Pentium 820 D

noko · Jul 17, 2005

But again you are worrying about a 1-2% performance delta and ignoring the 35% real world differences... really odd. And again so seem obsessed with overclocking potential AND 110% stability, two things which just arent compatible, no matter what ppl here and elsewhere claim.

Disaggree, OCing is only good if you have stability and it is done everyday. Many XP2500+ are running at >XP3200 speeds without any issue and I am sure many other cpu's are as well. So the memory controller was faulty then with AMD but now it is fixed in the newer Athlons? Has anyone tested the newer cores with 1gb modules with 4gb installed? I know that is getting kinda repetitive but the question still holds, until it is tested the newer AMD cores can have there own faults. You mention 35% real world but ignore when, for me that would not be the case at all for what I would be building the machine for. Why would you keep plugging for a more expensive solution when it would virtually be the same performance? Then again $200 may not really be that much more in the end considering the total cost of everything. I have time to evaluate before purchase in any case and now I wonder why it seems no one with Athlon 64's have 1gb dimms installed yet many with Intel? I am probably looking in the wrong place.

Edited by noko on 07/16/05 07:23 PM.

noko · Jul 17, 2005

The 50% more cost of DDR2 over DDR1 is now hogwash:

<A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/memory/display/20050701082701.html" target="_new">http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/memory/display/20050701082701.html</A>

Looking at prices over the net I didn't see any significant price difference and actually found DDR2 1gb dimms cheaper then DDR 1gb dimms.

Dell and Gateway sells 820D processor computers with 2-4gb of ram, hmmmm must work just fine. Could not find anyone selling X2 systems or AMD systems (Except Opterons) with 2gb. Hmmmm makes me wonder, maybe I just didn't look hard enough.

Xbit lab shows that DDR2 can have the lowest latency and higher bandwidth over DDR by using lower timings that the newer DDR2 modules can do without problems with significant increase in performance (now why do reviews use the slower timings?).

<A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/ddr2-ddr.html" target="_new">http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/ddr2-ddr.html</A>

Found this article about OCing a X2 4200+, looks to be a very good OCer but $500!!! well at least it not $1000 like its older brother!

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2452&p=3" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2452&p=3</A>

mozzartusm · Jul 17, 2005

Yes, DDR2 in many cases is now even cheaper than DDR. Im hearing from some realible sources that the days of CHEAP Ram are not going to last much longer. That goes for both DDR and DDR2.

DDR2 has come a long way with timings. 5 months ago I would have been happy with 4-4-4-12-4 at DDR2 711, now im at 3-2-2-6-2. Thats a step in the right direction

ASUS P5WD2 Premium
Intel 3.73 EE @ 5.6Ghz
XMS2 DDR2 @ 1180Mhz

<A HREF="http://valid.x86-secret.com/records.php?PHPSESSID=792e8f49d5d9b8a4d1ad6f40ca029756" target="_new">#2 CPUZ</A>
SuperPI 25secs

noko · Jul 17, 2005

I thought another good way to see if AMD or Intel can handle the higher memory capacities was to go to Kingston.

Looking at the AMD side Kingston would only warranty 3-3-3-X timings for the 1gb modules at DDR400 speeds for 2gb capacity, anything over that was pure DDR333 :frown: . Now for one motherboard, a SLI motherboard, kingston did mention that once single sided 1gb modules became available DDR400 maybe possible at 4gb. I wonder how much these special dimms will cost??

Intel system didn't have any handicaps as far as memory speeds where concerned from what I saw in the Intel chipsets 945 or 955, DDR2 533 or 667 and flavors of 256, 512, 1gb dimmns seems to be supported with no special notes up to 4gb.

While having AMD systems, their lifespan for me has been severely limited due to the lack in ability of going beyond the norm memory size 😡 . If I was going to increase my memory to 1.5gb on my current rig I would be limited to DDR333 range with retarded timings, moving forward in one direction and stepping back twice as much in another. So in this case the AMD system is costing me more since now I will have to update sooner. The old saying you get what you pay for sometimes rings true. As a side note I would probably fry my motherboard in the process since I highly modified the voltage to the ram modules so that I could run them as fast as possible (3.4v) with 2t timings 😡 with a RTT=Vref mod, since Abit doesn't automatically adjust Vref with dimm voltage increases, thus adding another dimm in the socket would probably fry my RTT mosfet even with the added heat sinks applied to them. I have heat sinks added everywhere on mosfets in order to have a very stable system and to run my ram at decent speeds and that is only with 1gb :frown: .

