posted
Just read this over on the Inquirer: "...El Cheapo Athlon X2 which will be a dual core CPU for a mere $345. Dubbed the Athlon 64 X2 3800+, it’s a typical X2 with 512 KB of L2 cache per core. Each core will continue to feature 128 KB of L1. The clock speed is lowered to 2.0 GHz..."
They will release this new chip in time for school to start. Seems that my wish has been answered, so when i go off to school this fall, i can screw with an X2!
They also talked about the possibility of a 4000+ X2 that would be a 2GHz 1MB chip. Yay!
-Plack
-------------------- Lap: Dell Vostro 1500/1.6GHz C2D/4GB RAM/Nvidia 8400GS 128MB/15.4" Desk: E8400 9x433(3.9GHz)@1.35v/Gigabyte G33M-DSR2/4GB RAM/ATi 3850 256MB/37" Westinghouse 1920x1080 My Photo works on Deviant Art Posts: 1313 | From: Hephzibah, GA | Registered: Jan 2004
posted
Not all 939 board will run with the X2 cpu. there is only one NF3 that will run with X2 cpu and that is the DFI NF3 ultra. All NF4 is oki a lot of via 800 will work. no one of the via 890 will run with X2.
posted
Since that is the cheapest X2, imagine what you can expect for an overclock: maybe 2400 mhz?
Let me be the Devil's advocate here: you gotta be nuts to go dual core. I mean even the guys on Extreme have trouble hitting 2800 on air with the top dollar ones. It was hard enough finding a good overclocking chip, now your odds are twice as bad. Since my 3700+ SDs can hit 2950, it's hard to go backwards here.
If I can be assured a 4800+ will hit 2900 on water that's acceptable, but odds are it will be a $1000 mistake.
Posts: 234 | From: Japan | Registered: Dec 2004
I find myself doing more multitasking than gaming here of late. I've always been into encoding and the such. If i wanna play a game, i have to stop my encoding tasks, and i tend to not get anything done at all. Doing both at once will pretty much own.
I also tend to run some basic server tasks like filesharing at LAN's and so forth.
I know i probably wont get anywhere near the same overclocks as everyone else, but when i do two things at once, i need the dual cores. If its really bad, i will just send it back, or sell it for something else.
Either way, it will be faster than my s754 rig i beleive
-Plack
-------------------- Lap: Dell Vostro 1500/1.6GHz C2D/4GB RAM/Nvidia 8400GS 128MB/15.4" Desk: E8400 9x433(3.9GHz)@1.35v/Gigabyte G33M-DSR2/4GB RAM/ATi 3850 256MB/37" Westinghouse 1920x1080 My Photo works on Deviant Art Posts: 1313 | From: Hephzibah, GA | Registered: Jan 2004
posted
I have both AMD and Intel rigs, and I still keep several 800 fsb 'C' CPUs because they are Golden Chips. I am amused by this talk of multi-tasking. I mean Intel guys have enjoyed multitasking for ages now it seems; you can go out and buy a 3.0C for dirt cheap these days ($150?) compared to the X2 dual core stuff.
I tested multitasking on Intel once: I ran SuperPI 32M, defragged a partition, copied over a whole bunch of large files, and also ran Sandra Burn-in. I then cruised the internet. No slow down. SuperPI 32M made it a third through before I shut the system down. Actually I was surprised because the overclock was marginal (3.0C at 3.85 gig) and nothing crashed. But damn, hyperthreading works! So all this hoopla you hear now from AMD fanboys about dual core where they're paying $700-1000 for X2 stuff - har har.
But for gaming, yeah, nothing beats AMD.
Also, if you go dual core, it makes no sense to forego Toledos. I mean you drop all those dollars and don't get the benefit of 1MB L2??? Crazy. I mean that's like buying a Mercedes and foregoing A/C to save $$$.
Posts: 234 | From: Japan | Registered: Dec 2004
posted
My experience with hyperthreading on intel equipment has been nothing short of dismal. I have 2 p4 2.66ghz systems here running windows xp all updates etc.. have been done. They simply dont have what it takes to run intensive applications while multitasking. the AMD system I have runs circles around them in day to day activities, even when it is running at the stock speed of 1.8ghz.. I just dont buy the hype that was hyperthreading on intel processors.
Dual core is another story however. I agree the initial pricing is very much on the steep side. Preliminary testing has shown to be very promising for both intel and amd dual core processors. They perform as advertised, allowing a system to run several applications at once with very snappy and reasonable performance. The real question that has yet to be answered, is how long will it take for software developers to recode their software to take advantage of dual core on the desktop?
