Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

185 comments

[offtopic] 'Print' version is split into 10 pages. (5, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15385848)

Hardware secrets - you suck.

10 pages not saying very much is (irritating, but) acceptable, but when you split the print article [hardwaresecrets.com] into 10 pages, you've crossed line from greediness to stupidity.

(fires up IE). Oh nice, and there's advertisments on each of the print pages too. How is that supposed to be printable?

Re:[offtopic] 'Print' version is split into 10 pag (5, Informative)

Shadows (121287) | more than 8 years ago | (#15385880)

Summary: Blah blah, blah, blah blah blah... and finally something interesting:

[from page 10]
We didn't see any performance improvement by the use of DDR2 memories instead of DDR. In fact, Athlon 64 FX-60 was faster in several situations, showing that at least for the software we used having a bigger L2 memory cache is better than having DDR2 memory instead of regular DDR.

But, on the other hand, we have to consider the future and what is behind AMD's strategy in going to AM2 socket and DDR2 support. In our opinion, what is important isn't the release of Athlon 64 5000+, but the possibility of increasing the memory bus clock rate in the near future. For socket 939 platform this was not possible since the top DDR official standard was DDR400/PC3200. With AM2 AMD can finally go beyond that, as DDR2 official standards include at least three speed grades above that: DDR2-533, DDR2-667 and DDR2-800. That is promising.

Re:[offtopic] 'Print' version is split into 10 pag (1, Funny)

Bilestoad (60385) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386313)

Even Shorter Summary:

AMD are in deep shit once Conroe appears in volume, as comparisons have already shown that even an overclocked FX-60 loses badly to Conroe. Oh well, it was a nice couple of years for them.

Re:[offtopic] 'Print' version is split into 10 pag (3, Interesting)

myurr (468709) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386409)

Are they really? Conroe has been shown to be quicker in limited tests overseen by Intel. Note that, as far as I am aware, none of the 'independent' testers so far have been responsible for setting up any of the test machines. And while I am sure Intel did not do anything untoward, can you honestly guarantee that absolutely everything is fair and equal in that test?

Take a look at this article: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2487 [dailytech.com]

It's showing the new woodcrest chips to be somewhere between 5 - 15% faster, as opposed to Intels claimed 33%.

Finally, have you considered that AMD may just be working on something new. For a start this is their first AM2 chip, they will surely start ramping the core clock as well as the memory clock soon. And they have kept very quiet about their other future developments, not to mention any process changes (ie. catching up with Intels 65nm lead).

So while Intel may indeed recapture the top performance slot for a while it's likely to be transient until AMD release their next big thing. Which will capture the performance crown for a while until Intel release their next big thing. And so on.

Re:[offtopic] 'Print' version is split into 10 pag (1)

myurr (468709) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386422)

Of course I forgot to mention that Conroe is 32bit, the AMD64 chips are... wait for it... 64 bit! You may not feel that is important, but many readers on this site do.

Re:[offtopic] 'Print' version is split into 10 pag (2, Informative)

jiushao (898575) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386454)

Of course I forgot to mention that Conroe is 32bit

Well, that's true, except it's not.

HardOCP review, link to print version (3, Informative)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15385991)

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articleprint.html?ar t=MTA2NQ== [hardocp.com]

Much better than the posted story which is nothing more than an advertisement for Hardware secrets.

When will /. editors review entries to prevent this abuse? If anything, when new hardware is released we all know multiple sites will cover the release. That means, put links to the more popular review sites into the story instead of helping one person get his ad hits.

Uneven Benchmark (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15385867)

According to the last page of the review, they gave the Socket 939 platform 2GB of ram, and the AM2 platform 1GB.

Re:Uneven Benchmark (1)

moro_666 (414422) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386317)

even more, is it just me or did they really take a dual core processor and made singlethreaded benchmarks on it and claimed the results with a proud smile in the face ?

if they'd run 2 quake4's at the same time on the machine, the results would be interesting, but all these benchmarks are just quite worthless from the real life point of view. it is nearly identical cpu with just 2 cores of the logic, why do you expect it to differ in any way (most of the single threaded benchmarks are head-to-head, showing off perhaps 1% difference in performance, which clearly shows that the second core was slapping it's sexy hip while the first one was running it's pants off).

Re:Uneven Benchmark (1)

Jesapoo (929240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386641)

Yeah, I know since I got my two extra arms I've been playing two instances of Q4 lots more.. ;)

Re:Uneven Benchmark (4, Funny)

kjs3 (601225) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386529)

Apparently, saving the allowance his Mom gives him hasn't added up to the $75 or so needed for another 1GB of DDR2.

Upgrade? (5, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15385869)

The 939 NForce 4 Ultra/SLI line is showing age so on one hand, I'm glad to see the new tech (and DDR2 support) finally.

However, I don't know that I can convince my wife to let me spend the money on such a large overhaul again. I'm fairly happy with my AMD 64 system at the moment.

Honestly, I just hope AMD maintains their lead long enough for people to start taking notice (like Dell using AMD in the server line).

Re:Upgrade? (4, Informative)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 8 years ago | (#15385907)

The 939 NForce 4 Ultra/SLI line is showing age



Does that mean it has finally reached some degree of maturity ?

And sorry to disappoint you - since the chipset-cpu interface remains the same, the "old" chipsets can be used for AM2 processors, as long as the mainboard has an AM2- and DDR2-sockets.

Re:Upgrade? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15385993)

NVidia was talking about the NForce 5 chipsets ages ago, and I believe they were holding off for AM2. I'm pretty sure that we'll see new chipsets pretty soon. The main difference with AM2 is the memory controller, which is built into the CPU, so the chipsets really don't have to be different, but there are some things that need improved/fixed from the NForce 4 series (such as the built in firewall, etc).

Re:Upgrade? (1)

ted.hansson (877542) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386185)

NVidia was talking about the NForce 5 chipsets ages ago, and I believe they were holding off for AM2. I'm pretty sure that we'll see new chipsets pretty soon.

According to The Register, that will be later today http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/05/23/review_amd _am2_athlon_64_fx-62/ [reghardware.co.uk]

Re:Upgrade? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386308)

Now I don't recall where I read it, but about an hour ago I read the breakdown on the 4 different chipsets in the NForce 500 series. Basically there is the uber-overclocker's SLI edition, the silent SLI edition, the baseline series, and the Crossfire series. Here you go. I think this was the article. http://www.nforcershq.com/article6287.html [nforcershq.com]

Re:Upgrade? (1)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386408)

The 939 NForce 4 Ultra/SLI line is showing age

How so? My current setup (ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe, 3800+, 7800GTX, 1 GB DDR) has no problems running any of the most intensive games and/or apps. About the time that Vista comes out I'll probably just upgrade the processor to a 4800+ (which will be about $300 by that time), get a second 7800GTX, and slap in another 1 GB of DDR. All for about $600. And then I should be good to go for another year or two.

Re:Upgrade? (2, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386493)

The chipset itself is showing age, not necessarily your PC.

Early SLI offerings leave much to be desired in efficency and design. Furthermore, the NForce 4 series was innovative in features, but since so many of these features were new, they were buggy or weren't implemented horribly well.

We're due for a more stable NForce 5 series.

Re:Upgrade? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15386500)



The 939 NForce 4 Ultra/SLI line is showing age

I'm fairly happy with my AMD 64 system


So which is it? Either your 939 system is running slow or it isn't. Unless you live in backwards land where slow makes you happy. And furthermore, be a man and tell your wife what you will and won't buy. You're a perfect example of the emasculation of modern society. This is how you should run your life: Do what you want, let her burn the meatloaf, and keep playing Oblivion at 1280x1024 on your AMD 64 system.




Re:Upgrade? (1)

Bender (11183) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386519)

The 939 NForce 4 Ultra/SLI line is showing age so on one hand, I'm glad to see the new tech (and DDR2 support) finally.


I don't understand. How is the nforce4 showing its age? Performance is excellent, and as reviews have shown, better than the AM2 platform right now.

Re:Upgrade? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15386615)

Honestly, I just hope AMD maintains their lead long enough for people to start taking notice

Who cares? I'm going to use whatever is the cheapest/fastest/best platform. I don't care if it's AMD or Intel. What are you a fanboy?

I'm currently using an Opteron system but will probably switch to Intel/Conroe when there are fast enough setups. I'm sick of the crap-ass socket-940 motherboards. AMD should make their own boards and full chipsets because the 3rd-party stuff is garbage. Intel does it better (disk controllers and such) but the Prescott processors and everything based off those cores suck donkey balls.

2.6 Ghz, not 2.4Ghz (1, Informative)

adam1101 (805240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15385875)

One of the first sentences of TFA states that the 5000+ is clocked at 2.6Ghz.

Ignore these benchmarks (5, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15385877)

They actually tested the 939 rigs with 2 gigs of memory, and the new rig with 1 gig of memory. They said they didn't have 2 sticks of DDR2 for the AM2 rig, but then they should have only used 1 stick in the 939 rig.

When benchmarking, you should try to keep all test systems as comparable as possible. I really am disappointed by what I consider a glaring oversight.

Seriously, for shame.

Re:Ignore these benchmarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15385900)

Yes, it showed AM2 in a favorable light. Two RAM sticks increase overall timings. None of the benches they did would exceed over 1GB memory required, so there would be no HDD swapping involved. In other words, expect a ~1% drop relative to their numbers if they add an extra RAM stick in the AM2 machine.

Either way, it's statistically insignificant. Don't get your panties in a wad over it.

Re:Ignore these benchmarks (2, Informative)

Barny (103770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386080)

The testing of one rig with 2 sticks of 1G ddr ram (2x64bit bus, accessed in dual channel mode so 128bit) is VERY much inacurate against a rig running one stick of 1G (1x 64bit bus, can only be accessed in single channel, 64bit, mode), and I believe that is a serius error.

However, AMD is going to lag a little behind in the short term, although the memory latancy is still allmost half of what intels current parts are capable of (check out theinquirer.org for some interesting insights into thise issue).

Re:Ignore these benchmarks (4, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386116)

The thing that really got me was the conclusion page. For many people, that is all they read. In said conclusion they said the DDR2 support wasn't necessary that great because the FX-60 beat out the 5000+ in several test.

In all the CPU specific test, the 5000+ came out on top. In tests that benchmarked total system power, the FX-60 rig with 2 gigs running in dual channel mode came out on top.

