Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A64 performance @2.0Ghz

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 3, 2003 1:01:18 AM

I was just looking at THG's Opteron/Workstation tasks review and thinking...

Well, A64 will use the same core as Opteron, right? So let's assume that, per clock, A64 performs identically (which is probably <i>not</i> the case, because of the single-channel DDR). And let's also assume that scaling the clock rates scale the performance numbers linearly, i.e. perfect scaling. So let's try to preview A64@2.0Ghz's performance...

Now think about the benchmarks we saw that compared the 3.0Ghz P4 on Canterwood and a single 1.8Ghz Opteron. I'll give you a little reminder:

<b>TEST NAME</b>/<font color=blue>3.0GhzP4result</font color=blue>/<font color=green>1.8GhzOpteron</font color=green>/<font color=red>2GhzOpteron*</font color=red>/<font color=orange>2.5GhzOpteron*</font color=orange>
<b>Lightwave 7.5</b>/<font color=blue>182</font color=blue>/<font color=green>253</font color=green>/<font color=red>227</font color=red>/<font color=orange>182</font color=orange> (lower-better)
<b>Cinema 4D</b>/<font color=blue>95</font color=blue>/<font color=green>124</font color=green>/<font color=red>97</font color=red>/<font color=orange>89</font color=orange> (lower-better)
<b>3DSMAX5</b>/<font color=blue>92</font color=blue>/<font color=green>124</font color=green>/<font color=red>97</font color=red>/<font color=orange>89</font color=orange> (lower-better)
<b>mp3maker</b>/<font color=blue>73</font color=blue>/<font color=green>112</font color=green>/<font color=red>101</font color=red>/<font color=orange>81</font color=orange> (lower-better)
<b>Main Concept</b>/<font color=blue>212</font color=blue>/<font color=green>273</font color=green>/<font color=red>246</font color=red>/<font color=orange>197</font color=orange> (lower-better)
<b>Pinnacle Studio</b>/<font color=blue>221</font color=blue>/<font color=green>314</font color=green>/<font color=red>283</font color=red>/<font color=orange>226</font color=orange> (lower-better)
<b>Winrar</b>/<font color=blue>49</font color=blue>/<font color=green>58</font color=green>/<font color=red>52</font color=red>/<font color=orange>42</font color=orange> (lower-better)
<b>PCMark2002</b>/<font color=blue>7557</font color=blue>/<font color=green>5856</font color=green>/<font color=red>6507</font color=red>/<font color=orange>8133</font color=orange> (higher-better)
<b>SiS.Sandra-Dry</b>/<font color=blue>5879</font color=blue>/<font color=green>2513</font color=green>/<font color=red>2792</font color=red>/<font color=orange>3490</font color=orange> (higher-better)
<b>SiS.Sandra-Whet</b>/<font color=blue>9170</font color=blue>/<font color=green>7223</font color=green>/<font color=red>8026</font color=red>/<font color=orange>10092</font color=orange> (higher-better)
<b>SiS.Sandra-MultiM-Int</b>/<font color=blue>14004</font color=blue>/<font color=green>7191</font color=green>/<font color=red>7990</font color=red>/<font color=orange>9988</font color=orange> (higher-better)
<b>SiS.Sandra-MultiM-FP</b>/<font color=blue>21487</font color=blue>/<font color=green>10336</font color=green>/<font color=red>11484</font color=red>/<font color=orange>14356</font color=orange> (higher-better)
*-test results obtained through linear scaling.

Now what about those numbers?... Isn't Opteron's architecture supposed to be equal or better than A64's?... Is my scaling absurd?... Is A64's performance at same clock superior to Opteron's?... Hm...

If I'm not crazy, A64 will very likely be trounced by Prescott at 32-bit. Anyone disagree? With a reason?...

More about : a64 performance 0ghz

July 3, 2003 1:24:12 AM

I can only comment, with even the slightest bit of information available, that perhaps when real platforms, i.e. mainboards ready for Athlon 64 and graphics in mind, will likely have somewhat better performance. Opteron uses ECC and is geared at stability and reliability first.

But even then I have no hope or hype towards Athlon 64's performance really.

--
I am my own competition. -VJK
July 3, 2003 1:31:38 AM

Quote:
that perhaps when real platforms, i.e. mainboards ready for Athlon 64 and graphics in mind, will likely have somewhat better performance. Opteron uses ECC and is geared at stability and reliability first.

You're being optimistic there, of course, but I hope you're right. And I've double-checked, A64 is certainly the same core as opteron - so there are no features on A64 that aren't already in Opteron. :frown:
Related resources
July 3, 2003 1:39:24 AM

Possibly Opteron for its scaling in MP environments (more HT links) and the Dual Channel nature, but otherwise I cannot spot any other architectural difference.

However, like I said, I hold no more expectations from this CPU. If it's awesome, it's awesome, if it fails, oh well, tuff luck, they had it coming.
On the other hand a Prescott still amazes me. I'm a huge fan of the P4 architecture, love everything about it, and I can't wait to see how the increase Trace Cache size will affect. Doesn't matter if it's not too much, but it helps us analyze and understand it more.

--
I am my own competition. -VJK
July 3, 2003 1:54:14 AM

P4 3.0 on workstation can beat a Opteron 2.5 GHZ on dual channel to think a A64 can do it 2.4 ghz MAX clock speed.On game and support for DDR 400 will help more that Dual Channel.All score is comparing a 3.0 GHZ northwood to say a presscott will lose with 1 GHZ advance and twice the bandwith.This clock speed disparity is made that vs lowest clock speed of presscot vs highest speed of A64.Not to account that in 2004 grantdale and faster FSB coming to leave Intel with even more bandwith but higher latency.


I have made my point clear before A64 will not be faster that a Northwood at release.

I dont like french test
July 3, 2003 1:57:10 AM

WHO by now you love even more the P4 that me personalie there are many flaw but most cannot be solve unless there a ISA change that why i fell that Itanium is the only posible way to next generation level of performance.The instant everything

I dont like french test
July 3, 2003 2:47:44 AM

Quote:
that Itanium is the only posible way to next generation level of performance

Yes, Itanium is an interesting concept...

Just pity it's not as widespread as it deserved to be. One hell of a processor.
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2003 4:42:23 AM

So it appears that the inefficiency of the P4 is meaningless when compared to the low clockspeed processors it has to compete against. That is to say, it beats it's inefficiency with brute force, AMD can't finesse their way to better performance, and AMD needs more clock speed than they can come up with.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
July 3, 2003 6:25:12 AM

Quote:
So it appears that the inefficiency of the P4 is meaningless when compared to the low clockspeed processors it has to compete against. That is to say, it beats it's inefficiency with brute force, AMD can't finesse their way to better performance, and AMD needs more clock speed than they can come up with.


I fail to see how shoving 9 execution units with 9 issueing ports where around 70%+ of that remains idle most of the time counts as "efficiency". Even in the best case (absolutely no data dependencies, no memory latencies, the processor is filled to the fullest extent), 67% of that die would still go idle. All that translates into wasted die space, wasted transistors and a lot of heat.
Now, the P4 isn't any better, it's just as inefficient a processor but it's not "making up for it" with anything.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
a b à CPUs
July 3, 2003 6:36:08 AM

I was thinking more allong the lines of how P4's compared to PIII's and traditional Athlons, clock for clock.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
July 3, 2003 10:55:56 AM

The only problem is that if Itanium became mainstream right now, AMD would be out of business, as Intel would immediately render the P4 AND all Athlons obsolete with the first mainstream introduction of a desktop Itanium.

Intel would then effectively be a monopoly....thus....until then, Intel with their P4 has the opportunity to leech more money out of us, while maintaining marketshare and production profits...

Intel is in the position that EVERY business would like to be in...in regards to desktop processors.

....ok...so call me a conspiracy theorist...LOL!!! :smile:

<font color=blue> Ok, so you have to put your "2 cents" in, but its value is only "A penny's worth". Who gets that extra penny? </font color=blue>
July 3, 2003 11:25:46 AM

I would guess that Intel would eventually be forced to liscense out IA-64, whether due to a court ruling or due to the fact that it has to offer AMD (which does have a sizable market share right now) some incentive to drop x86-64.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
July 3, 2003 12:34:13 PM

Quote:
So it appears that the inefficiency of the P4 is meaningless when compared to the low clockspeed processors it has to compete against. That is to say, it beats it's inefficiency with brute force, AMD can't finesse their way to better performance, and AMD needs more clock speed than they can come up with.

One thing is giving the P4 a big advantage right now: SSE2. SSE2-optimised programs that have been compiled with Intel's compilers are fast...
July 3, 2003 1:18:32 PM

It's not just SSE2. The P4 is very picky about the code it runs. There are a lot of factors when it comes to optimization. Avoid bitshifting like the plague, avoid node-based data structures like Barbara Streisand's bedroom, try to keep your loops small and tight and avoid branching if you can.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
July 3, 2003 1:38:48 PM

It's not just SSE2. The P4 is very picky about the code it runs. There are a lot of factors when it comes to optimization. Avoid bitshifting like the plague

Worse that plague it a set of 10 handbrake on a P4.

I dont like french test
July 3, 2003 1:41:00 PM

I think that Intel may want to force it ISA by licensing to transmeta and AMD may be the best.As for AMD if they fail in X86-64 they are out of buiness if they have licensing now and start develop they may be able to have a good Ia-64 cpu before it here on the desktop.

I dont like french test
July 3, 2003 1:47:36 PM

I like it when people use <i>efficiency</i> (ask Eden).

There's this nice management philosophy called <i> Theory of Constraints</i>. The P4 architecture is a virtual microcosm of TOC principles. One of which is <i>efficiency </i> is a misnomer, at best, and a meaningless metric the rest of the time. What most of us are concerned about is <i>throughput</i> i.e., results.

It is ok that parts of the P4 remain "idle", because it (like any linear entity) can only operate as fast as its slowest part, which seems to be fast enough.

Regards,

Dave

__________________________________________________
<b><font color=red>Three great virtues of a programmer are: laziness, impatience, and hubris.</font color=red><b>
July 3, 2003 1:55:01 PM

That intel big issue is biggest competitor to itanium is there own X86 chip.

On compiler side intel produce the best X86 and a weak IA-64 compiler only fast on FP wich is easier that INT.Must keep X86 but must develop IA-64.

Chip by slowing down X86 chip that will led to let the market to AMD if AMD have more that 50% of X86-32 bit market why move to IA-64 when there allready 50% of useur have a 64 bit capable CPU.

Must keep X86 chip and must continue Itanium chip.

On software side even worse.Try to create a market with no software and on ISV side is to port software to a imaginary market.

OS side Windows 2003 for Itanium the 1 os made with Itanium in mind was made also for itanium good news WIN 2003 are fast and well made but IA64 version cost a premium like all IA64 software as they lack of mass production.

Confident and reputation of intel will play a bigger part that the itanium itself.Unless Itanium can be faster that any X86 chip by a very good margin 75% or 100% it will not be take as new contender for Desktop CPU.

I dont like french test
July 3, 2003 2:20:15 PM

Yes, indeed... If Intel could do x86 with 64 bit extensions and turn Prescott into a fully-fledged 64-bit high performance chip, they'd be shooting their own feet (i.e. rendering Itanium uninsteresting...)

Anyway, the thing about 64-bit migration is that it requires a great deal of software support and enthusiasm. In that sense, if x86-64 lost its hype, it would be very bad for them.

Compilers' performance is very important indeed...
July 3, 2003 8:24:43 PM

Quote:
Compilers' performance is very important indeed...

Yes, indeed. Until now AMD has been relying on Intel to devlope compilers. But for 64bit AMD has to have 3rd party develope for them. As you know Intel probably has the best compiler out there, I wonder how the new 64bit compiler will preforme vs. intel's 32bit compiler.

KG

"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity." - Sarah Chambers
July 3, 2003 10:17:03 PM

Quote:
WHO by now you love even more the P4 that me personalie there are many flaw

Were you criticizing my opinion or what in the beginning of your sentence?
Re-explain if possible please.

--
I am my own competition. -VJK
July 4, 2003 12:51:31 AM

Since we are on the opteron and A64 subject...will the opteron use the same socket as the A64?
July 4, 2003 12:53:55 AM

No.
You should read articles around the web including on AMD's website to know more, this has been quite an old thing really.

--
I am my own competition. -VJK
July 4, 2003 4:12:49 PM

Simple i surprise of this statement form you on P4 wich i found there some architecture flaw or route that intel i take that i think is not the best.

I dont like french test
July 5, 2003 12:23:38 AM

Personally I have always been amazed. Have you not read my posts over 6 months back? I am sure I expressed many times by love for it. It's a great promising architecture. It is weak now, but it is the most potential-filled one.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new">Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community forum album, send us your pics!</A>
July 5, 2003 12:40:05 AM

in 2 or 3 year it will be replace.That a shorth life compare to P6

I dont like french test
July 5, 2003 2:28:25 AM

Not really. The P7 core's been out for 3 years. Another 3 years and that's a 6-year life-span. The Pentium Pro was released in 1995 and the architecture was replaced by the P7 core in 2000 with the release of the Pentium 4.
I'm sure that there'll be P7-core based architecture even after the release of the first P8 cores just like there was a P6-based Celeron and P3 right now, but it won't be mainstream.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
July 5, 2003 3:18:14 PM

PPro was not release in 1993

I dont like french test
July 5, 2003 3:24:40 PM

Quote:
I am sure I expressed many times by love for it. It's a great promising architecture.

Yes, well, P4 is not without its strenghts at all.

Anyway, from Intel, I think itanium is the most potential-filled architecture. The problem with itanium is that, unlike Opteron, there are only very few options available: the 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5Ghz parts. It's a very conservative scheme. If there was a 1.3Ghz Itanium for single-processor machines which a 20 or 25% lower cost, then things would become considerably more interesting. Maybe Deerfield, with its $700 or so price tag, will change things. They could have done this earlier, however, and then Itanium would have more market acceptance than it has now, at the introductory stages of Opteron.

Like Opteron: there's the 144, 244 and the much more expensive 844. It is a more balanced list of options, that's all.
July 5, 2003 5:25:21 PM

I said 1995......

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
July 5, 2003 6:21:20 PM

Quote:
I fail to see how shoving 9 execution units with 9 issueing ports where around 70%+ of that remains idle most of the time counts as "efficiency".

Ah, so the core can be real idle, just like the brain. Rest of the time cpu spends doing bridging. Having a parallel bus to brain at 64 wire capacity is better than a 32 wire bus, this is where A64 would excel.
July 5, 2003 6:36:08 PM

I think present trend in CPU is for a fast core speed eg. 2.4Ghz+.

The other problem is a bottleneck called disk IO which is still at around ATA100 or even less, with your CDROM bus.

No high FSB number is going to overcome this one.
July 5, 2003 6:55:59 PM

in any case P6 was more succesful that P7.

I dont like french test
July 5, 2003 6:57:15 PM

nothing to do with architecture just a plain old 30 year ISA

I dont like french test
July 7, 2003 7:45:09 AM

Quote:
Ah, so the core can be real idle, just like the brain. Rest of the time cpu spends doing bridging. Having a parallel bus to brain at 64 wire capacity is better than a 32 wire bus, this is where A64 would excel.


Erm, the number of traces to the processor itself is dependent on the bus protocol the chipset uses. As for 64-bit bus feed to the processor vs 32-bit, all x86 MPU's since the Pentium 2 (or was it the Pentium) uses a 64-bit bus path to the chipset. The Athlon64, as far as I'm away, will not change this.

Quote:
in any case P6 was more succesful that P7.


I wouldn't say so at all. The P6 core's release in the form of the Pentium Pro wasn't received much better than the Willamette was. The Pentium Pro was meant for high-end workstations and servers, yes, but it was still considered a flop.
I don't think it's possible to tell just how well the P7 core will do compared to the P6 core until we get to the end of the P7 core's lifespan. Then and only then can we look back in history and look at the relative success of both cores.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
July 7, 2003 8:24:11 AM

If opteron will be only for 64-bit computing, it should
also be near equal to that of intel's itanium.
July 7, 2003 11:44:42 AM

Quote:
near equal to that of intel's itanium.

Though comparisons are lacking, I think Itanium is a considerably more powerful processor than Opteron. And it's also more expensive... Opteron is probably more capable in 32-bit than Itanium. When Win2003 comes out, we'll be able to judge that...

The only benchmark we have on that is SPEC CPU...
July 7, 2003 4:45:07 PM

I thought Windows 2003 was out? Or have I been sleeping in a cave for a while now?

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
July 7, 2003 4:57:45 PM

Windows 2003 Server is definitely out. We have out copies already (MSDN version). I just haven't had the chance to play around with it yet.



__________________________________________________
<b><font color=red>Three great virtues of a programmer are: laziness, impatience, and hubris.</font color=red><b>
July 7, 2003 4:58:06 PM

Post deleted by dwellman
July 7, 2003 6:00:06 PM

Ouch... I'm very sorry. I meant Service Pack 1 for Win2003 Server.
July 7, 2003 6:30:38 PM

Oh, Ok.

It would be nice if Microsoft would release an SP for 2003.

There are 80-something updates, patches, and miscelaneous downloads already for Server 2003. 17 critical

Probably when Microsoft releases XP SP2. Taking their damn, sweet time. Why is that QA is only an issue with Service Packs?

At least it seems that way.



__________________________________________________
<b><font color=red>Three great virtues of a programmer are: laziness, impatience, and hubris.</font color=red><b>
July 8, 2003 4:39:47 PM

Yes, nothing like upgrades from Microsoft...
"Ooooh, we forgot that critical security issue that allows hackers to incinerate your hardware... oooops."

And something else, Xbitlabs has put <A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/64bit.html" target="_new">this interesting article</A> online. It talks about everything 64-bit related and is quite interesting.
!