Gaming AMD vs Intel

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

I read the following article

http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa
on amdzone.com.



Extremetech looks at gameplay experience comparing AMD and Intel CPUs.
I'm surprised they used DDR2 533, but then of course if they were on
the real ball they would be using faster than DDR400 using the Lanparty
board with that 3500+.
The results speak for themselves. The average frame rate across all six
games for the Athlon 64 system is 61fps, while the Pentium 4 averaged
54fps. That's a 13% difference-not tiny, but not large enough to bowl
us over. What is more important, we feel, is how often a game runs
slowly enough that you can feel it. This methodology is consistent with
the one used by a new performance analysis tool in the works at Intel.
We picked arbitrary performance thresholds, but these are numbers based
on years of game playing experience. We picked frame rates at which you
actually notice an impact on how the game feels, not the absolute
minimum required to play and enjoy a game. This is where the Athlon 64
really kicks the Pentium 4 in the teeth. Our P4 system spent almost a
third of the time, across all games, beneath our target minimum FPS.
The Athlon 64 system, on the other hand, spent only 14% of its time
there. This is a difference of a whopping 121%!



"


So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other
reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming.

I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds
and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games
like Doom 3.

I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking
about the nvidia latest pci-e card.

Any thoughts on intel vs AMD?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

<Conservative.Nate@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125846925.400356.26180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I read the following article
>
> http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa
> on amdzone.com.

[quote from link snipped]

> So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other
> reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming.

What reviews?

> I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds
> and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games
> like Doom 3.
>
> I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking
> about the nvidia latest pci-e card.
>
> Any thoughts on intel vs AMD?
>

Yes, AMD all the way.
--
Derek

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

<Conservative.Nate@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125846925.400356.26180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I read the following article
>
> http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa
> on amdzone.com.
>
>
>
> Extremetech looks at gameplay experience comparing AMD and Intel CPUs.
> I'm surprised they used DDR2 533, but then of course if they were on
> the real ball they would be using faster than DDR400 using the Lanparty
> board with that 3500+.
> The results speak for themselves. The average frame rate across all six
> games for the Athlon 64 system is 61fps, while the Pentium 4 averaged
> 54fps. That's a 13% difference-not tiny, but not large enough to bowl
> us over. What is more important, we feel, is how often a game runs
> slowly enough that you can feel it. This methodology is consistent with
> the one used by a new performance analysis tool in the works at Intel.
> We picked arbitrary performance thresholds, but these are numbers based
> on years of game playing experience. We picked frame rates at which you
> actually notice an impact on how the game feels, not the absolute
> minimum required to play and enjoy a game. This is where the Athlon 64
> really kicks the Pentium 4 in the teeth. Our P4 system spent almost a
> third of the time, across all games, beneath our target minimum FPS.
> The Athlon 64 system, on the other hand, spent only 14% of its time
> there. This is a difference of a whopping 121%!
>
>
>
> "
>
>
> So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other
> reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming.
>
> I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds
> and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games
> like Doom 3.
>
> I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking
> about the nvidia latest pci-e card.
>
> Any thoughts on intel vs AMD?
>

Yep, just tell the devs and hardware makers to come up with some 64 bit code
now
McG.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

You would be happy with AMD or Intel, both would play games just fine.
I personal would go AMD as the price for performance is cheaper with AMD.
AMD also beat Intel to coming out with 64 bit CPUs

Rumors are that the new ATI coming out soon is faster then NVIDIA

<Conservative.Nate@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125846925.400356.26180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I read the following article
>
> http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa
> on amdzone.com.
>
>
>
> Extremetech looks at gameplay experience comparing AMD and Intel CPUs.
> I'm surprised they used DDR2 533, but then of course if they were on
> the real ball they would be using faster than DDR400 using the Lanparty
> board with that 3500+.
> The results speak for themselves. The average frame rate across all six
> games for the Athlon 64 system is 61fps, while the Pentium 4 averaged
> 54fps. That's a 13% difference-not tiny, but not large enough to bowl
> us over. What is more important, we feel, is how often a game runs
> slowly enough that you can feel it. This methodology is consistent with
> the one used by a new performance analysis tool in the works at Intel.
> We picked arbitrary performance thresholds, but these are numbers based
> on years of game playing experience. We picked frame rates at which you
> actually notice an impact on how the game feels, not the absolute
> minimum required to play and enjoy a game. This is where the Athlon 64
> really kicks the Pentium 4 in the teeth. Our P4 system spent almost a
> third of the time, across all games, beneath our target minimum FPS.
> The Athlon 64 system, on the other hand, spent only 14% of its time
> there. This is a difference of a whopping 121%!
>
>
>
> "
>
>
> So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other
> reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming.
>
> I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds
> and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games
> like Doom 3.
>
> I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking
> about the nvidia latest pci-e card.
>
> Any thoughts on intel vs AMD?
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 4 Sep 2005 08:15:25 -0700, Conservative.Nate@gmail.com wrote:

>I read the following article
>
>http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa
>on amdzone.com.