If these guys don't know how to put together proper testing rigs, let alone extrapolate results, then AMD shouldn't be wasting test equipment on them. They can send processors to me, and I'll put up some serious benchmarks, including detailed overclocking, burn-in testing, temperature readings, etc.

Re:Ignore these benchmarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15386214)

In said conclusion they said the DDR2 support wasn't necessary that great because the FX-60 beat out the 5000+ in several test.

Huh? Second paragraph:
But, on the other hand, we have to consider the future and what is behind AMD's strategy in going to AM2 socket and DDR2 support. In our opinion, what is important isn't the release of Athlon 64 5000+, but the possibility of increasing the memory bus clock rate in the near future. For socket 939 platform this was not possible since the top DDR official standard was DDR400/PC3200. With AM2 AMD can finally go beyond that, as DDR2 official standards include at least three speed grades above that: DDR2-533, DDR2-667 and DDR2-800. That is promising.

Re:Ignore these benchmarks (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386231)

also the 5000 has only 512k L2 pre core where as the FX-60 has 1meg pre core.

Re:Ignore these benchmarks (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386286)

However, in every pure CPU-specific benchmark the 5000+ beat the FX-60 (not by much, but it did).

Re:Ignore these benchmarks (3, Informative)

MadRocketScientist (792254) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386264)

From TFA, Page 3: Memory: Two Corsair CM2X512-8500 modules with 512 MB each, installed on DDR2 Dual Channel configuration (using 4-4-4-12 timings) for socket AM2 CPUs.

Re:Ignore these benchmarks (1)

valshaq (556662) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386299)

But with only one stick you couldn't profit of the dual channel memory controller. This sucks.

Re:Ignore these benchmarks (1)

ocbwilg (259828) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386358)

But with only one stick you couldn't profit of the dual channel memory controller. This sucks.

It doesn't suck. Any other hardware review site would have had another DDR2 stick to put in, or would have at least gone out and bought one. The reviewer sucks.

Re:Ignore these benchmarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15386306)

Here is a link to a more complete review:
http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=316 [short-media.com]

Welcome, Intel (5, Insightful)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15385901)

I for one welcome Intel to the top performance game. I used to be all happy about AMD gradually taking over the market ever since their first Athlon slot CPU:s. This has also caused the pricing war significantly since AMD already knew they kicked Intel in most parts of all reviews.

Now that Intel is back, we can finally see some heavy competition between the two. The Core Duo is a superb processor and I am eagerly awaiting my MacBook to arrive and I can't wait to see the second release of the Core Duo.

Remember what it was like a few years ago? I used to follow the price charts of CPU:s for drops and they were a lot more frequent than they are today. So now it's easy to say that we should get the same competition all over again and I am quite sure that Hector Ruiz at AMD has a backup plan ready to be enrolled this year.

So once again, welcome, Intel!

Re:Welcome, Intel (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15385926)

So once again, welcome, Intel!

Intel might be the king in the performance-per-watt race, but AMD is still the king in the far more important performance-per-dollar race.

It's a pity Apple didn't go AMD as well as Intel for their supplier of x86 chips - 'cause I always feel like I'm overpaying for an intel product :-/

Re:Welcome, Intel (4, Insightful)

chrismcdirty (677039) | more than 8 years ago | (#15385951)

You feel like you're overpaying for Intel, but you didn't ever feel like you were overpaying for PowerPC in the past? I have a feeling that if Apple had used AMD chips, you'd still be paying the same price, but more of it would go directly into Apple's pockets.

Re:Welcome, Intel (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15385982)

You feel like you're overpaying for Intel, but you didn't ever feel like you were overpaying for PowerPC in the past? I have a feeling that if Apple had used AMD chips, you'd still be paying the same price, but more of it would go directly into Apple's pockets.

I did feel like I was overpaying for ppc - but I guess you're right. Apple products are just overpriced.

I guess I'll just stay happy with my very cheap AMD laptop :-)

Re:Welcome, Intel (2, Insightful)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386128)

You feel like you're overpaying for Intel, but you didn't ever feel like you were overpaying for PowerPC in the past?

Speculation was that Apple paid under $50 for a G4 CPU.

For a large OEM like Dell, I doubt there's any huge difference between Intel and AMD pricing. Apple however is pretty much only using the luxury Core Duo parts, so they are probably spending a lot more money on CPUs and saving it elsewhere by using Intel chipsets and integrated video. If component costs were really a huge concern for Apple, they'd be shipping boxes with Celerons and Pentium-Ds. But with 20-30% profit margins, who cares?

Re:Welcome, Intel (1)

alep85 (976623) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386572)

I think you couldn't be further from the truth in terms of Apple's decision. AMD's Turion and mobile Athlon chips are CRAP, they have poor battery performance and they can't come close to matching the Core Duos in performance. Perhaps you should realize that Apple is going for performance in a small form factor. AMD just doesn't have good mobile chips to do that. For the PowerMac replacement, yes, AMD would be a great choice, but with Conroe and Woodcrest coming soon, I think we'll begin to see Apple's choice with Intel was a good one.

Re:Welcome, Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15386622)

Intel might be the king in the performance-per-watt race, but AMD is still the king in the far more important performance-per-dollar race.

