Teledo 2.4GHZ dual core demo today

AMD101

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2004
59
0
18,630
<A HREF="http://news.com.com/AMD+to+demo+a+dual-core+desktop+chip/2100-1006_3-5586314.html?tag=nefd.top" target="_new">http://news.com.com/AMD+to+demo+a+dual-core+desktop+chip/2100-1006_3-5586314.html?tag=nefd.top</A>

And it only puts out 100 watts of heat ta boot:)
<A HREF="http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=60402975" target="_new">http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=60402975</A>
"AMD Demos Dual-Core Athlon 64 Feb. 23, 2005

The latest shoe to drop in the race toward multicore technology came today from AMD, which says it has demonstrated a working dual-core version of its Athlon 64 desktop processor.The dual-core Athlon 64 runs at a clock-speed of 2.4 GHz and has a maximum power dissipation of 100 W."We're in production," says Teresa deOnis, AMD's manager of branding. "We will have availability in the second half of 2005--that's when it will be in PCs on store shelves and in the hands of system builders." The dual-core Athlon 64 is being fabricated in a 90 nm semiconductor process at AMD's new manufacturing facility in Dresden, Germany. Today's announcement is the latest in a long-running battle of one-upmanship between AMD and Intel. The two companies have been vying for multicore mindshare since last year, when both firms pledged to release dual-core versions of their respective processors. Multicore chips place two or more CPUs on a single piece of silicon. They are seen as the solution to power-consumption problems that have come to the fore as clock-speeds have increased beyond 3.0 GHz. At such speeds, single-CPU processors can often dissipate more than 150 W. In contrast, dual-core parts can reduce power consumption to more reasonable levels. For example, a processor with dual 2.0-GHz cores can deliver performance not all that different from a single-core 3.5-GHz part. More important, such a dual-core part will hold down power dissipation to a figure closer to that of a standalone 2.0-GHz CPU, allowing processing throughput to effectively double for not much more power. Earlier this month, Intel said that it will ship its first dual-core Pentium processors in the second quarter of this year.On the server front, AMD says a dual-core version of its 64-bit Opteron server processor is already in production and will be available in the middle of the year. Intel plans to ship dual-core implementations of its high-end Itanium processor sometime this year. Dual-core versions of its mainstream Xeon server processor are due in the first quarter of 2006."

Now THAT is impressive because a 3ghz prescott puts out around the same amount of heat. Oh and btw this beast has 1 MB of cach/core as well.
 

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
But we will still need multi-threaded / multi-cpu software to take advantage of these Dual-Core beast. For home users, these CPU will not mean anything until games, web browsers, office applications and multimedia software will support multi-cpu.

I remember when a friend of mine built a dual CPU PC with AMD Duron 1.0GHz and he was pissed off because the performance were so bad! I had to explain him that 100% of the applications he used at the time WERE not compiled to run on multiple CPUs...

He had to return the MOBO and CPUs and bought a P4 based sysem instead! :smile:

Multicore will be reserved for a niche market and I don't expect much improvement in most applications for quite a while. I don't think it will be wise to buy an Athlon FX dual-core or P4EE dual-core in the next year. It will start to be interesting when some big software developers will commit themselves and support multi-thread in their software.

What a bout an Half-Life 2, FarCry or Doom3 patch that enable multi-thread! This would be awesome and then we will see benefits for home users.

-
A7N8X / <font color=green><b>Athlon XP 1800+</font color=green> o/c to <font color=green>Sempron 2800+</b></font color=green>
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
<font color=red>Radeon 8500 128Megs</font color=red> @ C:275/M:290 <- <i>It's enough for WoW!</i>
 

AMD101

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2004
59
0
18,630
Yes all of that is true but are u not impressed with the fact that they have gotten it to 2.4 ghz with double the cache, and still around a 100 watts? honestly i was expecting 2ghz dual core to compete with intel's 3.2 dual core as they are comparable. This means than 90nm is going well for AMD now and soon we will see the FX55's on the new process and the FX57 in the not too distant future. The FX57 will be paticularily nice because a small increase in the fsb will bring it to 3ghz:)
 

Spitfire_x86

Splendid
Jun 26, 2002
7,248
0
25,780
Athlon64 FX series has completely unlocked multiplier. So FX57 can be overclocked to 3.0 GHz without increasing FSB.

I would like to see a less expensive dual core A64 with 512k+512k L2 cahce, since it will perform nearly as good as 1MB+1MB L2 cache version.

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

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
I will wait for the offical dual-core specs. If AMD can 100Watts dual-core @ 2.4GHz this would kick the Intel butt. I doubt the "official specs" will reflect that... These numbers comes from hand-selected die, if only 10% of the dies can work at 2.4GHz with only 100 Watts, AMD will probably mark them as "low-power" and will sell them for a premium, but if the yield at 100 Watts is better, we might all enjoy "cool" dual-core AMD cpu in the future.

But we are far from there right now!

-
A7N8X / <font color=green><b>Athlon XP 1800+</font color=green> o/c to <font color=green>Sempron 2800+</b></font color=green>
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
<font color=red>Radeon 8500 128Megs</font color=red> @ C:275/M:290 <- <i>It's enough for WoW!</i>
 

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
I would like to see a less expensive dual core A64 with 512k+512k L2 cahce, since it will perform nearly as good as 1MB+1MB L2 cache version.
I wish too, but it will probably take some time before we will see this, since dual-core will be mostly reserved for Workstations, Servers and High-End Enthousiasts markets.

But, if we are lucky, we might see Sempron DUAL-CORE with 2x256K in the future too! :smile:

-
A7N8X / <font color=green><b>Athlon XP 1800+</font color=green> o/c to <font color=green>Sempron 2800+</b></font color=green>
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
<font color=red>Radeon 8500 128Megs</font color=red> @ C:275/M:290 <- <i>It's enough for WoW!</i>
 

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
1
25,780
For home users, these CPU will not mean anything until games, web browsers, office applications and multimedia software will support multi-cpu.
Keep in mind that multithreaded software only makes sense if the software can actually use 100% of a physical CPU. I hardly think that multithreaded Word (which barely even uses 2% of a CPU most of the time) is going to make sense. :\

What a bout an Half-Life 2, FarCry or Doom3 patch that enable multi-thread! This would be awesome and then we will see benefits for home users.
I thought that Id Software wrote Doom3 to be multithreaded from the very beginning.

<pre>Antec Sonata 2x120mm
P4C 2.6
Asus P4P800Dlx
2x512MB CorsairXMS3200C2
Leadtek A6600GT TDH
RAID1 2xHitachi 60GB
BENQ 16X DVD+/-RW
Altec Lansing 251
NEC FE990 19"CRT</pre><p>
 

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
Keep in mind that multithreaded software only makes sense if the software can actually use 100% of a physical CPU. I hardly think that multithreaded Word (which barely even uses 2% of a CPU most of the time) is going to make sense. :\
Yes and no... For example, if you work on a big spreadsheet, the CPU is performing calculation one after another, but if multi-thread would be implemented in these apps, calculation would be faster. Both CPU would de a part of the job, I know thant Word or Excel usally don't need much CPU, but when you click "print", multi-thread would make the process faster to send the data to the printer!

I thought that Id Software wrote Doom3 to be multithreaded from the very beginning.
But AMD64 CPU beat any P4 HT in Doom3 easily... If D3 is multi-threaded, it's not well done or it's very limited!


-
A7N8X / <font color=green><b>Athlon XP 1800+</font color=green> o/c to <font color=green>Sempron 2800+</b></font color=green>
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
<font color=red>Radeon 8500 128Megs</font color=red> @ C:275/M:290 <- <i>It's enough for WoW!</i>
 

Xeon

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2004
1,304
0
19,280
But AMD64 CPU beat any P4 HT in Doom3 easily... If D3 is multi-threaded, it's not well done or it's very limited!
Load balances with HT if you play the game in window'd mode with task manager out you can see.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
 

P4Man

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2004
2,305
0
19,780
> will wait for the offical dual-core specs. If AMD can
>100Watts dual-core @ 2.4GHz this would kick the Intel butt.