As it stands right now an Intel setup would be a much better deal now and in the long run. It would be nice being able to have a usable computer system for like 4 years vice the 1-2 years I've seen with AMD machines in the last 6 years and currently using. What I mean by usable, just to clarify, is doing the new things on computers that I havn't done before, the newer programs etc.. The older machines are still usable but limited in what I want. So I end up selling them at a significantly reduce cost to someone else.

Edited by noko on 07/17/05 03:10 PM.

P4Man · Jul 18, 2005

>Looking at the AMD side Kingston would only warranty 3-3-3-X
>timings for the 1gb modules at DDR400 speeds for 2gb
>capacity, anything over that was pure DDR333

Again, that is pre venice/san diego information, it is widely known these older A64s reverted to DDR333 when you installed more than 4 "sides" regardless of capacity.

>Now for one motherboard, a SLI motherboard, kingston did
>mention that once single sided 1gb modules became available
> DDR400 maybe possible at 4gb. I wonder how much these
>special dimms will cost??

You dont need them with a 90nm A64, how many times must I tell you ? the issue is not the number of GB, it *was* the number of "sides", but current A64s are quite happy to run 4 double sized dimms at DDR400 speeds (even DDR500 for the FX57). If you want to see a couple in action PM me when you are in Belgium, we have 3 of them running 24/7 with 8 "DIMM sides" (2x1 GB + 2x512 MB) at 400DDR. They currently have an uptime of 37 days, last reboot was done to install a patch.

Please note we run them with 3 GB RAM since we upgraded from just 1, and as you might be aware, using 4GB of RAM is no good on 32 bit windows (only ~3-3.5 GB is accessible since I/O, video etc is mapped in the <4GB range). We are currently testing windows XP64, but will not commit before august.

>Intel system didn't have any handicaps as far as memory
>speeds where concerned

Neither do San diego / Venice unless you want to keep bitching about the 0.7% "issue" running 2T.

>While having AMD systems, their lifespan for me has been
>severely limited due to the lack in ability of going beyond
> the norm memory size . If I was going to increase my
>memory to 1.5gb on my current rig I would be limited to
>DDR333 range with retarded timings, moving forward in one
>direction and stepping back twice as much in another.

You currently have an Athlon XP, no ? If you have an nForce chipset, AFAIK there is no problem or penatly either. Not sure about VIA/SiS chipsets. Besides, i suggest you benchmark DDR333 versus DDR400, and you will notice it hardly matters a damn thing on an XP, which is not surprising since it only has an FSB that can handle only half the bandwith dual channel DDR400 can supply. Again you seem to bitching about a 2% loss or so..

> So in this case the AMD system is costing me more since
>now I will have to update sooner

Yeah right.. say you would indeed loose 2% performance due to worse memory performance.. just how much more do you think an equally performing P4 would have cost you ?

>As it stands right now an Intel setup would be a much
>better deal now and in the long run. It would be nice being
> able to have a usable computer system for like 4 years
>vice the 1-2 years I've seen with AMD machines in the last
>6 years and currently using

LMAO. You think a potential couple of percent point performance loss is horrible when upgrading your RAM, yet you have no problem accepting a 30+% slower system that may add another 10% performance loss when moving to x64 software, and yet you think it will nevertheless last you 3x as long ? run alone little troll... just buy your 820 and be happy with your incredible memory timings, that will make your 2.8 GHz system perform like a 2.85 GHz one, or IOW, with most software, at the level of a decent PC ~3 years ago.

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

P4Man · Jul 18, 2005

BTW, if you are really worried about performance impact of using 4 GB, I suggest you look deeply into the <A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/x86-64-rc1_10.html" target="_new">performance drop current Intel cpu's show when running x64 software </A> compared to AMD, as well as the potential performance drop when using more than 4GB RAM since intel chipsets dont have a hardware IOMMU. I have seen horrible performance drops on Xeon servers when moving beyond 4 GB RAM. HD performance almost literally collapsed, and this wasnt cured until we either reduced ammount of RAM or finally moved to 64 bit SCSI controllers ($$$).