If you look at what Conroe is set to be priced at [dailytech.com] , it will be half the price with better performance than the closest AMD parts (as they are today anyway). All I've seen from AMD since they took the performance crown is just as expensive as the Intel of old. AMD is looking to be in a world of hurt.

Of course, all this means is that you always need competition around, regardless of who's ahead.

Re:Welcome, Intel (1)

spectrumCoder (944322) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386023)

Could you post a link to the CPU price charts you're referring to? When timing the purchase of a new CPU (or any PC component for that matter) it'd be great to be able to buy when the price has bottomed out rather than when it's in the middle of a steep decline.

Re:Welcome, Intel (2, Informative)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386062)

There are quite a few of them out there. Here's one for CPU:

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/WCPG/article.p hp/3607116 [sharkyextreme.com]

And here's one for RAM:

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/WMPG/article.p hp/3607991 [sharkyextreme.com]

Re:Welcome, Intel (2, Interesting)

spectrumCoder (944322) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386236)

I'm aware of price watches, which give the week-on-week price changes for components, but what I believe would be really handy is a graph of the price of any given component over time (with a time range of anything from three months to three years).

One could then analyse the steepness of the curve and come to some conclusions, such as the best time to buy a graphics card is nine or twelve months after release, LCD panel prices are unlikely to experience the same rate of decrease in the coming twelve months than in the previous twelve months, etc. (these statements are just examples of the possible sorts of conclusions)

I'm guessing that CPUs have a reasonably shallow curve (since the product lifespan is longer than the typical motherboard or graphics card), but I'm not sure.

That's what I would do too (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386582)

...If i had a magical chart making machine that knew the difference between a decline underway or a true bottom. No way would I use it on the stock market or anything like that. Seriously though, you just need to pay attention to product releases like this, and look at how it compares to existing hardware. Big price cuts generally only happen when bigger and better things roll out in the same segment. Price cuts will happen repeatedly, so don't bother waiting for the 'bottom'!

Re:Welcome, Intel (1)

GoatMonkey2112 (875417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386064)

I somewhat agree, but Intel with no competition is no better at lowering prices. AMD needs to stay close and we'll be set for some price drops.

Intel's roadmap to the Cornroe and beyond (-1, Offtopic)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 8 years ago | (#15385906)

The Cornroe will likely be released in late 2007, followed by the Beehive in early 2008, and the Mullet in late 2008. The Afro, the Bob, are secheduled for sometime in 2009 and are set to be the last chips in this architecture line. In 2010 Intel will release its next-gen processing technology codenamed, The Flock of Seagulls [yesalbum.com] .

Re:Intel's roadmap to the Cornroe and beyond (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15385921)

Yea, Cornroe is a total joke. Check out the Hexus Review [hexus.net] . Or maybe not.

Re:Intel's roadmap to the Cornroe and beyond (1)

Vlad_the_Inhaler (32958) | more than 8 years ago | (#15385971)

For the last couple of years, AMD products have been the best in so many ways and Intel have been producing heating units. Now the Empire has Struck Back - Dell will be very happy about that.

I personally have absolutely no interest in 'the fastest thing in town', gamers may care but Cool, Quiet and Reasonably Fast are easily enough for me.

From what I hear, the Conroe is slightly more energy-efficient than AMD's offerings.
How does it scale? The Opteron is designed to be a server processor more than anything else.

Re:Intel's roadmap to the Cornroe and beyond (4, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386136)

It really isn't fair to compare the next-gen Intel offerings (just now coming out) against the three year old K8 core which is what people are doing. AMD's next gen processors are rolling out this summer. Let's try to compare apples to apples.

When we compare apples to apples (the P4 line to the K8 line) Intel actually uses more power, generates more heat, runs slower, and is more expensive.

I'm glad Intel stepped up and made a good processor. The Core Duo is a good processor, don't get me wrong. But for all the marketing buzz about Intel right now, AMD does in fact have a response.

AMD is not only rolling out Turion X2 series processors, but they've got the AM2 lineup such as the 5000+ X2, the quad core series, etc.

Re:Intel's roadmap to the Cornroe and beyond (4, Interesting)

powerlord (28156) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386322)

Exactly. The other thing that most people miss is the strengths for each player.

Even if the Core Duo turns out to be better than the comparable AMD chip, Intel still has ground to catch up onin the multi-chip arena due to memory bandwidth. For most people at home this might not be an issue, but for servers it can be.

Between that and the quad-core chip, it would be very interesting to see Intel manage to recapture some desktop space while AMD gets into the Server Room. :)

Re:Intel's roadmap to the Cornroe and beyond (2, Insightful)

westyx (95706) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386665)

See, I like comparisons which compare products that are actually out, because comparing product a with (hypothetical) product b inevitably ends up with "product b rocks! shame it isn't out yet. can't be bought. benchmarks will be x. probably. if everything works out"

It's totally fair. You could say that the upcoming amd chips *might* be better than what intel is rolling out now, but to say it isn't 'fair' smacks of fanboiism.

k8l (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386220)

When amd K8L chips come out intel will fall again also K8L quad cores will be true quad cores not 2 duel cores linked by a fsb also with some K8L chips each core will have it's own L2 with shaded L3.

