 cores of the dual core dual opteron setup at 100%....very nice increases over a standrad dual cpu opteron setup....We were talking like 80% per core....

It would get use but other then rendering final project it wouldn't help much in average use of the application....2gb of ram, fast drive for loading drf files, and the regen times are pretty much semaless now anyways.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Aenslead

Originally posted by: 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!!

My, my! Aren't we a tad upset?

Do not forget the plataform costs of migrating to a Dual core Pentium. It is then when AMD's solution (and pricing) don't look so bad at all.

For my releif, I do not multitask, not as much as you or AT define Multitasking, at least. I think mine is considered "Light" multitasking, where single processor still makes out quite fine and RAM is what matters.

Lighten up. Maybe dual core AMDs might still be on your book if you consider overall costs.

Intel 955 and Intel Nforce are no more expensive than AMD Nforce, im not seeing the argument here unless you are talking about drop-in upgrades for people with exsisting systems. The truth of the matter is the only people who need to upgrade now, when its not matured, and the prices are terrible, are businesses that actually need the power.

Home users typically dont upgrade from one gen to the next (I do, and im sure many of us do here, but we make up about 0.1%).

 

[hippotautamus]

Originally posted by: Lithan
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.

HERE HERE.
It's so silly to watch people talk about all the multitasking they supposedly do in hopes of justifying their purchase of an Intel CPU. 99% of desktop users never have more than two IE windows (or mozilla tabs) open at one time, plus perhaps a few IM and explorer windows, perhaps a media player, and occasionally they're burning a CD in the background or photoshopping their latest 3dmark scores to look like they have a better computer (scored badly in memory bandwidth, hooray for Hypertransport!). I have news for you, but I can do all that and a hell of a lot more with zero slowdownage on my old school s478 P4, stock 2.0ghz, with my ram running at 266mhz. If you really need to do heavy multitasking, odds are your company is paying for your WORKSTATION, in which case you are probably leaning towards dual cpu anyway - and probably dual AMD cpus at that.

I'm no AMD Fanboy - in fact, I have only ever owned two AMD based computers (as opposed to probably 15 Intels). However, the simple matter is, there is no compelling reason to buy an Intel processor anymore. AMD wipes the floor in everything except content creation...oh, wait, they own that now too. Darn those silly dual cores.

EDIT: As per price, the prices there were all Opterons, were they not? So of course they're ridiculously expensive, the 8xx series are designed to work in tandem with 4 other dual core processors, so it's quite a bit more complicated than a desktop processor would be. Server parts are always more expensive.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: ssvegeta1010
Now the question is; how well do they OC? (dual 2.6 cores )

The intel made it to 3.8ghz but they said the heat was insane.

 

[Kravahn]

Originally posted by: ahock
One thing that catches me from anands review is that he is not 100% confident that the system will be stable. Once this was read by any IT managers they will scare them away. For business point of view money is not an object but stability is.

The system wasn't stable for a single cpu using a bios specifically designed for multiple cpu's. Anand et al were using a single cpu in a dual-cpu bios, brand new, so expect some problems... I didn't read anywhere where there was a problem with this Mobo/CPU combo with MORE than one processor. The problem was in the artificial set-up to give us a preview of dual-core processing for the desktop. The Tyan bios simply wasn't set up for that eventuality. Now that the cpu's are out, and they know someone would actually spend a whole lot of money on a dual or quad board and only want to have one processor in it I'm certain they'll correct that BIOS deficiency.

 

[MBrown]

So who here will be getting an X2 after this review?

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: ssvegeta1010
Now the question is; how well do they OC? (dual 2.6 cores )

The intel made it to 3.8ghz but they said the heat was insane.

Got a link to that??? I thought the one at toms made it to 4ghz or someplace did....

 

[ksherman]

Just wait until FAB36 goes operational... MeThinks that we will see huge price reductions when it opens, assuming they dont plan to shut down their current plant...