Hehe, www.amdzone.com is, not surprisingly, a VERY pro-AMD/anti-Intel
site, so don't expect to see anything except "AMD is the greatest"
from them! That being said, the article they are quoting is from a
much less biased source.

>So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other
>reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming.

??? Really? When it comes to gaming Intel has been beaten pretty
soundly in virtually all tests I've seen since the Athlon64 was
released two years ago. Gaming is one area where AMD has the most
definite and obvious performance lead.

>I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds
>and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games
>like Doom 3.

AMD's Athlon64 chips are unquestionably the way to go for gaming
performance IMO. Their performance/dollar is a fair bit higher than
Intel's pretty much across the board, from their low-end (Socket 754)
Sempron models right up to their top-end Athlon64 FX chips. Dollar
for dollar the AMD chips are usually ~15-20% faster.

>I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking
>about the nvidia latest pci-e card.

If you can afford it, the nVidia GeForce 7800 GTX is the best out
there. Alternatively there is the 7800GT which offers close to the
same performance with a price tag that's about $100 less.

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

AMD is more than just cheaper,they are significantly faster in gameplay,run
much cooler,and were the first with dual core,which could take away the one
edge Intel had in multi-tasking.
As for ATI,they better get a move on if they want to keep pace with
Nvidia,so far all I've heard from them is rumors.They've been promising
Crossfire for months,while Nvidia's SLI has already been here for months,and
the 7800 series gets faster with each new version released.
"tod" <no_spam_i@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1FKSe.5326$4P5.4248@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> You would be happy with AMD or Intel, both would play games just fine.
> I personal would go AMD as the price for performance is cheaper with AMD.
> AMD also beat Intel to coming out with 64 bit CPUs
>
> Rumors are that the new ATI coming out soon is faster then NVIDIA
>
> <Conservative.Nate@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1125846925.400356.26180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >I read the following article
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa
> > on amdzone.com.
> >
> >
> >
> > Extremetech looks at gameplay experience comparing AMD and Intel CPUs.
> > I'm surprised they used DDR2 533, but then of course if they were on
> > the real ball they would be using faster than DDR400 using the Lanparty
> > board with that 3500+.
> > The results speak for themselves. The average frame rate across all six
> > games for the Athlon 64 system is 61fps, while the Pentium 4 averaged
> > 54fps. That's a 13% difference-not tiny, but not large enough to bowl
> > us over. What is more important, we feel, is how often a game runs
> > slowly enough that you can feel it. This methodology is consistent with
> > the one used by a new performance analysis tool in the works at Intel.
> > We picked arbitrary performance thresholds, but these are numbers based
> > on years of game playing experience. We picked frame rates at which you
> > actually notice an impact on how the game feels, not the absolute
> > minimum required to play and enjoy a game. This is where the Athlon 64
> > really kicks the Pentium 4 in the teeth. Our P4 system spent almost a
> > third of the time, across all games, beneath our target minimum FPS.
> > The Athlon 64 system, on the other hand, spent only 14% of its time
> > there. This is a difference of a whopping 121%!
> >
> >
> >
> > "
> >
> >
> > So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other
> > reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming.
> >
> > I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds
> > and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games
> > like Doom 3.
> >
> > I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking
> > about the nvidia latest pci-e card.
> >
> > Any thoughts on intel vs AMD?
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

I agree that a label is not what makes gaming interesting. I too have used
them all. Although I must admit this is the first time I broke my AMD
cherry a few weeks ago and so far am very satisfied/ FX 57. I also just
got two 7800 SLI and that's great too. Before that though it was a coup of
years or so of ATI which before that was an even longer period of Nvdia in
the ATI maybe bad driver support days.
The one thing you never hear about is a Creative fan boy because the
have been the masters of the monopoly game. They just quietly go about
doing nothing all that radical as far as I am concerned. There is not a
doubt in my mind that if creative had it's equivalent competitor like in the
graphics and cpu arena sound would be better also. Not that there is
anything greatly wrong with creative sound ,particularly when most people
play their games through low end speakers nowhere comparable to our high end
or even middle end home or these days even car speakers.
I play my games through my reasonably high end home stereo 5.1
surround system. The sub woofer is 800 watts and it actually hurts to get
hit by artillery in Battlefront 2 as I sit right next to it. Never the less
to say I can really tell the difference between my various creative live and
audigy cards is not really being too forward. they all sound fine to me but
not like my DVDs and music disks. I have been gaming since pong in the
seventies. I don't ever remember once pc gaming took effect a time when
anybody but Creative had any kind of a foot hold. I do remember cursing
them in the old DOS days when like 80% of computer problems were sound card
related.