But hey, you seem to think 2 GB is not enough now, and over 6(!) years, I assume you think 4 GB on a 32 bit OS will still be plenty ? 4 GB performance is paramount, but actually making good use of that using 64 bit OS+software, performance implicantions dont seem to bother you ? Memory timings resulting in at most a couple percent performance variation is more important than 30+% performance deltas between architectures ? Stability is so important you wouldnt even trust a mature and totally trouble free platform, yet you care about overclocked performance ? Price differences of $200 on a $1500-$2000 system scare the hell out of you, but you nevertheless expect a 4-6 year lifespan out of system ? Electrcity is also free where you leave I guess ? Re-usability of RAM is a key issue, what use do you think you will have for todays DDR ram in 4-6 years ??

You know, you just make zero sense. You sound like someone who is desperately looking for that one scenario where a 820 would make sense, but yet you fail to find it.

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

noko · Jul 19, 2005

P4Man, your really something,

Are you not the one that told me DDR2 prices where 50% more then DDR1? Well there not, you where wrong, will you admit to that?

Now you telling me that if I go to DDR333 on my NF2 XP rig I won't see hardly any performance difference, ARE YOU FREAKING HIGH? Yes I've done test and there are huge performance differnces between DDR333 and what I am running at. FSB controls data rate to the cpu and back, DUH!!! Unless you saying use multipliers other then 1:1 which makes it even worst!!!

You also referred me to an AnAndTech article which for the benchmarks applicable to what I would be using my rig for showed Intel ahead

, which is fine with me, you are making the 820D a rather good choice and convincing me more as time goes on. Not sure if that is what you really wanted.

Then you reported to an article dated in Feburary about 64bit performance, did you even read it!!! Did you just see the benchmarks that AMD where ahead and assumed something not understanding anything about what and how tested and why? HEY READ THIS FROM THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED:

As for the performance quality provided by the CPUs from AMD and Intel when processing 64-bit extensions, it is still too early to make any final verdicts about that. (What does that mean there P4man? Like this is really prelimanary and may mean squat! But it goes on from there, can you read the rest?.) According to our preliminary testing in a very limited number of benchmarks, CPUs supporting AMD64 technology (READ AGAIN, supporting AMD64 technology) provide higher performance gain when working with 64-bit code than the CPUs supporting EM64T (I wonder why?,duh!).However, the opposite is also true once there is proper optimization for the EM64T technology, and in this case we saw Intel processors show much better potential than the competitor’s solutions.WHAT!!!! INTEL processors shows what? Meaning bigger, faster, whooping as_ over who? AMD! better potential than the competitor's (AMD to you). I think I will name you AMDboy instead of P4man ).

Now since Intel will be dominant in the dual core and 64bit technology area, hey Intel has a much better price, who do you think the software companies are going to optimize for first???? So you once again showed me something making the 820D the better choice not only for me but even a larger audience in general.

Now I am surpose to believe in the 2gb and 4gb capability of the X2? I hope you are right but I will wait for a more reliable source. Do me a favor and just ignore this thread, it really doesn't concern you.

HansGruber · Jul 19, 2005

There is no point in comparing 820 to a 4200 since X2 4200 beats even 840EE at 95% of applications.
820D don't stand a change against X2 4200.

Remember also that 840EE costs TWICE as much than X2 4200.

