Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

See:-

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050706A2006.html

X2 3800+ presumably has 512K L2 caches, clocking at 2.0GHz,
if it follows the numerical pattern of the X2 4200+ ( 512K, 2.2GHz )
and the X2 4600+ (512K, 2.4GHz ).

Should give the Pentium D 820 a run for its $$money, since
the X2 will retrofit into most Socket 939 motherboards with only
a BIOS upgrade. The PD 820 requires a new motherboard
and DDR2 memory. And the 3800+ is likely to be a much better
overclocking candidate than the very hot and sweaty Pentium D.

John Lewis

- Technology early-birds are flying guinea-pigs.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

John Lewis wrote:
> See:-
>
> http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050706A2006.html
>
> X2 3800+ presumably has 512K L2 caches, clocking at 2.0GHz,
> if it follows the numerical pattern of the X2 4200+ ( 512K, 2.2GHz )
> and the X2 4600+ (512K, 2.4GHz ).
>
> Should give the Pentium D 820 a run for its $$money, since
> the X2 will retrofit into most Socket 939 motherboards with only
> a BIOS upgrade. The PD 820 requires a new motherboard
> and DDR2 memory. And the 3800+ is likely to be a much better
> overclocking candidate than the very hot and sweaty Pentium D.
>
> John Lewis
>
> - Technology early-birds are flying guinea-pigs.


I almost went for the Intel 820D because I am constantly running multi
apps, but the heat (~200W) turns me off.

The 3800+ (~$345) or the 4000+ may be my ticket.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

John Lewis wrote:

> See:-
>
> http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050706A2006.html
>
> X2 3800+ presumably has 512K L2 caches, clocking at 2.0GHz,
> if it follows the numerical pattern of the X2 4200+ ( 512K, 2.2GHz )
> and the X2 4600+ (512K, 2.4GHz ).
>
> Should give the Pentium D 820 a run for its $$money, since
> the X2 will retrofit into most Socket 939 motherboards with only
> a BIOS upgrade. The PD 820 requires a new motherboard
> and DDR2 memory. And the 3800+ is likely to be a much better
> overclocking candidate than the very hot and sweaty Pentium D.

huhuhuh...you said hot and sweaty...huhuhuhu

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 18:44:15 GMT, husky55 <husky55at@gmail.com> wrote:

>John Lewis wrote:
>> See:-
>>
>> http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050706A2006.html
>>
>> X2 3800+ presumably has 512K L2 caches, clocking at 2.0GHz,
>> if it follows the numerical pattern of the X2 4200+ ( 512K, 2.2GHz )
>> and the X2 4600+ (512K, 2.4GHz ).
>>
>> Should give the Pentium D 820 a run for its $$money, since
>> the X2 will retrofit into most Socket 939 motherboards with only
>> a BIOS upgrade. The PD 820 requires a new motherboard
>> and DDR2 memory. And the 3800+ is likely to be a much better
>> overclocking candidate than the very hot and sweaty Pentium D.
>>
>> John Lewis
>>
>> - Technology early-birds are flying guinea-pigs.
>
>
>I almost went for the Intel 820D because I am constantly running multi
>apps, but the heat (~200W) turns me off.
>
>The 3800+ (~$345) or the 4000+ may be my ticket.
>

A64 4000+ ( now at 90nm, Rev E.) is the top-end SINGLE-core Athlon.

The only confusing thing will be if AMD indeed release a 1MByte cache
version of the X2 3800+ following the current X2 nomenclature
pattern.. Since the top-end A64 single-core is A64 4000+ (2.4GHz), an
A64 X2 4000+ at 2.0GHz would sure confuse a lot of people.

John Lewis

- Technology early-birds are flying guinea-pigs.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

"husky55" <husky55at@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3EVye.994$ER6.70@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> I almost went for the Intel 820D because I am constantly running multi
> apps, but the heat (~200W) turns me off.
>


The 200W power consumption (imagine the heat it would spew out), plus the
hardware DRM that is supposedly implemented in the 945 chipset, would be
enough of a combo to scare me off.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

John Lewis wrote:
> A64 4000+ ( now at 90nm, Rev E.) is the top-end SINGLE-core Athlon.
>
> The only confusing thing will be if AMD indeed release a 1MByte cache
> version of the X2 3800+ following the current X2 nomenclature
> pattern.. Since the top-end A64 single-core is A64 4000+ (2.4GHz), an
> A64 X2 4000+ at 2.0GHz would sure confuse a lot of people.

I somehow fail to see why a X2 4000+ would be more confusing than a X2
3800+, as both 3800+ and 4000+ exist as single core (2.4Ghz with 512KB
and 1MB cache respectively).
The "X2" should be enough to differentiate, though imho it was a bad
move of AMD to come up with the 4200+ etc. numbers. Not only might it
add confusion, the numbers (in contrast to the numbers of the single
cores) are really pulled out of the air, and performance comparisons to
the single core chips based on that "performance number" makes no sense
at all. Ah well, at least one thing the intel dual core chips have an
advantage :-).

