A64 3000+ 90nm Review

[Mephistopheles]

<A HREF="http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=63&page=1" target="_new">Doesn't quite</A> look as if AMD truly managed the extra 5% performance boost per clock, but quite good processors nonetheless.

More extensive testing should come out from other sites, and it will then be easier to judge.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Oh, and you might have some trouble getting a connection to the site. I had a few "[-peep-] happens" screens before I could read the whole article, but just keep trying and it will work eventually.

<i>Edit: I read the whole article more carefully. It seems a 3000 A64 @ 90nm is slightly slower than the 130nm counterpart indeed. Not only not faster, slightly slower. Not as "OMG" as prescott, but still not better than old tech.

Also, the 1.8Ghz 3000+ did not manage past 2Ghz or so, and showed poor overclockability. It might be another indication that only future generation processes (extra layers) will scale adequately.

In any case, it doesn't look as if 90nm is as rosy as 130nm was back in the northwood days. AMD seems to have done the 90nm without much commendability either.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 09/28/04 02:35 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[raretech]

OTOH, clock for clock it is a little faster than 130. AMD needs to biatch slap their marketing department hardcore on this naming convention. This was an extremely stupid mistake. They should have released it with the same name as the 2800+, then the review would be read, the speed increase seen, and no negatives. Now they will have to deal with a negative public perception.

Leave it to marketing to mess things up.

I have to admit though, when you compare the 90nm 3000+ to it's clock equivalent 130(2800+), it's only marginally faster. That's kind of disapointing, but at least it is a little faster.

<i>Cigarettes - No cholesterol, high in fiber, low in fat, how could they not be good for you?</i>

 

[slb132]

AMD doesn't have the 5% boost per clock because revision E hasn't been released. With Revision E we get SSE3 and such. Besides being on .09u process and dual channel memory controller the A64 3000+ Winchester is the same as a 2800+ Newcastle. I can't see how AMD can justify 200 PR Points by going from a single to dual channel memory controller. This is not good news at all if a 939 3000+ (1.8GHz) is slower than 754 3000+ (2GHz).

Abit AN7 (Nvidia Nforce2 Ultra 400), AMD Athlon XP-M 2600+ @ 2.43GHz (211 X 11.5), Nvidia Geforce4 Ti4200 128MB OCZ DDR EB Platinum 2 X 256MB PC3700 @ 211MHz 1:1 2-3-2-7
3dMark2001SE: 12,997

 

[Vapor]

Rev Es also run cooler according to the likeness of OPPAINTER and Macci (who have had them for a surprisingly long time).

Wanna know why it's called 3000+? Cause 2900+ isn't a cool name and the performance certainly is better than 2800+! Also the way I see it...wasn't the S754 naming scheme initially for PRing Northwood P4s????? S939 is *NO DOUBT* comparing itself to Scotty...so the 3000+ is at least somewhat justified (especially if you factor in DDR2 :tongue: ). I really see no problem with their naming scheme if you keep in mind that they're trying to compare performance to Scotty and (somewhat) not against itself (or older versions of itself or even Northwood anymore).

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.

 

[slb132]

My mistake then, I thought Rev E was the yet to be released core revision with SSE3 support...

I do see a problem with their naming scheme. AMD doesn't say A64 Northwood 3000+ OR A64 Prescott 3000+, they say 3000+! In my opinion if one 3000+ performs under another 3000+ then theres something wrong. Yes, 2900+ might not sound cool but it's more accurate than 3000+.

Kinda like AXP 3200+ may sound cool but its nowhere near P4 3.2C, more like 2.8C. Now if Intel released a P4 3.2B then the 3200+ rating might be more accurate. Bah, that's why I hate these model numbers...but hey we don't live in a perfect world so they have to be there I guess.

Abit AN7 (Nvidia Nforce2 Ultra 400), AMD Athlon XP-M 2600+ @ 2.43GHz (211 X 11.5), Nvidia Geforce4 Ti4200 128MB OCZ DDR EB Platinum 2 X 256MB PC3700 @ 211MHz 1:1 2-3-2-7
3dMark2001SE: 12,997

 

[Vapor]

Rev E will have the (few) elements of SSE3 that are non-HT related...all I said was that Rev E will <b>also</b> be cooler.

Here's a guide for you if you have such a problem with a naming scheme:

AXP PR ~= P4B
A64 S754 PR ~= P4C
A64 S939 PR ~= P4E

If, however, P4E's weren't slower than P4C's, no doubt they would have kept with the old naming scheme. However, by comparing to Scotty, their marketing group can get a precious 100-200 extra PR points, so they take full advantage of that.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.

 

[El_Jefe_77]

It should have been named 2900+
This would tell all the geeks, all those who would bother specing out a system, that its an oddball advantage mhz for mhz. This would then make the other 3100, which also would be truthful.
I hate this whole xp3000 thing.
theres no way an xp3000 goes as fast as a p4 3.0 ghz, at least in the HT models (which 90%+ of the ones bought at this speed are currently).
If only amd would just say 2800 and 3000 when it makes sense to.

 

[slb132]

Well the thing is if you read THG's "AMD Travels through Time: AMD Athlon XP 2800+" you can see that the 2800+ T-Bred (not available anymore and only released in limited quantities) was equal to if not better than a 2.8B. So they had everything correctly up till they got whacked by the barton core and P4C.

AMD Athlon XP-M 2600+ @ 2425MHz (220.5 X 11.0), OCZ Enhanced Bandwidth PC3700 2X 256MB 220.5MHz 1:1 @ 2.5-2-2-8 Dual Channel, ATi Radeon 9600 Pro @ 468MHz/346.5MHz

3dMark2001SE: 14,076

 

[wolverinero79]

Regarding the naming thing, that's also why people became confused with the Sempron naming convention. It's matched up to the Celeron D, not to the AXP or A64 naming convention.

I'm just your average habitual smiler =D

 

[Vapor]

Exactly...it's all about what product it is designed to comepete against (now these aren't always right...the 3400+ does have a struggle to keep it's name against the 3.4C). The 3.0E (and DDR2) is a pretty poor performer and a dual-channel, 512KB, 1.8GHz A64 DOES keep up with it pretty easily--there is nothing wrong with the naming convention.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.

 

[Vapor]

AXP 3000+ competes quite nicely with my P4 3.06 w/ HT. Just because AMD came out with new processors after Northwood C came out using the same PR scheme does not mean that it is rated for those new MHz...the target competition remained the same while Intel released a superior chip that was generally unrivaled until the A64 S754 rolled along.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.

 

[raretech]

<i>Cause 2900+ isn't a cool name and the performance certainly is better than 2800+!</i>

Marketing gone wrong. 2900+ is a fine name, especially if it accurately reflects the performance placement within THEIR OWN lineup. AMD should focus on offering a line up of chips with ratings relative to each other. They no longer need to try to match Intel tit for tat. They have the performance advantage now, they should start acting like it.

Try to look at it from Joe users perspective. Joe user doesn't want to hear from his tech geek friends things like "Oh, the 3000+ is a good chip just make sure you don't get the 90nm." Joe user hears that and goes "WTF are you talking about?" Then his geek friend attempts to explain how it all makes sense "Well, the 90nm chip is in direct competition with Intels Scotty which is also 90nm, so the 3000+ rating is in reference to that. If you get the 130nm chip rated at 3000+, it's actually faster."

Now joe doesn't have any idea what "nm" really means,nor does he have any idea why there should be a difference between chips with the same rating. Joe also doesn't want to hear why 2 chips are rated the same but also have different clock speeds, yet other than die size, have no discernable technological difference. You know why he doesn't want to hear it, because joe has no fricking idea what the hell half of the words in that sentence mean. If you try to explain it to joe, he will start drinking heavily while wishing he didn't have you as a friend. Poor Joe already has a hard time understanding cache size, 64bits, TLA-RAM differences, etc...

I'm of course engaging in a bit of hyperbole, but really, AMDs ratings should be straightforward. A 3000+ should perform the same as a 3000+. You can't go wrong with keeping it simple.

<i>Cigarettes - No cholesterol, high in fiber, low in fat, how could they not be good for you?</i>

 

[Vapor]

A 3000+ should perform the same as a 3000+. You can't go wrong with keeping it simple.

We agree to disagree...I stand by my ratings relative to Intel (their competition, anyway) and you stand by their consistent performance ratings throughout their entire line.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.

 

[slb132]

I know, read this though.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18733

"There's worse to come. The current top of the Sempron range is the 3100+. But it is slower than an Athlon 64 2800+. Yes, 3100 is somehow slower than 2800. Where the marketing department spent years and millions of dollars convincing a sceptical press that the Performance Rating system was reasonable and logical, it has just blown all of the slowly built credibility completely out of the water."

That guy actually thinks 3100+ is up against P4 speed....

AMD Athlon XP-M 2600+ @ 2425MHz (220.5 X 11.0), OCZ Enhanced Bandwidth PC3700 2X 256MB 220.5MHz 1:1 @ 2.5-2-2-8 Dual Channel, ATi Radeon 9600 Pro @ 468MHz/346.5MHz

3dMark2001SE: 14,076

 

[raretech]

That's exactly the problem. It doesn't matter how logical the rating system is if you happen to understand the logic behind it. If your system generates bad press and misunderstandings in the market, it's not good.

Logically speaking, within the context of having the technical knowledge to understand why the ratings are what they are, there is nothing wrong with the ratings, but human beings are not logical and it's human beings they are marketing these chips to. This is bad marketing. Very very very bad marketing.

