Where did INtels leads go in Multimedia???

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Well, Intel will still be good for lower end dual core systems assuming the motherboards aren't too expensive (given that DDR2 actually doesn't have much of a price premium over DDR from what I have seen, nowhere near enough to make up the difference). Total cost of ownership for an entry level PD will be less than TCO for any X2.

If you are looking at the higher end, there's now no reason to go Intel at all. But a PD 2.8GHz vs what, a 3500+ or 3800+ (not sure of prices) is a no brainer, the PD would be much better for encoding at that system price, while AMD would still be better for gaming.

except for as much a beating INtel got now will only be increased by using a part giving up 15% in more clock speed...Doesn't seem really smart....


1) New Intel system will require New mobo, new DDR2, new cpu...does anyone know for sure if this is BTX and may require new case or new power supply???

Nonetheless...

2.8ghz (820 PD) = 241.00
MObo 955 = 150-200
DDR2 (1gb of decent ram) = 120-170 if you want 533or 667 (At seems to think 667 is a waste)

Total is 511-611.......

2) Now for a person getting a whole new A64 system

Athlon X2 4200+ = 534
Mobo NF3U-NF4 = 90-130
DDR1 (1gb of decent ram) = 100 (gskills cas 2-3-3-6)

Total is 724-764

3) Now for a person upgrading an sckt 939 system

Athlon X2 4200+ = 534

Total 534


4) Now for a person upgrading to Intel dual core from a dual P4 system using DDR2 already

PD 820 = 241
Mobo 955 = 150-200

Total = 391-441


1 versus 2 = a wash...Why??? cause the added cost of 25-41% is about close to the performance advantage the 4200+ will have over the PD 2.8...Multimedia wiould be now25+% using the scores from the srever board....

1 versus 3 = no brainer AMD users have a viable reaso to upgrade for huge leads....

2 versus 4 = Intel owners have a better route for sure...like I stated.....



This is all based on the threory MM would be the reaosn for the PC....If a person does pretty much anything else a 2.8ghz prescott really stinks in a lot of things.....


I also firmly believe we will hear about some lower cost model like a 2.0ghz one around launch time with an availability after the others....

Bear in mind this is all assuming current prices. I'm sure both sides will price drop in sync with one another (give or take some weeks), but I plan to upgrade to dual core early next year when multithreaded games start showing up - and the performance leaps we'll see there should be huge.

But hell, but Feb/March '06, an A64 4400+ x2 will probably retail...what, $400 tops?

Barring any major yield disasters of course. The Intel processors will probably be cheaper still, but the performance there...leaves much to be desired - and I'm sure that will only be the case moreso when multithreaded apps start becoming the norm.

I dunno - AMD is SERIOUSLY spanking Intel right now. Should be interesting to watch the server market over the next year.

 

[Lithan]

Im gonna conceed to you here Duvie, cause it seems you did a lot more research compairing NW to Prescott in Media work than I have. I'll now bet that Zebo is right and the reason P4 ee beat the P4 D in so much is that there is a limitation on how much multithreading these HT-optimized media programs actually can benefit from, and so they kept gains from moving from single core HT to dual core + HT to a minimum, letting the simple fact that the EE was a faster core than the ones used in the D's were win so many benches in it's favor, and a 3.73 p4D with 2meg cache on each core(If it were ever made) would perform very closely and perhaps slightly better than the same speed EE in these tests. How's that explaination sound?

 

[alexruiz]

Besides the SSE3 and other enhancements, I would venture to say that many gains come just from thr fact that it's a maturing platform, namely BIOS. The K8 is a different kind of architecture, so I have no doubts the mobo makers were in a learning curve about performance. Also, better memory at tighter timings

Alex

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Some people can't magically pull extra money out of their pocket, so the added cost of an X2 would be too much for them.

Those people can always buy a single core A64. No law saying you have to buy dual core just because they are available. Still, the sheeple will buy Intel. Dell will sell Intel. You and I will buy AMD. Don't be upset over it. AMD can be hitting all the price points and beating the Intel equivalents, and Intel will still outsell AMD.

Should be interesting to watch the server market over the next year.

Same thing. AMD is spanking Intel as far as us geeks are concerned. Intel is outselling AMD as far as marketshare is concerned. I don't see that flip-flopping in the next year.

Here's an analogy. In my home town we have a Walmart, Kmart and Target all across the street from each other. For any identical item pricing is pretty much the same across all three stores. For instance, was shopping for a DVD player (actually the Philips model that played DIVX) and Target had it for $69.99 and Walmart had it for $69.88. I'm sure Walmart does this so they can still have the "we sell for less" blurb on their signage. Walmart is always crowded beyond belief. I HATE going there because I can get in/out of the other stores quickly while at Walmart I always have to dodge through crowds and then wait in checkout. My time is worth more than 11 cents. Why does everyone still go to Walmart? They are sheeple. The same sheeple that buy Intel based systems (excepting for the sheeple that will buy the CHEAPEST system - to heck with what brand CPU).

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Zap
Same thing. AMD is spanking Intel as far as us geeks are concerned. Intel is outselling AMD as far as marketshare is concerned. I don't see that flip-flopping in the next year.