Roland

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

In article <daj6ct$aj1$1@news.hispeed.ch>,
Roland Scheidegger <rscheidegger@gmx.ch> wrote:
#The "X2" should be enough to differentiate, though imho it was a bad
#move of AMD to come up with the 4200+ etc. numbers. Not only might it
#add confusion, the numbers (in contrast to the numbers of the single
#cores) are really pulled out of the air, and performance comparisons to
#the single core chips based on that "performance number" makes no sense
#at all. Ah well, at least one thing the intel dual core chips have an
#advantage :-).

Huh?

Are you implying that the Intel 3-digit performance/model numbers DO
make sense, especially the ones on their dual-core models?

Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Fire Rumsfeld, secure Iraq's borders.
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | Our border with Mexico too.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 14:15:25 +0200, Roland Scheidegger
<rscheidegger@gmx.ch> wrote:

>John Lewis wrote:
>> A64 4000+ ( now at 90nm, Rev E.) is the top-end SINGLE-core Athlon.
>>
>> The only confusing thing will be if AMD indeed release a 1MByte cache
>> version of the X2 3800+ following the current X2 nomenclature
>> pattern.. Since the top-end A64 single-core is A64 4000+ (2.4GHz), an
>> A64 X2 4000+ at 2.0GHz would sure confuse a lot of people.
>
>I somehow fail to see why a X2 4000+ would be more confusing than a X2
>3800+, as both 3800+ and 4000+ exist as single core (2.4Ghz with 512KB
>and 1MB cache respectively).

Sorry, I forgot all about the existing 3800+...
Seems as if AMD should have chosen a higher range of numbers,
for the X2 series :-( :-(, assuming that the cheaper X2 will indeed be
numbered 3800+ when it is released.


John Lewis

>The "X2" should be enough to differentiate, though imho it was a bad
>move of AMD to come up with the 4200+ etc. numbers. Not only might it
>add confusion, the numbers (in contrast to the numbers of the single
>cores) are really pulled out of the air, and performance comparisons to
>the single core chips based on that "performance number" makes no sense
>at all. Ah well, at least one thing the intel dual core chips have an
>advantage :-).
>
>Roland

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

Ken Marsh wrote:
> In article <daj6ct$aj1$1@news.hispeed.ch>,
> Roland Scheidegger <rscheidegger@gmx.ch> wrote:
> #The "X2" should be enough to differentiate, though imho it was a bad
> #move of AMD to come up with the 4200+ etc. numbers. Not only might it
> #add confusion, the numbers (in contrast to the numbers of the single
> #cores) are really pulled out of the air, and performance comparisons to
> #the single core chips based on that "performance number" makes no sense
> #at all. Ah well, at least one thing the intel dual core chips have an
> #advantage :-).
>
> Huh?
>
> Are you implying that the Intel 3-digit performance/model numbers DO
> make sense, especially the ones on their dual-core models?
>
> Ken.

Well, depends on how you look at it. Since they have 8xx numbers, that
somehow implies they are "better" than 5xx and 6xx cpus. Of course, in
single-threaded situations, a Pentium D 820 certainly won't beat a 670
Pentium 4. Also, it is at least somewhat consistent for now: the x20
cpus are 2.8Ghz be it 520[J]/521, 620 or 820. But AMD's numbering is
very inconsistent, I think I'd have liked if AMD had just used a similar
scheme, i.e. the 2Ghz dual-core would have got the name X2 3200+ etc. Or
otherwise some completely different number, which cannot be confused
with the old single-core numbers, but using numbers which suggest
(depending on the exact model) it is slightly better or worse depending
on the exact model just feels wrong.

Roland

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:42cc1de2.7783893@news.verizon.net...
> See:-
>
> http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050706A2006.html
>
> X2 3800+ presumably has 512K L2 caches, clocking at 2.0GHz,
> if it follows the numerical pattern of the X2 4200+ ( 512K, 2.2GHz )
> and the X2 4600+ (512K, 2.4GHz ).
>
> Should give the Pentium D 820 a run for its $$money, since
> the X2 will retrofit into most Socket 939 motherboards with only
> a BIOS upgrade. The PD 820 requires a new motherboard
> and DDR2 memory. And the 3800+ is likely to be a much better
> overclocking candidate than the very hot and sweaty Pentium D.
>
> John Lewis
>
> - Technology early-birds are flying guinea-pigs.

The price has kept me away from the Athlon 64 x2s. Should be down to my
budget when I am ready to buy. I am dissappointed that AMD is not supporting
faster DDR2 or 3 however.

