Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AM2 Summary

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 21, 2006 3:45:16 AM

I thought I'd post this link since even though it's in Chinese, they have lots of clear charts on the various dual core, mainstream single core, and value single core AM2 processors that are coming out. They also have a chart summarizing the nVidia chipsets that are planned. There are some good pictures including specifications and a block model of how the new heatsink mounting system works. They've also ran their own benchmarks of an engineering sample of the X2 4800+ with DDR2 800 ram.

http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/am2-4800-1.htm

I did notice a discrepancy with their charts though since the one at the bottom of the first page saids that Mainstream single-cores will have a TDP of 62W. However, on the next page the chart at the bottom of the AM2 Athlon 64s list them all having a TDP of 72W. Might just be a typo on the second chart since I thought 62W was the goal.

I'm probably beating The Inquirer in posting it since they'll probably have it in their Hardware Roundup tomorrow.

More about : am2 summary

March 21, 2006 3:49:50 AM

Another place to tell us what 10 other sites have said using eng samples that perform the same. All that info is already on dailytech, anand, etc. etc. I think we can let the AM2 and Conroe stuff die already, thanks anyways Mr. TDP.

*waits for GodFather PC Game to finish dling...grrrz....*

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 21, 2006 3:55:34 AM

I'm aware that the engineering benchmarks are not unique. That's why I mainly wanted to post the link because they have charts that summarize well the AM2 processors that AMD is releasing as a point of reference, especially for anyone who is planning on making purchases soon. Only trying to be helpful here.
Related resources
March 21, 2006 3:56:52 AM

Quote:
I'm aware that the engineering benchmarks are not unique. That's why I mainly wanted to post the link because they have charts that summarize well the AM2 processors that AMD is releasing as a point of reference, especially for anyone who is planning on making purchases soon.


As I said, that's the 10th site to post the same pictures of AMD's roadmaps, that's nothing new but starting more threads for fanboys to come.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 21, 2006 7:26:01 AM

What would be great to see is a comparison of a load that saturates DDR400 and then see what the performance improvement of DDR2-800 is.
I bet it will higher than 5%.
However I can only think of server benchmarks that would simulate this type of load.
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2006 9:30:29 AM

Quote:
I thought I'd post this link since even though it's in Chinese, they have lots of clear charts on the various dual core, mainstream single core, and value single core AM2 processors that are coming out. They also have a chart summarizing the nVidia chipsets that are planned. There are some good pictures including specifications and a block model of how the new heatsink mounting system works. They've also ran their own benchmarks of an engineering sample of the X2 4800+ with DDR2 800 ram.

http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/am2-4800-1.htm

I did notice a discrepancy with their charts though since the one at the bottom of the first page saids that Mainstream single-cores will have a TDP of 62W. However, on the next page the chart at the bottom of the AM2 Athlon 64s list them all having a TDP of 72W. Might just be a typo on the second chart since I thought 62W was the goal.

I'm probably beating The Inquirer in posting it since they'll probably have it in their Hardware Roundup tomorrow.


WHAT WE ARE ALL FORGETTING HERE IS AM2 IS JUST A MEMORY CHANGE NOT A PROCESSOR CORE CHANGE - IT STILL PROCESSES THINGS THE SAME SO ITS NOT ANYTHING "NEXT GEN"
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2006 11:44:37 AM

At least in the gaming performance, the DDR2/800 rig is only 1 frame/sec or less slower now....

The switch to DDR2/800 would appear to be pretty much a wash, performance wise....
March 21, 2006 12:03:51 PM

Question: If it's not a processor core change, WHY IS IT A NEW SOCKET? I mean, why can't the new cpu's be compatible with socket 939? Is it strictly a marketing thing?
March 21, 2006 12:55:58 PM

whatever...just wait and see ;) 
March 21, 2006 2:07:31 PM

Quote:
This will happen this time around (core changes are seriously expensive), but AMD is promising that this socket will remain compatible with DDR3.
How they can say that I have no idea as DDR3 specs are nowhere near final yet.



"Fully-programmable IMC"? (hehehe!)


Just joking! :lol: 


Cheers!
March 21, 2006 4:51:32 PM

Quote:
Question: If it's not a processor core change, WHY IS IT A NEW SOCKET? I mean, why can't the new cpu's be compatible with socket 939? Is it strictly a marketing thing?


They are changing the socket design to avoid confusion; i.e., so newbies won't try to take a processor, designed to work only with DDR2 memory, and plug it into an older motherboard that only works with DDR.
If they didn't change the socket, guaranteed lots of people would make that mistake. Then, when the system failed to post, they'd go on forums like this one claiming "AMD sucks, my MB won't post," when it was actually their own stupid fault.
With the socket change, the new AM2 chips will only plug into a motherboard designed for AM2 cpus and DDR2 ram.

The Soviet Union did something similar with their artillery and mortar rounds.
Back in the 1970s, American military experts couldn't understand why the Soviet army had so many different calibers of shells. For example, an artillery gun might be 120mm, while a mortar round was 122 mm. Teh American military used the same diameter for both mortars and artillery guns.
After Glasnost, a Soviet military commander explained that the minor caliber variations were implemented to avoid confusion on the battlefield. The Soviet army didn't trust farm boys drafted from the hinterlands to be able to tell the difference between, for example, a case of 90mm mortar rounds and a load of 90mm artillery rounds, while in the heat of battle. Making sure no mortars used the same diameter shell as any artillery gun helped ensure that some mortar crew somewhere would not be stuck with a load of ammunition they couldn't use.
Using different diameters for the ammunition avoided a screwup.
Implementing a new socket design for AM2 also avoids screwups.
March 21, 2006 5:46:02 PM

Quote:


The Soviet Union did something similar with their artillery and mortar rounds.
Back in the 1970s, American military experts couldn't understand why the Soviet army had so many different calibers of shells. For example, an artillery gun might be 120mm, while a mortar round was 122 mm. Teh American military used the same diameter for both mortars and artillery guns.
After Glasnost, a Soviet military commander explained that the minor caliber variations were implemented to avoid confusion on the battlefield. The Soviet army didn't trust farm boys drafted from the hinterlands to be able to tell the difference between, for example, a case of 90mm mortar rounds and a load of 90mm artillery rounds, while in the heat of battle. Making sure no mortars used the same diameter shell as any artillery gun helped ensure that some mortar crew somewhere would not be stuck with a load of ammunition they couldn't use.
Using different diameters for the ammunition avoided a screwup.
Implementing a new socket design for AM2 also avoids screwups.


Nice story, too bad its b.s. Artillery and mortar ammo look nothing alike, most mortar rounds are finned. Spin stabilized mortar rounds have a rod at the base to strike the firing pin when dropped down the barrel. Impossible to confuse the two
March 21, 2006 5:53:08 PM

Just for the record--bourgeoisdude did not say that, brainysmurf did. Somehow your html tags are mixed up or something...
March 21, 2006 6:34:44 PM

o shnap, the godfather game is up for grabs. omg the coommmercial made me drool. and the amd stuff, intel is way ahead, forget amd.im not a fanboy, but from right now, amd is having wet dreams of conroe,
March 21, 2006 7:05:50 PM

You missed the point.
An unopened wooden crate containing mortar shells and an unopened wooden crate containing artillery shells would look very similar. Sure, the ammo looks completely different once you've opened up the container and see what's inside -- but by then it's too late, the ammo has been delivered to the combat zone.
The point was that by making different ammo in differing diameters, the Soviet army simplified its logistics and supply chain.
This is not BS, this came from a Department of Defense document I obtained for a research paper some years ago. I read something similar in a Soldier of Fortune article some while back.
Anyway, it was just an analogy that I thought illustrated my point about the socket change. It's hardly even worth my time typing in a response -- but it's 4 p.m. where I am and I'm just killing time until I can leave for the day.
March 21, 2006 8:01:59 PM