I'm surprised anyone is surprised by this. Look <A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-90nm_5.html" target="_new"> here</A>. Measuring from 12v (so including voltage regulator!) Winchester is around 50W under load @2.4 GHz. Compare that with <A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_7.html" target="_new">pentium 4 5xx and 6xx</A>, using the same methodology, you get 150+W. Don't be fooled by TDP numbers, intels and AMDs numbers mean something entirely different, can't compare them.

> but if the yield at 100 Watts is better, we might all
>enjoy "cool" dual-core AMD cpu in the future.

They won't be 'cool', they will be twice as hot as single cored chips. OTOH, the die will be twice as big, so it should still be relatively easy to cool, especially compared to Prescotss.

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

P4Man

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2004
2,305
0
19,780
>Load balances with HT if you play the game in window'd mode
>with task manager out you can see.

Taskmanager won't tell you much, if anything. For instance, if a CPU is stalled, waiting for cache, memory, I/O, taskmanager will still give you a "100%" CPU usage. If you want to have a somewhat better idea of what the cpu's are doing, use PerfMon, and select the appropriate items. If you think because TM gives you high CPU percentages, that that means HT (or a second core/cpu) is doing anything usefull, you are mistaken. Try benchmarking with and without HT, if gives you more than a 5% boost, I'll be utterly impressed. Same will apply for single core versus dual core btw.

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

P4Man

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2004
2,305
0
19,780
>What a bout an Half-Life 2, FarCry or Doom3 patch that
>enable multi-thread!

Creating software in such a way, that having multiple threads actually benefit from several CPU's (core, chips, virtual cpu's,..), is anything but trivial for most apps.

For very simple algorithms like encoding, I can see that happen, for games ? I think not (yet). And it certainly won't happen under the form of a patch. Adding support for AMD64, or extra instructions like SSE3 is pretty simple, it barely touches your sourcecode (if that was created properly). Making it multithreaded, and without contention or cache trashing problems that (possibly dramatically) decrement performance instead of boosting it.. now that is something <i>entirely</i> different.

Having said that, since consoles are going multichip, its probably going to happen one day, but don't expect game developpers to make such huge efforts as long as this isn't mainstream yet. Again, supporting AMD64 and SSE3 (to name just 2 ISA enhancements) is trivial by comparison, and you hardly see even that happening yet.


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

Xeon

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2004
1,304
0
19,280
Hmm ya forgot to mention I dont care to continue the discussion further I made my point.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
 

zeezee

Distinguished
Jun 19, 2004
142
0
18,680
For home users, these CPU will not mean anything until games, web browsers, office applications and multimedia software will support multi-cpu.
No need to wait. Internet Explorer, MS-Excel, MS-Word and all other MS-Office applications are already multi-threaded. But like slvr_phoenix mentioned, they don't require a lot of CPU power therefore it's likely that nobody will notice an improvement.

Well... Except if you regularly run multiple applications - single or multi threaded but a little CPU demanding - at the same time. A dual-cpu or a dual-core single CPU PC will make a very noticable difference.

There is another interesting benefit of dual core CPU's which so far people have neglected. Dual cores ensure that you have CPU power when you need it. Even while running single-threaded and low CPU demanding applications.

Imagine, while watching a movie, your weekly virus scan starts running or while listening to an MP3 recording, you expand a window on the screen or save a file.

These momentarily CPU demanding actions sometimes stall a single core CPU and distort the video or cause interruptions in audio playback. A dual core on the other hand will continue to run flawlessly (of course assuming that other components like hard disks, PCI cards, etc. are reasonably fast and don't cause bottlenecks).

Shortly, a PC with a dual-core processor will be very much time-critical application friendly. Best option for today's XP-Media edition or similar future operating systems.
 

P4Man

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2004
2,305
0
19,780
>No need to wait. Internet Explorer, MS-Excel, MS-Word and
>all other MS-Office applications are already multi-
>threaded.

They are, but what they do, is create new threads for tasks like printing or spell checking. So unless you are running *two* such cpu intensive threads, you still won't see an improvement. The real benefit of this multithreaded approach is that you can print in the background while continue working (remember Word 2.0 ?). Having one cpu print and the other process your keyboard strokes isn't really boosting anything, and you're printing won't be any faster either.

