Prove that Athlon64 is better

[edmoncu]

so far, why is athlon64 better than similar competing products? il make this quick. please correct me if im wrong about any of these assumptions im making here.

anyway, my opinion is based on what i read from a couple of review sites like tomshardware, anandtech and xbitlabs... as well as some opinions from the inquirer web.

for one, even having the a similar architecture as its predecessor, the athlonxp... the improvements made to it really boosted its performance.

what performance enhancements were given to the amd64 architecture?

basically, the only notable improvement i am seeing is the integration of a single channel (athlon64) or a dual channel (athlon fx/opteron) memory controller on the cpu.

another notable performance improvement is the use of bi-directional hypertransport bus... its a high-speed interconnect bus designed by AMD and nVidia. this one is very useful for multiprocessor systems.

basically, these 2 components alone can dramatically reduce latency which improves performance noticably.

also is the increase of L2 cache... although i doubt that amd64-cpus benefit that much from higher L2 cache as intel CPU does... way back, the athlon 64 already has an exclusive 128kb L1 cache... higher than any similar intel CPUs.

sse/sse2 performance has increased but hasn't catched up with intel's implementation, since as optimized as amd's implementation of sse/sse2 is, those instruction sets merely depend on the clock speed of the host processor... intel has a clock advantage here. sse3 is just a minor improvement to sse2 however, so i can't say that sse3 is the reason why high-end intel x86 CPUs with sse3 beats high-end amd x86-64 CPUs with sse2 only.

other advantages aren't for performance reasons, like NX-bit, cool n quiet...

i doubt on the 64-bit capability of the CPU as well. microsoft, software and driver developers will have to prove that one for AMD. intel itself is backing out of the x86-64 hype as it killed tejas (successor to prescott). intel considered implementing dual-core cpus instead. as i understand it, the only purpose of adding 64-bit capability is to address the memory limitation that 32-bit CPUs can address... which is up to 4gb of RAM only. 64-bit CPUs can address way beyond that. this makes AMD CPUs fit for server apps that require heavy amounts of memory.

as i can see, an AMD64 CPU is a great 32-bit CPU. since its basically the same as a 32-bit x86 CPUs with integrated memory controller and a fast hypertransport bus. it will work well (or will work very excellent with existing 32-bit Windows) as well as future 64-bit-extended OSes... like Win2k3 server, WinXPSP2, WinXP for 64-bit extended systems.

so, what applications benefit from all these enhancements? basically the ones that stresses the PC the most will benefit from it... which is games. 3d rendering apps may benefit from this as well, provided they support the 64-bit extended capabilities of the OS.

otherwise, intel still dominates video/audio encoding as it requires fast sse/sse2/3 instructions.

archiving may also benefit intel a bit than amd64 cpus as archiving (data compression) requires large L2 caches.

usual applications like web browsing, word processing, or similar apps, wont benefit that much over these as these kinds of apps depend more on the disk i/o performance.

[Alanoll]

I was just telling you places to look for the virus, not that I have them If i do accidentally click those files, one of my virusscanners picks it off before it's done downloading. (couple secnods)

The average enduser only knows one thing, raw performance. Speed. If they don't understand numbers, show them one is faster.

[SiMoNsAyS]

i won't buy an athlon64 for now and i explain my reasons:

1.- they are expensive compared to other processors with similar benchmarks

2.- faster?? don't think so. probably a 64bit emulating 32bit operations could be equal or slowest.

3.- "in the future 64bit systems will be dominant and we need them". don't think so again, thinking how marked goes i can say that xp 64bit have been out for 2 years and there are not many 64bit programs. and companies of software will first integrate pci-e, ddrII, etc. until 64bits.

4.- probably if we wait a little, the new processor from amd using socket A will be faster than athlon64 with 32bits apps

[edmoncu]

hmm, as for the question... proof that athlon64 is better... well, here are my opinions:

- its a tad faster than competing processors from intel.

- its an x86 CPU... meaning it can run all x86 apps from way way back up to the present w/o any loss of speed, plus it has 64-bit extensions... meaning its the 1st 64-bit x86 CPU. meaning, as computing appreciates to 64-bits, the x86 still has life in it as a 64-bit platform, rather than consider the more expensive and radical itanium solution.

- its way cheaper than other 64-bit CPUs.

- its scalable, since it uses a very fast hypertransport bus, multiprocessing isn't lagged by the northbridge since each cpu has its own memory controller (unlike p4's/xeon's approach wherein all CPUs share one memory controller from the northbridge).

