Unbiased look at the 6xx CPus

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: clarkey01
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: clarkey01
Originally posted by: Sentential
Well it is more the issue that the newer 600 cores are within 5% of gaming of AMD which is alot better considering how bad they once were.

It only pisses me off when I see people "claiming" that a 5.2ghz Intel is somehow slower than an FX55. That is simply impossible by any account

It shouldnt piss you off. As for 5% in games, im not sure about that, athlon has a very good F math calculation or something which gives it the edge.

And if your like me, you'll know that that article was bull and not worth reading. AMD is sitting on its hands at the moment, waiting for Intel to catch up.

I think when you consider how little power the athlons use in contrast to the 6 series (granted theres a slight inprovement but nothing that major over the 5xx) its still not quite up to the design on the K8.

The K8 is also at a clockspeed wall, the thermals and power dissipation on the highest chips have increased sharply. That point is kind of moot though as AMD has topped out at a slightly higher performance plateau, giving them a comfortable lead.


Where do you get that from? Their .13 chips do 2.6Ghz RETAIL without any overclocking. The .09 are still new and will go over the 2.6, let alone the added upgrades.

Reading comprehension?

The power draw and heat dissipation of the 4000+ is much higher for the tiny speed bump over 3800+.


The 4000+ IS NOT a speed bump over a 3800+. They BOTH run at 2.4 Ghz, difference ? The 3800 is a newcastle and has 512k cache, the 4000+ is a clawhammer and has 1 meg cache.

Clawhammer is the hottest, then its newcastle, then winchester ( all 3 are not even that hot)

Im sorry, i meant to say 3800+ over 3500+. I stand corrected.
 

Sentential

Senior member
Feb 28, 2005
677
0
0
Originally posted by: jbh129
In the end, if you want to discuss an Intel processor youre better off going to XS or another forum because every Intel thread in this place turns into the "AMD Rulez" nonsense.

I figured as much but you'd think that only xoxide has this type idiocy of stating opinions and not facts
 

Leper Messiah

Banned
Dec 13, 2004
7,973
8
0
Originally posted by: jbh129
In the end, if you want to discuss an Intel processor youre better off going to XS or another forum because every Intel thread in this place turns into the "AMD Rulez" nonsense.

FYI, I own a winchester and a northwood. They both suck when compared to a clawhammer.

Eh? Considering that It took me 1.85v to get my clawhammer up to 2.4ghz, I'd say a winchester pwns a clawhammer. The A64 core doesn't really need the extra cache, since its more efficent core allows it to operate off of the lowered latency of the 512k cache. they aren't bandwidth based like P4s.

 

Sentential

Senior member
Feb 28, 2005
677
0
0
Originally posted by: L3p3rM355i4h
Originally posted by: jbh129
In the end, if you want to discuss an Intel processor youre better off going to XS or another forum because every Intel thread in this place turns into the "AMD Rulez" nonsense.

FYI, I own a winchester and a northwood. They both suck when compared to a clawhammer.

Eh? Considering that It took me 1.85v to get my clawhammer up to 2.4ghz, I'd say a winchester pwns a clawhammer. The A64 core doesn't really need the extra cache, since its more efficent core allows it to operate off of the lowered latency of the 512k cache. they aren't bandwidth based like P4s.
Actually I beg to differ. Claws are considerably better than Winchs overall in a benching envorment. It takes a 250-300mhz advantage to tackle a claw
 

clarkey01

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2004
3,419
1
0
Originally posted by: Sentential
Originally posted by: L3p3rM355i4h
Originally posted by: jbh129
In the end, if you want to discuss an Intel processor youre better off going to XS or another forum because every Intel thread in this place turns into the "AMD Rulez" nonsense.

FYI, I own a winchester and a northwood. They both suck when compared to a clawhammer.

Eh? Considering that It took me 1.85v to get my clawhammer up to 2.4ghz, I'd say a winchester pwns a clawhammer. The A64 core doesn't really need the extra cache, since its more efficent core allows it to operate off of the lowered latency of the 512k cache. they aren't bandwidth based like P4s.
Actually I beg to differ. Claws are considerably better than Winchs overall in a benching envorment. It takes a 250-300mhz advantage to tackle a claw

Wrong, clock for clock winchesters are faster, there were tweaks at 90 nm, as well as the added headroom.

 

Leper Messiah

Banned
Dec 13, 2004
7,973
8
0
Originally posted by: Sentential
Originally posted by: L3p3rM355i4h
Originally posted by: jbh129
In the end, if you want to discuss an Intel processor youre better off going to XS or another forum because every Intel thread in this place turns into the "AMD Rulez" nonsense.

FYI, I own a winchester and a northwood. They both suck when compared to a clawhammer.

