Anandtech benchmarks AMD Dual Core CPUs

[Spitfire_x86]

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397</A>

Intel's top Dual Core CPUs are beaten badly or tied with 2.2 GHz A64 X2 4400+. And after long long time, AMD is again the best for everything. Now Intel has no advantage at video encoding or 3D rendering sector

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

 

[TheRod]

But for now, Intel have a big advantage... Affordable DualCore CPU!

-
GA-K8NF-9 / <b><font color=green>Athlon 64 3200+</font color=green> @ 3800+</b>
Infineon DDR400 (CL2.5) 2x512Megs
<font color=green>GeForce 6600GT 128Megs</font color=green>
<A HREF="http://www.getfirefox.com" target="_new">Firefox</A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheRod on 04/21/05 01:04 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Intel's first dual core CPUs weigh in at 230 million transistors on a 206 mm2 die, and AMD's new CPUs are a bit obese themselves at 233.2 million transistors on a 199 mm2 die

How come AMD have more transistors on their chips, but still maintain a smaller die size than Intel?

______________
Welcome to my Shed of Pleasure

 

[Mephistopheles]

I think that has to do with Intel's ability to cram the cache into a very small area, if I recall correctly. They have a higher cache density...

 

[Vapor]

Especially impressive considering the RAM was at 2T, using ECC and on a workstation board for the X2 4400+ (really just an 875). The real life multitasking tests were particularly interesting, as it pretty much emulates what I do most of the time.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.

 

[Schmide]

It may also be that AMD uses a greater layer amount. I believe 9 for AMD vs 7 for INTEL.

Dichromatic for your viewing plesure...<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Schmide on 04/21/05 12:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[RX8]

intel do have affordability but not the top technology and performance anymore, i think this is a big turning point in the CPU industry. intel has lost all crowns apart from having the most sales and net worth over AMD. but how long will they lose those 2 crowns?

<font color=purple> MY FINGER IS ON THE BUTTON! </font color=purple>

 

[TheRod]

This means that places have shifted... AMD used to be to low-cost alternative... Now, Intel will become the low-cost system provider??? Dream on!

-
GA-K8NF-9 / <b><font color=green>Athlon 64 3200+</font color=green> @ 3800+</b>
Infineon DDR400 (CL2.5) 2x512Megs
<font color=green>GeForce 6600GT 128Megs</font color=green>
<A HREF="http://www.getfirefox.com" target="_new">Firefox</A>

 

[pickxx]

Well for a while it might be like that.

Intel will be to the desktop market before AMD.
So if you want that DC chip you will either have to go Intel or an expsensive AMD.
So for a while things will be ironic.
But in the end things will be ironed out.

__________________________________________

 

[K8MAN]

The really sad part is that there are 2 more speeds grades ahead of that already and it will go faster in the future which will lengthen the lead in performance + putting these on a fast chipset with fast RAM will add a good 5-10% average. Whats intel doing in the next year again...3.4ghz???nice to see that AMD will be the greatest thing for another 2 years.

The know-most-of-it-all formally known as BOBSHACK

 

[dinoshan]

Regards to that, I think it's still too early for the results. Considering Intel having HT, when it's enabled will make the dual core a logical processor of 4 compared to AMD still remaining 2. I think then the outcome will be in favour of PD.
By the way , why doesn't AMD have HT?

 

[endyen]

Only the EEE (extemely expensive edition) will have dual core and HT. The PD chips wont have HT. Just as well, too easy for the OS to get confused. Go to the link in the above, and read the peice, then read the linked Intel review.

 

[Mephistopheles]

There are two immediate consequences to having a whole other lineup for dual-core athlons... first, you can actually choose from a lineup, meaning you can pick the lower-cost A64 X2. But then again, that doesn't quite matter, because the whole pricing starts at US$500+...

And because these processors are in a lineup with different clock speed grades, they're unlikely to be multiplier-unlocked... This makes me kind of sad, because I was considering water-cooling a dual-core FX and get it to desktop-grade clock speeds... :frown: ... With a silent and efficient cooling system...

Then again, we still haven't seen how the FX-57 @ 2.8Ghz and with 90nm process reacts to being overclocked with water cooling... I wonder if such a processor could reach 3Ghz and beyond?

 

[endyen]

The venice cores are supposedly able to do 2.88, on air. I would think, with a little more refining, it will be possible to get to 3. That's without hving to go to water. The venices should do 3ghz on water now.

 

[Mephistopheles]

I was kind of interested in water because I wanted a very, very quiet yet powerful cooling solution. I'm still thinking about it and I'm very open to high-grade air cooling solution (even more so because of the prices...)