>These momentarily CPU demanding actions sometimes stall a
>single core CPU and distort the video or cause
>interruptions in audio playback.

If they do, its purely an operating system issue; there is no reason a single cpu could not handle those, they switch tasks (threads, or to handle interrupts) hundred of thousands (if not millions) of times per second. Windows task scheduler isn't the best one out there, but even with that, you should not experience such drops (if you, increase thread priority slightly). Buying a dual core or SMP setup to work around this seems like killing a fly with a cannon (dutch expression).

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

P4Man

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2004
2,305
0
19,780
Yeah, sorry, my bad, I forgot that you like to make hollow (if not incorrect) statements, and that can you can't stand being corrected.

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

Xeon

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2004
1,304
0
19,280
Yes and its not my fault you don’t own a Pentium 4 based system to simply see. It's not like its extreme either seems to only jump about when monsters are about.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
 

zeezee

Distinguished
Jun 19, 2004
142
0
18,680
They are, but what they do, is create new threads for tasks like printing or spell checking.
What else a seperate thread can do in a word processing or spreadsheet application? Background calculation, screen refresh, chart display and spell checking.
Having one cpu print and the other process your keyboard strokes isn't really boosting anything, and you're printing won't be any faster either.
Precisely. The second core or cpu won't bring any perceptable improvement. These tasks are not CPU bound. I only wanted to point out the fact that they were already multi-threaded when the other poster claimed that home users had to wait until office applications became multi-threaded.

...there is no reason a single cpu could not handle those, they switch tasks (threads, or to handle interrupts) hundred of thousands (if not millions) of times per second.
Surely, single CPU's can and do run multiple threads simultaneously. And yes, a single cpu must be able to handle all these smoothly. But are they? Given today's technology, every once in a while, they screw up and when they do, if you are recording your favorite TV show, you wouldn't like it.

And no, noone should buy a dual core just because of their being more real-time task proof. It's not the main reason but just another incentive to consider them, that's all. There are better ways to squash a fly, I agree...
 

P4Man

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2004
2,305
0
19,780
> And yes, a single cpu must be able to handle all these
>smoothly. But are they?

Well, the question is if dual core (or SMP, HT,..) would even solve those issues. Maybe in some cases, but I doubt very often if the apps (threads) aren't really cpu bound. Well, at least I guess its not going to be any worse either :)

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

P4Man

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2004
2,305
0
19,780
>Yes and its not my fault you don’t own a Pentium 4 based
>system to simply see

See what ? 2 high loads in taskmanager when running Doom3 ? My point was that was meaningless, and why would I need a P4 anyhow ?

Again, if anyone can point me to a review where they test Doom3 with and without HT, or better yet, on a dual cpu machine, i'd be most interested. One would expect at least the videodriver benefitting from having its own (virtual) cpu, but considering P4s performance in Doom3, which is not that different from its performance in HL2 and other (single threaded) games compared to single threaded A64; I just don't see where the benefit of multithreaded code is for Doom3. Your two green bars will not convince me otherwise.

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

P4Man

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2004
2,305
0
19,780
>Yes and its not my fault you don’t own a Pentium 4 based
>system to simply see

See what ? 2 high loads in taskmanager when running Doom3 ? My point was that was meaningless, and why would I need a P4 anyhow ?

Again, if anyone can point me to a review where they test Doom3 with and without HT, or better yet, on a dual cpu machine, i'd be most interested. One would expect at least the videodriver benefitting from having its own (virtual) cpu, but considering P4s performance in Doom3, which is not that different from its performance in HL2 and other (single threaded) games compared to single threaded A64; I just don't see where the benefit of multithreaded code is for Doom3. Your two green bars will not convince me otherwise.

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

phial

Splendid
Oct 29, 2002
6,757
0
25,780
Hes an Intel fan, no point in argueing. You could tell him that the sun sets in the west and he would deny it :smile:

Besides I think he posts here just to be dickhead. you know, to purposefully stir up crap not to have meaningful discussions


-------
Work sucks.
 

Xeon

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2004
1,304
0
19,280
I post here till fredi re-enables spud account, hehe then there will be a cause to say its hopeless.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>