Dual Core Decisions

[jcarle]

Comparing an AMD 2.8ghz proc to an Intel 2.8ghz proc is like comparing apples to oranges, let alone an FX57 to an Intel 2.8. With your knowledge I am actually surprised you ended up doing such a BS comparison.

Agreed. I know that. It's more to illustrate the raw clock speeds. This is what strikes me as very odd. Why are Intel processors able to ramp up to 3.2GHz - 3.8GHz yet AMD processors are still running at 2.2GHz - 2.8Ghz?

I understand fully that it's a much more equal comparison to compare the FX-57 to then P4 EE. But an Intel for the same price will run a FULL GHZ faster. That has to count for something somewhere...

[woelfman10]

AMD Athlon 64 processors run so much lower frequencies because they don't have nearly as deep of a pipeline as Intel Pentium 4 processors. A deep pipeline allows for faster processing of data that does NOT depend on previous instructions, such as streaming multimedia. If there is a data dependency or a branch instruction the pipeline has to be stalled or flushed (to prevent data corruption), which is the same thing as running constantly at a lower frequency. A decent guide without having to look at benchmarks is a P4 should be about 50% higher frequency for similar performance to an A64. The next gen Intel processors have a shorter pipeline, so their frequencies aren't as high as their Penium line, but still have similar performance.

[ssmokee]

Agreed. I know that. It's more to illustrate the raw clock speeds. This is what strikes me as very odd. Why are Intel processors able to ramp up to 3.2GHz - 3.8GHz yet AMD processors are still running at 2.2GHz - 2.8Ghz?

Doesnt it seem equally odd that the P4's dont outperform K8/P-M by the margin of their clockspeed advantage?

[suryad]

I dont know what jcarle is talking about. ssmokee and woelfman10 are right. I am an Intel user myself and my brothers 2 ghz laptop from amd with a 64 bit proc smokes my comp in everything. I have a 3.4 ghz prescott!

[tempuser]

AMD's Socket-939 has been the platform of choice almost immediately after its introduction, so it is fitting that the last Socket-939 processor to be released would be the Athlon 64 FX-60.

After today's launch of the FX-60, there will be no faster Socket-939 CPUs produced. Instead, everything else will be Socket-AM2 (the new name for Socket-M2). Next quarter, AMD will launch their Socket-AM2 platform along with AM2 versions of the Athlon 64, Athlon 64 X2 and the FX-62. Given that the AM2 platform adds DDR2 support, it is entirely feasible that the Athlon 64 FX-62 won't receive a clock speed bump over the FX-60 and just use the higher bandwidth memory as justification for the higher model number.

Although we've generally shied away from recommending AMD's FX line of processors, we can't help but be a little excited about the FX-60. When AMD introduced their X2 line of dual-core processors, the FX series remained single core, but maintained a fairly high clock speed. AMD even went as far as to release the FX-57, clocked a full 400MHz higher than the fastest X2. With the FX-60, that trend is over; from this day forward, all members of the FX series of processors are now dual core. They are still sold under the Athlon 64 FX brand, despite being dual core chips.

Our excitement over the Athlon 64 FX-60 isn't really about its performance, although at 2.6GHz it is quite stellar; rather, it is more of an excitement out of principle. We've favored and recommended dual core processors to power users as soon as they were available, even though dual core processors were generally far slower at single-threaded applications than their equivalently priced single core alternatives. With the FX-60, at least at the high end, the same is no longer true.

The fastest single core AMD processor is still the Athlon 64 FX-57 running at 2.8GHz, which AMD will continue to sell alongside the FX-60. But with the clock speed gap between the 2.6GHz dual core FX-60 and the 2.8GHz single core FX-57 a meager 7.6%, you can effectively go to one CPU and get the best single-threaded and multithreaded performance. Remember that the best applications that scale with clock speed generally give you a 50% return on every 100% increase in clock speed, so in most of the single-threaded cases, the FX-57's performance advantage will be in the 0 - 4% range. But on the flip side, the fact that the FX-60 is a dual core processor will buy it a lot in multithreaded applications.