Eh? Considering that It took me 1.85v to get my clawhammer up to 2.4ghz, I'd say a winchester pwns a clawhammer. The A64 core doesn't really need the extra cache, since its more efficent core allows it to operate off of the lowered latency of the 512k cache. they aren't bandwidth based like P4s.
Actually I beg to differ. Claws are considerably better than Winchs overall in a benching envorment. It takes a 250-300mhz advantage to tackle a claw

Hey, I loved my Clawhammer and all, but I don't think that it takes "250-300mhz" for an A64 to make up for the extra cache. Maybe for a P4, but a 3200+ clawhammer is a little bit slower than a 3200+ newcastle (2.2Ghz, 512k cache). You got your facts wrong.
 

Sentential

Senior member
Feb 28, 2005
677
0
0
what? who the **** told you that pack of lies? Claws are much faster per clock than a winchester and yes it is rougly 250-300mhz faster per clock because claws have 2X the cache...
 

Duvie

Elite Member
Feb 5, 2001
16,215
0
71
Originally posted by: Sentential
Originally posted by: jbh129
In the end, if you want to discuss an Intel processor youre better off going to XS or another forum because every Intel thread in this place turns into the "AMD Rulez" nonsense.

I figured as much but you'd think that only xoxide has this type idiocy of stating opinions and not facts


This is coming from the queen of stating shite he can't back up....I sure hope you are not an elite member where you come from...

Actually I beg to differ. Claws are considerably better than Winchs overall in a benching envorment. It takes a 250-300mhz advantage to tackle a claw

just more and more coming from you...once again try to prove some of the shite you spew....please!!!!

No amd fanboys needed apply until you start spreading FUD....anytime someone puts up "unbiased" review and then it turns out to be pathetic it will draw attention...you better have your ducks in a row if you plan on trying to make definitive statements....

ONce again please prove half the shite you have said here or ina few other threads I have asked you about.....It appears you ranking at the other place must be on number of post alone....


Hey leave Acanthus alone.....He isn't even 1/5th the fanboy of chainbolt at OCAU.com.....I respect anyone who admits when they made a mistake....
 

Leper Messiah

Banned
Dec 13, 2004
7,973
8
0
Originally posted by: Sentential
what? who the **** told you that pack of lies? Claws are much faster per clock than a winchester


Give me a link showing a clawhammer at the same "rating" (e.g. 3200+) as a newcastle. They should be about the same or a little bit faster (the newcastle). 200mhz is more important than 512k cache.


EDIT: Apparently, you have little understanding of how a Athlon 64 operates. The cache means very little! The extra latency of the added cache makes it less effiecent. 512k seems to be the sweet spot for the Athlon 64.
 

jbh129

Senior member
Oct 8, 2004
252
0
0
I;m sorry I shouldve been more specific. I was referring to the refined FX-55 clawhammer core which has been known to hit 3ghz on good air
 

Sentential

Senior member
Feb 28, 2005
677
0
0
Originally posted by: L3p3rM355i4h
Originally posted by: Sentential
what? who the **** told you that pack of lies? Claws are much faster per clock than a winchester


Give me a link showing a clawhammer at the same "rating" (e.g. 3200+) as a newcastle. They should be about the same or a little bit faster (the newcastle). 200mhz is more important than 512k cache.

There is a reason why the 3200+ newcastle is 2.2 and the claw version is 2.0ghz. AMD gave those PR ratings for a damn good reason. I could find the benches but it is clear you idiots dont have a clue
 

clarkey01

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2004
3,419
1
0
Originally posted by: jbh129
I;m sorry I shouldve been more specific. I was referring to the refined FX-55 clawhammer core which has been known to hit 3ghz on good air

Strained Silcion.

Wait for REVISION E, winnie's will then have SS.
 

Sentential

Senior member
Feb 28, 2005
677
0
0
Originally posted by: clarkey01
Originally posted by: jbh129
I;m sorry I shouldve been more specific. I was referring to the refined FX-55 clawhammer core which has been known to hit 3ghz on good air

Strained Silcion

No one has proof to suggest that is the case. Ive seen many a mobile 3400+ clock the same as an FX55. Namely Thunda's and Jess's. Most liekly binning is the key and not SS
 

Leper Messiah

Banned
Dec 13, 2004
7,973
8
0
Originally posted by: Sentential I could find the benches but it is clear you idiots dont have a clue

Yeah, because insulting me when you have no other choice in your own head is a good idea. What I'm trying to say, is that its roughly 150-175mhz difference for the 512k cache. (In the case of the 3200+) Add to the fact that the fastest clawhammer (FX-55@ 2.6ghz) doesn't beat a winchester @ 2.6ghz, and I believe you are beaten.
 

clarkey01

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2004
3,419
1
0
Originally posted by: Sentential
Originally posted by: clarkey01
Originally posted by: jbh129
I;m sorry I shouldve been more specific. I was referring to the refined FX-55 clawhammer core which has been known to hit 3ghz on good air

Strained Silcion

No one has proof to suggest that is the case. Ive seen many a mobile 3400+ clock the same as an FX55. Namely Thunda's and Jess's. Most liekly binning is the key and not SS

Yes they do, a FX 53 will not clock as high as a FX 55 due to SS.
 