No more need for the Intel Monopoly or their DRM.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 15:43:48 -0500, "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com>
wrote:

>
>"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:42cc1de2.7783893@news.verizon.net...
>> See:-
>>
>> http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050706A2006.html
>>
>> X2 3800+ presumably has 512K L2 caches, clocking at 2.0GHz,
>> if it follows the numerical pattern of the X2 4200+ ( 512K, 2.2GHz )
>> and the X2 4600+ (512K, 2.4GHz ).
>>
>> Should give the Pentium D 820 a run for its $$money, since
>> the X2 will retrofit into most Socket 939 motherboards with only
>> a BIOS upgrade. The PD 820 requires a new motherboard
>> and DDR2 memory. And the 3800+ is likely to be a much better
>> overclocking candidate than the very hot and sweaty Pentium D.
>>
>> John Lewis
>>
>> - Technology early-birds are flying guinea-pigs.
>
>The price has kept me away from the Athlon 64 x2s. Should be down to my
>budget when I am ready to buy. I am dissappointed that AMD is not supporting
>faster DDR2 or 3 however.
>
>No more need for the Intel Monopoly or their DRM.
>
Wait till next year when AMD changes the socket and releases
quad-cores. New motherboard of course with that socket change.
BTW, all the gaming benchmarks show the AMD X2 4800+ with
DDR faster than the Extreme 840 with DDR2 and with ~ 100 watts
less power consumed by the motherboard ---- 75W for the processor
and 25W for the Intel Northbridge. The Intel 840 Extreme and most of
the Pentium D series will need a new power supply with a beefier +12V,
a new motherboard DDR2 memory and extra cooling for anybody
thinking of upgrading their current system. For those fortunate
enough to already have a AMD socket 939 system, the upgrade will
normally be a motherboard BIOS upgrade plus swapping in the new
X2 processor. Check with the motherboard manufacturer.

John Lewis

- Technology early-birds are flying guinea-pigs.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

?
X2 says clearly DUAL CORE.

4000+ says clearly WHOPS an Intel running at 4GHz. Benchmarks agree far more
often than not.

Now, the fact that Intel can't make a single (or dual) core chip with that
performance (IE 4GHz) is beside the point, but that is exactly why Intel now
hides behind the skirt of anonymous model numbers.
Intel will be changing their scheme soon anyway. They have released so many
chips in the last few months trying to edge towards AMD's clear lead that
there just won't be any vacant numbers to use.

so, all 8xx cpu's are better than 7xx and then 6xx then 5xx? This is
designed to leave the neive buyer at the nercy of the salesman who will be
pushing Intel with bigger margins or perhaps some of that now famous arm
twisting we have been reading about.

Take a look a THG, scroll down to the icon "955 Express Chipset" read the
claim /hyperlink to the article and then tell me that that is not "loaded".
955X better than nVidia... sure, now where is AMD in the comparison?


(BTW I run Intel


> Well, depends on how you look at it. Since they have 8xx numbers, that
> somehow implies they are "better" than 5xx and 6xx cpus. Of course, in
> single-threaded situations, a Pentium D 820 certainly won't beat a 670
> Pentium 4. Also, it is at least somewhat consistent for now: the x20 cpus
> are 2.8Ghz be it 520[J]/521, 620 or 820. But AMD's numbering is very
> inconsistent, I think I'd have liked if AMD had just used a similar
> scheme, i.e. the 2Ghz dual-core would have got the name X2 3200+ etc. Or
> otherwise some completely different number, which cannot be confused with
> the old single-core numbers, but using numbers which suggest (depending on
> the exact model) it is slightly better or worse depending on the exact
> model just feels wrong.
>
> Roland

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:42cda3f0.2934251@news.verizon.net...

>>The price has kept me away from the Athlon 64 x2s. Should be down to my
>>budget when I am ready to buy. I am dissappointed that AMD is not
>>supporting
>>faster DDR2 or 3 however.
>>
>>No more need for the Intel Monopoly or their DRM.
>>
> Wait till next year when AMD changes the socket and releases
> quad-cores. New motherboard of course with that socket change.
> BTW, all the gaming benchmarks show the AMD X2 4800+ with
> DDR faster than the Extreme 840 with DDR2 and with ~ 100 watts
> less power consumed by the motherboard ---- 75W for the processor
> and 25W for the Intel Northbridge. The Intel 840 Extreme and most of
> the Pentium D series will need a new power supply with a beefier +12V,
> a new motherboard DDR2 memory and extra cooling for anybody
> thinking of upgrading their current system. For those fortunate
> enough to already have a AMD socket 939 system, the upgrade will
> normally be a motherboard BIOS upgrade plus swapping in the new
> X2 processor. Check with the motherboard manufacturer.

I bet Athlon 64 would be even faster if it supported DDR2 or 3 though.

Quad Athlon 64 cores on a single chip? Wow... imaging a game running 4
threads on that thing... one physics, one AI, one video and one sound. No
more CPU bottlenecks.