• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

More AM2 Benchmarks

Just as with THG's benchies, the memory test results don't make any sense. The AM2 system doesn't even reach half the theoretical bandwidth. They could probably just have used DDR2-400 and gotten the same results.
 
Pretty much still the same as S939, DDR2 800 didn't make much of a difference. Socket AM2 will be nothing spectacular, I guess...
 
Originally posted by: darXoul
Pretty much still the same as S939, DDR2 800 didn't make much of a difference. Socket AM2 will be nothing spectacular, I guess...
Click to expand...
Well, the AM2 platform tested doesn't seem to take advantage of DDR2-800, so obviously there aren't going to be any performance increase.
 
Originally posted by: Brunnis
Just as with THG's benchies, the memory test results don't make any sense. The AM2 system doesn't even reach half the theoretical bandwidth. They could probably just have used DDR2-400 and gotten the same results.
Click to expand...





Nevermind I looked at chart backwards...Xvid looses on both test...more at THG but THG uses cas2 latency...


Also 1600x1200 test I fear dont isolate the cpu well enough to rule out gpu...The fact is DD2-800 should show a higher theoretical bandwidth even in the synthetic test...Where is it at??? Makes me think it may be a compatability issue right now...


I dont doubt the increase will be not much....
 
they should have added a -% / +% change on these tests, because most of these tests look like they're < 1% in difference, for all we know that could be margin of error
 
Thats about what I thought when I heard about am2. I definitely wont be upgrading to AM2 anytime soon. Ill be waiting to see the intel chips. For now a 939 single/dualcore optys will be great.
 
I'm not that familiar with sandra memory benchmarks but shouldn't that number be nearly twice as high? Is a sandra memory bench measured in MB/sec?
 
sandra's just as good as my 3d bungholio marks 😛


i'm not an expert in kinda stuff, but:

5-5-5-15 timings @ 800mhz seem a little loose (obviously because ddr2 is still in progress)
does the AM2 architecture benefit from lower timings? (not cas2, but maybe 3-3-3-10 sometime in the distant future)
 
Yes, the 5-5-5 timings are a bit loose, but so are the 2.5-3-3 timings on DDR1. AMD does benefit from the lowest possible timings so running ddr2 667 at 3-2-2 will probably be better than running ddr2 800 at 4-4-4 (or 5-5-5).

I must say that socket AM2 is looking better and better as time passes. First we went from Anandtech's "horrible" performance numbers (which we never saw) to Tom's mediocre performance and finally we have HKEPC's slightly-better performance numbers. I'm not saying that it'll be a match to Conroe (which looks like it'll outclass the K8 for a while) but being within 10% in the mid-range does sound quite attainable. I agree that there is something obviously wrong with the memory controller because it's bandwidth seems to be only slightly better than a single-channel DDR2 800 setup would be. I'm not about to say that we should expect massive performance increases once this is corrected, but even a slight performance increase is better than none at all.

Also, according to the Inquirer (yes, I know...) AMD will begin mass production of 65nm parts in the next quarter to build inventories for a Q4 introduction (on the mobile/server side, I'd guess, so 65nm AM2 Opterons may hit the market this year).
 
I'm 🙁 about AM2. I had much higher expectations. But as I've said before, I will always go with the highest performing platform regardless of manufacturer.

The thing that bothers me most is that Intel can jack prices sky high again if there isn't any fierce competition. Also they won't have any pressure from AMD to innovate. Who benefited from the GHz race?

Remember, the reason we have Conroe today, is because of AMD. Without AMD, we'd all probably still be using P4 space heaters for the next couple few years.

Unless AMD can pull a rabbit out of a hat, I'm pretty sure what my next upgrade will be though. 😉
 
Conroe is still too much of a mystery for me to start winging Intels praises just yet, but what I will commend them for is bringing 65nm to market a full year before AMD. Intel can put giant caches and likely push higher clockspeed on AMD till Q1 2007. AMD 65nm may be better like they claim, but then again it will spend more of its life fighting off Intels 45nm than it will their 65nm process.
 
conroe might bring intel some immediate satisfaction, but from quad core on, intel is in a tough spot, until it will use csi. k8l is amd's answer to conroe, amd doesnt want to break its product cycle, so itll have to be behind for a few months, it can care less in the long term.
 
Originally posted by: chinkgai
sigh, i dont wana switch to intel...i wouldnt know how to oc it!
Click to expand...

LOL Yea you would🙂

Anyway Need 3-2-2 DDR2-800 to beat DDR400 2-2-2. Get DDR500 2-2-2 like many have? Forgetaboutit.

A64 likes LL..bandwidth meh..
 
