AM2 Tested with 800 Mhz DDR2

[incinerator]

I love AMD, but they only managed to score 3-5% faster with 800 Mhz DDR2, or so sais below. Take a look

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30290

-Incinerator-
Aka -Jimbomanx-

 

[CompGeek]

Darn,oh well, i didn't expect much improvement from DDR2 800 but heck, i thought it would be more like in the 10% range. 9 inch, seems that you were wrong with your DDR 2 800mhz predictions. I'm not that happy. I want good performance from Conroe. If AM2 isn't competitive enough i'll probably have to buy at double price for the same thing.

 

[LithiumSunset]

I still think they have a bug or two to work out. We do have to take into consideration of the motherboard as well. There could be defects with the test processor and the board itself. Just my two cents

 

[incinerator]

We'll still have to wait until production units come out to do accurate comparisons. Until then the numbers or just good for speculation.

-Incinerator-
AKA -Jimbomanx-

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

We'll still have to wait until production units come out to do accurate comparisons. Until then the numbers or just good for speculation.

-Incinerator-
AKA -Jimbomanx-

He's right on. We need to wait until socket AM2 motherboards and processors are readily available and independent hardware tests can be done.

AMD has said that the hardware is in its final revision, according to the article. If that is true it means unless there are bugs with other peices of hardware (the AM2 motherboard, RAM) the product won't get any faster due to the switch to 800mhz DDR2 RAM.

Although this isn't close to what Conroe is promised to be from Intel, it is a step in the right direction. I have a feeling AMD has a lot of wiggle room in terms of increasing caches and processor frequencies that should give Conroe good competition.

 

[ltcommander_data]

Funny thing is even AMD admits that all your going to see from AM2 is aout a 3-5% improvement.

AMD claims that those engineering samples are the final revision so you should not expect more of the performance incensement.

This would of course explain why AMD hasn't tried to reposition their product numbers with the 2.4GHz remaining the 4800+. They really should do something to differentiate AM2 from S939 though.

I guess speculation for 10-20% performance increase was completely overblown. The motherboards support higher than DDR2 800 of course, but it'll have to be done via overclocking.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30293

 

[theaxemaster]

At least its not staying at 667, that was just ridiculous.

 

[pwnage]

they shoud have tested it wil DDR2 1066 thats what the AM2 is suppost to primarily run off of.

 

[ltcommander_data]

they shoud have tested it wil DDR2 1066 thats what the AM2 is suppost to primarily run off of.

DDR2 800 is the official primary configuration, anything higher is overclocking and doesn't count for a stock comparison.

WE learned that socket AM2 officially supports all the memory standards up to DDR 2 800.

Socket AM2 and Intel 975 chipset will support those faster memory speeds but it will still be considered as overclocking.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30293

 

[KBM]

If Conroe can come up with such a good performance with
DDR2-667 at 5-5-5-15 timings, why should AMD have bad performance
with DDR2-800?.

 

[CompGeek]

It's not only the memory that counts,it's the chip itself.
Intel Conroe is a 4 issue procesor and is derived for a much more enregy efficient arhitecture+ they are on 65nm not to mention qualities taken from its P4 predecesor.

 

[KBM]

Well, I guess AMD will have to come up with a better architecture..

I wonder if AMD should get rid of their intergrated memory controller
and be more flexible..

If they had the MC in the NB, at least the AMD users can keep
their current CPUs and just change MB and memory..

 

[Action_Man]

I'm not worried, neither should any of you(except fanboys).

BEST.CALL.EVER

 

[CompGeek]

Precisely.
AMD needs to move on to 65 nm. That will offer it a decent headroom for clock bumps.

 

[parlee]

Although this isn't close to what Conroe is promised to be from Intel, it is a step in the right direction. I have a feeling AMD has a lot of wiggle room in terms of increasing caches and processor frequencies that should give Conroe good competition.

after a certain point cache can actually slow performance, maybe 2mb wont slow it, but i doubt it will be a big increase either... and amd on 90nm have a clock ceiling of about 3.2ghz, toms and others have tried overclocking an fx57 (or 60, i forget) which come stock at 2.8 (2.6 for the fx60?) and it simply wouldnt post after 3.2... ill look for the article becase as u can see i dont remember it all

 

[xXDracoXx]

I think I've heard that AMD benefits more from better timings than bandwith(raw mhz speed). Current DDR2 memory still has pretty bad latencies relative to ddr, which is why we don't see much of a difference. On the other hand, Intel would gain more from bandwith upgrade which I think is why the Conroes showed did so well with current ram. The competition will become quite fierce when DDR2 with good latencies becomes available.

I'm not sure about what I've stated but it's what my memory(brain, not ram) tells me. Feel free to correct me.

 

[Caboose-1]

Precisely.
AMD needs to move on to 65 nm. That will offer it a decent headroom for clock bumps.

Indeed.

 

[theaxemaster]

The thing is, I'm not sure DDR2 is ever going to offer good latencies. Maybe that's why AMD put DDR3 on their road map. So probably all you'll really see on the AM2 is maybe a die shrink and the DDR2 (which isn't going to offer much, as we've seen).

I've been lead to understand the same thing draco, AMD => timings, Intel => bandwidth. Intel is only just now fully taking advantage of DDR2, whereas AMD has been using DDR well the whole time. I can't really help but think AMD should have skipped over DDR2 and went straight to DDR3 or GDDR3. The Xbox360 uses GDDR3 as system memory, so the technology is there at least.

 

[doomturkey]

The inquirer is rather silly.

 

[DragonDoc]

I wonder if AMD should get rid of their intergrated memory controller and be more flexible..