"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:92jnh1ho20erfg6jp0935ae3cctc4sv2e2@4ax.com...
> On 4 Sep 2005 08:15:25 -0700, Conservative.Nate@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>I read the following article
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/8s2aa
>>on amdzone.com.
>
> Hehe, www.amdzone.com is, not surprisingly, a VERY pro-AMD/anti-Intel
> site, so don't expect to see anything except "AMD is the greatest"
> from them! That being said, the article they are quoting is from a
> much less biased source.
>
>>So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other
>>reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming.
>
> ??? Really? When it comes to gaming Intel has been beaten pretty
> soundly in virtually all tests I've seen since the Athlon64 was
> released two years ago. Gaming is one area where AMD has the most
> definite and obvious performance lead.
>
>>I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds
>>and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games
>>like Doom 3.
>
> AMD's Athlon64 chips are unquestionably the way to go for gaming
> performance IMO. Their performance/dollar is a fair bit higher than
> Intel's pretty much across the board, from their low-end (Socket 754)
> Sempron models right up to their top-end Athlon64 FX chips. Dollar
> for dollar the AMD chips are usually ~15-20% faster.
>
>>I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking
>>about the nvidia latest pci-e card.
>
> If you can afford it, the nVidia GeForce 7800 GTX is the best out
> there. Alternatively there is the 7800GT which offers close to the
> same performance with a price tag that's about $100 less.
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Conservative.Nate@gmail.com wrote:
> So I am wanting to get a new system later this fall. I have read other
> reviews saying Intel is the way to go for gaming.

Those reviews must be several years old now. AMD has been tightening
its hold on the gaming market steady for the past 2-3 years now,
basically since the Athlon 64 first came out. Prior to that there was a
period of time (about 6 years ago to 4 years ago) when Intel and AMD
were trading top spot almost on a weekly basis. Then for a period of
one year, from about 4 years ago to about 3 years ago, Intel had the
crown for itself for about a year, as AMD dropped out to concentrate on
getting the Athlon 64 out.

Now, it's possible that AMD and Intel will switch positions once again
in this field, like they have in the past. But there's some evidence
that AMD will have this crown for several more years still. In the
transition from the Athlon XP to the Athlon 64, AMD took the time to
not only improve the design of chips, but it actually redesign some
very basic concepts of its chips. One example is that the ubiquitous
front-side bus (FSB), namely AMD got rid of it! The FSB was the method
by which PC chips had connected to their peripheral devices and its
memory ever since the first 8088 IBM PC-XT. AMD threw out the FSB, and
replaced it with two seperate connections, one for the memory and one
for the peripherals. Intel isn't expected to have a similar system till
at least 2007; and it's not likely that AMD will remain stagnant
waiting for Intel to catch up during that time.

> I am looking for the best performance in games and for burning dvds/cds
> and web browsing. But the high intensity graphics will be from games
> like Doom 3.

None of those tasks are all that demanding for today's generation of
processors.

> I don't want a system that will choke on the graphics. I was thiking
> about the nvidia latest pci-e card.
>
> Any thoughts on intel vs AMD?

Well, you touched on one thing that is very important these days: the
graphics card. The performance war at the CPU level has sort of taken a
backseat to the war of the video cards for gaming. It's not so much
Intel vs. AMD as it is Nvidia vs. ATI.

That being said, AMD does offer some interesting advantages to aid your
choice of video cards. These days video cards have gotten into a
dual-core battle of their own, ATI offers its Crossfire technology,
while Nvidia offers its SLI technology. Due to the seperated memory and
peripheral connection paths that AMD offers in Athlon 64 these days,
both Crossfire and SLI work much better under an AMD processor than in
an Intel processor. I think the numbers they have come up with
generally show that a Crossfire or SLI system will show a 40%
improvement under Intel, but an 80% improvement under AMD.

And that's not all, although this is something that's for the future,
and won't affect any processor purchase that you make today, there was
a rumour that AMD has decided to integrate a PCI-e interface directly
into the processor, which would offer even higher performance for SLI
or Crossfire. But that's something probably two years out too.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:22:51 -0700, YKhan wrote:

> not only improve the design of chips, but it actually redesign some
> very basic concepts of its chips. One example is that the ubiquitous
> front-side bus (FSB), namely AMD got rid of it! The FSB was the method
> by which PC chips had connected to their peripheral devices and its
> memory ever since the first 8088 IBM PC-XT. AMD threw out the FSB, and
> replaced it with two seperate connections, one for the memory and one
> for the peripherals.

For clearity, AMD didn't get rid of the FSB, they just stopped calling it
a FSB, even though that's what it still is, by definition. They did
however move the memory controller onto the cpu, so that ram data now has
it's own data path to the CPU. This move, and not the move to an HT link
for the FSB is where the major performance gain was made. With the move to
the seperate memory bus, the FSB (now a serial HT link, instead of a
paralell bus) speed is of little importance.

