Comparing Northwood to AthlonXPs, not accurate?

[eden]

I have been thinking about this: If AMD's cycle of new AthlonXPs are 60mhz increments or so, while Northwood is released it means AXP is still not going to be at 2.2ghz. And this means that it is still not the helping hand here if we're to compare a new 2.2ghz processor to one with 1.8ghz. The only time it would count, is if AXP 1.8ghz is still beating the NW. If not, then the benchmark is useless, as we are comparing and going back to MHZ debates where the lower one loses!
How will we compare them to know which really is working at its MHZ assigned? Will we have to underclock NW just to see results? If not, then it is normal that it beats an AXP because it's more MHZ and pumped more per clock cycle. Hopefully we will straighten this out.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 11/09/01 06:43 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[AMD_Man]

The cache will not fix everything. Even with 512KB cache and a better FPU, the Northwood will be slower than an Athlon XP (per clock, in some cases) because it has a longer pipeline.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by AMD_Man on 11/09/01 08:29 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[somerandomguy]

I will compare dollar for dollar anything available at the time. Not clock for clock.

"Ignorance is bliss, but I tend to get screwed over."

 

[juin]

Clock per clock dont not exciste.Cease that like AMD is king beacause it have a higher IPC.

Wisdom dont come with time
Meilleur chance la prochaine fois

 

[FUGGER]

"the Northwood will be slower than an Athlon XP (per clock) because it has a longer pipeline." - false statement.

Will have to bench 1.6Ghz Northwood against PR1900 XP (PR1600 wouldnt be fair at all), your guessing/speculating is a waste of bandwidth.

Do you have a northwood w/ benchmarks or link to back that up? I didnt think so... P4 nw smokes the XP, I dont even consider the XP as a contender anymore with its poor stability, god forbid you put XP's into production/mission critical machines.

 

[FUGGER]

"what I'm going to show you today is the version of our Northwood 0.13-micron technology, and this is the first version of the processor anywhere outside the fab. So why don't we put up to the big screens the output here, and we're running at 3.5 GHz. So we've not only met, but exceeded your expectations and have delivered 3.5 GHz." -August 2001

Basicly, AMD is getting left in the dust and not soon enough. AMD will not have the .13micron fab changes done till 4Q 2002 (yay)

I love our samples that OC far beyond anything in .18 micron. kinda sick getting 30% overclock from early samples. As we are already finding northwoods runing over 3Ghz overseas now (those who dont give a rats ass about NDA's). whine all you want about per clock but its not gonna be a fair fight anymore at comperable clock speeds. PR rating hurts AMD in that reguards, they should have stuck with pure Mhz rating and they would have held some gound in the low end (sub 2Ghz) arena in 2002.

 

[Kelledin]

As we are already finding northwoods runing over 3Ghz overseas now (those who dont give a rats ass about NDA's). whine all you want about per clock but its not gonna be a fair fight anymore at comperable clock speeds.

1) It currently isn't a fair fight at equivalent clockspeeds. It isn't even a fair fight at PR ratings vs Intel clockspeeds. The Athlon XP wins almost every time, and you've never been able to admit that. :lol:

Unless the Northwood 2.2GHz performs like a Willamette 2.6GHz, the Athlon XP will still be in the lead, even with a 200 "PR point" handicap.

2) Show benchmark linkage? The closest thing we have to a Northwood benchmark shows an October engineering sample with its FPU and ALU performing like nothing more than a clock-speed-increased Willamette with twice the cache. It still doesn't cut it against the Athlon XP.

3) You still can't provide any proof of AMD instability. You gave us one incompatibility that may very well be crappy software. You have what you say are personal experiences, but so do we. A lot of us have personally experienced that AMDs are rock solid.

AMD will not have the .13micron fab changes done till 4Q 2002

That must be why Intel says parts of the AthlonXP are already 0.13micron.

Oops. :lol:

Kelledin
<A HREF="http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/" target="_new">LFS</A>: "You don't eat or sleep or mow the lawn; you just hack your distro all day long."

 

[AMD_Man]

The cache cannot fix everything Fugger. It is a FACT! If cache was key then why is the G4 faster than the Athlon and P4 per clock when it has less cache than the Athlon (correct me if I'm wrong, not including L3 cache).

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor

 

[Matisaro]

AMD wont have its dresden fab 100% .13 micron till q402 yes, but the thoroughbred is coming early q202, right about the same time northwood is launching. More FFF from fugger.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~

 

[juin]

That thry try get realistic Q3 is


Non plausible fait la traduction si tu veux

Wisdom dont come with time
Meilleur chance la prochaine fois

 

[bront]

Do you have a northwood w/ benchmarks or link to back that up? I didnt think so... P4 nw smokes the XP

Do you have benchmarks and links to back up your statement?

We'll just have to wonder till it comes out.

Chesnuts roasting on an open CPU
Bill Gates nipping at your wallet

 

[Matisaro]

I dont understand what you meant juin, but if you meant that q3 is more realistic for the release of the thorooughbred, AMD has said that the begining of q2 is when they will release. Dresden has .13 tools working in their fab as we speak, intel is even accusing them of already having .13 micron technology in their chips already.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~

 

[Atolsammeek]

Hay guys If he had the Bench Marks. Dont You think he do the same thing. He did on his own computer? Marked them so it would make them Look good. Remember he a Fourm Lier.

 

[Matisaro]

::wouldnt trust benchmarks from fugger ever::


It would be amusing to see what he comes up with however.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~

 

[eden]

So in conclusion what people? So far I haven't really got a concrete answer.