<i>Cigarettes - No cholesterol, high in fiber, low in fat, how could they not be good for you?</i>

 

[Mephistopheles]

Well, the S939 3000+ 90nm seems slower than the 3000+ on 130nm and costs more. So, while in technology land the 1.8Ghz 3000+ on 90nm might be slightly faster per clock than the 2.0Ghz, this advantage has been literally thrown away by marketing, pricing and higher clock of the 130nm version!!! So you'd still recommend old 130nm tech (2Ghz 130nm) rather than newer technologies.

Which is stupid. There is still <i>no reason</i> to buy a 90nm chip at all so far, except maybe for Dothan. And the pricing means that AMD either doesn't want to or can not flood the market with 90nm products. Because it's quite early for their 90nm process, I'm thinking it's the second alernative. Spreading A64s now in mass quantities and with the s939 platform would only do them good. Unless, of course, they want to keep S754 infrastructure around a little longer...

 

[raretech]

<i> So, while in technology land the 1.8Ghz 3000+ on 90nm might be slightly faster per clock than the 2.0Ghz, this advantage has been literally thrown away by marketing, pricing and higher clock of the 130nm version!!! So you'd still recommend old 130nm tech (2Ghz 130nm) rather than newer technologies.</i>

100 percent in agreement.

<i>Cigarettes - No cholesterol, high in fiber, low in fat, how could they not be good for you?</i>

 

[Mephistopheles]

That guy actually thinks 3100+ is up against P4 speed....

<i>What?</i> From were did you get that? I think you're mistaken. This guy simply thinks that the performance rating should be coherent amongst AMD products, which it isn't! Obviously! He didn't even mention Intel! Your own quote shows that!

Oh, and BTW, that inq article was quite an interesting read.

 

[Crashman]

Hey, if it's 2% faster, and the Prescott is 3% slower than the Northwood, AMD claims it's fair. Also, AMD has their own set of benchmarks to proove the name is fair, and is willing to use crippled platforms for lesser processors in order to PROVE their point.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[raretech]

My opinion on this isn't about whether it's technically fair or not. I see this as adding confusion to an already confusing(for the uninitiated) marketplace.

Can't you see the clarity and advantage of AMD offering processor lines whose rating numbers clearly identified their performance level with regards to other chips in their lineup? Just my opinion.

<i>Cigarettes - No cholesterol, high in fiber, low in fat, how could they not be good for you?</i>

 

[slb132]

"The current top of the Sempron range is the 3100+. But it is slower than an Athlon 64 2800+. Yes, 3100 is somehow slower than 2800."

Somehow? Maybe because it's not competing against a Pentium 4! That's JUST like saying this:

"The current top of the Celeron range is the 3.1GHz. But it is slower than a Pentium 4 2.8GHz. Yes, 3.1GHz is somehow slower than 2.8GHz."

The way he words that makes me come to the conclusion that either

A) He's referring to what the average consumer would perceive
B) He's a freakin moron.

This make sense now?

AMD Athlon XP-M 2600+ @ 2425MHz (220.5 X 11.0), OCZ Enhanced Bandwidth PC3700 2X 256MB 220.5MHz 1:1 @ 2.5-2-2-8 Dual Channel, ATi Radeon 9600 Pro @ 468MHz/346.5MHz
3dMark2001SE: 14,076

 

[endyen]

Personnaly, before I spend a grand on toys, I want to know what I'm getting. If people are befuddled by names, they need help. Could be part of what some places offer, when they sell systems.

 

[slb132]

Well put yourself in this situation, I used to sell PCs at Circuit City. Do you know that I basically lie to a customer when I tell them, "Yes this Athlon XP 3000+ is equivalent to this Pentium 4 3.0GHz right here." I have to bite my tongue man. And it's especially hard to tell the consumer that this A64 3000+ is a better performer than this AXP 3000+! If there the same number the consumer should believe that the only advantage is 64 bitness right? When in fact it is so far from the truth...now that's a lie to consumers, no matter how much I love AMD, their technology, and their processors. I do not like their marketers. They should just put the clock speed of their processors and market how much better clock for clock they are than Pentium 4s. That's why I hate the clockspeed of the P4, I really believe it was made just for marketing sometimes...

AMD Athlon XP-M 2600+ @ 2425MHz (220.5 X 11.0), OCZ Enhanced Bandwidth PC3700 2X 256MB 220.5MHz 1:1 @ 2.5-2-2-8 Dual Channel, ATi Radeon 9600 Pro @ 468MHz/346.5MHz
3dMark2001SE: 14,076

 

[Crashman]

It doesn't matter if they screw up the ratings as far as the average consumer is concerned, the number is bigger so they'll buy it, and that's it. Intel sells millions of Celerons that way. So it would be confusing to the uninitiated if they cared, but appearently they don't care. Let them spend their money.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>