--
KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233)
Need good help? Provide all system info with question.
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 06:14:02 GMT, Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:22:51 -0700, YKhan wrote:
>
>> not only improve the design of chips, but it actually redesign some
>> very basic concepts of its chips. One example is that the ubiquitous
>> front-side bus (FSB), namely AMD got rid of it! The FSB was the method
>> by which PC chips had connected to their peripheral devices and its
>> memory ever since the first 8088 IBM PC-XT. AMD threw out the FSB, and
>> replaced it with two seperate connections, one for the memory and one
>> for the peripherals.
>
>For clearity, AMD didn't get rid of the FSB, they just stopped calling it
>a FSB, even though that's what it still is, by definition.

The term FSB came about with Intel's Pentium Pro, where the dual chip
CPU/L2 cache package contained a BSB (Back Side Bus) connection between the
CPU chip and L2 cache chip. Until then the CPU system bus had carried CPU
<-> L2 cache data as well as I/O and memory transfers. By definition, a
FSB carried all CPU<->memory and CPU<->I/O transfers... but not CPU<->L2
cache transfers. To me calling AMD's HT a FSB is about as valid as
continuing to use North Bridge & South Bridge for the two chips normally
used in a chipset - it's not really applicable any more but people will say
it as a convenience term

> They did
>however move the memory controller onto the cpu, so that ram data now has
>it's own data path to the CPU. This move, and not the move to an HT link
>for the FSB is where the major performance gain was made. With the move to
>the seperate memory bus, the FSB (now a serial HT link, instead of a
>paralell bus) speed is of little importance.

As recently discussed here, HyperTransport is not a serial bus - it *is*
packetized and it is point-to-point/uni-directional but each byte-width
path has a separate clock signal and the chip/system designers have to pay
close attention to clock skew.

As far as speed, with current Athlon64 systems, the 2-byte-wide down-link
from CPU->chipset->PCI-e(x16) is, in theory, maxed out at the 1GHz clock
rate. Put another way, the current PCI-e x16 graphics path has a max
bandwidth of 4.1GB/s; the HT down-link has a max bandwidth of 4GB/s so in
theory, at least, it would be possible for memory->graphics transfers to
saturate the HT down-link.

I don't think this is a problem for the moment but add in that the 4GB/s HT
up-link for an integrated graphics chipset could be seriously stressed and
cause HT traffic contention, it could lead to problems down the road... as
well as supply ammo to anti-AMD marketing efforts. So yes, speed of HT is
an issue and the integrated PCI-e that AMD is adding will help mitigate
those err, concerns.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

>Or, if your pockets allow for it, go for dual
>dual-core Opteron, making it a quad. Maybe today's games can't take
>real advantage of multithreading, but I bet the games of tomorrow (and
>not only games) are already being coded to use multiple cores to their
>advantage.

Forgive me, I have not read much about Opteron chips. Are you saying
a system with dual 64 bit Opteron chips is about the same as what a
QUAD A64 X2 would be ?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Conservative.N...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Or, if your pockets allow for it, go for dual
> >dual-core Opteron, making it a quad. Maybe today's games can't take
> >real advantage of multithreading, but I bet the games of tomorrow (and
> >not only games) are already being coded to use multiple cores to their
> >advantage.
>
> Forgive me, I have not read much about Opteron chips. Are you saying
> a system with dual 64 bit Opteron chips is about the same as what a
> QUAD A64 X2 would be ?

No, A64 systems are limited to one and only one CPU socket. So if you
have a dual-core A64, then that's all you're ever going to get: two
cores. However, Opteron workstations often have dual sockets, and
dual-core Opterons in each socket will mean that you have upto four
cores.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

To me, a bus would be a multi-drop access medium, with multiple devices
(including CPUs) all sharing a single data path between each other.
Hypertransport is a point-to-point interface, you can only connect to
one other device with each HT link. This would be much the same as old
collision-based Ethernet vs. switched Ethernet.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 06:09:35 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

>>For clearity, AMD didn't get rid of the FSB, they just stopped calling it
>>a FSB, even though that's what it still is, by definition.
>
> The term FSB came about with Intel's Pentium Pro, where the dual chip
> CPU/L2 cache package contained a BSB (Back Side Bus) connection between the
> CPU chip and L2 cache chip. Until then the CPU system bus had carried CPU
> <-> L2 cache data as well as I/O and memory transfers. By definition, a
> FSB carried all CPU<->memory and CPU<->I/O transfers... but not CPU<->L2
> cache transfers. To me calling AMD's HT a FSB is about as valid as
> continuing to use North Bridge & South Bridge for the two chips normally
> used in a chipset - it's not really applicable any more but people will say
> it as a convenience term
>
FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset. HT link by definition
is just that, any bus using HT technolog and is not limited to
connections between a cpu and a chipset. So given the choice of
calling the bus a FSB, or the HT link, FSB fits the bill while HT link
only describes the type of bus, not the bus itself. IOW's using the term
FSB specifically refers to the connection between the CPU and chipset,
while using the term HT link could be any of many different type of
connections an HT link is used for since it's used in many more
applications than just a FSB. Some refer to the bus as a system bus, but
that's generic in nature and could even refer to the memory bus since it's
a part of the system. So, imo, the bus conncetion between the cpu and
chipset is still a FSB, thus specifically stating what the two ends
actually connect to. Simply calling it an HT link doesn't descibe any
particular bus, and shouldn't be assumed that it means a conncetion
between a xpu and its chipset, as HT links are currently being used for
other purposes. Be it convenient or not, it's still there.

>> They did
>>however move the memory controller onto the cpu, so that ram data now has
>>it's own data path to the CPU. This move, and not the move to an HT link
>>for the FSB is where the major performance gain was made. With the move to
>>the seperate memory bus, the FSB (now a serial HT link, instead of a
>>paralell bus) speed is of little importance.
>
> As recently discussed here, HyperTransport is not a serial bus - it *is*
> packetized and it is point-to-point/uni-directional but each byte-width
> path has a separate clock signal and the chip/system designers have to pay
> close attention to clock skew.
>
I'll go with you on this. Probably a paralell packet network would
describe it better.

--
KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233)
Need good help? Provide all system info with question.
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:13:54 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 06:09:35 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:
>
>>>For clearity, AMD didn't get rid of the FSB, they just stopped calling it
>>>a FSB, even though that's what it still is, by definition.
>>
>> The term FSB came about with Intel's Pentium Pro, where the dual chip
>> CPU/L2 cache package contained a BSB (Back Side Bus) connection between the
>> CPU chip and L2 cache chip. Until then the CPU system bus had carried CPU
>> <-> L2 cache data as well as I/O and memory transfers. By definition, a
>> FSB carried all CPU<->memory and CPU<->I/O transfers... but not CPU<->L2
>> cache transfers. To me calling AMD's HT a FSB is about as valid as
>> continuing to use North Bridge & South Bridge for the two chips normally
>> used in a chipset - it's not really applicable any more but people will say
>> it as a convenience term
>>
> FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset.

Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side <cache> bus"
of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB".

> HT link by definition
> is just that, any bus using HT technolog and is not limited to
> connections between a cpu and a chipset.

Only in your mind. It is in no way an "FSB", since the term is now
meaningless. The memory bus is elsewhere, so if there *IS* an "FSB" it's
the memory bus(ses), not the HT channel. The caches are on the
"back-side" of the memory interface, not other procesors or I/O.

> So given the choice of calling
> the bus a FSB, or the HT link, FSB fits the bill while HT link only
> describes the type of bus, not the bus itself.

FSB doesn't describe it's function at all. What's the "back side" of the
HT link?

> IOW's using the term FSB
> specifically refers to the connection between the CPU and chipset,

No, it doesn't. I specifically refers to the fact that the caches are on
the other side (back side) of the P6 memory bus. That architecture was
around for a while, so it stuck. There was no "FSB" in the P5
architecture. It's an invention of the P6 and should stay there, since it
no longer describes any function.


> while
> using the term HT link could be any of many different type of
> connections an HT link is used for since it's used in many more
> applications than just a FSB. Some refer to the bus as a system bus,

"System bus" works for me. I/O bus makes more sense.

> but
> that's generic in nature and could even refer to the memory bus since
> it's a part of the system.

Since it is the intervace from the processor to the "system", it still
makes sense. "FSB" makes *no* sense, since it's not on the "front" side
of anything.

> So, imo, the bus conncetion between the cpu
> and chipset is still a FSB, thus specifically stating what the two ends
> actually connect to. Simply calling it an HT link doesn't descibe any
> particular bus, and shouldn't be assumed that it means a conncetion
> between a xpu and its chipset, as HT links are currently being used for
> other purposes. Be it convenient or not, it's still there.

Your opinion and $2 may be useful in a Starbuck's. They don't much care
if you're wrong, as long as you have $2.

>>> They did
>>>however move the memory controller onto the cpu, so that ram data now
>>>has it's own data path to the CPU. This move, and not the move to an HT
>>>link for the FSB is where the major performance gain was made. With the
>>>move to the seperate memory bus, the FSB (now a serial HT link, instead
>>>of a paralell bus) speed is of little importance.
>>
>> As recently discussed here, HyperTransport is not a serial bus - it
>> *is* packetized and it is point-to-point/uni-directional but each
>> byte-width path has a separate clock signal and the chip/system
>> designers have to pay close attention to clock skew.
>>
> I'll go with you on this. Probably a paralell packet network would
> describe it better.

Whatever, but it is *NOT* an "FSB". AMD has broken out of that system
architecture. ...much like Intel broke into it by moving the L2 traffic
to the *BACK-SIDE* bus.

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

keith wrote:
> Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side <cache> bus"
> of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB".

Maybe in those days it was better known as the "local bus".

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:18:40 -0400, keith wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:13:54 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:
>
>> FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset.
>
> Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side <cache> bus"
> of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB".
>
Under your definition of FSB, then no AMD CPU's have ever had a FSB. Let's
see just how many people you can convince of that.

