These things are funny as hell.Originally posted by: NFS4
http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612220000
Originally posted by: Snoop
These things are funny as hell.Originally posted by: NFS4
http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612220000
As for the preview, It would be to much to expect that any of you newbs remember when the P4 was released. The thing was junk, yet within a few months things fell into place and it turned out to be a decent cpu. Basing your analysis of a cpu on a preview, using beta silicone, is just a plain waste of time.
Originally posted by: SexyK
Originally posted by: Snoop
These things are funny as hell.Originally posted by: NFS4
http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612220000
As for the preview, It would be to much to expect that any of you newbs remember when the P4 was released. The thing was junk, yet within a few months things fell into place and it turned out to be a decent cpu. Basing your analysis of a cpu on a preview, using beta silicone, is just a plain waste of time.
Well, I remember that, and 99% of the boards apparently still do, because every thread I read on here has at least one person saying, "Eew, P4? That thing has a low IPC, you're wasting your money, they just market to higher MHz." Bottom line, some people are going to believe whatever AMD says, no matter what, some people will believe what Intel says no matter what, and a small percentage will actaully look at things objectively and say, in this case, thus far, Athlon 64 is an unmitigated disaster (fact: its a year late, fact: its 20% below target frequence with B0 silicon, fact: it's getting blown out by the Athlon XP in many tests, fact: its going to have much stiffer competition from Intel by the time it's released)
Originally posted by: imgod2u
Wow, I hope the Sandra SSE2 benchmarks aren't correctly showing what the final silicon will be able to do because the P4 wrecks the Athlon64 in the floating point SSE2 ops (though the Athlon64 is within striking distance on the integer SSE2 ops). Otherwise the scores are good, but nothing like what AMD built us up to believe it would be like. Judging by AMD's earlier comments I thought the Athlon64 would thoroughly massacre the P4 in everything from the get go.
Well, the SSE2 performance is understandable. While Intel skimped quite a bit on x87 support and many integer-intensive tasks are very branch-heavy (hence, the hyperpipelined design would hold it back), SSE/SSE2 performance on the P4, even on a clock-normalized scale, was focused on quite a bit. The K8 has the same SSE/SSE2 execution resources as the P4 does and since the data-to-instruction ratio is very high in such operations, the P4's limited scheduling and issuing bottlenecks aren't a concern. It's mostly data-limited and the P4's caching and memory subsystem should be quite sufficient at supplying the data neccessary for SSE/SSE2 operations.
I'd be curious to see how many benchmarks are seriously effected by the use of a 1 MB L2 cache as Prescott will be evening that playing field very shortly after the Athlon64's launch. Also, judging by the Athlon64's performance in 3DS Studio and Lightwave AMD engineers still have to work heavily on that SSE2 unit to bring it up to par with Intel's. The Opteron's memory latency on the other hand is exceptional, too bad AMD is choking the chip with single channel DDR though.
The SSE2 unit, by all means, are on par with the P4's. The difference is, the P4 has a significantly higher clockrate. You can't really do much more than 1 SSE2 instruction per clock, the parallel execution resources neccessary would be tremendous and more than anything available of any x86 processor I've ever seen.
The point though, isn't whether or not they are on par with the P4s on a clock-normalized basis. Hammer has to be equal to the P4-even with a huge clock disadvantage as the P4 will likely always be waaaay ahead of the Hammer in terms of pure frequency. Without that, the P4 will be wiping the floor with the Hammer on an increasing number of SSE2-optimized programs. This is especially bad for AMD in that since both companies will now have SSE2 units, software makers will be seeing the instruction set as standard and include it into more and more programs.
All in all I hope that they can significantly tweak this CPU before it's released because otherwise Prescott will be very bad news for AMD. I'm a little disappointed in the benches as I expected AMD to clearly be ahead of the P4 in almost all tasks.
Well, expectations lead to disappointment because your expectations are almost always going to be unreasonably high. I think the chip did pretty well for a 1.6 GHz part that's suppose to be scalable up to 2.4 GHz and beyond.
