Pentium-M put up against P4EE and A64FX

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote:

>The Pentium-M seems to be unusually superb, even going up against the
>ultimate gaming processors.
>
>GamePC - Dothan Revisted : Focusing On Gaming Performance
>http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dothangaming&page=1

Did I read that right, that the Pentium-M did so well, even though it
was only running a 64-bit-wide, DDR333 memory interface?
 

rush

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
214
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote :

> The Pentium-M seems to be unusually superb, even going up against the
> ultimate gaming processors.
>
> GamePC - Dothan Revisted : Focusing On Gaming Performance
> http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dothangaming&page=1

and if you look at the banners you will see that gamePC sells gamer
systems based on P-M .. what a surprise


Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"ykhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd84ed0c.0411231258.49ef02be@posting.google.com...

" The Pentium-M seems to be unusually superb, even going up against the
ultimate gaming processors. "


I priced up the three test systems they built for a comparison. Newegg
didn't have any Corsair 2-2-2 PC2700 DDR, so I put the equivalent PC3200
with it. They also didn't have any Corsair 4-4-4 PC4200 DDR2, so I put the
equivalent PC5400 with it.


- Intel Pentium M 755 2.0GHz http://snipurl.com/aumx $439.00
- Corsair TWINX1024-3200XLPT http://snipurl.com/a5er $251.00
- Aopen i855GMEm-LFS http://snipurl.com/aumu $269.00
- Gigabyte Radeon X800 XT AGP http://snipurl.com/auoq $489.00
- Western Digital Raptor 74GB SATA http://snipurl.com/auox $151.00
TOTAL: $1599.00


- AMD Athlon64 FX-55 2.6GHz http://snipurl.com/aun8 $849.00
- Corsair TWINX1024-3200XLPT http://snipurl.com/a5er $251.00
- Asus A8V Deluxe http://snipurl.com/aumz $129.00
- Gigabyte Radeon X800 XT AGP http://snipurl.com/auoq $489.00
- Western Digital Raptor 74GB SATA http://snipurl.com/auox $151.00
TOTAL: $1869.00


- Intel Pentium 4 3.4GHz EE http://snipurl.com/aune $1019.00
- Corsair TWIN2X1024-5400C4 http://snipurl.com/auoe $355.00
- ASUS P5AD2 Premium http://snipurl.com/aun1 $261.00
- Sapphire Radeon X800 XT PCI-E http://snipurl.com/auos $599.00
- Western Digital Raptor 74GB SATA http://snipurl.com/auox $151.00
TOTAL: $2385.00
 

rush

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
214
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Cuzman" <cuzNOSPAM@supanet.com> wrote :

> - AMD Athlon64 FX-55 2.6GHz http://snipurl.com/aun8 $849.00
> - Intel Pentium 4 3.4GHz EE http://snipurl.com/aune $1019.00

look at the tests
"Intel Pentium 4 540 (3.2 GHz)" and "AMD Athlon64 3200+ (2.0 GHz)" are
just little behind the topscorers, and are significantly cheaper. Only
"I have loads of money and I'm an ignorant ass" peaple buy FX and EE
processors for gaming systems.


Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
 

mygarbage2000

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2002
126
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:28:11 +0000 (UTC), RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl>
wrote:

>"Cuzman" <cuzNOSPAM@supanet.com> wrote :
>
>> - AMD Athlon64 FX-55 2.6GHz http://snipurl.com/aun8 $849.00
>> - Intel Pentium 4 3.4GHz EE http://snipurl.com/aune $1019.00
>
>look at the tests
>"Intel Pentium 4 540 (3.2 GHz)" and "AMD Athlon64 3200+ (2.0 GHz)" are
>just little behind the topscorers, and are significantly cheaper. Only
>"I have loads of money and I'm an ignorant ass" peaple buy FX and EE
>processors for gaming systems.
>
>
>Pozdrawiam.

