Author Topic: AMD Doubling Power and Distance from Intel (Read 6008 times)

unforgiven · « **on:** June 18, 2004, 02:31:57 PM »

"AMD is taking steps in the right direction, in order to gain a further advantage over rival Intel with the introduction of dual-core processors. AMD confirmed it has completed design of its AMD64 dual-core processors and plans to deliver high-performance dual-core products to the x86 server market in mid-2005 and introduce dual-core solutions for high-end client PCs in the second half of 2005. Intel, having cancelled the Pentium 4 in order to concentrate on dual-core processors, will not have a similar product released until at least 2006.

The dual-core chips will offer enhanced performance for servers and for demanding tasks such as video editing and high-end graphics applications, including games. It will in fact be a very similar experience to running a PC with two processors.

Since the AMD64 platform was first discussed publicly in 1999, AMD indicated that its AMD64 technology would support multiple-core processors.
Because AMD has always listened to our customers, we anticipated an industry shift toward multi-tasking applications requiring the scalability that only 64-bit dual-core processors can provide, said Dirk Meyer, executive vice president, Computation Products Group, AMD. That is why years ago we designed AMD64 technology from the ground up to be optimized for multiple cores.

AMD also plans enhancements to its 64-bit processors with the transition to 90nm manufacturing that began this quarter, providing greater flexibility to boost processor performance and lower power. Additionally, AMDs collaboration with IBM, and AMD Fab 36 is expected to deliver a 65nm manufacturing capability in mid-2005. This should enable AMD to deliver lower-power and higher-performance 65nm products in 2006."

source www.megagames.com
looks like good news to me

Carigamers · « **on:** June 18, 2004, 02:31:57 PM »

TrinireturnofGamez · « **Reply #1 on:** June 18, 2004, 05:24:21 PM »

intel has dual cores ready too... but they eat over 100w of power ... and put out more heat than they can cool with a normal heatsink......

u forget they are SHARING research.... what one has the next one can have ...

it IS dual processors, but one bus... i just can't wait to see... the prices that i'll never be able to afford.... probably another athlon FX in the making.. will be years before it comes d own to the mainstream market.

SUPR3M3 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 18, 2004, 08:36:45 PM »

AMD doing big things. I can't picture using anything else right about now. Intel had their time back in the days.
It's the same as the video card wars being dominated ATI

, the processor wars is being dominated by AMD. They've really impressed me with their technology and I am now a serious fan.

Good Job

CRaZyAnGeL · « **Reply #3 on:** June 18, 2004, 08:47:06 PM »

^^^
everything he said
radeons and athlons immc

TrinireturnofGamez · « **Reply #4 on:** June 18, 2004, 10:36:53 PM »

yeah ... the A's have taken over the PC market........ Intel's only good for OEM computers... dells and gateways..... unless they put out a good product soon.. AMD will start to get deals with Intel hardcore partners ... and intel is screwed.

ATi just 0//nz nvidia plain... they are much more truthful when it comes to admiting they use optimizations [ and still look better than nvidia

] , their cards run cooler, use less power.. and are smaller.... they are not the fastest in everything , but are faster when it matters.. and when they are slower.. its by a small amount.... and alyuh don't forget... little or no actual card available for sale will reach the performance levels of Nvidia samples.... nvidia doesn not make their own cards.. and there is nothing to stop OEM partners from slapping on substandard parts and selling the cards for the same price , and at the same name of the others .

Eg. Sure nvidia is fasta in dIII... but by 3-4 fps out of 60! the FX5950 and everything FX beneath it is half the speed of the ATi cards for HL2... the 5900 ultra is slower than a 9600 pro! THe 6800s improve greatly though.. withing 5 fps of the x-800xt.... look at Digit-life.com some time.. they got ALOT of marginally legal reviews.. and illegal ones [ Hl2 alfa etc.] , and www.digital-daily.com has them too.

Intel only holds the crown for 3drendering and some video editing because of HT.... i wonder how long AMD will take before they implament HT.. or even if they will at all.

Carigamers · « **Reply #4 on:** June 18, 2004, 10:36:53 PM »

coldstorm · « **Reply #5 on:** June 19, 2004, 09:53:58 AM »

video rendering does not make use of the HT they make use of raw cpu speed with two core the processor speed is theoritically doubles. this ain't not crappy ht where the processor is basically splint into two part shareing the L1 cache and L2 cache. Also intels new instruction set SSE 3 makes use of some video encoding instruction cutting the time it take to encode audio & video. AMD will also never have to implement HT why would they when they have two cores in the chip

. Also top of the line athlon fx will still let buy 1 Gb of high quality ram with low timming before u u could afford the pentium 4 EE which they where made to compete with so amd still cheaper way to go . the dual core cpu with most likely have atleast 1 dedicated Hyper transport channel for it to communicate between the cores. that should be about 2Gb/s most likely they would add two or more channels to communicate between cores.

TrinireturnofGamez · « **Reply #6 on:** June 19, 2004, 10:14:21 AM »

but with dual core.... you can tell the mobo that there are 4 cpus on it! thats 2x the HT ...

coldstorm · « **Reply #7 on:** June 19, 2004, 12:11:37 PM »

if u looked at toms bench marks with dual xeon server with ht it don't always work so good.While HT would run more things at once at a better speed can't be mistaken for a dual core cpu.Also if u that ain't clear enough thing a a single xeon with ht enabled against a dual xeon board with ht off and see who comes out on top . Dual core = 1337

TrinireturnofGamez · « **Reply #8 on:** June 19, 2004, 03:43:42 PM »

i know what HT is and what it does, dual cores will be better , but dual core HT is even better.. ..

