WHat you guys think of 256k X2?

[nyker96]

Or will it be like almost as fast as 1/2MB models? How will it compare to say 1/2MB or 1MB single cores? Even worth the trouble to do it for AMD? People will buy it? Should it be called Sempy 64 X2? and Will they ever make a new StarTrek movie?

 

[imported_inspire]

Bad idea.

 

[secretanchitman]

Originally posted by: nyker96
Or will it be like almost as fast as 1/2MB models? How will it compare to say 1/5MB or 1MB single cores? Even worth the trouble to do it for AMD? People will buy it? Should it be called Sempy 64 X2? and Will they ever make a new StarTrek movie?

i think it will be fast if you overclock them. i think you will notice a bit of difference from 512k to 256k...there isnt much difference between the 1MB and the 512k X2s... yes, because they need to compete with the lower end pentium D's (the 805, 820, etc). yes, im sure people will buy it because they wont be forced to go with a pentium D which is a definitely HOT as hell processor. i think it should be called athlon64X2 because its 2 athlon cores, but with cache disabled...wait, i think those are semprons too... yes they are in talks of a new star trek movie, back in the days of a YOUNG captain kirk and such.

haha, hope that answers your questions!

 

[jlbenedict]

I think it will still be a very fast CPU for the price. Is there really that much difference between 256k and 512k??

Now, on the Intel platform, and with Intel still using the front side bus, i'm sure performance would be subpar. Imagine Intel coming out with a dual core Celeron; it would not only suck.. it would suck twice as much.

 

[Furen]

I think it's mean for OEMs and we won't see it any time soon. Personally, I think it'll be a great performer in anything besides games. Games take a pretty big hit from losing cache but most other apps perform well enough. It'll be an Athlon because it will have Presidio and Pacifica enabled (and any other techs AMD throws into rev F chips... if any).

 

[DAPUNISHER]

yes they are in talks of a new star trek movie, back in the days of a YOUNG captain kirk and such.

I friend sent me the Star Trek: Re-Boot the Universe, Straczynski & Zabel, 2004 treatment. Basically they want to do it a la Marvel Ultimate, and re-invent the original 5yr mission.

WHat you guys think of 256k X2?

I think if they will do OK in the OEM market, but maybe not with our crowd. X2s&Optys will be dirt cheap in FS/FT when many migrate to Conroe.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I'd consider a 256k l2 X2 if they releaesed one as a 35W part. Otherwise, the 512k X2s should be cheap enough that most folks could get them on AM2 without trouble.

 

[stardrek]

Originally posted by: nyker96
Or will it be like almost as fast as 1/2MB models? How will it compare to say 1/5MB or 1MB single cores? Even worth the trouble to do it for AMD? People will buy it? Should it be called Sempy 64 X2? and Will they ever make a new StarTrek movie?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/

2008...got a while to wait.

 

[dguy6789]

There was a benchmark somewhere that showed 128 L2 cache, 256 L2 cache, 512 L2 cache, and 1MB L2 cache K8 processors all in one benchmark at the same clocks. I cannot find it unfortunately, but I can tell you the results. Quite simply, there is a tiny difference between 128K and 256K, and a tiny difference between 256K and 512K. The largest difference performance wise was 512K to 1MB. So simply, think of the performance difference between 1MB cpus and 512K ones, only a bit less, and you have an idea of how well the 256K processors will perform.

A 2Ghz 256K AMD64 will outperform a 1.8Ghz 512K AMD64 and cost around the same to make, so it makes sense to use the lower cache processor.

 

[Ionizer86]

Cache on performance? Here's a chart from Xbitlabs using all single core Semprons and Athlon 64's.

 

[soydios]

The key thing with the X2 3600+ is that it should overclock far as hell...maybe enough to rival the Opty 165. This is because a 3600+ is a Windsor with a defective cache. It could theoretically even be a 4600+ or 5000+ with defective cache, so it could overclock up to those speeds.

 

[AkumaX]

DT thinks that its probably a specialty part. The updated roadmap doesn't have it in it either

You remember Sempron 3300+?(1.8ghz S939) and how there was no such thing as Sempron S939? Thinkin' this will end up the same way

(as in the only way to get it is to buy an HP and take the CPU out yourself)

 

[cmrmrc]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
A 2Ghz 256K AMD64 will outperform a 1.8Ghz 512K AMD64 and cost around the same to make, so it makes sense to use the lower cache processor.

no, i think the reason why AMD has chose to make a 2ghz 256k chip rather than a 1.8ghz 512k chip is because its cheaper...AMD has cut production of the 1mb cache chips because the performance was not worth the cost of production...1mb cache chips took alot of space on the same waffer, decreasing production...

i think that 256k chips can be produced alot more on a same waffer rather than chips clockable to 2ghz....

 

[Avalon]

It will be almost as fast as the 512KB models. There shouldn't be more than a 5% difference in performance in nearly any app. Its price will make it an awesome buy if it makes it to our retail channel.

 

[lsman]

http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=627274

no worry, we will see how it goes very soon.
3600+ x2 (AM2...) expected price US$130 - 149
expected release days. a few weeks after Core 2 release. (Aug?)
expected performance similar to E4200

 

[DrMrLordX]

If it costs $149, that's too much. $130 I can see, though it should be less than that ($110 maybe?).

 

[TanisHalfElven]

if it cost <80 i'll buy one simply to take my encoding tasks away form main rig.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Ionizer86
Cache on performance? Here's a chart from Xbitlabs using all single core Semprons and Athlon 64's.

Nice. Performance differences ranged from 0-6% from 128KB-1MB cache. This means clock a Sempron with 128k cache 6% higher than an A64 to get similar performance. Now, before people start crying foul, I'm sure there are examples elsewhere of greater than 6% difference between a Sempron 3000+ and Opteron 144, but the extra difference is probably from going to dual channel or using some software that really benefits from the extra cache. Going from 128k single channel to 1MB dual channel - let's just estimate that at 10-15% difference. Maybe. Maybe not.

Regardless, yes there is a real performance difference, and yes that real performance difference is not as huge as some people make it out to be - but it is really there.