A64 4000+ In october

[BDSM]

linky

yes I know this is old new.. But I was just thinking.. What will Intel have out the door at that time? Maybe a 3.6 ghz model at best. I think AMD could have a real lead for at least a few months if the 90 nm models are okay and if they really can release them on shcedule.

Cuz 4000+ has gotta be better than 3.6 ghz, right?

 

[jpacelli]

I found this following web page to have some interesting information on future releases

Joe P

 

[Dman877]

Intel already has a 3.6 prescott don't they?

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Dman877
Intel already has a 3.6 prescott don't they?

Not until later this year, and that will probable be a paper launch. Also think of the heat from that thing
:Q

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Dman877
Intel already has a 3.6 prescott don't they?

Not until later this year, and that will probable be a paper launch. Also think of the heat from that thing
:Q

It was announced last month.

 

[SneakyStuff]

I'm just waiting for the socket 754 Athlon 64's to get dirt cheap That's a lotta power with that new one tho, WOW

 

[Gikaseixas]

I want a A64 3800, hope by then it will get as low as $300.00 - 400.00

 

[nick1985]

Intel Prescott's with 1 meg cache smoke any Athlon 64 in gaming.


:beer:

 

[Shimmishim]

nick1985 is joking right?

i'm sure he is...

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Shimmishim
nick1985 is joking right?

i'm sure he is...

yes, im joking. :beer:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Shimmishim
nick1985 is joking right?

i'm sure he is...

yes, im joking. :beer:

Hehe, for a second there I thought someone else was psoting.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

AMD sure has gotten a good deal by being able to ramp the .9 micron chips more slowly because their .13 chips match or exceed the .9 Intel chips. Who would of thunk it?

 

[Inferno]

I knew they could do it ! I've been waiting since the my 486DX4-100 for them to pull it off!

 

[Shimmishim]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Shimmishim
nick1985 is joking right?

i'm sure he is...

yes, im joking. :beer:

whew...

i was scared for a second!!!

 

[manymoons]

peteroy is truely a hero

 

[dguy6789]

Poor, poor intel. AMD already has their 3700+ and 3800+ which are supposed to compete with the 3.7 and 3.8Ghz P4s. And AMD will have the 4000+ out later this year. Hehe, intel has nothing. If AMD keeps this competition up, Intel will be forced to drop prices to saty in competition, and AMD will respond similarly. The customer always wins

 

[bobbyk]

problem. Ddr-2 is huge. It can easily scale to near ddr-2 800 and amd can't win against that right now. That is a possible ~12+ GB/s of bandwidth. There is simply no way.

However intel seems to not like the idea of killing amd. They overclock lock so you can't do that. THough real world performace is a little lower because intel decided to do a 3:4 timing for the ram. the hypertransport can scale to almost anything so running it 1:1 could turn into a huge advantage.

ex. Ddr-2 667 = 333FSB so do the multiplier 3*333 and get a ~1Ghz bus with synchronous ram timings. ddr-2 800 = 400 FSB so you could do 3 * 400 or maybe 5*200 though 3 x 4 would be faster.

intel is using 3:4 so ddr-2 667 on a (333 for 1:1) 266 bus (3:4) *remeber intel's bus is quad pumped which is why this is a 1066 Mhz bus.

Amd will be fine until intel can ramp ddr-2. hopefully amd can get the ddr-2 processors out the door late 1st half 05 and then they will crush intel again.

 

[dguy6789]

Your forgetting, that Hyper Transport is SUPERIOR to and form of Front side bus. Because the Athlon 64 has a built in memory controller, it communicates with memory instantly, it does not have to take time to go back and forth accross an fsb.

If intel had a 10Thz fsb, the current Hyper transport would still own it period.


The high memory speed helps intel, but not by as much as you think. The Athlon 64 is a superior chip to anything intel has, no matter how much they crank up the memory. Intel cannot kill AMD if they wanted to. Get used to it.

 

[bobbyk]

i don't quite think so, if intel wanted to kill amd it would be possible. They would just have to do a lot of thigns that are border line illegal.

I am not saying that intel is better, i am simply saying that ddr-2 is. i could care less about intel.

The problem with hypertransport currently is that it only supports ddr400 from amd. It can do way more but there is no jedec (one of intel's things most likely) spec for anything higher. Therefore amd is quite limited. If they could do ddr 500 until intel had ddr-2 in the thousands amd would win.

My point is that the increased bandwidth will give intel chips and advantage in that area. The only other point is that it really doesn't matter how high the bandwidth goes because it is capped at 6.4 GB/s because the link between the processor and the northbridge is only going to run that fast even on the 925X.

As ddr speeds up it will only help intel until amd does ddr-2.

 

[dguy6789]

Athlon 64s dont use more then pc3200, as they are NOT bandwith limited. YOu could goto pc10000 ddr on an athlon 64 and get less then 5% more performance.

The athlon 64 is more efficient then the p4, so it doesnt need more memory bandwith. The P4 needs it alot however.

And from what i have seen so far, Intel's DDR2 chipsets with the new socket 775 P4s are still inferior to the "old" ddr1 athlon 64s. Unless intel does something very drastic, the netburst architecture is done for.