I really hope you're right, but judging by the fact that it's a year late and this is only running at 1.6 GHz it may be a tad optimistic. Also, the fact that this is a 1.6 GHz part and the numbers in these benchies show me that AMD's "we're waiting for 64-bit Windows" excuse is not the only reason they're waiting 'till Sept. to launch
OT: Does anyone else see how this shows that AMD's model number scheme is fundamentally flawed? (despite the fact that they claim it is a Tbird comparison)
A lot of people did and still do to this day. There have been many a threads about it. But there will always be fanboys eating out of the hands of marketing of their favorite pet company.
some people will believe what Intel says no matter what
Originally posted by: Vadatajs
64 bit = greater precision
greater precision != performs faster
Sexyk, either you are a completely ignorant, or you are biased. From reading this review their is NO way to acertain the final performance of the cpu, as this is not a production model, meaning, (please read this carefully) ITS NOT FINISHED YET. The ONLY thing we can reasonably extract is that a BETA chip is much faster on a per mhz level, then its predecessor. Further, since the design is based directly on the K7, but with a longer pipeline (2 more stages, so around 20 % longer), you would have to be a complete dolt not to think it will eventually match and exceed the current K7's speeds.and a small percentage will actaully look at things objectively and say, in this case, thus far, Athlon 64 is an unmitigated disaster
At least mechBgon brought some information to the table with his post about 64-bit performance of the UT2003 engine.
Originally posted by: MrFiTTy
I still cant get the page to load?
Why?
Can someone please tell me why
Anyone care to send me some pics of the processor and some of thte benchys.
Thanks
dan
Yes, but with some differences such as a dual-channel memory controller and an extra Hypertransport so it can talk to the other CPUs and their memory banks, in a multiprocessor system. Hence the different number of pins on the Opterons.Originally posted by: MrFiTTy
Is the opteron (Sledgehammer) 64bit as well?
Originally posted by: mechBgon
There you go Dan
Originally posted by: mechBgon
Yes, but with some differences such as a dual-channel memory controller and an extra Hypertransport so it can talk to the other CPUs and their memory banks, in a multiprocessor system. Hence the different number of pins on the Opterons.Originally posted by: MrFiTTy
Is the opteron (Sledgehammer) 64bit as well?
Originally posted by: mechBgon
From Firing Squad:
So I would be interested in seeing what the 64-bit OS and 64-bit-specific apps bring to this equation. Anyone have an opinion on whether media encoding apps would benefit from the full 64-bit treatment?Evil Avatar: Can you give me any idea what kind of a performance increase people might see running the 64-bit version?
Tim Sweeney: In pure CPU performance, Athlon64 is about 15% faster than previous Athlon's of identical clock rate for 32-bit apps, and 30% for 64-bit apps, because it exposes double the number of CPU registers, enabling the compiler to generate more efficient code. As for UT2003 performance, we haven't benchmarked yet but expect it to be faster though less than 30% because the GPU is as significant a factor as CPU.
Originally posted by: Snoop
Sexyk, either you are a completely ignorant, or you are biased. From reading this review their is NO way to acertain the final performance of the cpu, as this is not a production model, meaning, (please read this carefully) ITS NOT FINISHED YET. The ONLY thing we can reasonably extract is that a BETA chip is much faster on a per mhz level, then its predecessor. Further, since the design is based directly on the K7, but with a longer pipeline (2 more stages, so around 20 % longer), you would have to be a complete dolt not to think it will eventually match and exceed the current K7's speeds.and a small percentage will actaully look at things objectively and say, in this case, thus far, Athlon 64 is an unmitigated disaster
At least mechBgon brought some information to the table with his post about 64-bit performance of the UT2003 engine.
In a straight port of code highly optimized for x86-32, Counter-Strike dedicated server tests with both 32- and 64-bit versions revealed a 30% clock-for-clock gain, and is expected to show further performance gains in future upgrades.