Quote:
You missed the point.
An unopened wooden crate containing mortar shells and an unopened wooden crate containing artillery shells would look very similar. Sure, the ammo looks completely different once you've opened up the container and see what's inside -- but by then it's too late, the ammo has been delivered to the combat zone.
The point was that by making different ammo in differing diameters, the Soviet army simplified its logistics and supply chain.
This is not BS, this came from a Department of Defense document I obtained for a research paper some years ago. I read something similar in a Soldier of Fortune article some while back.
Anyway, it was just an analogy that I thought illustrated my point about the socket change. It's hardly even worth my time typing in a response -- but it's 4 p.m. where I am and I'm just killing time until I can leave for the day.


Sorry Bs is bs no matter the source, how do you simplify logistics by adding more calibers?. Maybe this was too complicated for the Ruskis but they could have simply MARKED the unopened crates. This makes about as much sense as a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.
March 22, 2006 1:50:09 AM

The Soviet Union wasn't a country, it was an empire unified by force.
The Russians were dominant. Their alphabet was prominent and Russian was the official language of the empire, but soldiers were drafted from many regions, cultures and races.
If howitzers used 122 mm shells, and mortars used 120mm shells, then soldiers didn't have to be able to read, or examine the contents. Having a big "120mm" stamped on the side made it clear that the crate contained shells for a mortar crew; 122mm on the side meant the crate went to a howitzer emplacement.
That's what I mean by simplifying the logistics. Dumb as dirt soldiers who couldn't do anything else could drive a truck and unload crates, and with this system they didn't have to be able to read or write.
Whatever else you want to say about them, the Soviets were masters at finding simple solutions to complex problems. This was a very easy way to make sure ammo got where it needed to go.
That's all I'm going to say about the matter. I know what I'm talking about regarding this matter; it's a bit off topic; I don't care if you believe me or not; end of conversation.
March 22, 2006 4:02:19 AM

Looking at the 3Dmark drivers something looks a bit fishy.
i.e. The AM2 CPU bechmarks were all faster than s939, but
overall the s939 was faster.
All things being equal (i.e. GPU), shouldn't the overall score be higher??

To me it would appear that there is some sort of issue with the motherboard/drivers for AM2, such that GPU performance drops on
the AM2 platform
March 22, 2006 5:15:21 AM

Quote:
You missed the point.
An unopened wooden crate containing mortar shells and an unopened wooden crate containing artillery shells would look very similar. Sure, the ammo looks completely different once you've opened up the container and see what's inside -- but by then it's too late, the ammo has been delivered to the combat zone.
The point was that by making different ammo in differing diameters, the Soviet army simplified its logistics and supply chain.
This is not BS, this came from a Department of Defense document I obtained for a research paper some years ago. I read something similar in a Soldier of Fortune article some while back.
Anyway, it was just an analogy that I thought illustrated my point about the socket change. It's hardly even worth my time typing in a response -- but it's 4 p.m. where I am and I'm just killing time until I can leave for the day.


Sorry Bs is bs no matter the source, how do you simplify logistics by adding more calibers?. Maybe this was too complicated for the Ruskis but they could have simply MARKED the unopened crates. This makes about as much sense as a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

Not that this has that much to do with this forums topic, but what the heck.

Homeboy, while you make excellent points about the differences between the munitions and the simplification of logistics, Brainysmurf is correct.

First you must be aware that the typical US politicians, soldiers or citizens perspective of efficiency and problem solving is drastically different from that of many other nations.

Secondly, regardless of all the politicians running around trying to "hype" disharmony, segregation and lack of unity in the US it’s nowhere near the level they promote. It’s just marketing to use these issues as their own personal campaign platform for elections. The truth is that the United States, relative to the majority of other countries (last time I looked, there were 227 of them) is phenomenally unified. 1 language, in terms of literacy, based on which the US is the 9th most literate country on the planet. 1 system of government for all citizens, democracy (more or less) and 1 legal system (the military and the Uniform Code of Military Justice not withstanding) Whats this got to do with anything? Makes training/learning a whole lot easier, cheaper, and more effective. It also tends to unify and narrow point of view.

Thirdly, the United States is the most unique military power that has ever held power in the history of human kind. The training given, even to the lowest ranking of our troops, tends to exceed by magnitudes that of any other country on the planet. We are the only signatory of the Geneva Convention that actually makes any kind of attempt to adhere to them (even if we fail) and most importantly, the US is the only country that considers each and every member of its armed forces to be "irreplaceable" i.e, no cannon fodder.

Forth, complicating something in one aspect, may simplify it in another. It’s just a matter of the predominant perspective. The US is huge on multi mission - one gun kills all. It wasn’t always that way, and a lot of other countries still don’t subscribe to that concept. In terms of production and cost efficiency, the USSR’s methods were mind boggling to the US, but from the perspective of simple stock organization and segregation, it does make sense

Bearing those things in mind, you must consider that the majority of the USSR’s armed forces were conscripts. 18 years old, of insignificant formalized education, and as Brainy pointed out, from a multitude of countries. We are so used to hearing people whine about our education system and put it down that we forget just how good it really is. Yes, there are a few countries better than the US in terms of education, but not many, and certainly not the majority of the 200+ countries on the planet
And never in its history did the USSR come even remotely close to euqllying our education system. In short, the USSR had a serious literacy problem. Aside from the problem of fundamental illiteracy, (simply not being able to read) the problem of functional illiteracy (being able to read, but in this case, not to read the predominant language) was significant. Marking crates was simply not good enough since there was a significant chance that the individuals filling, delivering or opening the crates, let alone those feeding the ammo to the equipment could not read the crates even if they were marked. Combine this with no intellectual standards in its conscription and an extremely rudimentary basic training. The sovs did not waste time teaching the "3 Rs" to those it considered cannon fodder, nor did it waste money printing ammunition specifications in 22 different languages. The simple solution for them was, the circle goes in the round hole, the square in the four sided hole, and neither will fit in the other. This way the two cant be mixed up.

The amount of tactical and strategic information that came out of the USSR after its collapse was staggering. Staggering in its exposure of just how far off the mark both the USSR's and the US's intelligence analysis’ were. Again, it has nothing to do with the topic but 2 of my favorite cold war "revelations" were:

1 The Sovs had a huge fear of land warfare in the North Eastern United States: to wit, they were basically scarred shitless of the prospect of invading the US. Why? "Snipers" The Largest modern mechanized ground military on the planet was not afraid of the US's technologically superior equipment, it was afraid of our citizens. Specifically, the millions of American hunters living in the North East (NY, Penn, R.I, N.H, etc) Each one armed with high powered, accurate, long range (relative to the sovs aks) rifle, on their own turf, experienced in sneaking around stealthily stalking game AND, most likely, pissed off in a patriotic sort of manner. Put yourself in the USSR's place. Who do you think would have won, a bunch of under trained, uneducated 18 year old conscripts who don’t believe in what their fighting for and hate their leaders or the millions of "snipers" defending their homes. Sadly, the US never knew about this until after the fact because our perception was different.

2 The fallacy of US air superiority in the European theatre. The US's air superiority relied (and still does) overwhelmingly on AWACs for theatre coordination and control, and the USSR knew it. What we (the US) didnt know, (or plan on) was the Sovs plan to counter the AWACS. We estimated 4-5 hostiles (at most) per attempt to down our AWACS. No problem for the US, easily handled by our F15s. The reality was the Sovs planned not for 4-5 attackers, but for entire squadrons of fighters per AWACs. An AWACS with a CAP of 2 F15s, each with 4 medium and 4 short range missiles would have been hopelessly out numbered by 14-20 (sqdn size depended on the location, branch of svc, acft type etc) MIG 29s each carrying 10 air to air missiles. Hell, even if a single Sov AAM never touched an Eagle the probability of a mid air collision with that much metal in one section of sky grunted the soviets success.