:?: Sound like you are talking about Intel not AMD. Remember Intel = RAMBUS. Ask the people stuck with systems today with that RAMBUS memory. Upgrade Memory = $$$

AMD will have to come up with a better architecture.

I think that's why they have the better product right now. Before we jump ship we need to wait and see. Sounds like everyone is going to jump ship because of the Intel show. Why did Intel change - AMD's architecture was killing them.

If they had the MC in the NB, at least the AMD users can keep
their current CPUs and just change MB and memory..

:roll:

What :?: :?: You are saying to go backwords? The intergrated memory controller is a very smart choice. Why keep a CPU when you change Memory and a motherboard? Thats like purchasing a new car but taking out its new engine and put in a 1978 engine :?: :?: :?:

 

[sepheronx]

I wonder if AMD should get rid of their intergrated memory controller and be more flexible..

:?: Sound like you are talking about Intel not AMD. Remember Intel = RAMBUS. Ask the people stuck with systems today with that RAMBUS memory. Upgrade Memory = $$$

AMD will have to come up with a better architecture.

I think that's why they have the better product right now. Before we jump ship we need to wait and see. Sounds like everyone is going to jump ship because of the Intel show. Why did Intel change - AMD's architecture was killing them.

If they had the MC in the NB, at least the AMD users can keep
their current CPUs and just change MB and memory..

:roll:

What :?: :?: You are saying to go backwords? The intergrated memory controller is a very smart choice. Why keep a CPU when you change Memory and a motherboard? Thats like purchasing a new car but taking out its new engine and put in a 1978 engine :?: :?: :?:

so youre saying we are going to play the "Wait and get game?" thats so stupid, if we did that, then no one will be at were we are today, I predicted that Intel was going to come out with something sweet, then AMD will, its just 1 massive constant game of leap frog. So just settle down, it takes quite a long time to make a new architecture. But I know AMD will eventualy come out with something great. And like I said about right now of P4 vs AMD, both will play the video games perfect today, both will do great at multitasking and other things. Just benchmarks prove otherwise, but you wont notice a difference between the 2 companies. Same will go with Conroe and AM2, even if conroe will be better (in benchmark wise) doesnt matter though, both processor companies will work just fine for all the tasks you want to do.

 

[DragonDoc]

so youre saying we are going to play the "Wait and get game?" thats so stupid, if we did that, then no one will be at were we are today, I predicted that Intel was going to come out with something sweet, then AMD will, its just 1 massive constant game of leap frog. So just settle down, it takes quite a long time to make a new architecture. But I know AMD will eventualy come out with something great. And like I said about right now of P4 vs AMD, both will play the video games perfect today, both will do great at multitasking and other things. Just benchmarks prove otherwise, but you wont notice a difference between the 2 companies. Same will go with Conroe and AM2, even if conroe will be better (in benchmark wise) doesnt matter though, both processor companies will work just fine for all the tasks you want to do.

I’m not saying let’s wait and see but lets compare Apples to Apples and not Apples to Oranges.

What kills me is that most everyone has already made their own conclusion solely based on what Intel showed. I hope for Intel’s sake those numbers remain true once the chips are released. The AMD2 has already been independently tested (to some degree) so I trust the numbers from the AM2 but nobody has independently tested the new Intel chips. It looks like 4 to 6 months before that happens. I have to give it to Intel by the PR – everyone is talking about Intel 6 months before it is released.

Maybe Intel has closed the gap or maybe overtaken AMD – that remains to be seen when the products are available. I don’t think AMD is going to just set on their hands. They have put too much hard work getting where they are today. Either way having a choice will benefit all of us.

Thanks for the feedback

 

[apache_lives]

I love AMD, but they only managed to score 3-5% faster with 800 Mhz DDR2, or so sais below. Take a look

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30290

-Incinerator-
Aka -Jimbomanx-

thats kinda what i expected in performance, THG and a few others benchmakred the A64 with DDR1-600 and it did barly anything, we knew that months ago, so now that thats cleared up, hurry up conroe and come out and make these AMDs cheaper.

It was only a platform refresh afterall - Its otherwise still the same K8, where as conroe is totally new and designed to win for now.

 

[bront]

thats kinda what i expected in performance, THG and a few others benchmakred the A64 with DDR1-600 and it did barly anything, we knew that months ago, so now that thats cleared up, hurry up conroe and come out and make these AMDs cheaper.

It was only a platform refresh afterall - Its otherwise still the same K8, where as conroe is totally new and designed to win for now.

Ditto.

AMD is moving now for future upgradability and compatability. DDR2 will be the memory to use for some time, so going with the flow makes AMD more appealing (Ask RAMBUS users), as well as unlocks future advances in DDR2 memory (Looking back at DDR266, the current clocks and timings were only imagined, or in some cases, not even). This is not a move to gain instant performance increase, but is forward looking.

AMD certaintly has something planed, but it may not match what Conroe has to bring as a completely new chip. However, we as consumers benifit from all this, as it will push prices down, and ultimately performance even higher as AMD and Intel stuggle to stay on top.

Remember, while we as enthuseists keep close watch, most people don't, and most people don't need the imense power that today's PCs offer. The chips of 3-4 years ago are more than powerful enough for your average consumer who uses Word, Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, and Solitare. And even those computers can play some of the games out there today, as not everyone pays the 3D intense games.

 

[cubicleslave]

The chips of 3-4 years ago are more than powerful enough for your average consumer who uses Word, Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, and Solitare. And even those computers can play some of the games out there today, as not everyone pays the 3D intense games.

What about video encoding? I think that would be a big enough job to bring today's systems to their knees. There's still plenty of use for more CPU power, as people take up digital video work. I would love to be able to encode a 2 hour movie in HD format, in less than 2 hours.