Seven New Athlon II CPUs: AMD Impresses With Switch And Bait

Status
Not open for further replies.

zehpavora

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
91
0
18,630
0
What I could get from this was that AMD sells a long lasting processor (its technology is in the market for some time) for less money. Since this processor has a history, it performs in a very bad way compared to Intel's same level processors.

However, to keep everything at lower prices, AMD bumps the core speed a little so you still use older technology, but it's faster.

Don't get me wrong, I rather use more money to buy a state of the art processor than buying something that is technologically old for a good price. Why? Because there is no point in saving money to perform less.

I'm not a fanboy. I'm just stating the things I think and the things I could get from the article. If people needed a "faster core" like that, they could easily get a overclock. Even though a lot of people don't know what it is...

In the budget side, AMD has the crown. But it is still under Intel's shadow in the performance showdown.
 

thejerk

Distinguished
Mar 7, 2009
317
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]zehpavora[/nom]What I could get from this was that AMD sells a long lasting processor (its technology is in the market for some time) for less money. Since this processor has a history, it performs in a very bad way compared to Intel's same level processors.However, to keep everything at lower prices, AMD bumps the core speed a little so you still use older technology, but it's faster. Blah blah blah...[/citation]

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4

Intel did it for nine years while operating under AMD's superior performance after the release of the original Athlon processor. Intel released the Pentium 4, and kept pushing clock speed to keep up with AMD, until they hit a brick wall and reinvented the wheel to give us the Core architecture.
 

jfem

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2009
288
0
18,790
2
Some typos needs to be fixed. Anyway, this is good news for me since I own an AMD mobo. I like AMD's tactic of increasing speed at the same price since I haven't learned yet about overclocking. I'm really interested in the upcoming llano. If its graphics core will really perform like a discrete 5770 then it'll really be exciting!!! =)
 

gto127

Distinguished
Jan 8, 2008
158
0
18,680
0
If that's true about fusion performing on par with a 5770(as stated in article), that would send most of the low end market to AMD. I see why Apple has taken such an interest lately. This kind of performance might also land them some next gen consoles that have the added benefit of being easy to program for.
 

anamaniac

Distinguished
Jan 7, 2009
2,447
0
19,790
1
Very nice AMD.
Fabs have higher binning through time, so why not use it to your advantage?

They could be like Intel and do things like offer a T9700, T9800, T9900, the T9900 costing more then some peoples entire systems.
Instead, they just replace the lineup.

It appears Intel is finally doing a fair binning system too though, so it should be interesting.

This has already been a good year, and it's not over yet. :)

Please fix all the typos in the CPU info.
 

knowom

Distinguished
Jan 28, 2006
780
0
18,990
1
AMD is still plagued by terrible power consumption comparatively speaking and worse clock for clock rates that matter for some applications like emulation that can only really take advantage of 2 cores.
 

4745454b

Titan
Moderator
I very much doubt the 5770 claim. That would be a HUGE "CPU", and doesn't follow their small die strategy.

Nice job AMD. Looking forward to more articles showing how these, and this includes Intel's, CPU stack up to each other.
 

blurr91

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2004
339
0
18,780
0
What I could get from this was that AMD sells a long lasting processor (its technology is in the market for some time) for less money.
Do you know that the current Intel Core processors trace their ancestry back to the Pentium Pro from 1996? Intel tried to reinvent the wheel with the P4. That went real well.
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,207
2
19,285
0
What's with the "Switch and Bait" nonsense? Did you think it was clever?

It happens all the time. Intel does it too. It's absolutely nothing new. Why so much drama about it?
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,207
2
19,285
0
[citation][nom]thejerk[/nom]Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_4Intel did it for nine years while operating under AMD's superior performance after the release of the original Athlon processor. Intel released the Pentium 4, and kept pushing clock speed to keep up with AMD, until they hit a brick wall and reinvented the wheel to give us the Core architecture.[/citation]

Your "facts" are wrong. The Coppermine Pentium III generally outperformed the Athlon when it first came out, although the Athlon passed it for a while. The Northwood Pentium 4 generally outperformed the Athlon XP, and even the Athlon 64 wasn't faster than the Prescott and Presler CPUs at everything.