Here's an analogy. In my home town we have a Walmart, Kmart and Target all across the street from each other. For any identical item pricing is pretty much the same across all three stores. For instance, was shopping for a DVD player (actually the Philips model that played DIVX) and Target had it for $69.99 and Walmart had it for $69.88. I'm sure Walmart does this so they can still have the "we sell for less" blurb on their signage. Walmart is always crowded beyond belief. I HATE going there because I can get in/out of the other stores quickly while at Walmart I always have to dodge through crowds and then wait in checkout. My time is worth more than 11 cents. Why does everyone still go to Walmart? They are sheeple. The same sheeple that buy Intel based systems (excepting for the sheeple that will buy the CHEAPEST system - to heck with what brand CPU).

This is well known, what's your point? AMD gained what little marketshare it did from Intel over the past two years mostly in the server market (Opteron). I think that will continue, because people heading up IT divisions are like us enthusiasts - they're educated on the real score and realize AMD is the better choice for most situations at the moment.

I don't expect AMD to come anywhere close to stealing more than minute amounts of marketshare - but I think that just like last time, their gains will be mostly in the server market due to the lack of, as you termed them, "sheeple" in that area.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Some people can't magically pull extra money out of their pocket, so the added cost of an X2 would be too much for them.

Those people can always buy a single core A64. No law saying you have to buy dual core just because they are available. Still, the sheeple will buy Intel. Dell will sell Intel. You and I will buy AMD. Don't be upset over it. AMD can be hitting all the price points and beating the Intel equivalents, and Intel will still outsell AMD.

Should be interesting to watch the server market over the next year.

Same thing. AMD is spanking Intel as far as us geeks are concerned. Intel is outselling AMD as far as marketshare is concerned. I don't see that flip-flopping in the next year.

Here's an analogy. In my home town we have a Walmart, Kmart and Target all across the street from each other. For any identical item pricing is pretty much the same across all three stores. For instance, was shopping for a DVD player (actually the Philips model that played DIVX) and Target had it for $69.99 and Walmart had it for $69.88. I'm sure Walmart does this so they can still have the "we sell for less" blurb on their signage. Walmart is always crowded beyond belief. I HATE going there because I can get in/out of the other stores quickly while at Walmart I always have to dodge through crowds and then wait in checkout. My time is worth more than 11 cents. Why does everyone still go to Walmart? They are sheeple. The same sheeple that buy Intel based systems (excepting for the sheeple that will buy the CHEAPEST system - to heck with what brand CPU).

Werd zap. Same reason this local burger place I know who , makes the freshest best burgers I've ever eaten is only fairly busy while McDonalds who serves sh1t is packed. Mind share. All you need to know about marketing: Advertising dollars + people = shepple.

 

[imported_SLIM]

Originally posted by: Duvie
This is all good, but how do we explain the fact that in the test the actual PD EE model lost out to the one without HT many of the times??? That is the question I have...Is it do to the fact the app is dual theaded but not truly multithreaded???

Feel free to call BS, buuuuuuut,

I think you can make an argument that the HT threads on each core were stealing bandwidth from the rest of the core as well as core resources (cache, registers, etc.). The HT threads are not as efficient as the "real" thread in that the HT thread can still take half the cache and registers but only be utilizing a small percentage of the execution pipelines as its job has always been to just make sure the pipelines aren't stalled. The best this trick has ever done is add 10-20% in highly optimized apps but now is greatly overshadowed by actually having a second core on the same FSB that could do a lot more with that relatively wasted bandwidth.

Another option (in the ever so popular bash M$ arena), the windows scheduler has an app that can only use two threads (not truly MULTIthreaded), so it sends two threads to the first two cores it can find... That's great for the x2 and PD, but what if it is sending those two threads to just one core on the PDEE (one real thread, one HT thread) and the other core is just sitting there twiddling its thumbs. This kind of makes sense if you look at the tech report review where a couple cores were often left doing nothing in several of their benches with the quad core opteron setup. Imagine how much worse those graphs would look if one of the two active cores was way weaker than one of the idle cores.

SLIM

 

[CheesePoofs]

Your second scenario doesnt' make sense, because there are many situations where the hyperthreading of the PD EEs does help. This wouldn't happen if window's schedular was that bad. I think its partly to blame for the problems, but I'm pretty sure it can handle more than two cores.

 

[imported_SLIM]

Originally posted by: CheesePoofs
Your second scenario doesnt' make sense, because there are many situations where the hyperthreading of the PD EEs does help. This wouldn't happen if window's schedular was that bad. I think its partly to blame for the problems, but I'm pretty sure it can handle more than two cores.

But how would scheduler know it was doing anything wrong if all it saw was 4 processors to feed work to, but only had 2 threads to pass out? The "beauty" of HT processors is that they are simply treated as two logical cores.

 

[Keysplayr]

It's just getting too F'ing weird in here. You want AMD? go buy it. You want Intel? go buy it. Be happy with your purchase. Do not give a rats buttocks about marketshare. No concern of yours or mine. If you think it is, your not right. See you guys later. It has gotten like, Manchester United vs. all in here. Going to vomit now...