[Bâshrat the Sneaky]

-You're asking for POSITIVE comments on the Athlon 64 - "why is it superior".

-The answer to that is quite simple IMHO: there is (I think) NO superior CPU. Why: because each CPU (or most of them) are excelling in a couple of benchmarks, another CPU in other benchmarks. You've got to choose the CPU that 'fits' you: for what do you use your computer? And: what's your budget?

*Price/performance: there's no CPU that can beat AMD Athlon XP Mobile processors ON DESKTOP MOTHERBOARDS, by which I mean when they're overclocked.

E.g.: AMD Athlon XP Mobile 2600+, 100€ runs easily at 2.6-2.8 GHz with decent air cooling. Which gives it the performance of about a P4 3.2 GHz (270€) / Athlon 64 3200+ (220€)

As you can see, nothing comes close to this CPU, price/performance wise.

Winner: AMD Athlon XP Mobile, if only looking to desktop CPU's the regular Athlon XP

*choosing a CPU for a specific task: as you all might know, a couple of months ago AMD couldn't beat Intel in video encoding/rendering benchmarks. They even didn't come close! By now, this has changed: AMD's Athlon 64 3800+ is leading the benchmarks now! (note: of course the FX-53 is slightly faster, but as this is a server CPU, I didn't choose this one)

Winner: AMD Athlon 64

*dissipated heat, power consumption: Of course Mobile CPU's are doing better in this one, but I'll leave them out of this. I think we've got again a clear winner: Athlon 64 has a great feature, better known as Cool 'n Quiet. This superb function makes sure you're only using the CPU speed (so also the needed power and heat dissipation) you actually need! This function may help to shrink your energy bill!

Winner: AMD Athlon 64

*prolly I forgot alot of things

Conclusion:

-if you're a normal user or a power user that's quickly satisfied, go for a Athlon XP or

Athlon XP Mobile.

-if you've got enough (or too much) money, buy a Athlon 64 as it outranges a Pentium 4 in almost everything!

hope this is useful...

EDIT: longest reply ever

[raskren]

prathapml,

Sorry, but I don't check my inbox that often. It looks like that thread has been beaten to death already. Currently, if I were in the market for a new CPU I would seriously consider an A64 Nforce 3 combo, but this is not a good time for making long-term purchases. I currently have a 3.4 Ghz P4 (overclocked Northwood) and I am very happy with it. In an overclocked environment (fast DDR memory to feed it) it is still very competitive with AMD's latest. I do a lot of 3D rendering in Lightwave and the Pentium 4C with hyperthreading can shave hours off of a complicated scene. So, keeping the P4 just makes sense for me.

The amount of engineering that has gone into the A64 is very impressive, but I doubt that the 64 bit extensions will really be the "holy grail" that the AMDroids are hoping for. There are very few (relatively) that can truly take advantage of the ability to use >4GB of RAM and even fewer that are willing/able to work in a true 64 bit environment on x86-64 hardware (only Linux, UNIX currently). Keep in mind that I'm not talking about servers here, I'm thinking of desktops.

As a matter of fact, this question is for a demo by a friend, who wants to show that the Athlon64 is best. All that I could come up with (with my limited knowledge) was:

1. It has DEP (data execution prevention) extensions to prevent hacking/app-RAM-overruns.

True, but only available in an unreleased Windows Xp service pack. Intel will be rolling this out in Prescott shortly.

2. Supports SSE2 *AND* 3D-Now! 2 instruction sets.

SSE2 is really all that matters since most professional apps rely heavily on SSE2 (Lightwave as I mentioned earlier). Prescott has SSE3 support, A64 does not.

3. Runs at good speeds, and still is cool-quiet.

What is a "good" speed? You should tout the A64's higher IPC rather than overall clock frequency. The fact that it uses less power may be significant for some, i.e. those purchasing a room full of computers for a lab, etc.

Is reasonably future-proof with 64-bit instructions.

By the time we have a mature 64 bit Windows OS the A64 arcitecture will be antiquated.

5. Could be faster in future, if you use 64-bit OS.

See above.

6. It is good for graphics professionals (rendering is faster).

Not true. Multithreaded apps love a P4 with HT. There are some cases where the A64 is faster though.