Opteron 150 (essentially all the same as FX-55, but socket 940 instead
of 939) - $599 http://www.pricewatch.com/
Doesn't this make AMD system more price-competitive?
 

rush

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
214
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote :

> Opteron 150 (essentially all the same as FX-55, but socket 940
> instead of 939) - $599 http://www.pricewatch.com/
> Doesn't this make AMD system more price-competitive?

+ you can O/C AMD 3200 to 2450Hz easily (done that), dont know how O/C
friendly FXes are


Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

RusH wrote:
> and if you look at the banners you will see that gamePC sells gamer
> systems based on P-M .. what a surprise

? just as they sell gamer systems based on any AMD or Intel CPU on the
market. gaming is just a common benchmark for non-server rigs.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:28:11 +0000 (UTC), RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl>
wrote:

>"Cuzman" <cuzNOSPAM@supanet.com> wrote :
>
>> - AMD Athlon64 FX-55 2.6GHz http://snipurl.com/aun8 $849.00
>> - Intel Pentium 4 3.4GHz EE http://snipurl.com/aune $1019.00
>
>look at the tests
>"Intel Pentium 4 540 (3.2 GHz)" and "AMD Athlon64 3200+ (2.0 GHz)" are
>just little behind the topscorers, and are significantly cheaper. Only
>"I have loads of money and I'm an ignorant ass" peaple buy FX and EE
>processors for gaming systems.
>

I would go for the 90nm version
of the Athlon64 3200+... $189ea (pricewatch)

As for a case & power supply.. start out with the quiet Antec Sonata..
http://www.antec-inc.com/pro_details_enclosure.php?ProdID=15138

You'll save a lot money initially,
have plenty of future upgradeability,
reduce your re-occuring costs (power consumption),
and end up with a much quieter system.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:28:11 +0000 (UTC), RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Cuzman" <cuzNOSPAM@supanet.com> wrote :
>>
>>
>>>- AMD Athlon64 FX-55 2.6GHz http://snipurl.com/aun8 $849.00
>>>- Intel Pentium 4 3.4GHz EE http://snipurl.com/aune $1019.00
>>
>>look at the tests
>>"Intel Pentium 4 540 (3.2 GHz)" and "AMD Athlon64 3200+ (2.0 GHz)" are
>>just little behind the topscorers, and are significantly cheaper. Only
>>"I have loads of money and I'm an ignorant ass" peaple buy FX and EE
>>processors for gaming systems.
>>
>>
>>Pozdrawiam.
>
>
> Opteron 150 (essentially all the same as FX-55,

Not quite. It is the same speed as the FX-53
and hence 200 MHz slower than the FX-55.

> but socket 940 instead
> of 939) - $599 http://www.pricewatch.com/
> Doesn't this make AMD system more price-competitive?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<pd2pd.313315$Pl.122190@pd7tw1no>...
> nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
> > Opteron 150 (essentially all the same as FX-55,
>
> Not quite. It is the same speed as the FX-53
> and hence 200 MHz slower than the FX-55.

And probably doesn't have access to the 1000Mhz Hypertransport bus of
the Athlon 64 or FX either. Don't know how much difference that would
actually make though, since the memory bus is completely separate from
the Hypertransport bus in any case.

Yousuf Khan
 

mygarbage2000

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2002
126
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:21:46 +0000 (UTC), RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl>
wrote:

>"nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote :
>
>> Opteron 150 (essentially all the same as FX-55, but socket 940
>> instead of 939) - $599 http://www.pricewatch.com/
>> Doesn't this make AMD system more price-competitive?
>
>+ you can O/C AMD 3200 to 2450Hz easily (done that), dont know how O/C
>friendly FXes are
>
>
>Pozdrawiam.