While the term may have originated the way you say, it was then later used
to indicate the connection between the CPU and the chipset. Now, that same
connection is the HT link of the K8. So it only makes sense to use the
same terminology for the very specific connection even though memory data
now has own single use bus for the memory. The FSB still carries all other
IO operations to/from the system. Once they move all this into the CPU,
there will no longer be a FSB. Until then, a duck by any other name is
still a duck.

>> HT link by definition is just that, any bus using HT technolog and
>> is not limited to connections between a cpu and a chipset.
>
> Only in your mind. It is in no way an "FSB", since the term is now
> meaningless. The memory bus is elsewhere, so if there *IS* an "FSB"
> it's the memory bus(ses), not the HT channel. The caches are on the
> "back-side" of the memory interface, not other procesors or I/O.
>
And I thought only the government could take something so simple and
fiubar.

>> So given the choice of calling
>> the bus a FSB, or the HT link, FSB fits the bill while HT link only
>> describes the type of bus, not the bus itself.
>
> FSB doesn't describe it's function at all. What's the "back side" of
> the HT link?
>
What HT link? Ht links are used everywhere. AFAIK, they don't need a
backside. They function fully indepentant of other buses. If I assume you
are talking about the HT link used to connect the K8 cpu's to the chipset,
I'd just answer that it's in the same place as back side of the K7 CPU's
FSB. You're really digging a hole for yourself here.

>> IOW's using the term FSB
>> specifically refers to the connection between the CPU and chipset,
>
> No, it doesn't. I specifically refers to the fact that the caches are on
> the other side (back side) of the P6 memory bus. That architecture was
> around for a while, so it stuck. There was no "FSB" in the P5
> architecture. It's an invention of the P6 and should stay there, since
> it no longer describes any function.
>
Why are you stuck on the Pentium Pro. FSB has been used for years to
indicate the connection between the CPU and the chipset.
>
>> while
>> using the term HT link could be any of many different type of
>> connections an HT link is used for since it's used in many more
>> applications than just a FSB. Some refer to the bus as a system bus,
>
> "System bus" works for me. I/O bus makes more sense.
>
Let's see, system buses. PCI, PCI-E, ISA, AGP, and others are all system
buses. So how are you going to distinquish which one you are talking about
if you just use system bus? Damn, I wonder if FSB would do that?
I/O bus. Ditto, and you can throw HTlink into the mix too since it is also
an I/O bus.

--
KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233)
Need good help? Provide all system info with question.
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 05:59:41 GMT, Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:18:40 -0400, keith wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:13:54 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:
>>
>>> FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset.
>>
>> Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side <cache> bus"
>> of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB".
>>
>Under your definition of FSB, then no AMD CPU's have ever had a FSB. Let's
>see just how many people you can convince of that.

No, the K7s had (the equivalent of) a FSB though I'm not sure AMD ever
called it that IIRC.

>While the term may have originated the way you say, it was then later used
>to indicate the connection between the CPU and the chipset. Now, that same
>connection is the HT link of the K8. So it only makes sense to use the
>same terminology for the very specific connection even though memory data
>now has own single use bus for the memory. The FSB still carries all other
>IO operations to/from the system. Once they move all this into the CPU,
>there will no longer be a FSB. Until then, a duck by any other name is
>still a duck.

NO - the HT is more akin to the Intel Hub interface or the VIA-Link
interconnect between memory controller/AGP chip and the I/O chip; it was
AMD's attempt to establish a standard for that type of traffic... since
Intel had locked theirs up with licensing fees. Much of the old PC North
Bridge arbitration logic is now in the K8 CPU - it has to be to route to
the various memory address spaces and for DMA transfers.

>>> So given the choice of calling
>>> the bus a FSB, or the HT link, FSB fits the bill while HT link only
>>> describes the type of bus, not the bus itself.
>>
>> FSB doesn't describe it's function at all. What's the "back side" of
>> the HT link?
>>
>What HT link? Ht links are used everywhere. AFAIK, they don't need a
>backside. They function fully indepentant of other buses. If I assume you
>are talking about the HT link used to connect the K8 cpu's to the chipset,
>I'd just answer that it's in the same place as back side of the K7 CPU's
>FSB. You're really digging a hole for yourself here.

The equivalent of FSB on a K8 CPU is inside the CPU die - anything that
gets out to HT is already defined as I/O traffic. In no way is it a FSB.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message
newsan.2005.09.07.06.03.43.197405@TAKEOUTverizon.net...
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:18:40 -0400, keith wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:13:54 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:
> >
> >> FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset.
> >
> > Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side
<cache> bus"
> > of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB".
> >
> Under your definition of FSB, then no AMD CPU's have ever had a FSB.
Let's
> see just how many people you can convince of that.