As with all FX series processors, the FX-60 debuts at $1031 in quantities of 1000, so you can expect street pricing to be at or around that number. The FX-57 will drop to $827 mark as it will co-exist with the FX-60.

The FX-60 is really just a multiplier unlocked 2.6GHz Athlon 64 X2. It is still a 90nm processor and there are no architectural changes that we've been made aware of or have been able to find on our own. We stress the point that it is still a 90nm chip because of the fact that its closest competitor, the Pentium Extreme Edition 955, just debuted on Intel's 65nm process. Because Intel is on a smaller manufacturing process, they can cram more transistors into a smaller space. So although the Pentium EE 955 is a 376-million transistor chip, they only take up 162 mm2 of space. The Athlon 64 FX-60 by comparison is a 233-million transistor chip, but its die is a larger 199 mm2. The move to 65nm for AMD should cut the die size roughly in half assuming no architectural changes, but until then, Intel will at least have the manufacturing advantage.

You shouldn't, however, assume that the smaller, cooler running manufacturing process will result in a power advantage for Intel. The problem is that those 376 million transistors are used to build a beast of a chip with a 31-stage pipeline, so power consumption is still actually higher on the Extreme Edition than on AMD's fastest dual core:

[jcarle]

You know, I do give credit to the AMD crowd. Really I do. I just find it completely strange that a full GHz faster means nothing. Obviously the integrated memory controller makes a huge difference in the overall performance, that's been proved time and time again in numerous benchmarks. But you know, my Pentium 630 cost me $230 CAD. If I want a processor for around the same cost in the AMD line, I can only get an Athlon 64 3500+ which runs at 2.2GHz and has 512KB of cache. That's a full 800MHz slower then my Pentium 630 and has 1.5MB of cache less.

Odd thing is, even with the slower clock speed and the lower cache, the Athlon 64 in benchmarks seems to outperform the Pentium. Benchmarks that use Athlon 64 paired with DDR 400MHz and the Pentium with DDR2 533MHz. What I wonder is, would the Pentium still be outperformed if it was using DDR2 800MHz?

[ripken204]

lol, jcarle i still dont think that you understand. the 3200 venice is a little better than the Pentium 630. meaning that the 3500 venice will be even better. you can use benchmarks to see this.

and the socket AM2 will hopefully rape intel even more

[jcarle]

I'm curious to see what the new socket is going to perform like. I may be putting Intel to rest if it keeps up like this.

[ripken204]

well unless intel integrates their memory controller into the cpu, amd will always win

[ssmokee]

well unless intel integrates their memory controller into the cpu, amd will always win

Atleast in the case of the P4. P-M appears to be competetive without it from what Ive seen.

The AMD chips also have cache coherency (core 0 can access the L2 cache of core 1, and vice versa) which is bound to give them yet another nice advantage on dual core chips.

[Porn Loader]

One of the largest issues I have with AMD is cost. Performance for performance, you pay 2 to 3 times more for an AMD based performance system then an Intel one.

the only place for equivlent cpus that amd was getting their butts handed to them price-wise was in entry level dual core. when first announced the 3800 X2 was going for about $400, while the pent d 820 was going for about $275. now you can pick up a D 820 for around $265-$275, and a 3800 X2 for ~$300. and as for the fx60/ intel 2.8 comparison that was almost laughable

I'm curious to see what the new socket is going to perform like. I may be putting Intel to rest if it keeps up like this.

thats the thing i am really interested in to0, for am2. the intel switch to ddr2 was very necessary as they were very bandwidth limited. the higher latencies of the original ddr2 didn't hurt them at all. now we'll get to see how the higher latencies will affect amd's new cpu's. the only thing that i can see, in so far, is at least the a64's arent as affected by higher latency compared to how the t-breds were.

and for the OP, by your descritption it seems like gaming is going to be very low on the scale. if your doing alot of content creation, you might want to seriously consider a dual core intel chip.