Re:Intel's roadmap to the Cornroe and beyond (1)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386423)

I was excited for Conroe, too...until I found out that the Intel-sponsored public benchmark demonstration of Conroe vs. an FX-60 was (surprise, surprise) rigged. More recent, hopefully more trustworthy reviews have still shown Conroe to lead AMD's current processors, but I'll hold onto my money until it actually is released and more reviews are available before I blow them on a new X2 or Core 2 Duo.

BTW, does anyone else see how the name "Core 2 Duo" could lead to confusing people? Joe Sixpack is going to have a hard time telling the difference between a Core (1) Duo and a Core 2 Solo. And is a Core 2 Duo the same as a Core Quad or a Core 4 Solo?

HotHardware's Coverage Of AM2, Much More Detail (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15385912)

The folks over at HotHardware.com also have a very detailed performance evaluation [hothardware.com] of AM2 Athlon 64, right here [hothardware.com]

Problems with memory dividers (5, Interesting)

Delph1 (936230) | more than 8 years ago | (#15385914)

What many seem to have neglected is that there is an evident problem with odd CPU multipliers. AMD has no support for "half" memory multipliers (4.5/5.5/6.5/etc), which means that you will actually not be able to run memories at their full potential when using processors with odd multipliers (7/9/11/etc):

http://www.nordichardware.com/Reviews/?page=3&skri velse=481 [nordichardware.com]

Re:Problems with memory dividers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15386152)

Or you know, you can solve the problem by overclocking the all of 200 MHz that you need to get the higher multiplier. I mean, most these CPUs tend to OC for a bit more then just 200MHz anyways.

Moore's law (-1, Offtopic)

javilon (99157) | more than 8 years ago | (#15385934)

So is Moore's law still holding?

Re:Moore's law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15385967)

For the umpteenth time,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moores_law [wikipedia.org]

Yes it does, because it deals with transistors counts, not cpu cycles.

Re:Moore's law (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386353)

the parent poster didn't make any claims as to what Moore's law was, he just asked if it was still holding. As his /. ID is only 5 figures long, I'm guessing he actually knows Moore's Law is about transistors and not clock speed. Even I know that. Now stop trolling :p

Buying PCs isn't as exciting as it used to be (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15385963)

My 1.66GHz Athlon XP 2000+ does the job well and is still very often limited by memory (1GB) and harddisk bottlenecks. That's a 3 year old system, and CPU+Board cost only $140 back then. Am I really expected to pay that price several times over to replace a reliably working system and get less than a 2x performance increase?

Re:Buying PCs isn't as exciting as it used to be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15386028)

How did you compute the speed increase? A stock Althlon XP 2000+ doesn't even take advantage of PC2700 memory speeds. I think its a safe bet that you would benefit from a serious speed increase on a new motherboard + processor + ram + hdd. Why? Newer ram is very fast although it does have more latency. Its possible to buy 10k sata or 15k scsi disks now which can feed more to the cpu. You are right that your system and any new system you buy is still slow due to disk io. That will always be the case.

I think what you meant to say was that no new software has come out which will force you to upgrade. Windows Vista is not out. Many games can still run on P4 2ghz chips. This reminds me of my first computer purcahse, a pentium @ 100mhz. It ran 3.1 apps fast as hell and then Microsoft released 95 which forced all my friends to buy pentium systems.

You are right that you should not buy a new system right now. Don't discredit the speed increase though. You just don't need it.

Re:Buying PCs isn't as exciting as it used to be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15386084)

Unfortunately comparisons of AthlonXP CPUs with current models are hard to find, so I have to derive my estimates from marketing: I suppose that the speed ratings of AMD CPUs are still meant to say "about as fast as an Intel Pentium IV line processor clocked at" (Sempron~Celeron, X2~DualCore). The higher end processors are still somewhere around 4000. A processor which costs what mine cost 3 years ago is rated in the vicinity of 3000. That's a 1.5 increase in 3 years, and just for the CPU. Because many tasks are still limited by other factors, I expect a system which is about 30% faster overall than my current one. Or maybe I'm talking out of my ass and AMD needs to get some relevant comparisons to the people, like "this is your system, this is what's on the market today". Who cares which processor is 3% faster for another 100 bucks?

Re:Buying PCs isn't as exciting as it used to be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15386209)

Very much out of your ass...1) You are ignoring the memory increase you are going to get. There are performance differences between the memory bus on the XP2200 and on the Athlon 64 (or the X2). You also bought your processor near the death of the XP line. I had my first Athlon 64 almost two years ago, on the now mostly dead 754. Remember, the cores have changed a few times over as well.

Now go here [tomshardware.com] and compare the T-Bird 1400 to just about any chip in the chart. You notice that the AMD64s near 3000+ are all almost twice as fast in divx and performance is hardly close in most tests. Now granted the 2200+ is a bit faster then a 1400, so go here [tomshardware.com] and use the charts to get an idea of the difference between the t-bird 1400 and the XP 2200+. Oh and remember, that 1400 is actually the speed on the T-bird. The 2200+ is only running at about 1800 unless overclocked.