All I know for sure is that Opteron242 in dual config easily takes the
10% soft O/C provided by the MCI software bundled with Master2FAR
board. The only problem with it is that every time I reboot the
system I need to open that funky control panel and set the O/C again
because it reverts to default speed. I kinda grew tired of it and
stopped doing it. Besides, I am still waiting for the task that would
load both CPUs up to 100%
;-)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6t7q0pusfmo0hhdfam6pf5p9hsra9rbt9@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:28:11 +0000 (UTC), RusH <logistyka1@pf.pl>
> wrote:
>
>>"Cuzman" <cuzNOSPAM@supanet.com> wrote :
>>
>>> - AMD Athlon64 FX-55 2.6GHz http://snipurl.com/aun8 $849.00
>>> - Intel Pentium 4 3.4GHz EE http://snipurl.com/aune $1019.00
>>
>>look at the tests
>>"Intel Pentium 4 540 (3.2 GHz)" and "AMD Athlon64 3200+ (2.0 GHz)" are
>>just little behind the topscorers, and are significantly cheaper. Only
>>"I have loads of money and I'm an ignorant ass" people buy FX and EE
>>processors for gaming systems.
>>
>>
>>Pozdrawiam.
>
> Opteron 150 (essentially all the same as FX-55, but socket 940 instead
> of 939) - $599 http://www.pricewatch.com/
> Doesn't this make AMD system more price-competitive?

Not so much as you might think, though. While you would save $350 on the
CPU, Socket 940 needs REGISTERED DIMMs, thus making the memory more
expensive. For 1GB, it would be $271, and that is 2-2-3-6 timings, little
more relaxed than the $251 that was given above for non-registered DIMMs.
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=20-146-940&depa=1
is what I am referring to specifically. Not much of a difference, but it
would be more like $70 different if the base system had 2-2-3-6 timings
instead of 2-2-2-5. Also, as from Newegg's site, $599 is for the OEM
version. Whereas the price poster quoted $849 for the FX-55, that is a
Retail item. The actual price for a Retail Opteron 150 is $649, thus
changing the $350 to $200, to be fair. Further, you'd need a seperate
heatsink for the Opteron, as it isn't included in OEM, let's say a decent
one is $25. Further, the given Socket 939 board is $129, whereas the
cheapest Socket 940 board is $172. So, now the $350 difference has become
more like $240 less. Unless you go with a Retail CPU, then it is more like
$140 difference. Since the given price difference between the Pentium-M and
FX-55 was $250, this won't change the price leader, but it does make AMD
more competitive.

Also, I'd like to point out at this point, that an Opteron 150 is the same
speed as a FX-53, which is actually $54 cheaper than an Opteron 150 (OEM v
OEM), or $150 cheaper (Retail v Retail). Point being, a FX-53 is $545 OEM ;
$599 Retail, whereas the Opteron 150 is $599 OEM; $649 Retail. They are
both Socket 940 parts, so, the adjustments in RAM and Motherboard would
remain with a FX-53, but, the CPU is cheaper.

Further, an Athlon64 4000+ is the same as a FX-53, but in Socket 939 form.
The CPU is, based off the Opteron 150 setup, $165 more expensive based on
something which changes the price from being $240 less to being just $75
less, BUT, you have to use the cheaper motherboard, and cheaper RAM, thus
making that $75 less actually $165 less (the numbers just work out that
way). That changes the $1849 figure to $1684, a grand total of $85
difference between the Athlon64 4000+ setup and the Pentium-M setup.

BTW, a Socket 479 board can only be upgraded to a Pentium-M 2.0GHz,
officially. From where it stands now, the Socket 939/940 boards will be
around for a while longer, I don't know how long, but I would imagine
atleast until the CPUs hit a 3.0GHz speed....Guess they would nickname that
either a FX-59 or Athlon64 4600+ (assuming 1MB L2).

Either way, the P4 seems out of it, eh?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"ykhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd84ed0c.0411231258.49ef02be@posting.google.com...
> The Pentium-M seems to be unusually superb, even going up against the
> ultimate gaming processors.
>
> GamePC - Dothan Revisted : Focusing On Gaming Performance
> http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dothangaming&page=1
>
> Yousuf Khan

Well I certainly hope that Intel does push this as thier new desktop chip of
choice. I would deffonetly like to see AMD and Intel really start competing
again pushing the preformance envolope! Wait? What am I saying? That just
means my new AMD64 3000+ will be religated to being "low end" again even
more quickly! And I was just getting used to having a mid-range systetm!