These are 2 examples of how the US mis-read the Sovs, because we tried to view their actions based on our perspective (the best example is LT Viktor Belenko, the MIG25 pilot who defected in the 70s)

So, while it may seem wacked based on how the US does things, for the USSR, using multiple calibers made great sense.
March 22, 2006 6:56:46 PM

"Brainy, first you said it was an analogy, that the new am2 sockets, were similar to the mortar rounds , they were changed so they werent confused. then you admitted, no one could mistake a mortar round for a artillery shell. faulty analogy. then you say they could confuse the boxes. so they made different calibers. Why not just color code or make different shape boxes or ever a slit in the boxes so they could see inside? Someone was very stupid.
March 22, 2006 7:04:59 PM

Quote:

1 The Sovs had a huge fear of land warfare in the North Eastern United States: to wit, they were basically scarred shitless of the prospect of invading the US. Why? "Snipers" The Largest modern mechanized ground military on the planet was not afraid of the US's technologically superior equipment, it was afraid of our citizens. Specifically, the millions of American hunters living in the North East (NY, Penn, R.I, N.H, etc) Each one armed with high powered, accurate, long range (relative to the sovs aks) rifle, on their own turf, experienced in sneaking around stealthily stalking game AND, most likely, pissed off in a patriotic sort of manner. Put yourself in the USSR's place. Who do you think would have won, a bunch of under trained, uneducated 18 year old conscripts who don’t believe in what their fighting for and hate their leaders or the millions of "snipers" defending their homes. Sadly, the US never knew about this until after the fact because our perception was different.

2
So, while it may seem wacked based on how the US does things, for the USSR, using multiple calibers made great sense.


Turpit, this makes even less sense than "Brainy's" post
I doubt the Ruski's ever had any serious plans to invade the U.S and if so the least of their worries would have been some drunken deer hunters! First they would have to secure Western Europe, doable' but that would have caused us to nuke the crap out of them. Second , where were they hiding the hundreds of troop transports they would have needed to land any meaningful invasion force? Third, how would they have prevented the U.S Navy from destroying this phantom fleet? Fouth, the Army and National Guard could have easily defeated anything the Russians could have landed without depending on any local yahoos. Yooz guys , must be smoking some powerful stuff is all i can say!
March 23, 2006 3:40:24 AM

Quote:

1 The Sovs had a huge fear of land warfare in the North Eastern United States: to wit, they were basically scarred shitless of the prospect of invading the US. Why? "Snipers" The Largest modern mechanized ground military on the planet was not afraid of the US's technologically superior equipment, it was afraid of our citizens. Specifically, the millions of American hunters living in the North East (NY, Penn, R.I, N.H, etc) Each one armed with high powered, accurate, long range (relative to the sovs aks) rifle, on their own turf, experienced in sneaking around stealthily stalking game AND, most likely, pissed off in a patriotic sort of manner. Put yourself in the USSR's place. Who do you think would have won, a bunch of under trained, uneducated 18 year old conscripts who don’t believe in what their fighting for and hate their leaders or the millions of "snipers" defending their homes. Sadly, the US never knew about this until after the fact because our perception was different.

2
So, while it may seem wacked based on how the US does things, for the USSR, using multiple calibers made great sense.


Turpit, this makes even less sense than "Brainy's" post
I doubt the Ruski's ever had any serious plans to invade the U.S and if so the least of their worries would have been some drunken deer hunters! First they would have to secure Western Europe, doable' but that would have caused us to nuke the crap out of them. Second , where were they hiding the hundreds of troop transports they would have needed to land any meaningful invasion force? Third, how would they have prevented the U.S Navy from destroying this phantom fleet? Fouth, the Army and National Guard could have easily defeated anything the Russians could have landed without depending on any local yahoos. Yooz guys , must be smoking some powerful stuff is all i can say!