So, it was certainly not nine straight years, and the Athlon 64 wasn't nearly as dominant over the Pentium 4 as the Nehalem is over AMDs current stuff. There were always a decent amount of apps that the Pentium 4 was faster in, although the Athlon 64 was faster in far more(Probably 80/20).

Also, the Conroe was NOT a reinvention of the wheel, it was an evolution from the Pentium III, via the Pentium M mobile line.

Still his whole point about using old technology is kind of strange, since the Pentium Pro came out in 1995, and is what the Nehalem is derived from. The Athlon came out four years later, so the age of the initial derivative design is clearly not the reason for the disparity in performance between the two.
 

amnotanoobie

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2006
1,493
0
19,360
37
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]The Northwood Pentium 4 generally outperformed the Athlon XP, and even the Athlon 64 wasn't faster than the Prescott and Presler CPUs at everything.[/citation]

Stopped reading there. Athlon 64's had higher ipc, less heat, and less power consumption with less clock speed than the venerable P4. I had a P4, and the only reason I got one was because it was just cheaper. The X2's were expensive back then, and that might only be the reason not to get one.

* My Presler is a real hotbox compared to an X2.
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,207
2
19,285
0
[citation][nom]amnotanoobie[/nom]Stopped reading there. Athlon 64's had higher ipc, less heat, and less power consumption with less clock speed than the venerable P4. I had a P4, and the only reason I got one was because it was just cheaper. The X2's were expensive back then, and that might only be the reason not to get one.* My Presler is a real hotbox compared to an X2.[/citation]

And your point being? Are you saying the Pentium 4 was slower at every application? Clearly, it wasn't.

Was it a better processor? Not for most people, but it was better at certain things. The difference between the Nehalem and the Phenom II is much greater. There aren't apps where the high end Phenom beats the Nehalem. There were quite a few, probably around 20%, where the Pentium 4 beat the Athlon 64 when the last model (EE 965) was introduced.

The Pentium 4 was bad enough that people don't need to exaggerate it, which is what's happening now. It was faster than anything AMD had out for a period of time too (Northwood), which is often forgotten.
 

dirtmountain

Splendid
Apr 19, 2008
3,530
0
22,860
45
From the article

"For now, the vast majority of users out there--users surfing the Web, editing documents, presenting PowerPoint presentations, and gaming on low-budget PCs--really see no measurable benefit from a CPU faster than an Athlon II X3 or X4. AMD's sub-$100 CPUs are able to cover the needs of most folks, we think, and will continue to do so until there is a big shift in the PC desktop landscape."

Probably the most reasonable and accurate statement about what the vast majority of people need in a CPU. Thank you Mr. Woligroski, hopefully it will stop at least a few people from wasting money for performance that is not needed and never used.
 

amnotanoobie

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2006
1,493
0
19,360
37
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]And your point being? Are you saying the Pentium 4 was slower at every application? Clearly, it wasn't. Was it a better processor? Not for most people, but it was better at certain things. [/citation]


http://techreport.com/discussions.x/7417

Yes it was faster in some productivity apps, but is the ~20% performance increase worth the 30% increase in power consumption (and relatively, heat)?

Northwood was "good" compared to Athlon XP's, but with Prescott Intel was fighting with raw clockspeed with little regard to power consumption or heat. They just wanted to top the benchmarks in any way possible.

Did the Athlon 64 consume less power? Yes
Did the Athlon 64 produce less heat? Yes
Did the Athlon 64 outperform the Pentium 4? Sometimes
Was the Athlon 64 cheaper than the Pentium 4? Sometimes, but sometimes it was also more expensive.

AMD being left out since the Core 2, is their own damn fault for being too confident with the X2 and FX line. Nehalem is just an additional kick in the balls, but AMD is starting to catch-up with Intel (though a little bit slowly). AMD seems to be more concerned now with selling by volume rather than getting the performance crown.



I would have gone with the Athlon 64 before, but Intel seems to be priced lower before where I live.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS