Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

So is the AMD Better than The AMD?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 16, 2005 6:28:04 AM

Ok so I have seen the tests THG did comparing Intels new dual cores vs AMD's dual cores.... But how much better is the performance from the AMD FX compared to the new AMD 4800 Dual core? If the test is on THG can someone please link me to the article?
Thanks!

More about : amd amd

June 16, 2005 6:42:01 AM

I thought there was a downside to having the new dual core? Plus doesn't the FX run at 3.2Ghz and the new Dual core tops out at 2.8 or something? I'm probably completly wrong about this though.

= Pasca
June 16, 2005 6:45:23 AM

Quote:
I'm probably completly wrong about this though.


Correct. You're thinking about Intel's dualcore, but even then your information isn't completly accurate.

______________
<font color=green>NED AND MOZZARTUSM - REAL (P)RESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES</font color=green>
Related resources
June 16, 2005 6:55:46 AM

So then what do they run at?

I have been away from the PC industry for awile, (Mac) and im trying to figure this stuff out. I also thought that PC CPU's had broken 3.0 ghz forever ago... why has it suddenly topped out?

= Pasca
June 16, 2005 8:56:18 AM

-Intel can't clock their chips any higher because they're melting.
-AMD didn't need to clock their chips any higher because of the new cores which are faster with the same MHz

Both companies started using dual core and to limit heat output they can't clock much higher.
June 16, 2005 12:55:14 PM

Nothing to do with SOI. Without SOI they wouldn't be able to get as high as they are. It's all down to architecture.
The P4 was designed for high clock rates (hence the long pipelines, etc, etc).
AMD took the high torque low rev approach rather than the high rpm high power approach that intel took
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 16, 2005 1:05:23 PM

Well I dont think AMD could have scaled the k8 on 130nm SOI much over 2.6. You can argue its not the process but the architecture but its actually because of both. Any architechture will hit a wall somewhere. Maybe if the P4 (NorthWood core) could've gone to 4 ghz on 130nm SOI but not much further it still would have hit a wall.

So I think wusy ment that AMD's process couldnt bring them much more mhz than now because as we know thermals are not as big of a deal to AMD...

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, Leadtek FX5900 w/ FX5950U bios@500/1000, 2X30gig Raid0
June 16, 2005 2:09:04 PM

Isn't the FX55 at 2.6, and the FX53 is also at 2.6. The difference I beleive is the FSB. 1600FX55, and the FX53 has 2000. Correct me if im wrong.

ASUS A8V DELUXE
PLEXTOR PX-716SA
AMD 64 +3200
(4) 512MB XMS CORSAIR PC3200 400 MHZ
BFG 6800 GEFORCE ULTRA OC (AGP)
(2) 74GB RAPTORS
(1) WD 120GB
Tsunami Dream Case
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 16, 2005 2:16:15 PM

I beleive you wrong...1st its not FSB but HT link. And i beleive benchmark showed little to no increase in the HT speed over 1000. Thats was a while ago I dont know whats the status. Also dual core might make a better usage of the HT link.(anyone?)
The difference is a 200mhz increment...
FX-53: 2.4ghz
FX-55:2.6ghz



Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, Leadtek FX5900 w/ FX5950U bios@500/1000, 2X30gig Raid0
June 16, 2005 2:29:33 PM

Ok

ASUS A8V DELUXE
PLEXTOR PX-716SA
AMD 64 +3200
(4) 512MB XMS CORSAIR PC3200 400 MHZ
BFG 6800 GEFORCE ULTRA OC (AGP)
(2) 74GB RAPTORS
(1) WD 120GB
Tsunami Dream Case
June 16, 2005 3:06:14 PM

The top AMD X2 runs at 2.4ghz, the FX55 runs at 2.6ghz. The X2 has 2 cores that can process 2 threads/processes at the same time, the FX55 is 200mhz faster. Which is better depends on what you are doing (multi-tasking or single-tasking essentially).

Mike.
June 16, 2005 3:07:21 PM

FX55 = 2.6ghz
FX53 = 2.4ghz

Mike.
June 16, 2005 3:10:46 PM

Wow, so this goes pretty deep then. If were hitting all of these celings whats after dual core to make these things work harder than they already are?

= Pasca
June 16, 2005 3:10:59 PM

Oh, you posted the fx55/53 speeds... oops. :eek: 

HT was designed to handle negotiation in multi-core/multi-cpu situations, so it actually puts a nice fast bus to negotiate traffic between the CPU(s) and memory. I guess to answer your question... yes, inter CPU communication (cache snooping, etc.) will make good use of the HT bus. (I'm saying it 'backwards' technically, but I think you get the idea)

Mike.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 16, 2005 3:18:21 PM

Ya i kinda knew that(but it still clarifies). I rember reading that AMD planned their K8 to be dual core from the start. And that the crossbar was getting almost no work and that in the dual core it would be used to its potential. My question was more: does 1ghz vs 2ghz or whatever speed HT link will make a diffenrence? Cuz I rember it didnt change much with dual core even with the (if I rember correctly) nf3 150(?) that only had HT800 back then.

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, Leadtek FX5900 w/ FX5950U bios@500/1000, 2X30gig Raid0
June 16, 2005 4:09:14 PM

I don't know what kind of load dual cores put on HT, but extrapolating from single-core facts leads me to think it will take a quad-core CPU to fully utilize a 1000mhz HTT link. And I doubt that will be truly saturated unless memory bandwidth is increased...

This is a completely wild assumption however. I don't know or have any knowledge on how much bandwidth inter-cpu communications use, though it doesn't seem like it would bet that much...

Mike.
June 16, 2005 4:47:22 PM

Quote:
it will take a quad-core CPU to fully utilize a 1000mhz HTT link.

HTT link is not needed for CPU to CPU communication in multi core systems, it is needed in communications between CPU's that have their own socket, and for system I/O (HDD, GFX etc.)
Quote:
Wow, so this goes pretty deep then. <b>If were hitting all of these celings</b> whats after dual core to make these things work harder than they already are?

= Pasca

Intel is going to release 3.4-3.6Ghz dual core CPU's in 2006 (single now 3.8Ghz).

But AMD is going to release 3.2Ghz X2 in 2006 (single now 2.6).

So i would say that Intel has hit the sealing, not AMD.

<font color=red>"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
- Albert Einstein</font color=red>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 16, 2005 5:12:46 PM

Yah judging from this your right
<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athl..." target="_new">Click!</A>
It seams to go directly thru the crossbar to communicate with each other
DIfferent and much ore elegant than intel's design
<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050405/pentium_d-02.h..." target="_new">Click!</A>
because this way it has too use the FSB to communicate.
Nevertheless it will still use the HT link more because 2 cores instead of one will want to talk with the "outside"

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, Leadtek FX5900 w/ FX5950U bios@500/1000, 2X30gig Raid0
June 16, 2005 7:00:22 PM

Thx for correction/clarification.

In that case, it appears HTT is going to be underutilized for a while on single-socket systems, even in the case of 4- or 8-core CPUs.

Mike.
!