LMAO

Yeh, Homeboy, your right, it doesn’t make sense. But again, thats from our perspective (Im assuming you're a US/Canadian citizen, or soldier) From a different perspective it does make sense. Remember, we're talking about the USSR. The same USSR which on more than one occassion sent troops into combat without ammunition during WWII. The same USSR which planned and tried to "create" "trenches" by sending into troops to get shot, killed and fall on each other, creating berms of fallen soldiers for live soldiers to hide behind. The same "empire" which spent itself into unrecoverable bankruptcy buying weapons while its civilian populus starved. Ya just can’t make this kind of stuff up. Just look at Gallipoli. To this day, it still boggles my mind. Hell, look at Hitler’s decisions and plans during the latter half of WW II when things were going south for the Nazis. Unreal... But then, when you’re talking about a bunch of military leaders, "planners" and intelligence analysts, many of whom have probably never actually seen combat, ANYTHING is possible.
Just look how much crap the US bites off on, fed to us by the Rand Corporation, a bunch of fat, lazy, rich PhDs most of whom have never held a real job in their lives let alone served in the armed forces. The reports and analysis I’ve read from them have made me so sick, I can’t even look at a cover sheet with their logo on it anymore.

Just as how we view ourselves individually is vastly different than how others view us, so to is misperception between nation-states. It’s not about what you or I think, or whether it makes sense to you or me, or brainysmurf. It’s about what the people who have to take action think.

How many times in your life have you read a news article, or seen a news cast about some politicians plans, some new law, or some companies product/plans and thought to yourself, "that’s the dumbest friggin thing I’ve ever heard?" C'mon now Homeboy, be really honest...you don’t really think the US government, or any American corporation has the market cornered on stupidity? Just like the US gov, the USSR did tons of shit that seemed stupid to everyone except the people actually promulgating the plan.

Here’s a classic case of mass civil stupidity in the US. Back in the late 70s/early 80s, there was an AFB in the NE, Griffis AFB. B52's KC135's and F106s. The bomber wing was scheduled to receive the new (at the time) nuclear cruise missiles. Many locals in that community flipped out over the prospect of nuclear weapons in their backyards, and set up "No Nukes" protests at the base. Even to the point of serious vandalism. The stupidity was that Griffis AFB was one of, if not the major SAC nuke base in the NE, and had already had nukes for years. I mean, no shit, to the point of actually putting the inert nukes on public display, every year, at the annual base open house. That included putting the Genie air to air nuclear missile carried by the F 106's on display. "...and ladies and gentlemen if you will direct your attention to the runway, the Thunderbirds will now be performing the 4 ship barrel roll with the opposing solos following in the "mirror" formation, and when you get a chance, be sure to visit the center hanger, where the 419th Bomber Wing has a B52 armament display featuring all the different types of ordinace a B52 can carry." It was priceless to watch these clueless twits fight a battle that they had lost even before they decided to go to war. But they thought (from their perspective) it was a good idea. Go figure.

So, stupid as this stuff may seem to us, none the less it’s real.

Oh, by the way. There was no "phantom" fleet. Never was. It was quite real. The USSR had the largest "modern" (Im trying not to laugh) naval fleet to roam the seas during the cold war, but just as with our aircraft and mechanized land forces, we considered our Navy to be so technologically superior as to offset the USSR’s numeric advantage. Especially our submarine forces. For their part, The Sovs were relying heavily on long range land based naval air forces (mostly TU95 "bear" bombers) equipped with air to surface missiles and submarines to overpower and cripple our Navy, (some of the missiles in themselves are a neat story) thus opening the way for the USSR’s "elite" (heh heh, snicker) Para forces to drop into Eastern Canada and work their way down to the US. This while their 100s of Polnocny medium LSTs, Ivan Rogov class and Alligator class Amphibious assault ships dumped troops and tanks on our shores. No need to tell you were they were going to land. A lot of info was lost, or never surfaced on the exact details of the order of battle, i.e. Para troops first, knock out shore defenses, land regular troops, or: everything at once, or: troop ships first, etc etc etc

I can’t email you my Janes or other "info", but if you want to pursue the discussion, or some details about the Sovs naval/amphibious forces, let me know and I'll try to find you some online data and provide you links

Peace :D 
!