Carlo Razzeto
 

alexi

Distinguished
Aug 19, 2004
47
0
18,530
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:g1b7q01k5q1co4b35l91boktukqriqf1e9@4ax.com...
> yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote:
>
> >The Pentium-M seems to be unusually superb, even going up against the
> >ultimate gaming processors.
> >
> >GamePC - Dothan Revisted : Focusing On Gaming Performance
> >http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dothangaming&page=1
>
> Did I read that right, that the Pentium-M did so well, even though it
> was only running a 64-bit-wide, DDR333 memory interface?
>

No. You read that wrong. At nominal core frequencies, the
performance of Dothan family generally aligns with performance
trends of Athlon-FX family. But Dothan systematically lags in
core frequency, and therefore in performance, look more carefully
at the charts. The impression of Dothan performing exceptionally
well is because they included the 15%-overclocked data point.

Keep in mind that core frequency disparity (on a given process
generation) is a consequence of differences in chip core design,
therefore the disparity bethween Dothan and A-FX will continue
going forward. So the performance.

- aap
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

ykhan wrote:
> Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<pd2pd.313315$Pl.122190@pd7tw1no>...
>
>>nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
>>
>>>Opteron 150 (essentially all the same as FX-55,
>>
>>Not quite. It is the same speed as the FX-53
>>and hence 200 MHz slower than the FX-55.
>
>
> And probably doesn't have access to the 1000Mhz Hypertransport bus of
> the Athlon 64 or FX either. Don't know how much difference that would
> actually make though, since the memory bus is completely separate from
> the Hypertransport bus in any case.

But... doesn't every Opteron has a Hypertransport bus, and the SMP
models have two? I'm looking at a spec sheet which seems to indicate that.

--
bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
news:bQRqd.1700$2N1.318@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> But... doesn't every Opteron has a Hypertransport bus, and the SMP models
> have two? I'm looking at a spec sheet which seems to indicate that.
>
> --
> bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
> SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
> Project Leader, USENET news
> http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

You are right, every A64 based chip uses HT as it's internal interconnect.

Carlo
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 03:31:19 +0000, Bill Davidsen wrote:

> ykhan wrote:
>> Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<pd2pd.313315$Pl.122190@pd7tw1no>...
>>
>>>nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>Opteron 150 (essentially all the same as FX-55,
>>>
>>>Not quite. It is the same speed as the FX-53
>>>and hence 200 MHz slower than the FX-55.
>>
>>
>> And probably doesn't have access to the 1000Mhz Hypertransport bus of
>> the Athlon 64 or FX either. Don't know how much difference that would
>> actually make though, since the memory bus is completely separate from
>> the Hypertransport bus in any case.
>
> But... doesn't every Opteron has a Hypertransport bus, and the SMP
> models have two? I'm looking at a spec sheet which seems to indicate that.

Opterons have three HT links. SMP versions have three "coherent" HT
busses. Non-SMP versions have three non-coherent HT busses. It's not
clear what the difference is. It seems it's a product differentiation
issue.

IIRC, Athlon64s (socket 754s) have only one HT link.

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 03:31:19 GMT, Bill Davidsen
<davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote:

>ykhan wrote:
>> Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<pd2pd.313315$Pl.122190@pd7tw1no>...
>>
>>>nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>Opteron 150 (essentially all the same as FX-55,
>>>
>>>Not quite. It is the same speed as the FX-53
>>>and hence 200 MHz slower than the FX-55.
>>
>>
>> And probably doesn't have access to the 1000Mhz Hypertransport bus of
>> the Athlon 64 or FX either. Don't know how much difference that would
>> actually make though, since the memory bus is completely separate from
>> the Hypertransport bus in any case.
>
>But... doesn't every Opteron has a Hypertransport bus, and the SMP
>models have two? I'm looking at a spec sheet which seems to indicate that.