Wes, are you saying no AMD chip ever had an L2 cache hung off the back
of the CPU? Wow, is _my_ memory ever going south! ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:48:31 +0000, Felger Carbon wrote:

> "Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message
> newsan.2005.09.07.06.03.43.197405@TAKEOUTverizon.net...
>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:18:40 -0400, keith wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:13:54 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:
>> >
>> >> FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset.
>> >
>> > Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side
> <cache> bus"
>> > of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB".
>> >
>> Under your definition of FSB, then no AMD CPU's have ever had a FSB.
> Let's
>> see just how many people you can convince of that.
>
> Wes, are you saying no AMD chip ever had an L2 cache hung off the back
> of the CPU? Wow, is _my_ memory ever going south! ;-)

Well, that's was what I said, but I wasn't thinking back past the K7 and
K8's, and I actually never paid much attention to what they called the
bus to the earlier cpu's that had cache on the MB. Was that an L2 cache? I
thought it was L1. Too long ago to remember and I'm too lazy to look it up.
And I just remembered that the Slot A k7's had it's L2 cache on the cpu
board too, and not in the cpu die, but I don't recall AMD or anyone else
using back side bus for it.

--
KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233)
Need good help? Provide all system info with question.
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 18:57:23 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:48:31 +0000, Felger Carbon wrote:
>
>> "Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message
>> newsan.2005.09.07.06.03.43.197405@TAKEOUTverizon.net...
>>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:18:40 -0400, keith wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:13:54 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset.
>>> >
>>> > Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side
>> <cache> bus"
>>> > of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB".
>>> >
>>> Under your definition of FSB, then no AMD CPU's have ever had a FSB.
>> Let's
>>> see just how many people you can convince of that.
>>
>> Wes, are you saying no AMD chip ever had an L2 cache hung off the back
>> of the CPU? Wow, is _my_ memory ever going south! ;-)
>
> Well, that's was what I said, but I wasn't thinking back past the K7 and
> K8's, and I actually never paid much attention to what they called the
> bus to the earlier cpu's that had cache on the MB.

K7s had the L2 on the "back side". It wasn't hooked into the external
bus, as was socket-7 (and before).

> Was that an L2 cache? I thought it was L1.

Modern processors have *long* had seperate I and D L1s, burried in the
instruction-fetch and load-store elements. The K7s L2 is certainly hung
off the "back-side", meaning not connected to the system bus. The K8
further seperates the I/O and memory busses, so there is no longer
soethign even resembling a "front-side bus". There is (are) memory
bus(ses) and HT link(s). Alghough, the HT link isn't just an I/O bus. It
also crries coherency information (but I/O must be cache coherent too).

> Too long ago to remember and
> I'm too lazy to look it up. And I just remembered that the Slot A
> k7's had it's L2 cache on the cpu board too, and not in the cpu die, but
> I don't recall AMD or anyone else using back side bus for it.

I'm from Missouri (close, but not really). I never remember a slot-A K7
with on-board L2. Even the K6-III has an on-chip L2, but allows an
on-board L3 (mine has a 2MB L3).

--
Keith

 

[Ed]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:42:58 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:


>
>I'm from Missouri (close, but not really). I never remember a slot-A K7
>with on-board L2. Even the K6-III has an on-chip L2, but allows an
>on-board L3 (mine has a 2MB L3).

Slot-A didn't have on-die L2 cache.
K7-500 512K L2 (has a 650Mhz core)
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/6074/k7500650core0ch.jpg

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:53:57 -0500, Ed wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:42:58 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I'm from Missouri (close, but not really). I never remember a slot-A K7
>>with on-board L2. Even the K6-III has an on-chip L2, but allows an
>>on-board L3 (mine has a 2MB L3).
>
> Slot-A didn't have on-die L2 cache.

I didn't say it did. Note that the Slot-1 PII didn't have an integrated
cache either, but the cache was still on the "back side" of the chip. The
Slot-A K7 was no different.

> K7-500 512K L2 (has a 650Mhz core)
> http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/6074/k7500650core0ch.jpg

Sheesh, learn *SOMETHING*! Do start with reading comprehension.

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 05:59:41 GMT, Wes Newell
<w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:18:40 -0400, keith wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:13:54 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:
>>
>>> FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset.
>>
>> Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side <cache> bus"
>> of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB".
>>
>Under your definition of FSB, then no AMD CPU's have ever had a FSB. Let's
>see just how many people you can convince of that.

Not true at all. The original AMD Athlon had both a front-side bus,
connecting the CPU to the chipset, I/O and memory, and a backside bus
that connected the CPU to the cache chips on the Slot-A cartridge.
This was actually the last x86 CPU that I'm aware of which did have a
frontside bus (Intel had already gone to integrated cache by this
time).

Of course, the EV6 bus used to connect Athlon CPUs to their chipsets
is only kinda-sorta a bus in itself. Really it's more of a
point-to-point link, though it's in that fuzzy area that blurs the
lines between the two a bit (where the GTL+ bus used in the P6 is
definitely a bus and Hypertransport is definitely not a bus, EV6 falls
somewhere in between).