Windows isn't designed to use dual processors thats why there was no great improvement in performance.....

There IS a tweak to help this, in programs that allow it, make 2 seperate installs and tell each program to use a specific precessor , u can run 2 versions of SETI@home crunching 2 work packets at the same time, instead of crunching 1 packet a little faster than normal.

And besides, windows and most linux aren't designed to use HT either.

W1nTry · « **Reply #9 on:** June 23, 2004, 04:49:09 PM »

Hmm again not much homework done here I see... in case TrinithereturnofGamez
doesn't know let me inform him:
1. AMD has a patent for HT (HyperThreading) so in the future would they ever intend to implement it they have the door open.
2. AMD also has DUAL CORE processors slated for 2005-2006....

now take into consideration that a SINGLE CORE Prescott can burn at up to 100W and now take into consideration 2 cores on the same wafer... can u spell close to 200W... TOASTER ANYONE?

Also, if the top of the line @MD single core beating the top of the line Int3l single core what will a dual core 64-BIT CPU do? hmm... interesting....

TrinireturnofGamez · « **Reply #10 on:** June 23, 2004, 05:20:59 PM »

true the prescotts are scorchers... beating back even the thunderbirds!

but that is due to 3 things :

the voltage passes through the chip faster than the clock, so the voltage escapes as heat as it is locked in at the transistors bridge thingies...

the voltage is also too high to operate properly on socket 478, that is one of the reasons of moving to a new socket. 775 pins will help the heat a bit...

the transistor density is higher than the NWoods as it is 2x the transistors + smaller chip... even though they moved to a smaller process the density is still significantly higher.

All these things can be fixed before 2006 and dual corez

remember this thing has TWICE the transistor count of the northwoods! though most of the stuff is locked off [64bit stuff] it still uses alot more power for the 1mb of L2 cache and all the extra features on chip....

i don't like intel myself.. evil rich people driving prices up

@MD is evil and rich but not so bad.

coldstorm · « **Reply #11 on:** June 23, 2004, 07:02:17 PM »

what nonsense u talking about lock off stuff they ain't got anything locked off on prescotts . they haven't implemented the mass production yet so they can't lock off what ain't there .

TrinireturnofGamez · « **Reply #12 on:** June 23, 2004, 08:25:30 PM »

http://xbitlabs.dealtime.com/xPP-Processor...nkin_id-3035643

locked off.. not enabled.. same thing....

stop doubting me..

and they ARE in mass production

i'm talking about the prescott chips for socket 478...

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc....-116-174&depa=0

W1nTry · « **Reply #13 on:** June 24, 2004, 09:09:51 AM »

Well I will say that hes right on the locked part at least as far as 64-bit goodness is... however I am not so sure about the heat part... though I think its their own fault following moore's law for too long, honestly the future of Int3l is in their P3nt1um M technology, no moore's law there... and heck 1.4GHz CPUs outperforming 2.4GHz... I do believe some of their up and coming desktop processors will be based on the M cores... now if I could only rem the name of that core... ah well still currently a TOASTER

TrinireturnofGamez · « **Reply #14 on:** June 24, 2004, 09:36:17 AM »

explain following Moores law too long? its not like anyone has found a substitute for silicon, metal and transistors that is cheap enough to replace it...

W1nTry · « **Reply #15 on:** June 24, 2004, 09:42:32 AM »

Too long as in seeing the proverbial glass roof for your processor technology and not thinking to scrap redesign and go for less MegaHurtz with similar performance... however seems that now that they have hit their heads thats exactly what they are doing... anyone notice the numbering convention... hmm and to think they hit @MD sooo hard for that....

TrinireturnofGamez · « **Reply #16 on:** June 24, 2004, 09:50:19 AM »

mega hurtz is what sells these chipz to stupid ppl who think it means something...

and all they care about is money!

thats one of the reasons why the X-800 has such a high clock, once stupid ppl see 750mhz on the box vs 450 mhz on the nvidia they will think the x-800 is TWICE AS FAST...

coldstorm · « **Reply #17 on:** June 25, 2004, 08:31:17 AM »

then why intel wich to new numbering system ?

W1nTry · « **Reply #18 on:** June 25, 2004, 01:06:39 PM »

Hmm didn't read my post did he.... Int3l switched to a numbering system because their HIGH FREQUENCY TOASTERS don't perform as HIGH as the numbers suggests... OR if u prefer to believe Int3l:

"The Intel numbering scheme is intended to distinguish processors on different features such as HT and cache that they might possess"

The Megahurtz myth was what previously sold their processors, "faster is better" however ppl (the less educated populace) are starting to realise that higher doesn't neessarily mean better, think of this, a 2.4GHz @thlon 64 is NOT... do u see why they can no longer use Megahurtz to sell their CPUs...

TrinireturnofGamez · « **Reply #19 on:** June 25, 2004, 04:30:32 PM »

actually higher clock sometimes is WORSE... in the case of the AthlonXP mobile, someone clocked it to 2.8 GHZ and it was actually SLOWER than at 2.4/2.5 GHZ for some reason :S ....

Carigamers · « **Reply #19 on:** June 25, 2004, 04:30:32 PM »

Author Topic: AMD Doubling Power and Distance from Intel (Read 6008 times)

Carigamers

Carigamers

Carigamers

ShoutBox