Overall, you should be seeing anywhere from 50% on up in performance and that is just by fudging the numbers together a bit. In an actual test, you might find the improvement to be much better. Also note, some of the Sempron's could provide smaller improvements in performance for some things, so you could possibly get a cheaper CPU and not go with a 64. Prices on 754 should start falling more soon, I would think. With AM2 and Socket 939, I just cannot see AMD supporting more then two sockets at once. Socket A is already mostly dead and 754 has been falling off slowly. But just remember that would mean moving from one dead socket to another.

Re:Buying PCs isn't as exciting as it used to be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15386318)

There are many tests where the difference isn't quite as clear, so I suspect that Divx is highly optimized for SSE, which the Athlon 1400 didn't support. All in all it looks like the 1.5 estimate for just the CPU at the same price point wasn't too far off. That's definitely not enough to throw out a working system. Most jobs that are too much for realtime usually require a longer wait anyway, so it doesn't matter much if the processor is 1.5 times faster or not. The Athlon XP and Sempron speed ratings appear to be roughly comparable.

Re:Buying PCs isn't as exciting as it used to be (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386609)

Its possible to buy 10k sata or 15k scsi disks now which can feed more to the cpu.

They had 15k scsi disks back when he bought his rig as well. I've got some next to my desk here which have been running for more than 3 years. Nothing new here. Just a bit cheaper.

Much More benchmarks are available on the web (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15386010)

Small selection:
- HardOCP [hardocp.com]
- X-Bit Labs [xbitlabs.com]
- HotHardware [hothardware.com]

up to date list here [madshrimps.be]

Re:Much More benchmarks are available on the web (1)

amcdiarmid (856796) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386258)

Conclusion page at the register. http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/05/23/review_amd _am2_athlon_64_fx-62/page7.html [reghardware.co.uk]

Verdict

These are all some pretty impressive numbers, but bear in mind that we tested the AM2 platform with the FX-62 - other AM2 processors won't show any big improvements over their Socket 939 counterparts. It's a real shame that AMD didn't manage to squeeze some more performance out of the new CPUs, but this will hopefully come with time. For now, the AM2 processors aren't worth the investment if you have a Socket 939 system, unless you want the fastest CPU out there, the FX-62. However, this might not be the case for long if the Core 2 Duo lives up to Intel's hype.

-- Look out: attributed block cut/paste;)

am2 seems to be doing fine (4, Interesting)

mAriuZ (264339) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386017)

Here is another review of the new socket/ddr2 amd part
It's great to look at fx-62 results - it looks like only that processor (or if you overclock it) can
use the available bandwidth
        "Frankly speaking, it's the main competitor who must be bustling now. AMD is doing great anyway. At least in terms of CPU performance. Durability of the K8 core and its capacity to adapt to new market realia is admirable: having lived without major modifications through two process technologies, dual cores, and now a new memory controller, this core meticulously responds to each improvement with performance gains. We were very skeptic about future chances of the new AMD platform against the new processor core from Intel (Intel designed the new core nearly from scratch, while AMD K8 is rather old), but our tests warmed up our interest. The situation may turn out not that simple"

AMD Catches Up in Technology and Shoots Out in Performance
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/cpu/amd-athlon -64-fx-62.html/ [digit-life.com]

wishful thinking (0, Flamebait)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386024)

AMD has had the edge for years, there was just a lot of denial and ignorance of it. People stuck with Intel simply because nobody wanted to spend a couple hundred bucks on a processor and end up being the guinea pigs for AMD.

Re:wishful thinking (1)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386112)

Not me. I've had an "Intel Outside" sticker on my front door for over 2 years now!

Re:wishful thinking (1)

GiMP (10923) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386162)

"Guinea pigs" is right. I've been a long-time user of AMD products and I haven't been happy. The problems have been less with the chips than with the chipsets, but what good is a processor without a quality motherboard? I've built a number of systems with AMD processors and from issues with overheating, to broken usb controllers that would reboot my box if I plugged anything into it, it is fair to say I've had my share of problems. I've used chipsets from VIA, Nvidia, and AMD.

On the Intel side of the pool, I've found that Intel's chipsets are the absolute top-notch, best quality out there, works as promised. I've never had a problem with an Intel motherboard or one based on their chipsets.

What motherboard should one use for their AMD system? I don't think a single AMD-compatable chipset manufacturer has consistently released quality chipsets. VIA is probably the best bet, which I don't believe is saying a whole lot.

As far as performance-per-watt is concerned, for those saying that doesn't matter, think again! This can be a significant difference for enterprise customers. In the datacenter, less-power-consuming and less-heat-producing processors are higly desirable. Electricity isn't free, not only does lower wattage have a direct power savings, it also saves power on the AC units. Furthermore, more power can mean additional costs in both physical space and per-port costs with switched PDU units. This is compounded when using dual power-supplies!

Finally, "AMD is cheaper" is a myth in the current market place. Dell doesn't do AMD yet. If you want to buy pre-built machines off the assembly line, you can choose between an AMD machine from HP/Compaq, IBM, or Sun.. or a machine from Dell. Guess which will be the cheapest? Guess which will have the best warranty? It won't be any of the AMD machines.

Re:wishful thinking (1)

GiMP (10923) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386179)

Before I get flamed, yes, I've heard that AMD has been doing better with their heat than Intel in recent times. If anything, that section of my argument isn't specifically geared towards either camp.

That said, chipsets are more important than heat. As expensive as it is to power machines and to keep them cool, it is even more expensive to have a machine melt into a klump of toxins.

Re:wishful thinking (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386251)

I have always bought Intel because of the stability. I never have to wait for an app or game to release a patch to fix the AMD issues. (Not that there's actually been a problem with that for a while, though.)

But 'AMD Cheaper' is NOT a myth. You can't say 'X isn't true because in Y area it isn't true.'

You are only looking at major computer manufacturers, and then, only a few of them.

Build your own rig. AMD is quite a bit cheaper than Intel if you do.

Major manufacturers have many political and legal hoops to jump through, and that skews their prices crazily. (If you don't believe that, research why computers with Windows installed are the same price as ones with a free linux distro installed.) You can't base your entire analysis of cost on how they price their computers.

Instead, price the components individually or check prices at a 'Mom and Pop' computer shop. You'll see that AMD is consistantly lower in price. (You'll also see that they still manage to sell the higher priced Intel machines as well.)

Re:wishful thinking (1)

GiMP (10923) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386472)

> But 'AMD Cheaper' is NOT a myth. You can't say 'X isn't true because
> in Y area it isn't true.'

Clearly, I meant it is a myth within the server space, and possibly in the corporate workstation market as well. I can't even get 1U AMD servers from a certain "whitebox builder" at a cheaper price than intel machines, as they claim that they have to pay more money to get a motherboard that won't melt.

However, this isn't to say that it isn't a myth in the desktop market too. Whitebox has problems. A truely unique, untested configuration has many possible problems and unexpected side effects. White-box systems are NOT on par with OEMs in terms of quality, they simply aren't. Will you get Doom and Half-life to run? Sure, but would you trust your company's well-being to components from various manufacturers pieced together in a truely unique configuration? Or, perhaps, would you prefer to trust a tested and researched configuration used by thousands of customers?

I'll take it one step back, however, would you trust your marriage on a whitebox computer? My wife is tired of whitebox and is very unhappy when it fails, because computers do fail occassionally, and more often, my experiences have been that whitebox fails more frequently than OEM. Do I hear echos of "untested" and "unique"? YES! Often many problems arise from an overloaded the PSU, cheap PSU, cheap ram, cheap motherboard. I believe that if you want to build a system that is as rock-solid as an OEM, you really do need to pay OEM prices, and I don't mean store-front costs, I mean their R&D costs. A quality OEM won't just sell you the first thing that boots, they actually test machines and will swap out parts that don't work right. Do you do that, or do you just say, "crap, the USB controller doesn't work! I'll have to add an external card!"

> You can't base your entire analysis of cost on how they price
> their computers.

Certainly if my manufacturers of choice are big OEM shops, then yes, I can base my analysis how they price their computers! Mom and Pop shops aren't where the majority of US consumers shop at, and in my experience, those shops tend to overcharge customers anyway.

There isn't any logic to the statment: "I'm buying an AMD system from HP at $1000 more than I'd pay to Dell for an Intel system, but it is an AMD.. so I must be saving money. Although I have only 1/3 of the warranty, I'm sure I won't need that with AMD."

Re:wishful thinking (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386483)

Tool.

I've had nothing but success using nForce4 and nForce4 Pro based motherboards.

On the other hand my i915G motherboard for my 775 pin Prescott can't access the CDROM in Linux [reliably anyways]. My Gigabyte i945 was fine though.

Stop buying crap ECS boards or low end KT or nF series. Spend the $100 and get a nF4 ASUS or Gigabyte and get over it.

Tom

Re:wishful thinking (1)

GiMP (10923) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386599)

Gigabyte.. I've bought two of their motherboards. The first had an AMD chipset and would reboot upon plugging in a USB device. No fix from Gigabyte was ever provided. I believe that a Windows driver fix was made available, which did something silly like disable the +5V line. It never worked on Linux. I ended up buying an add-on PCI card for USB.

The other gigabyte motherboard I bought was crashing at high loads, even with low temperatures. The jury is still out on that one, as it could still possibly be another component, but my tests showed the disk, memory, and power supply to be fine.

nVidia chipsets. I admit they're not too bad, but I wouldn't recommend them for a server. For a workstation, they're not too bad, I've used them. The Linux drivers could use some improvement. The onboard components tend to be pretty top notch with nVidia, as far as onboard components are concerned. If you don't have need for onboard components, nVidia chipsets are overkill.

My review (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15386025)

This architecture is a pretty big disappointment.

Sure, Socket 939 was amazing when it came out. Nine hundred and thirty-nine pins -- quite an amazing figure.

But I'm sure I wasn't the only one who was less than thrilled at the release of Socket 940. I mean, just one more lousy pin? That's only a tenth of a percent improvement on Socket 939! One wonders what AMD was thinking.

And now here we are, with this farce of an architecture. Yes, Socket AM2 has only 940 pins as well! All that AMD has done in all this time is to shift the pins around on the CPU, much as the occupants of the Titanic spent their time rearranging their deck chairs -- even while that one guy kept on yelling "Iceberg ahead!"

Of course, AMD has tried to hide their laziness with the snazzy marketing name AM2. And yeah, I have got to admit that the name sounds pretty damn good. But in the end, isn't the socket itself more important than a mere name?

Re:My review (1)

OneManCongaLine (901777) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386365)

Of course, AMD has tried to hide their laziness with the snazzy marketing name AM2. And yeah, I have got to admit that the name sounds pretty damn good. But in the end, isn't the socket itself more important than a mere name?


Snazzy name, yeah? I totally misread the headline as A2M...very Freudian indeed!

Socket consideration (1)

wysiwia (932559) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386123)

Introducing a new socket (AM2) and not supporting the existing ones (939) after such a short period doesn't show much competence. I used to upgrade the CPU of any of my computer at least once during the life cycle of 4-6 years but that won't be possible with my 939 mainboard. That means at least one less CPU sell for AMD.

O. Wyss

Re:Socket consideration (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386131)

Seeing as how both Intel and AMD have changed sockets at least once every 4-6 years, I'd say that your statement is a lie.

Re:Socket consideration (1)

Repugnant_Shit (263651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386199)

And I'd say more like 2 or 3 years. I have a socket Athlon 850, a 1.3 Tbird, and an Athlon64 3500+. Each one uses a different socket. I got the 850 in...2000 maybe. So that's a max of 3 years for each? And it isn't like all the 939 parts are going to vanish over night. I'm still thinking about upgrading my 3500+ to a dual core, since my board supports it.

Re:Socket consideration (1)

wysiwia (932559) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386291)

Before the 939 board I had 2 socket A boards, both had a 900MHz CPU now one has a 2GHz the other a 2.4GHz CPU. Then I had a socket 7 board which I upgraded a K7-II to a K7-III+ (450MHz). I don't remember the early Pentium CPUI's I had upgraded before.

O. Wyss

Re:Socket consideration (1)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386135)


Yeah, I can see where spending an extra 60$ to double or triple your PC speed is just unreasonable.

Where's the sarcasm tag button?

Re:Socket consideration (2, Insightful)

GiMP (10923) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386216)

Don't forget the new memory. Usually they tend to change the memory when they change to socket as well, and the dual-memory boards are usually from PC Chips or other quality manufacturers, like ECS. Right now, my basement is full of EDO, SDRAM, DDR, DDR2, etc. Some ECC, some not, some motherboards don't work with ECC, some don't (officially) work without ECC. I have some older and more exotic memory as well.

Am I complaining? Not much, I understand it is necessary to improve the architecture. Nn the other hand it isn't fair to say that a processor upgrade is only a processor and motherboard. It is often the case that new RAM is required as well.

Re:Socket consideration (1)

zaibazu (976612) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386192)

If you are so competent then explain us how to design a socket that is efficient for mass production for a CPU with integrated memory controller, capable to connect to different types of memory.

Re:Socket consideration (1)

Bros (465955) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386208)

It is not the socket per se, it's the pinout of the CPU. Considering this, you sure have a point. It is not really practicable to design a CPU with 2000 pins and using only a subset of them, depending on the connected hardware (memory, etc.).

Re:Socket consideration (1)

wysiwia (932559) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386368)

It's not very complicate to create a CPU which sports different memory systems like DDR versus DDR2, any chipset can do it. Even the current CPU have to deal with different memories so it's quite possible the new CPUs already have this feature. So not supporting 939 is just a marketing and not a technical decision.

O. Wyss

Re:Socket consideration (1)

zaibazu (976612) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386416)

What particular CPUs with integrated memory controller do you have in mind ?

Re:Socket consideration (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386442)

Wow, where did you get your EE?

DDR2 and DDR1 are NOT electrically compatible. That means you plug DDR2 into a DDR1 processor and it goes boom.

And as for making some form of DDR1+DDR2 processor that's really expensive given the protocols aren't the same, etc. You'd be wasting a lot of die space that will be effectively off all the time.

DDR1+939 chips will be out for a while I imagine. If you're really paranoid you should wait till they get past AM2.

Tom

Re:Socket consideration (1)

gdog05 (975196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386238)

I bought the ASRock Dual 939 with the AMD2 upgrade slot about 7 months ago. I feel very satisfied with my purchase. I haven't found out how much the upgrade card is, but the mobo itself was only $60+. It's nice to have the feature to easily and cheaply upgrade. Go ASRock.

Re:Socket consideration (1)

MacroRex (548024) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386511)

I bought that board [asrock.com] last week. One big selling point was that it has both AGP x8 and PCI-E x16 slots, meaning I don't have to upgrade also my video card before I want. It's a sweet mainboard.

Re:Socket consideration (3, Informative)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386676)

The existing socket 939 dual core cpu designs will probably
be available for a while yet. So you will be able to
upgrade. Consider that you can't use DDR2 memory in DDR sockets,
so you would STILL need a new MB even if AMD kept the same
socket for the new cpu.

Better Reviews (3, Informative)

Google85 (797021) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386377)

There is better and more balanced reviews here [xbitlabs.com] and here [hothardware.com]

modv up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15386503)

What about Pacifica? (2, Interesting)

jimcooncat (605197) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386506)

Is Pacifica included with this? Can we finally run unmodified Windows under Xen?

Ah... (3, Funny)

Christopher Rogers (873720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15386541)

...Memories of DDR2...

spOnge (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15386630)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...