It's not simply a matter of recompiling either, its a sea change in the methods used when writing the software. How can you break processes into threads, without considering what computations and processes are dependent upon the outcome of a separate transaction, and will that cause another thread to pause while waiting for input data to be delivered from another. It is situations like this that firmly puts the ball into the hands of the programmers and software companies. Are software houses willing to put the amount of time in that would be required to take full advantage of dual core processors? How long can they afford not to?
I am sure now you can see how many different angles there are to the argument. Either way, the recent announcements and roadmaps from Intel and AMD, will eventually force the hand of developers, since the choice has largely been made for them. It's just a matter of time. I expect to see better programs on the market once longhorn is released. Can't expect much action when there are so few people out there running 64 bit windows currently.
quote: I mean you drop all those dollars and don't get the benefit of 1MB L2???
Spending another $200 to get 1MB vs. 512K in the hopes of gaining 5% is rather crazy. Only a select few applications and even fewer games need the extra 512K. Difference between 1MB and 128K was only 10-12% in the most extreme cases as proven by anandtech. Cheapest Toledo is like... 6 or 7 hundred right now, and the cheapest manchester is 350. Im puttin my chips on the manchester.
I too thought that 1MB was neccicary at one time, but even my own tests have showed that it doesnt matter. I have had a CPU with 1MB, 512K, 256K and 128K. I cant hardly tell the difference when they all run at the same clock speed.
Thats just my $0.02. Personally i think that your money is best spent by getting a cheap X2, and putting the extra into good memory or vid cards.
Also, Hyperthreading is nowhere near true dual core operation. Yes it helps, but it never got more than 25% speed over single core. I dont consider HT to be an option for myself since it is not true dual cores. I want seperate cores working on seperate projects with their own cache flowing properly. There is a big difference between multitasking and running two or more seperate processes at full speed. I want a game running full speed on one core, and a video file being compressed full speed on the other core. HT makes the processes interfear with each other for rights to the same core.
Yes, HT helps, but it isnt for me. I still think back to the days of running my dual Celery 366's... that was a beast. That was true dual power back then.
Anyways... X2 is for me, HT never offered me much.
-Plack
-------------------- Lap: Dell Vostro 1500/1.6GHz C2D/4GB RAM/Nvidia 8400GS 128MB/15.4" Desk: E8400 9x433(3.9GHz)@1.35v/Gigabyte G33M-DSR2/4GB RAM/ATi 3850 256MB/37" Westinghouse 1920x1080 My Photo works on Deviant Art Posts: 1313 | From: Hephzibah, GA | Registered: Jan 2004
It is a known fact 3DMark2000 is very CPU intensive since it was designed for old video cards.
Guys, the MAIN difference I can figure to account for the huge discrepancy in scores in favor of the S754 setup is - drum roll please - the 1MB L2 of the Clawhammer versus 512kb of the Winnie, even though the S754 setup gives away 60 mhz and has about half the bandwidth!!!
I rest my case.
P.S. Another quiz: what is the difference between a San Diego and Winnie on the same NF4 board at same 2700 mhz? +1300 pts in 3DMark2001 and +3000 pts in 3DMark2000 for the CPU with double the L2 cache. Yup, exact same clock on CPU and ram.
I currently own six CPUs: two 3700+ San Diegos and three S754 Clawhammers. All have 1MB L2. The only reason I keep the one Winnie is because it does 2880 mhz at 1.615 VCORE, and I use it for comparison purposes. I had a S754 Newcastle and four CBBHD Winnies, which I got rid of as soon as I saw the power of 1MB L2 (why do you think the FX chips offer such killer performance?).
As for HT, I still own many killer P4 and A64 rigs so I can be objective. I have no motive to favor one or the other. I tell it as I see it. Go to any CPU forum and say a single core A64 beats an Intel HT CPU in multitasking, and see what happens .
Posts: 234 | From: Japan | Registered: Dec 2004
posted
Good Lord...Hyperthreading is a gimick Intel's software people had to come up with to bail out thier hardware people. I can see why...I have a 2.8 Northwood and a 2600+ Mobile the northwood is slow as $%^&*! You CANNOT do ANY multitasking on the stupid thing. If you don't let it do one thing at a time it just sits...and sits...and sits. I can run BOINC on my mobile AND do whatever I want and not notice it. I turn BOINC on on the 2.8 Northwood...you literally can't be doing anything else. I know what it is...it's Intel's stupidly long pipeline. I know it has its uses but as you can see with their new roadmaps they finally got rid of it. Their new chips look very sweet...
-------------------- Posts: 68 | From: Saint Francis, WI | Registered: Sep 2004
![[HaHa]](graemlins/icon20.gif)
Damn Phenoms!![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Banana]](graemlins/BANANA.GIF)