7. Good for gamers (pairing with a high-end graphics card will give superb dX9 quality/performance).

Dx9 games are much more GPU (instead of CPU) bound than Dx8- games. A P4 paired with a high-end graphics card will also give superb dx9 performance. The CPU present in the user's machine also has nothing to do with image quality in Dx (or OpenGL for that matter).

8. It's memory bandwidth is very demonstrably good - winXP would install within 11 minutes.

Its difficult to link how long your OS installs with memory bandwidth. I would mention the fact that the A64 has an on-die memory controller and paired with low latency DDR you can expect very good performance.

[raskren]

Ok, and my quotes aren't working because.....?

[Bâshrat the Sneaky]

Ok, and my quotes aren't working because.....?

I guess it is because you forgot one backslash (/) , in the first quote.

[Alanoll]

Ok, and my quotes aren't working because.....?

fixed em for ya.

Back to the topic in general....

Why is everyone giving him advice like he was buing the thing? This one is better because, this one is better here. He said he wanted ways to demonstrate that it was better, not reasons why it was better.

[edmoncu]

- if you'll be testing video/audio encoding, intel will be a better cpu as most video/audio encoding tasks are heavily SSE/SSE2 optimized, although amd64 cpu's already has SSE2, its lower clock speed implementation of SSE/SSE2 puts it at a disadvantage over intel's.

- the best test to prove the athlon64 is better... funny as it may sound, but consider, running 3d games.

- office/net apps? i think, it will all depend on how optimized the chipset's disk i/o performance is.

- data compression? this rely much on a large L2 cache... so i suppose this is an equal ground between intel and amd CPUs with large L2 caches (like 1mb above).

- photoshop tests? i think here, amd wons, as most filter tests here are memory intensive. unless there's are specific filter optimizations for the P4, like Hyperthreading.

[Bâshrat the Sneaky]

Ok, and my quotes aren't working because.....?

fixed em for ya.

Back to the topic in general....

Why is everyone giving him advice like he was buing the thing? This one is better because, this one is better here. He said he wanted ways to demonstrate that it was better, not reasons why it was better.

Demonstrating it is better, isn't that quite the same as saying: "you'd better buy THAT CPU because it's better here, the other CPU is better there"

I mean: how would YOU explain it?

(Or am I being such an id*** not understanding what your point is?)

[prathapml]

Alanoll's statement above hits the bull's eye dudes!

Yup, we got lot's of wonderful info and posts here on this thread until now. But I would still like to get a few ideas for showing to the <AVERAGE END-USER> (not to the know-all techie) how an Athlon64 is any better than something else out there.

I really wouldn't mind it if more posts were coming onto this thread quicker. The more discussion, the merrier. Besides, the (to-prove) demo is still waiting........

how would YOU explain it?

(in other words, demo it as being better)

Example:

1. Currently an a64 is the only processor with the native HW tech. to prevent many worms/hack-attacks (resulting from memory overruns).

2. Since a 64-bit platform can transfer data much quicker, BLAH-BLAH-BLAH......

it can render faster, carry out scientific processing quicker, install OSes sooner, etc.

[Bâshrat the Sneaky]

how would YOU explain it?

(in other words, demo it as being better)

Example:

1. Currently an a64 is the only processor with the native HW tech. to prevent many worms/hack-attacks (resulting from memory overruns).

2. Since a 64-bit platform can transfer data much quicker, BLAH-BLAH-BLAH......

it can render faster, carry out scientific processing quicker, install OSes sooner, etc.

@ Alanoll: sorry, but I really didn't get the point...

Okay, I think I'm getting the point:

NOT compare

ONLY unique features or areas where it excells (if this word exists )

Then I think you've collected about everything, not?

EDIT:

• NX (non execution feature)
  
• Cool 'n Quiet
  
• heat dissipation & power consumption
  
• support for all instruction sets except for SSE3 (comin with the 90 nm A64)
  
• ... and lots of things I forgot....
  

Edited July 21, 2004 by Bâshrat the Sneaky

[prathapml]

NOT compare

ONLY unique features or areas where it excels

Well, not so actually - comparisons (where the a64 wins) would be the main pillar of differences I think.

[*]... and lots of things I forgot....

I have to reveal that I am deeply interested about this point....... LOL

[Alanoll]

I consider it more of a car dealer selling me a car.

If he's trying to sell me a Mazda, he isn't going to tell me how great a Toyota or a Nissan are. Or vice versa. He wants to sell me the Mazda.

But as stated before,the AVERAGE END USER won't have a clue what you're talking about You just have to impress them with all teh features and demonstrate as best as you can.