Opterons have hypertransport links that operate at 800MHz (1600MT/s),
the latest models of Athlon64 have HT links running at 1000MHz.

It's unclear if there is any performance advantage to this for
single-processor systems, though perhaps somewhat ironically,
multiprocessor Opterons should benefit from it.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

keith wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 03:31:19 +0000, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>
>>ykhan wrote:
>>
>>>Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<pd2pd.313315$Pl.122190@pd7tw1no>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Opteron 150 (essentially all the same as FX-55,
>>>>
>>>>Not quite. It is the same speed as the FX-53
>>>>and hence 200 MHz slower than the FX-55.
>>>
>>>
>>>And probably doesn't have access to the 1000Mhz Hypertransport bus of
>>>the Athlon 64 or FX either. Don't know how much difference that would
>>>actually make though, since the memory bus is completely separate from
>>>the Hypertransport bus in any case.
>>
>>But... doesn't every Opteron has a Hypertransport bus, and the SMP
>>models have two? I'm looking at a spec sheet which seems to indicate that.
>
>
> Opterons have three HT links. SMP versions have three "coherent" HT
> busses. Non-SMP versions have three non-coherent HT busses. It's not
> clear what the difference is. It seems it's a product differentiation
> issue.
>

The 1xx have three non-coherent.
The 2xx have one coherent, two non-coherent.
The 8xx have three coherent.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

alexi wrote:
> "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:g1b7q01k5q1co4b35l91boktukqriqf1e9@4ax.com...
>
>>yjkhan@gmail.com (ykhan) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Pentium-M seems to be unusually superb, even going up against the
>>>ultimate gaming processors.
>>>
>>>GamePC - Dothan Revisted : Focusing On Gaming Performance
>>>http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=dothangaming&page=1
>>
>>Did I read that right, that the Pentium-M did so well, even though it
>>was only running a 64-bit-wide, DDR333 memory interface?
>>
>
>
> No. You read that wrong. At nominal core frequencies, the
> performance of Dothan family generally aligns with performance
> trends of Athlon-FX family. But Dothan systematically lags in
> core frequency, and therefore in performance, look more carefully
> at the charts. The impression of Dothan performing exceptionally
> well is because they included the 15%-overclocked data point.

What? That's not a projected point, it's measured performance. It looks
as if it performs well because it does.
>
> Keep in mind that core frequency disparity (on a given process
> generation) is a consequence of differences in chip core design,
> therefore the disparity bethween Dothan and A-FX will continue
> going forward. So the performance.
>
> - aap
>
>


--
bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Bill Davidsen wrote:
> alexi wrote:
>> The impression of Dothan performing exceptionally
>> well is because they included the 15%-overclocked data point.
>
> What? That's not a projected point, it's measured performance. It looks
> as if it performs well because it does.

A lot of people don't consider it fair to compare an overclocked
processor in a match against commercially availible chips. I can think
of two good reasons. 1) Not everybody is willing to overclock, so this
performance is not availible "out of the box". 2) If you get to
overclock that processor, you need to compare it to overclocked versions
of the competitors. That is usually never done, leaving an unfair
playing field.

I am on the side of Dothan being a great chip. Even the un-overclocked
version performed very well. And it was still a notebook chip. When
intel optimizes for desktop use, it will likely stomp the P4-EE and the
FX. But only time will tell, since that's still two generations down
the road according to internet sources *ugh*.

Alex
--
My words are my own. They represent no other; they belong to no other.
Don't read anything into them or you may be required to compensate me
for violation of copyright. (I do not speak for my employer.)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:18:10 -0500, Alex Johnson <compuwiz@jhu.edu> wrote:

>Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> alexi wrote:
>>> The impression of Dothan performing exceptionally
>>> well is because they included the 15%-overclocked data point.
>>
>> What? That's not a projected point, it's measured performance. It looks
>> as if it performs well because it does.
>
>A lot of people don't consider it fair to compare an overclocked
>processor in a match against commercially availible chips. I can think
>of two good reasons. 1) Not everybody is willing to overclock, so this
>performance is not availible "out of the box". 2) If you get to
>overclock that processor, you need to compare it to overclocked versions
>of the competitors. That is usually never done, leaving an unfair
>playing field.

So you *do* agree with this opinion... that one should overclock neither or
both?... *AND* that the results are interesting only to people who like to
overclock.

>I am on the side of Dothan being a great chip. Even the un-overclocked
>version performed very well. And it was still a notebook chip. When
>intel optimizes for desktop use, it will likely stomp the P4-EE and the
>FX. But only time will tell, since that's still two generations down
>the road according to internet sources *ugh*.

I think you'd better hold judgement on stomping Athlon64 until the EM64T(?)
version of Pentium-M is released - AMD is gaining "experience" with this
ISA/mode while Intel apparently twiddles its thumbs and dishes out market
segmentation gobbledygook... with all the "weight" of the goons at IDC,
Forrester, et.al. and of course, RCK, behind it. Personally, I think we
*may* get back to a situation where Intel & AMD play leapfrog on clock
frequencies, even though neither will apparently be using that in its model
numbering.:)

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:12:06 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:

> keith wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 03:31:19 +0000, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>ykhan wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<pd2pd.313315$Pl.122190@pd7tw1no>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>nobody@nowhere.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Opteron 150 (essentially all the same as FX-55,
>>>>>
>>>>>Not quite. It is the same speed as the FX-53
>>>>>and hence 200 MHz slower than the FX-55.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And probably doesn't have access to the 1000Mhz Hypertransport bus of
>>>>the Athlon 64 or FX either. Don't know how much difference that would
>>>>actually make though, since the memory bus is completely separate from
>>>>the Hypertransport bus in any case.
>>>
>>>But... doesn't every Opteron has a Hypertransport bus, and the SMP
>>>models have two? I'm looking at a spec sheet which seems to indicate that.
>>
>>
>> Opterons have three HT links. SMP versions have three "coherent" HT
>> busses. Non-SMP versions have three non-coherent HT busses. It's not
>> clear what the difference is. It seems it's a product differentiation
>> issue.
>>
>
> The 1xx have three non-coherent.
> The 2xx have one coherent, two non-coherent.
> The 8xx have three coherent.

Thank you. T'was late. The above is obvious when you note the
segmentation. The real question remaining is what's the difference? Is
it a paper fifference, intentional crippling, or perhaps testing, or (oh,
my!) a real difference between the links?

--
Keith

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Alex Johnson wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>> alexi wrote:
>>
>>> The impression of Dothan performing exceptionally
>>> well is because they included the 15%-overclocked data point.
>>
>>
>> What? That's not a projected point, it's measured performance. It
>> looks as if it performs well because it does.
>
>
> A lot of people don't consider it fair to compare an overclocked
> processor in a match against commercially availible chips.

I assume you mean "operating at rated clock speed" but I take your meaning.

> I can think
> of two good reasons. 1) Not everybody is willing to overclock, so this
> performance is not availible "out of the box". 2) If you get to
> overclock that processor, you need to compare it to overclocked versions
> of the competitors. That is usually never done, leaving an unfair
> playing field.

The "exceptionally well" and "in spec" are not mutually exclusive. I'm
not disagreeing with you in any way, but the performance is real, and
who knows if a higher clocked chip will appear on the market. That's a
marketing rather than technical issue.
>
> I am on the side of Dothan being a great chip. Even the un-overclocked
> version performed very well. And it was still a notebook chip. When
> intel optimizes for desktop use, it will likely stomp the P4-EE and the
> FX. But only time will tell, since that's still two generations down
> the road according to internet sources *ugh*.

I suspect that Intel could drop the price of the EE if they chose to do
so, making them more cost effective. I'm not against the Dothan or any
other chip if it fits a need.

--
bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com