 

[Alkaline5]

Originally posted by: bobbyk
My point is that the increased bandwidth will give intel chips and advantage in that area.

Okay.

The only other point is that it really doesn't matter how high the bandwidth goes because it is capped at 6.4 GB/s because the link between the processor and the northbridge is only going to run that fast even on the 925X.

Now that's exactly the opposite of what you said before, so which is it?


dguy is absolutely right, btw. Even DC PC3200 provides more bandwidth than the A64 currently needs.

 

[BDSM]

Hey all.

I don't think DDR 2 is going to give Intel that much of an advantage.. first.. because the first P4's and chipsets that support ddr2 only officially support ddr2 at 533 mhz while the fsb remains at 800.

So the current p4's can't take advantage at all of the increased bandwidth of this ram. Plus ddr2 has much worse timings compared to ddr 1.. So ddr2 in it's current state hardly offers anything over ddr1. the slight performance increase with the new chipsets compared to the old with the prescott processor I believe are all in chipset optimizations, not due to the higher frequency of the ddr 2 ram.

Anyway.. Anandtech just reviewed ddr 2 @ 686 mhz at an fsb of 258 mhz... that's roughly the same as 1066 mhz fsb.. and the effective ram trhoughput (according to sandra) is no better than what the best 939 A64's can produce today.

I have heard nothing about plans from intel to ramp beyond 1066 mhz fsb anytime soon.

With those things in mind it would be safe to assume that ddr2 isn't going to do much for intel in the near future.

There is also the possibility that jedec approves of ddr 500 as a standard and then AMD will easily have a memory throughput performance lead again at virtually no cost. DDR will also be cheaper than ddr2 for quite some time.. Which will help AMD.

Also.. we have no clue how far AMD has gone with developing DDR 2 support for the A64.. Maybe it's only 6 months away or so. That would definitely give the memory throughput performance to AMD for some time.


Anyway.. there is ofcourse also the issue of latencies.. AMD wins this one hands down right now and will do so for some time.. easily.

 

[ZobarStyl]

bobbyk, if the A64 was actually starved for memory bandwidth, the difference between dual and single channel setups for AMD users would be noticable. As it stands, it's been shown that the standard Athlon64 had almost no gains going from 764 single channel to 939 double channel. AMD doesn't need DDRII yet to compete...Intel does, and it's the consumer who will foot the bill.

AMD has a quality setup out right now and it shows; Intel has some serious issues right now and it's obvious...they can't get multi-processor Xeons to compete with similar Opterons because the bus holds it back, Itanic is dying from lack of support and the Prescott that's supposed to carry them through ~4.5ghz is already the hottest processor around. None of their platforms (save mobile) are really looking to evolve well right now, and it's going to take a lot more than a premature DDRII release to bring up their performance levels. So much for the idea of Intel killing AMD at will...

 

[sandorski]

Also, keep in mind that it'll be a year or so until DDR2 reaches speeds that make it clearly superior to DDR. AMD is just waiting for that time until it goes to DDR2, Intel might be adding support now, but until DDR2 matures more they won't have an advantage.

It's time to lay aside the whole "Intel can kiil AMD" or "Intel has something in developement" mantra, people have been saying these since the release of the original SlotA Athlon. Even though Intel has matched AMD and even sometimes slightly beat AMD, they have yet to come out with something so vastly superior as to possibly "kill" AMD. IMO, though AMD centric, AMD has been more on the ball concerning leading edge processor technology.

1) They didn't jump on the RDRam bandwagon, but stuck to SDR/DDR

2) They chose Efficiency over raw MHZ speed

3) A couple years ago AMD was ahead on recognizing that a MHZ wall was coming and chose to increase Efficiency in response. Intel continued(so it appears) down the Raw MHZ path and only recently changed course as it hit the Wall and had to cancel developement on a next generation P4 core

4) AMD developed x86-64 and recently Intel has decided to get on that bandwagon

There's more, but that should be enough to show a pattern.

 

[AnnoyedGrunt]

How long do you think DDR2 will hang around before people go to DDR3?

If I were AMD, I'd probably just go straight for DDR3 from a technology standpoint, although from a marketing standpoint it might make more sense to stay with what Intel is doing just so they can leverage off of the increased DDR2 demand that Intel chipsets will create.

Of course, since video card MFG's are using DDR3, we know that RAM MFG's are able to make DDR3 at similar prices to current DDR, so maybe going to DDR3 is a good option afterall.

What do you guys think?

Also, even though the A64 doesn't benefit from faster RAM, if the P4 gets a benefit when the higher speed DDR2 arrives, then it will obviously close the performance gap (or increase any gaps that are already in the P4's favor). How much of a difference the faster memory makes is still something I don't quite know.

I agree that AMD has found a very good mix of efficiency and MHz with the Athlon line of chips. I think that Intel also has a fantastic chip on their hands with the Pentuim M. It performs very similarly to an A64 @ a similar clockspeed (from what I recall). I think in a year or so Intel will have some very nice desktop chips based on the existing Pentium M architecture. In fact, the sooner they bring those out, the better for Intel IMO (of course price is something that would need to come down quite a bit).

-D'oh!