>While the term may have originated the way you say, it was then later used
>to indicate the connection between the CPU and the chipset.

Yes, a lot of people incorrectly refer to the a connection between the
CPU and the chipset as a "Front Side Bus". Just because lots of
people make a mistake that doesn't mean that they are right.

People also still call the memory controller the "northbridge" and the
I/O chip a "southbridge", which also makes no sense given that they
are no longer being connected via PCI and they usually aren't bridges
at all. Again, just because people incorrectly use a term doesn't
make it correct.

> Now, that same
>connection is the HT link of the K8. So it only makes sense to use the
>same terminology for the very specific connection even though memory data
>now has own single use bus for the memory.

It doesn't make any sense with the AthlonXP or the P4 and it makes
MUCH less sense with the Athlon64/Opteron. Just because it's a common
mistake doesn't make it any less of a mistake.

> The FSB still carries all other
>IO operations to/from the system. Once they move all this into the CPU,
>there will no longer be a FSB. Until then, a duck by any other name is
>still a duck.

Yes, but that still doesn't make a goose a duck, even if lots of
people mix the two of them up.

>> FSB doesn't describe it's function at all. What's the "back side" of
>> the HT link?
>>
>What HT link? Ht links are used everywhere. AFAIK, they don't need a
>backside.

The point is that you can't have a "front side bus" unless you have a
corresponding "back side bus". Hypertransport does not have such a
corresponding back side so therefore it's not the "front side" of
anything.

Given that it's not the 'front side' of anything and, as others have
mentioned, it's not a 'bus' at all then it DEFINITELY is not a "Front
Side Bus".

> They function fully indepentant of other buses. If I assume you
>are talking about the HT link used to connect the K8 cpu's to the chipset,
>I'd just answer that it's in the same place as back side of the K7 CPU's
>FSB. You're really digging a hole for yourself here.

The original Athlon had a backside bus with to the cache chips on the
cartridge. This was later removed with the "Thunderbird" chips with
integrated cache. As such, from the "Thunderbird" on forward
(including all AthlonXP chips) there was no FSB on the AthlonXP. Same
goes for the PIII from the "Coppermine" onwards as well as ALL P4
chips. None of those have FSBs, despite the fact that many people
incorrectly use the term to describe the system bus of said chips.

>>> IOW's using the term FSB
>>> specifically refers to the connection between the CPU and chipset,
>>
>> No, it doesn't. I specifically refers to the fact that the caches are on
>> the other side (back side) of the P6 memory bus. That architecture was
>> around for a while, so it stuck. There was no "FSB" in the P5
>> architecture. It's an invention of the P6 and should stay there, since
>> it no longer describes any function.
>>
>Why are you stuck on the Pentium Pro. FSB has been used for years to
>indicate the connection between the CPU and the chipset.

The term "Front Side Bus" was never used with the Pentium chips
because there was only one bus. FSB came into computer use with the
PentiumPro where Intel introduced a chip with a Frontside Bus
(connecting to main memory and I/O) and a Backside bus (connecting to
cache). The terminology continued through the PII and early PIII
chips, as well as early Athlon chips, as they had two buses, one for
memory and I/O and the other for cache. For chips with only a single
bus the term "FSB" makes no sense. Never has and never will, no
matter how many people make such a mistake.

With the Athlon64 and Opteron it's just more obviously incorrect than
it is with the AthlonXP and P4 chips.

>>> while
>>> using the term HT link could be any of many different type of
>>> connections an HT link is used for since it's used in many more
>>> applications than just a FSB. Some refer to the bus as a system bus,
>>
>> "System bus" works for me. I/O bus makes more sense.
>>
>Let's see, system buses. PCI, PCI-E, ISA, AGP, and others are all system
>buses. So how are you going to distinquish which one you are talking about
>if you just use system bus? Damn, I wonder if FSB would do that?
>I/O bus. Ditto, and you can throw HTlink into the mix too since it is also
>an I/O bus.

Hypertransport is NOT an 'bus' in any way, shape or form. HT is a
point-to-point link. PCI-E and AGP are also definitely not buses,
though I expect many people to incorrectly call them such. PCI and
ISA are buses

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:42:58 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>> Too long ago to remember and
>> I'm too lazy to look it up. And I just remembered that the Slot A
>> k7's had it's L2 cache on the cpu board too, and not in the cpu die, but
>> I don't recall AMD or anyone else using back side bus for it.
>
>I'm from Missouri (close, but not really). I never remember a slot-A K7
>with on-board L2.

There were a *few* Slot-A K7 chips that had integrated L2, but they
were only released for compatibility purposes (much like what Intel
did with some of their later Slot-1 PIII chips, though AMD released
far fewer of such chips). You might even be able to find someone
still selling such a beast if you look hard enough, just do a search
for "Thunderbird Slot-A".

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