:lol:

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
- Albert Einstein

endyen · Jul 19, 2005

Hi P4man.
I really hate posting in this troll's thread, but he has posted so much dis-information.
I have a couple of Nforce2 boards. They run 2 gigs of ram @ 400 fsb without problem. If anyone is having problems, it is probably operator error.
The A64s make very good use of memory, due to the ODMC. They have greater band width, and much lower latency than any currently available Intel setup.
Intel chipsets take a hit with large memory modules. That is why THG uses 4X 256 rather than 2X 512 modules.
Intel chips are band width and latency limited, Amd chips just aren't.
The older A64 chips had better mem perf than the Intel systems, even when the memory bus was reduced to 333. The venice core has an even better ODMC.
Amd chips have a dedicated memory bus, Intel uses the fsb for memory, and all the rest of th cpu interconnects.
Cuurent prices for DDR2 where I live are 80% higher than DDR. And that"s for the crappy 4-4-4-9 stuff. The good stuff is much more expensive.
The spot price for the DDR2 chips with bad timings is very low because nobody wants it (market driven you know). This will likely keep the cost of modules high, as it will take longer to amortize costs.
His {qoute}? from anand has been taken to new levels in out of context. What it actually says is that while the EM64T is currently horrible at 64bit, it may (or may not) improve in the future.
For the benefit of anybody reading this, the original poster is a TROLL. He is a master at diss-information.
Do not believe a word he says.

rettihSlluB · Jul 19, 2005

Hey Noko, you're something special...

Why the F*ck did you opened this thread if you knowed that your choice was going to be Intel's underperformed dual core solutions??

P4 Man gave you ALL KIND of links, reviews and technical knowledge, but all you did since you opened this thread is bitch about the X2 0.7% drop wen using all DIMM slots.

I have 2 questions for you:

1) Are you interested in 30% more performance or you will just keep bitching about a 0.7% loss (to be sincere, that's nothing, not even 1%)???

2) Is this some kind of trolling coming from you??

/**********************************************************
P4 man: Leave this guy alone!!
If he still believes that the 820 is better than an X2,
well, once a time some one said the world was flat.

The funniest part was wen he said that Intel's solutions
are "better" than AMD's hard-earned 64 bit implementation

**********************************************************/

My Beloved Rig:

ATHLON 64 FX 55
2X1024 CORSAIR XMX XPERT MODULES
MSI K8N DIAMOND (SLI)
2 MSI 6800 ULTRA (SLI MODE)
OCZ POWERSTREAM 600W PSUEdited by Bullshitter on 07/18/05 07:33 PM.

pat · Jul 19, 2005

First, I have to say that I really dont care about which CPU you'll get because I wont loose or gain any money based on your choice, so...

Both AMD and Intel dual core are a bit rushed to the market, IMHO. But, the AMD is a bit more advanced, because it uses the same technology that goes into Opteron core. this is why there is difference in design in AMD and Intel. K8 cores were designed to be multi-processor/multicore at first. That is why the cores, in the AMD CPU can communicate together whitout leaving the CPU, as opposed to Intel which have to go thru the northbridge and back to the core. that might explain the higher cost, but I guess that it has to do with more money based on reputation, just like Intel has done in the past years.. Ours chips are the best, so pay for them..

But I dont think Intel did a good move by pricing their dual core so low. They perform good and should be priced closer to AMD's one. I think that they want to kill their Prescott line, because they have yet to impress anybody in the industry. When they will release a newer core, with 64 bits instruction, and other fancy thing, maybe these core will become the "dual core Celeron". It always happens like this, they take the old core, give it a new name and market it again...

About memory problem.. Any AMD based on Venice and newer core has the memory problem fixed. It is not unusual to see Opteron servers with tons of memory.

And it is true about the 4 GB issue.. no more than 3.5 will be available, and this is for either AMD or Intel. Dont wast too much money on too much memory..

So the question.. AMD or Intel. I dont care.. seriously. Even if I have AMD right now, I choose them because of power comsumption and heat that they put out. The fact that they perform good and cost is better than Intel helps too. I have a small case, with 4 HDD. that is putting a lot of heat. I did not want a bigger case nor spent more in liquid cooling and wanted to keep the noise to a minimum. If you can deal with the noise and heat, then I dont see a problem for you going with either CPU.

As for stability. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I never had any stability problem that I could blame the CPU or the motherboard, either AMD or Intel. If you get good PSU, and good motherboard, I dont see why you should have problem.

Computer are now becoming the new "lego" for kids. They dont know anything, but still think they can built a computer. Just look at some of the stupid posts posted here sometime and you will understand. They cannot make the difference between RAID and SATA and think that they need SATA drivers (which they dont exist, because an interface dont need drivers, only controller do, and according to the mode you set the controller, you may need drivers for the controller set to SATA or drivers for the controller set to RAID.) They are not really interrested in researching by themself for solution, sometime found in manual, that they forget to read before assembling the computer, which lead to a lot of RMA of good board, which increase the cost for us... While it can happen that a piece of hardware fail at first power on, I never experienced that to happen to me and my numerous piece of hardware I put together. So, this is why I dont believe all thos post that say that AMD is crap, Intel is crap, and so on..

They both work, they both perform suffisantly for today's task, so why do you want advise for what you are ready set to buy. Go and buy it right now because tomorrow, you might get hit by a car and die and you'll never get that system you dreamed on ... not that it will matter when you'll be dead..

Sig space for rent. make your offer.

noko · Jul 19, 2005

Thanks Pat for your post,

As for the rest of you between this post and my last, IGNORE LIST

.Hey if you don't like my questions and comments then don't read my thread and better yet don't even post. Just stay away, don't read and that would actually make me even more happier.

I agree, if AMD fixed their memory problems which sounds promissing that is good and gives me a better choice when it comes time. Have I made up my mind, hell no, except many here are actually pursuading me towards the 820D more and more

. Frankly both would do me much better then what I have now. I kinda like the idea of progressing up to using DDR2 vice the now defunct (my opinion)history in the making DDR ram. Yes I will be using a 64bit operating system, this will be virtually a whole new system except maybe my A/C cooled case and power supply. Seems like Fugger was so right. Still I see alot of intelligent people still here so game on.

P4Man · Jul 19, 2005

>? Yes I've done test and there are huge performance
>differnces between DDR333 and what I am running at.

There is only a very small performance loss when using DDR333 on a 333 FSB (like your cpu). But that is beside the issue, since you claimed you would see reduced memory performance when adding more ram, which is bogus on any AXP platform Im aware off, and most certainly your NF2. But keep fudding..

>You also referred me to an AnAndTech article which for the
>benchmarks applicable to what I would be using my rig for
>showed Intel ahead

Oh you mean the 820 they didnt even test ? Or the 840 that costs as much as a 4200+ ? And what tests do you think it was faster ? Lets see:

Office XP : 6% slower
Mozilla : 26% slower
ACDSee: 11% slower
Nero: 12% slower
Winzip 9% slower
Winrar: 20% slower

But you said it was faster ? Oh, wait, you where interested in multitasking performance:

Content creation: 14% slower
3D content creation: 8% slower
2D content creation: 14% slower
Web publication: 9% slower

Then a really interesting one, since you explicitely complained about browsing performance while encoding :
Mozilla + Media Encoder : 24% slower (!)

But "intel" was faster for the things you cared about, hu ? Lets go on:

Adobe Photoshop 7.0.1 : 10% slower
Adobe Premiere 6.5 (you did a lot editing, no ?) : 27% slower (!)
Roxio VideoWave Movie Creator 1.5: 1.5% slower
MusicMatch Jukebox 7.10: 6% slower

getting really confused.. you said it was *faster*, no ?

DivX 5.2.1 with AutoGK : 3% slower
XviD with AutoGK : 11% slower
Windows Media Encoder 9 :11% slower
Windows Media Encoder 9 HD: 13% slower

And then some gaming..

Doom3 : 14% slower
Splinter Cell : 5% slower (video card bottleneck)
Half Life2: 23% slower
Halo : 29% slower (!)
UT2004: 19% slower
ET: 19% slower

But you didnt care much for gaming, you did 3D rendering, right ?

3DSMax DX: 12% slower
3DSMax OGL: 9% slower
3DSMax Spec: 16% slower

Are you getting tired ? Cause I am. You said it was faster for the things you did ? What exactly is it you do ??

Multitasking Scenario 1: DVD Shrink : 17% slower
Multitasking Scenario 2: File Compression : 25% faster

Whooooot !!! finally, it is faster.. but at what ?:

1) Open Outlook.
2) Start importing 260MB PST.
3) Start WinRAR.
4) Archive Firefox source.

Maybe that is what you do all day ?

Multitasking Scenario 3: Web Browsing:10% slower
Multitasking Scenario 4: 3D Rendering: 48% slower
Wasnt that what you claimed to do so often ?
Gaming Multitasking Scenario : 33% slower

There you have, from all those tests, the 840 which is just as expensive/cheap as the 4200+ wins a SINGLE test, which concerns importing emails. It is beaten across the board on anything remotely relevant, and for the things you claimed to matter to you, often by a very significant margin.

Now if you claim "intel is on top" for the things you care about, how can someone seriously believe you are NOT trolling ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =Edited by P4man on 07/19/05 09:20 AM.

Era · Jul 19, 2005

<While having AMD systems, their lifespan for me has been severely limited due to the lack in ability of going <beyond the norm memory size

<Have I made up my mind, hell no, except many here are actually pursuading me towards the 820D more and more.

Like you, I also despise those filthy, unpleasant facts that P4man spreads out in these forums. It's disgusting.
I'm with you, noko, all the way.
Your upright personal opinions about what is, and what will be true in the future really makes me believe you are right in everything you have said in this thread.

FACTS AREN'T EVERYTHING! DO YOU HEAR ME P4man. YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS IN THIS noko OWNED THREAD. GO AWAY.

liquidpaper007 · Jul 19, 2005

I agree, if AMD fixed their memory problems which sounds promissing that is good and gives me a better ch...

Didnt pat say that they fixed it in venice and sandiego cores?

I also despise those filthy, unpleasant facts that P4man spreads out in these forums. It's disgusting.

Why are they unpleasant? because its true and your an intel fan boy and cant watch them falling behind a company who was nothing before.

FACTS AREN'T EVERYTHING! DO YOU HEAR ME P4man. YOU HAVE

uh huh.. facts mean nothing? I guess we cant use benchmarks anymore. I guess its opinion then? You cant take the fact that your computer is a dell and theres intel inside and it sucks ass, but you spent $2000 on a sucky rig.

go away Era you remind me of porky

Era · Jul 19, 2005

[chuckle] says nothing [/chuckle]

Rugger · Jul 19, 2005

*notes sarcasm in era's post*
*looks sideways at liquid*
*shakes head*

__________________________________________________
You're a boil on the arse of progress - don't make me squeeze you!

fishmahn · Jul 19, 2005

LMFAO

Mike.

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside the dog its too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx

apesoccer · Jul 19, 2005

Erm...Just a couple of things.

First, You can get 2x1 gb modules at 400mhz and 1T for Winchester and San/Ven (at 2 3 2 timings; for about $230 i think...i can find a link if you want). However, there isn't a review out there right now that says anyone has gotten 4x512 to work at 400mhz and 1T timings. I've been watching very closely. If you can prove me wrong, give me a link, and i'll post it on my other threads (at stock...however i haven't seen where anybody could get 4x512 at 400mhz and 1T with extra v either). I have like 3 threads open on this subject.

F@H:
AMD: [64 3000+][2500+][2400+][2000+][1.3][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x3][P4 3.0x2][P4 2.4x5 down][P4 1.4]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time

ChipDeath · Jul 19, 2005

I think he's not actually saying that. The meaning I take from his post is that you can now (on Venice/San Diego anyway) run the RAM at 400Mhz when using 4 double-sided DIMMS if you use 2T, but the performance impact of that is nothing compared to the performance impact of 'dropping' to the 820 System.

And on the AXP issue, I ran 3 double-sided DIMMS in my old nforce2 board in dual channel at 400Mhz quite happily, although I only had 1Gb total (2x256 in one channel, and 1x512Mb in the other). Pretty slack timings, granted, but it was happy, and didn't require a divider as ol' noko seems to think it would have. In fact since the board was an 8RDA+ V1.1, it was only officially rated up to 166FSB anyway, thus making the achievement all the more spectacular...

---
"Life is not like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapeńos - what you do today might burn your ass tommorrow."

liquidpaper007 · Jul 19, 2005

whoops my bad

P4Man · Jul 19, 2005

As chipdeath said; indeed using 4 double sided dimms will *not* work at 1T, I never claimed that, but unlike older clawhammers, it now will run at 400 DDR 2T (pre venice/sandiego A64s would run 4 double sided dimms only at 333 DDR, at least officially). The impact going from 1T to 2T is the 0.7% I linked to above. Pretty much neglectable in the overall scheme.

And the AXP doesnt suffer anything from adding more RAM afaik, in spite of what Noko claims;

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

P4Man · Jul 19, 2005

>According to our preliminary testing in a very limited
>number of benchmarks, CPUs supporting AMD64 technology
>(READ AGAIN, supporting AMD64 technology) provide higher
>performance gain when working with 64-bit code than the
>CPUs supporting EM64T (I wonder why?,duh!).However, the
>opposite is also true once there is proper optimization for
> the EM64T technology, and in this case we saw Intel
>processors show much better potential than the competitor’s
> solutions.WHAT!!!!

I cant vouch for the incompetence of the authors, and if yo cant see how silly that comment is, there is not much I can do. But if you doubt AMDs AMD64 implementation is better than intels EM64T, I suggest you read some more reviews and articles. Bottom line is simple; K8 gains ~10% over P4 when running 64 bit software. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but the trend is quite obvious.

I will generously assume you are not too stupid to not understand an opteron core == A64 core and the same applies to Xeon and P4 ->

<A HREF="http://anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2447&p=5" target="_new">http://anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2447&p=5</A>

According to our research, we can assume that the 64 bit implementation of the new Xeon is simply not as powerful as the Opteron's

.

On MySQL Opteron gains 32% when moving to 64 bit, Xeon looses 12%. Since you already said you will be using 64 bit OS and software, that bodes well for your 820, an additional potential 40% performance drop over an existing 5-30% performance delta with the 840, therefore more like 15-40% difference with the 820. But hey, keep trolling about that 0.7% when using 4 Dimms, and how the 840 is faster than the X2 when importing emails in lookout express...

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

BePe86 · Jul 20, 2005

LOL, excellent said, case closed.

noko · Jul 20, 2005

Jesh!!! I thought this thread would calm down not get louder!! :redface:

No need to comment on a bunch of bunk, wouldn't you agree?

Here is where I stand: (I don't give a rats butt if you agree or dissagree, actually some of the comments where funny or laughable in content at best that is).

AMD memory at 2gb is unknown as in speed and overclockability. I mean X2 core here. Yeah it graduated from DDR333 to DDR400 big wow at 2gb but how about going above that???? Timings? 2T! A very big negative.

Intel will OC like a charm at 2gb and even 4gb. I want high amounts of memory and OCing. I am not convince the X2 will handle 4gb and OCing nor even 2gb. Another very big negative.

The X2 cost twice as much as the 820D and in no shape or form is it even remotely double the value. A very big negative.

The multi-tasking benchmarks at AnAndTech, the ones I am interested in, shows a non OC Intel faster then AMD fastest X2. 820D are some of the best OCing cpu's out and I expect to get at least 3.6 to 3.8ghz if I bought one. Many have gotten over 3.8ghz, ON AIR!!! Now what surprises me is AMD can do single task things rather well, like games, but stumbles and goes slowers in a number areas when multitaksing. AMD, can't walk and chew gum at the same time symdrome.

The argument of higher power consumption costing me so much more money is laughable at best for a single home computer, I would save more money by turning off the extra lights I have running all the time. If I was buying 1000 or more computers that might become important.

The game benchmarks pointed to and used are totally worthless for me, AnAndTech's, reason being for one I don't play at that resolution, two I don't play without AA. In any case, every test there showed game performance more enough for my tastes and isn't even a issue for any of those cpu's tested. Its kinda like buying a car that can go 150mph but then buying another only because it can go 180mph but yet never go above 75mph. It becomes rather pointless for me in the end. I can understand if you have different tastes in game performance. Increasing the FPS of a game to 300 or 500 FPS is not going to make a hill of beans of difference to me in game play.

Supposely AMD are going to have even slower X2's available but still over a $100 more then a 820D. Intel's 820D dual core is one of the best buys in cpu's ever released. At this time I cannot justify getting a X2 system, it just plain isn't worth it. The 820D is.

Don't be too surprised if I end up with a X2 system, things, costs, information can change in the end making one of the other a better choice. Hey I would accept a free X2 system

.

Pentium 820 D

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Expert

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Share this page