AM2 benchmarks..............please.........pretty please....
Come on.....why not show us some benchmarks that will squash this conroe story. I keep hearing this story that AM2 is ready and will be released this summer...so that means that it is ready now right, so why not show us something, it's just not like amd to keep secrets, since when the hell have they kept anything secret.....................Why is amd not releasing anything right now????????????
A quad-core system will not perform that well in gaming.
As an owner of an AMD Opteron 270 for some time I can already confirm this (2 sockets both populated with AMD64 dual-core processors, with a fast interconnect and the ability to aggregate memory sub-system performance on top of that using NUMA).
A dual-core (3 issue per core) 65nm AMD64 will not perform all that much better (per clock it should be very similar) than the existing dual-core (same 3 issue per core) 90nm AMD64 processors.
The 65nm ones are likely to be clocked around 3.5 GHz (vs the 'apx' 2.4 GHz of cost effective 90nm ones of today) and use similar power (also because of the 65nm transistion), but even at 3.5 GHz they won't be able to compete with a 4-issue dual-core processor .... well not in gaming at least.
A quad-core 65nm would not help in gamers either .... but would in server apps.
ie: A 'quad-core on a (single) chip' 65nm AMD64 (Athlon 64 / Opteron) would be great for typical server style roles though, just not in gaming.
Great news is I can get a very nice gaming machine cheaply (US$530 for Intel 'Core' Conroe CPU around October 2006), and can upgrade servers to quad-core (per socket) at the same time if need be
It is win-freaking-win baby 8)
It'll take gamers quite awhile to accept the above, but that is going to be their loss, not mine / ours.
Anyone familar with both the Intel and AMD roadmaps & their CPU manufacturing (mostly die shrinks from 90nm to 65nm) already knows what is going on and why AMD may trade their 'small gamers market' for a 'larger server market' then try to break into the business PC line. (Sales are better than just selling a 'few' high end parts in smaller quantities).
With HD Video (editing, etc) taking off, a quad-core machine will be easier to sell to Joe Consumer, but most games will not be taking real advantage of such processors for 5 years or so. (eg: It is better to have a wide-issue single core at the highest possible clock speed for gaming, instead of multiple thin-issue cores at not quite the same clock speed - We already know this today without doubt thanks to various skilled coders).
If AMD can not get a new microprocessor architecture out within 9 months (and I am not talking just more cores on a die shrink, I mean something like a AMD K10 release) their best bet would be just to make dual-core at 65nm (vs quad-core at 65nm) and sell the CPUs for 75% what Intel are asking to give them a price/performance advantage (putting their mainstream CPU at the time around US$400 by October 2006).
If someone can get an up-to-date AMD roadmap and post a link here it might shed some light on the situation.
The best seaons to buy PCs are March - April, or October - November, most very large megacorperations already know this.... and during the next 2 large sale periods (end of 2006, and early 2007) AMD are going to be losing the market share they just gained.
No doubt Intel planned this to reclaim the market share they just lost, and then some.
I got this the other day in a forem here
http://www.theinquirer.net/Quote:WE HAVE seen many AM2 socket CPUs. Most of them are running at 2.4GHZ and are showcased with DDR 2 800 memory. That is the only way to show any kind of performance difference from the DDR 400 based existing 939 CPUs.
The guys that ran some benchmarks on those machines confirmed that you can expect three to five per cent performance increase and that is about it. AMD claims that those engineering samples are the final revision so you should not expect more of the performance incensement. The existing engineering samples are running at 2.4 GHz but they might end up even faster at the launch date.
However, the price of the DDR 2 will drop and will make it more accessible for the general consumers but DDR 800 wont be anywhere close to mainstream. AMD is playing an interesting game but at least it could support DDR 3 when it comes out, so that is something. µ
You can dump alot of money in DDR2-800 and get very little more performance. DDR2 is more bandwidth A64 dosen't realy need, and higher latency it realy dosen't need. And the mobos are going to be about ten bucks more too. Just buy an 939 opti while you still can.
Best wait untill sometime in 1H07 for 65nm and K8l. AM2 is wasted money.
I agree. I always thought AMD was more LC dependent than bandwidth.
Since they changed the mem. controller this should tighten a little the ballance but still,DDR2 won't be much better and it will be very expensive.
But who knows,maybe AMD will think of something though i doubt it. This time Intel is seriously wanting the crown back.
Quote:Come on.....why not show us some benchmarks that will squash this conroe story. I keep hearing this story that AM2 is ready and will be released this summer...so that means that it is ready now right, so why not show us something, it's just not like amd to keep secrets, since when the hell have they kept anything secret.....................Why is amd not releasing anything right now????????????
Don't count AMD out. I'm sure everyone hopes that Intel will actually make it interesting since they have been getting the CRAP BEAT OUT OF THEM FOR HE LAST 3 years, but AMD has a few cards up their sleeves. That's why they are not rushing to do anythng different. Even their roadmaps are not totally revealing.
Some of you act like Intel employees.