Leper Messiah

Banned
Dec 13, 2004
7,973
8
0
Originally posted by: Sentential
Originally posted by: clarkey01
Originally posted by: jbh129
I;m sorry I shouldve been more specific. I was referring to the refined FX-55 clawhammer core which has been known to hit 3ghz on good air

Strained Silcion

No one has proof to suggest that is the case. Ive seen many a mobile 3400+ clock the same as an FX55. Namely Thunda's and Jess's. Most liekly binning is the key and not SS

More ignorance on your part. Strained Silcon allows for less waste of electricity, hence more effiecency. This effiecency allows for lower temps. Lower temps= Higher OC's. Can I state it any simplier?
 

clarkey01

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2004
3,419
1
0
Originally posted by: L3p3rM355i4h
Originally posted by: Sentential
Originally posted by: clarkey01
Originally posted by: jbh129
I;m sorry I shouldve been more specific. I was referring to the refined FX-55 clawhammer core which has been known to hit 3ghz on good air

Strained Silcion

No one has proof to suggest that is the case. Ive seen many a mobile 3400+ clock the same as an FX55. Namely Thunda's and Jess's. Most liekly binning is the key and not SS

More ignorance on your part. Strained Silcon allows for less waste of electricity, hence more effiecency. This effiecency allows for lower temps. Lower temps= Higher OC's. Can I state it any simplier?


Yeah, but its not getting through to him.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: clarkey01
Originally posted by: Sentential
Originally posted by: clarkey01
Originally posted by: jbh129
I;m sorry I shouldve been more specific. I was referring to the refined FX-55 clawhammer core which has been known to hit 3ghz on good air

Strained Silcion

No one has proof to suggest that is the case. Ive seen many a mobile 3400+ clock the same as an FX55. Namely Thunda's and Jess's. Most liekly binning is the key and not SS

Yes they do, a FX 53 will not clock as high as a FX 55 due to SS.

FX-53s are older chips on older steppings, the FX55 could have later steppings or better binning to be faster.
 

Duvie

Elite Member
Feb 5, 2001
16,215
0
71
Originally posted by: L3p3rM355i4h
Originally posted by: Sentential I could find the benches but it is clear you idiots dont have a clue

Yeah, because insulting me when you have no other choice in your own head is a good idea. What I'm trying to say, is that its roughly 150-175mhz difference for the 512k cache. (In the case of the 3200+) Add to the fact that the fastest clawhammer (FX-55@ 2.6ghz) doesn't beat a winchester @ 2.6ghz, and I believe you are beaten.


Yes FX55's are ocing higher but if I take my board run it up to HTT 289 but set the ram to 133 divider and cas 2,2,2,6 to get ram closer to that of the FX55 I beat it in about every test that can be tested without my vid card getting in the way.....How do you figure that??? I thought you said I needed 250-300 more.....

This guy is a shite-talker...he has made about 4 claims that ppl have asked him to link...only one did you give me some links for but they dont even make his claim....

He is obvious a senior member there by the fact of sure post numbers...not content

 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: L3p3rM355i4h
Originally posted by: Sentential
Originally posted by: clarkey01
Originally posted by: jbh129
I;m sorry I shouldve been more specific. I was referring to the refined FX-55 clawhammer core which has been known to hit 3ghz on good air

Strained Silcion

No one has proof to suggest that is the case. Ive seen many a mobile 3400+ clock the same as an FX55. Namely Thunda's and Jess's. Most liekly binning is the key and not SS

More ignorance on your part. Strained Silcon allows for less waste of electricity, hence more effiecency. This effiecency allows for lower temps. Lower temps= Higher OC's. Can I state it any simplier?

5 degrees does not account for an extra magic 400mhz for 3.0, its not that simple.
 

Duvie

Elite Member
Feb 5, 2001
16,215
0
71
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: L3p3rM355i4h
Originally posted by: Sentential
Originally posted by: clarkey01
Originally posted by: jbh129
I;m sorry I shouldve been more specific. I was referring to the refined FX-55 clawhammer core which has been known to hit 3ghz on good air

Strained Silcion

No one has proof to suggest that is the case. Ive seen many a mobile 3400+ clock the same as an FX55. Namely Thunda's and Jess's. Most liekly binning is the key and not SS

More ignorance on your part. Strained Silcon allows for less waste of electricity, hence more effiecency. This effiecency allows for lower temps. Lower temps= Higher OC's. Can I state it any simplier?

5 degrees does not account for an extra magic 400mhz for 3.0, its not that simple.

I agree....
 

Leper Messiah

Banned
Dec 13, 2004
7,973
8
0
Can you prove to me, why it doesn't?

Between both SOI and SS, the gains are very sigificant, probably the "magical" 400mhz you talk about. Plus, the 90nm process is maturing and the dies are becoming better.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
Being a noob, is there a benchmark that really tests multi-tasking? For example, my pc is usually running Folding, Seti, playing iTunes, burning a cd using iTunes, several apps(firefox, IE, etc), running 4 separate apps that update a single mysql database and finally running a query against that same mysql database.

I find that I never just have a single app running and was wondering if there was a benchmarking program for true multi-tasking that I can run on my pcs.

Thanks