Originally posted by: Amaroque
I'm 🙁 about AM2. I had much higher expectations. But as I've said before, I will always go with the highest performing platform regardless of manufacturer.

The thing that bothers me most is that Intel can jack prices sky high again if there isn't any fierce competition. Also they won't have any pressure from AMD to innovate. Who benefited from the GHz race?

Remember, the reason we have Conroe today, is because of AMD. Without AMD, we'd all probably still be using P4 space heaters for the next couple few years.

Unless AMD can pull a rabbit out of a hat, I'm pretty sure what my next upgrade will be though. 😉
Click to expand...

Dude it's only 20% lead - little in CPU terms - and only 20% in cherry picked benches intel chose to run. You don't think they'd play anything X2 was strong in do you? Also Lets wait and make sure they did'nt "accidently" have a 3.6 Ghz conroe in the box reviewers wernt allowed to open before saying the sky is falling.

I think you guys will be surprised once reviewers get them and a full battery of tests is done. I think Conroe will lead by 10% clock for clock - you heard it here first.🙂 Nothing exactly earth shattering.
 
The new Conroe Benchmarks do look very promising indeed, and i must say the AM2 benchies do not look promising at all. However i will only make judgement once i see proper independent benchies, from Anand etc. So i dont dismiss AM2 yet, but i dont hold a lot of hope either.

Its just a waiting game.
 
Originally posted by: Brunnis
Originally posted by: darXoul
Pretty much still the same as S939, DDR2 800 didn't make much of a difference. Socket AM2 will be nothing spectacular, I guess...
Click to expand...
Well, the AM2 platform tested doesn't seem to take advantage of DDR2-800, so obviously there aren't going to be any performance increase.
Click to expand...

only when DDR2 speeds are ramped up, will AM2 take advantage...
from what I understand, DDR2-800 is about equal to DDR1-400
 
Originally posted by: jlbenedict
only when DDR2 speeds are ramped up, will AM2 take advantage...
from what I understand, DDR2-800 is about equal to DDR1-400
Click to expand...

No, that is not the problem here. Even Intel's DDR2-533 platform with a 1066MHz FSB CPU beats this AM2 system with DDR2-800. SiSoft Sandra doesn't care much about latency, it measures bandwidth. DDR2-800 in dual channel mode has a theoretical bandwidth of 12.8GB/s and it's certainly not some inherent problem with the DDR2 memory that limits the bandwidth here. The system is given 12.8GB/s to work with and can make use of less than 50% and that indicates a seriously inefficient implementation.
 
Originally posted by: Brunnis
Originally posted by: jlbenedict
only when DDR2 speeds are ramped up, will AM2 take advantage...
from what I understand, DDR2-800 is about equal to DDR1-400
Click to expand...

No, that is not the problem here. Even Intel's DDR2-533 platform with a 1066MHz FSB CPU beats this AM2 system with DDR2-800. SiSoft Sandra doesn't care much about latency, it measures bandwidth. DDR2-800 in dual channel mode has a theoretical bandwidth of 12.8GB/s and it's certainly not some inherent problem with the DDR2 memory that limits the bandwidth here. The system is given 12.8GB/s to work with and can make use of less than 50% and that indicates a seriously inefficient implementation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think AMD's problem with AM2 will be getting an efficient chipset platform by launch. I think AMD will be ready with the chips before the mobo makers can properly support it.

 
can anyone read when the engineering sample they use was made? I can't imagine it has the new memory controller, but you never know...
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Amaroque
I'm 🙁 about AM2. I had much higher expectations. But as I've said before, I will always go with the highest performing platform regardless of manufacturer.

The thing that bothers me most is that Intel can jack prices sky high again if there isn't any fierce competition. Also they won't have any pressure from AMD to innovate. Who benefited from the GHz race?

Remember, the reason we have Conroe today, is because of AMD. Without AMD, we'd all probably still be using P4 space heaters for the next couple few years.

Unless AMD can pull a rabbit out of a hat, I'm pretty sure what my next upgrade will be though. 😉
Click to expand...

Dude it's only 20% lead - little in CPU terms - and only 20% in cherry picked benches intel chose to run. You don't think they'd play anything X2 was strong in do you? Also Lets wait and make sure they did'nt "accidently" have a 3.6 Ghz conroe in the box reviewers wernt allowed to open before saying the sky is falling.

I think you guys will be surprised once reviewers get them and a full battery of tests is done. I think Conroe will lead by 10% clock for clock - you heard it here first.🙂 Nothing exactly earth shattering.
Click to expand...

Ummm, didn't you just buy some Intel stock? Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but if you did, this last comment from you does not have a consistency with your confidence in Intel as indicated by your stock purchase. Again, if I am mixing you up with someone else, apologies.
Keys 😉

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top