AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+

[P4Man]

Thought this would interest you:

The flagship AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ will have both its cores operating at 2.4GHz, the same frequency as the AMD Athlon 64 4000+, and we'll be surprised if this doesn't rape the already impressive Pentium Extreme Edition 840 we reviewed

<A HREF="http://www.hexus.net/" target="_new">http://www.hexus.net/</A>

2x2.4 Ghz, is not too shabby, in fact its as fast as the fastest A64s. Maybe I should stop whining about dual core sucking on single threaded code now Also interesting to see lower speedgrades, smaller than expected caches and no FX. Seems the rumour mill got quite a bit wrong so close to its release..


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[mrmonsoon]

So, basicly 2 FX-51 processors on one chip-sounds good.

My only concern will be how much heat it disapates.

 

[Spitfire_x86]

Doesn't dual-core A64 has one shared memory controller? OTOH, 2 seperate A64 = 2 memory controllers.

------------
<font color=orange><b><A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox" target="_new">Rediscover the web</A></b></font color=orange>

 

[P4Man]

> So, basicly 2 FX-51 processors on one chip-sounds good

Not quite.. faster clock, but smaller cache per core. Its more two 3800+ on one die, which also sounds pretty good.

>My only concern will be how much heat it disapates

According to C't magazine, 95W TDP, which is no different I think from current high end A64s, even though obviously, these beasts will consume more than a single 90nm A64 does, which, in spite of the TDP, doesn't even come close to 95W IRL.

Still, 95W, especially using AMDs conservative way of determining it, is (considerably) better than most high end single core P4s. quite impressive really.

Think of it this way: cut the chip in half and you have a 47W 2.4 GHz K8. Factor in the fact that this number includes the northbrdige and that AMDs TDP>>intels TDP, and you have roughly the equivalent power of an intel 30-35W core. not bad for an initial 90nm product geared towards extreme performance.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[P4Man]

As for price, no idea, but they aint gonna be cheap. I expect even the slower one of these three to be competitive performance wise with simthfield EE, and fastest one will be in a league of its own.. I guess, so will its pricing. Im guessing the fastest part will be priced even above Athlon FX, the slowest one, at least on par with a 4000+, althought the PR rating might hint it will be priced even above that.

As for dual socket.. the obvious anser is opteron. If you want two socket, and up to 4 cores, you're gonna pay the premium for opteron. But since you wouldn't mind paying that premium, whats stopping you ? <g>. BTW, same thing for intel; its not like P4 can't run in smp, but you need to pay extra $$$ to get a (frankly, identical) Xeon nevertheless.

As for heat, see above. 95W for 2x 2.4 GHz.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[phial]

the s939 chips have two memory controllers each, but I doubt if these new chips have 4 memory controlers total..

so it would be more like comparing a dual core s754 chip, woudlnt you say?

-------
Work sucks.

 

[P4Man]

>the s939 chips have two memory controllers each, but I doubt
>if these new chips have 4 memory controlers total..

Indeed they have not. Just two.

>so it would be more like comparing a dual core s754 chip,
>woudlnt you say?

Not really, since either core could still use the complete bandwith of both memory controllers when needed, something two S754 chips would never be unable to. Its not likely a frequent occurence both cores need the complete memory bandwith anyhow.

The closest comparison I can think of, is a dual opteron with memory connected to just one cpu, even though also that would be slower than dual core, since one cpu will have an extra "hop" to get to the RAM, as well as having to go off chip for cache coherence.

BTW, such a setup (2x opteron with memory connected to just one cpu) performs identical to a setup with memory connected to each cpu as long as you use a NUMA unaware operating system like windows XP. Only when you use Server 2003 or linux (and probably windows x64) does this make a difference.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =