Anand speaks of the HAMMERS POWER

POPEGOLDX · Sep 5, 2003

<<Gaming is one area where our tests show Opteron at 2.0GHZ an amazing performer. When you find game benchmarks 10% to 20% higher, you are genuinely impressed. However, in some of the very latest DX9 benchmarks, Athlon64/Opteron was 40% to 50% faster. This will get the attention of the gaming community, which seems to have a genuine affection for anything AMD already. It is the kind of trend-setting performance that Athlon64 needed to get the attention of an influential market segment.>>

can a resident INTEL FAN please flip this statement into a negative?

eden · Sep 5, 2003

Pope you're losing your mental stability once more. I give you a few weeks before you become raging for no reason.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

ChipDeath · Sep 5, 2003

can a resident INTEL FAN please flip this statement into a negative?

OK... lets have a go:
Opteron is a server processor. So it must be really LAME if the only thing it's better at is gaming... sounds like clutching at straws....

---
The end is nigh.. (For this post at least)

pitsi · Sep 5, 2003

OK... lets have a go:
Opteron is a server processor. So it must be really LAME if the only thing it's better at is gaming... sounds like clutching at straws....

Just to remind you a little something. The high-end Athlon 64 which will feature dual-channel memory controller and will be called Athlon FX (and will not carry a PR rating) is actually a 1xx Opteron. So that performance you see in any current reviews about Opteron, is the actual performance of the Athlon 64 FX, which will even work on the same chipset as the Opteron (Nforce3) and use the same memory. So again: Opteron = Athlon 64 FX (at least for now, until probably Q1 2004 when the new Athlon 64 FX will be able to take non-ECC memory).

castle · Sep 6, 2003

Just to remind you: the benchmark is comparing Athlon 64 FX (paper launch in Sept, extremely limited in quantity until Q1) and P4 3.0G (available in April).

eden · Sep 6, 2003

Um are you sure it's ECC?

As an Athlon 64, the last thing AMD should do with a new CPU launch is have ECC on a home PC!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

pitsi · Sep 6, 2003

Just to remind you: the benchmark is comparing Athlon 64 FX (paper launch in Sept, extremely limited in quantity until Q1) and P4 3.0G (available in April).

You are actually wrong here. The Opteron that Anand used was running at 2GHz, while the Athlon FX-51 will run at 2.2GHz, according to all the info that exist on the web right now. So, just to sum up! The way I see it, there is no doubt that the Athlon FX-51 will beat Pentium 4 3.2c in the majority of bechmarks, especially in games (maybe not in SSE2 optimized apps like media encoding etc). I have no doubts about that. The real issue though is its price and how well Prescott will perform. I think nobody really knows the answer to this question so we'll just have to wait and see.

pitsi · Sep 6, 2003

Um are you sure it's ECC?

As an Athlon 64, the last thing AMD should do with a new CPU launch is have ECC on a home PC!

You are well aware that things couldn't be more complicated with all the info laying around about Athlon 64s. So I could easily be wrong here. But as far as I know, Athlon 64 will need ECC memory, at least for working in dual-channel mode (that's for the 940-pin version which will be released on 23rd Sept). On the other hand, the 939-pin version which will be released in Q1 2004 will be able to take regular DDR400 memory.

So, on 23rd Sept we will get:
- Athlon 64 2900+ (754pin / 2.0GHz / single-channel memory controler / non-ECC memory)
- Athlon 64 FX-51 (940pin / 2.2GHz / dual-channel memory controller / ECC memory)

Having in mind how the Opteron @ 2GHz performed at Anandtech, I believe that the 2900+ PR the lower-end Athlon 64 will carry will be justified.

castle · Sep 6, 2003

I just want to say they are comparing a not-yet-released AMD with a 5 month old P4. Can't they use a 3.2G directly instead of letting people extropolate the result and guess who is the real winner?
Besides, I am pretty sure FX51 will face a 3.4G northwood, rather than a prescott.

bonesdad1 · Sep 6, 2003

Damn, another AMD vs Intel thread...I'm just glad AMD will have a new high end product (whether it bests Intel or no, I dont really give a rats ass - as long as it's close and keeps intel on its toes). This sort of competition keeps prices down and the technology growing, which benefits ALL of us. AMD vs Intel - what difference does it REALLY make in your life???

my sig left me for an Honorary Guru...

eden · Sep 6, 2003

With the thermals the 3.2GHZ carries, a 3.4GHZ will likely cause too much trouble and won't be released anymore.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

castle · Sep 6, 2003

wanna a bet?

eden · Sep 6, 2003

Not really, though I have a big hunch on this one.

Intel, right now is at a bottom-of-the-barrel level, they WANT AMD to succeed this time!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Bahumut · Sep 7, 2003

The way I see it, there is no doubt that the Athlon FX-51 will beat Pentium 4 3.2c in the majority of bechmarks, especially in games (maybe not in SSE2 optimized apps like media encoding etc).

I thought A64 had SSE2 extentions.
Get back to me on that.

Intel, right now is at a bottom-of-the-barrel level, they WANT AMD to succeed this time!

An interesting theory Eden. I can see the headlines now:
"Intel, first large corporation in the history of the human race to use anti-monopolistic practices in an attempt to lower their own market share."
Or
"Intel CEO's releases huge shares of the market to AMD in an attempt to get their long-time competitor labeled as a monopoly and consequently out of their hair."

Or did you have a different theory in mind?
If so, please explain because I'm not seeing it.
No insult intended, I just can't see where you're going with this one.

Pain is the realization of your own weakness.

ufo_warviper · Sep 7, 2003

An interesting theory Eden. I can see the headlines now:
"Intel, first large corporation in the history of the human race to use anti-monopolistic practices in an attempt to lower their own market share."
Or
"Intel CEO's releases huge shares of the market to AMD in an attempt to get their long-time competitor labeled as a monopoly and consequently out of their hair."

MUHAHAHAHHAHAHAH! :lol:

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!

pitsi · Sep 7, 2003

I thought A64 had SSE2 extentions.
Get back to me on that.

It has, but it seems from all the reviews of the Opteron (which has the same SSE2 extentions as the A64 will carry), that they do not perform as good as Intel's in SSE2 optimized apps.

eden · Sep 7, 2003

According to imgod2u, who has a point:
Since SSE2 is streaming all the time, that means you have a constant working pipeline. If A64 and P4s use one FP pipe for SSE2, then really, in the end, clock speed is the determining factor. That would explain why AMD needs a damn 2.6GHZ to start catching up in tasks that require pure clock speed as an end-result.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

eden · Sep 7, 2003

It's pretty simple, Intel is near monopolistic now, they are only dominating. If AMD goes, it's court time for them. They cannot afford to lose their number 1 competitor. That is why they are at a time where they simply will WANT and HOPE AMD can beat them this time, so they can continue competing, releasing better CPUs and keep the court off their backs.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

stealthbig · Sep 8, 2003

I dont know where you get this near monopolistic crap.. Not everyone (not most people for that matter) has the top of the line CPU out.. which is the only thign intel really wins at..

AMD vs INTel is nowhere near Microsoft vs (who???)

SJJM · Sep 8, 2003

Microsoft vs OS 10, Redhat, Unix, Sun, Sues, and etc. Eden is correct on his point. You really think that ms would make so many os and fixes if they where all by themself. They would not care, everyone would have 98 or me edtions still. Since ms is fighting to keep its share of the market above the other companies they make changes and do a lot of research in their software.

If you look now a days, you have a lot of people who are changing OS. People are learning more about linx, also you have Macs coming and trying to take more of the market.

"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him."

stealthbig · Sep 8, 2003

The who thing is a joke because 99% (and i dont know the exact number, but if you disagree at least show from proof of somethign otherwise) of all computers use some form of windows, some peopel cant even name a competitor. Intel has nowhere near the dominance on the CPU market that microsoft has on the OS market.

Edited by stealthbig on 09/07/03 08:07 PM.

eden · Sep 8, 2003

The reason why I say that, again, is because if Intel tramples AMD, you have about 10% or less remaining of the CPU market. Intel could squash those easily. Intel vs Apple, not much to say man, Apple depends on Intel while Intel has its own 13 fabs all to itself!

The x86 market is LARGELY comprised of AMD and Intel. AMD goes, you only have Intel available anywhere. That asks for monopoly anyday. If they wanted to then destroy VIA, it'd be pretty easy no? Intel already has a weapon, that's pretty old, the Ultra-Low Voltage Celery. Stronger than the C3, lower power consumption. They release it everywhere, VIA's CPU division goes down.

So what do you have to say now?

Not everyone (not most people for that matter) has the top of the line CPU out.. which is the only thign intel really wins at..

No offense but that was really pulled outta your backdoor was it?

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

stealthbig · Sep 8, 2003

Sorry, but if you want a nice budget and well performing PC, it's gonna be an AMD.

And Eden, you can't honestly believe Intel wants AMD to beat them out, and get a bigger portion of the market. AMD isn't going bankrupt anytime in the near future, and im sure the intel guys aren't wondering how they can give AMD the lead in the CPU market.

Edited by stealthbig on 09/07/03 10:56 PM.

castle · Sep 8, 2003

Why do you think AMD goes out of CPU business = Intel's court time? Monopoly itself is not illegal. Nobody can sue Intel being the only player just because AMD screws themselves.

HardWareBoss · Sep 8, 2003

The only way AMD gets out. Is when IBM buys them out.

Anand speaks of the HAMMERS POWER

Distinguished

Champion

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Distinguished

Champion

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Champion

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Share this page