 

[lhgpoobaa]

question: does fugger work for intel now?
the phrases he uses suggests so.

tizz all moot point anyway.
very difficult to compare them chip to chip

they use different motherboards, archetectures and types of ram.

im not even sure how comparable the KT-266A and the P4X-266 is... is the P4X derived from KT266 or KT266A tech?

OEMs selling "High End"PCs with integrated video will be forced into Q3tournaments using a TNT2M64!

 

[jlbigguy]

<font color=blue>"::wouldnt trust benchmarks from fugger ever::
It would be amusing to see what he comes up with however."</font color=blue>

All Fugger will come up with are his

<b>Fabricated Fugger Facts (FFF for short)</b>

Then he will throw a tantrum, and start personal attacks.


<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>

 

[Guest]

>Basicly, AMD is getting left in the dust

Funny.. it has been over a year that intel fan boys keep saying AMD will be left in the dust when P4/Northwood/SSE2 optimized apps /Itanium / blablabla come out. Still, when ever I check any reputable website, they all show AMD products to outperform anything intel has to offer.

Not that any of the fuggers/meltdowns/etc acknowledges the fact that AMD is the performance leader today.. as well as the value leader.

>they should have stuck with pure Mhz rating and they would
>have held some gound in the low end (sub 2Ghz) arena in
>2002.

This sub 2 Ghz "low end" is so low end, Intel currently has *nothing* that can outperform it. So, a current 2 Ghz P4 is lower than low end. Pretty expensive low end if you ask me...

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[charliec2uk]

Complete bollocks.

Itanium is the worlds fastest individual processor in FPU operations, roundly troucing the Althon and I'm confident the Hammer will also leave with its tail betwixt its legs after a show down with itanium in 64 bit apps.

Next you will say that pitting 64 chip against a 32 bit one is an unfair test, however you did say and I quote "AMD products out perfrom anything Intel has offer". Clearly this is not the case.
So the moral of this cautionary tail is don;t make sweeping statements. BTW if you call me a troll, you will bethe worst hippocrit in the history of the world. So there.

Did you know there never was there ever a cat so clever as magical Mr. Mistoffeles? <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by charliec2uk on 11/12/01 03:29 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Guest]

>Itanium is the worlds fastest individual processor in FPU operations

You'll be hard pressed to find any usefull applications that can demonstrate that.. Of course, I know its a very young platform, and there is very little OS /Apps support, but so far, Itanium performance has not really been impressive, other than in one or two very specific becnhmarks (like the SSL thing).. perhaps you can provide me some links to convince me of the opposite ? (dont gimme Spec.. thats more of a compiler benchmark than anything else. And if you insist on spec, make sure you include the IBM Power4).

>Next you will say that pitting 64 chip against a 32 bit
>one is an unfair test, however you did say and I
>quote "AMD products out perfrom anything Intel has offer".
>Clearly this is not the case.

Its perfectly fine by to compare a 64 bit cpu to a 32 bit performance wise. Rather, its the word performance that should be refined. By perfomance I mean how fast actual programs that are sold and used run on available platforms. For me that includes general office apps, databases, 3D rendering, games, video encoding, .. that sort of stuff. I dont run Spec.. do you ?

That being said, I think we all agree Itanium is not really a competitor to the AXP or vice versa. Considering its price, the effort to develop on it, the power requirements, etc.. God forbit it would *not* be faster than a cheapo $200 cpu.

btw, Compaq recently stopped all Itanium deliveries because of a bug in the cpu (cf the inquierer). Though I suppose that is to be expected with a completely new platform, it doesnt look good..

Regardless. I dont think Itanium is currently a cpu considered by anyone on this forum. I see it more as a "beta" chip for developpers.

>I'm confident the Hammer will also leave with its tail
>betwixt its legs after a show down with itanium in 64 bit
>apps.

We'll just have to wait and see. If have no idea.. I just think it will be hard to compare both platforms, as they wont run the same software. Given the very different nature of the VLIW (oops.. EPIC) core of the Itanium, Im sure there will be some specific applications that run (much) faster on Itanium than on anything else (probably including Power4 and others). But I really dont see it as a general purpose computing architecture that runs everything reasonably well. I think Hammer will do this. But thats all speculation, we'll see.

>BTW if you call me a troll..

Nah.. I'll keep that to the Fuggers and Meltdowns of this forum for now.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[Crashman]

It's gang up on fugger day! Ok, my turn my turn!

What about branch mispredictions caused by the 20-stage deep pipeline? Don't they become even MORE of a hinderance as clock speed increases?

Back to you Tom...

 

[girish]

The point!

Not just branch mispredictions, but routine code switches as well. On a GUI OS like windows where everything is timed, can the processor predict a task switch? and that happens too often. okay may not be too often when you consider the speed, but within the code there are too many branches and loops that are mispredicted the first time and the last time. there are data contentions only larger cache could help.

All this reflects in the poor performance of the P4! Its for real and everybody can see it on the charts. 20 stage, boy its too deep!

girish

<font color=red>No system is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>

 

[Crashman]

But that's the responsibility of L1, does the Northwood have more L1?

Back to you Tom...

 

[FUGGER]

Bbaeyens: There is tons of usefull 64bit apps now. you obviously are clueless, dont know where to look, and have no use for. most of you never seen 64bit let alone built one (wtg on brilliant observation).

Girish, you are much smarter than Intel engineers, Microsoft engineers, and like god. Why didnt you make a procesor yet with all your insight and knowledge? Ooops I guess I mispredicted that one huh?

Go speculate more on the performace of the hammer, and brag how well it will zero extend 32 bit code by the end of next year.

After northwood release, the PR rating will have less value. clock/clock northwood hurts the PR rating by 15~25%.

Granted northwood will be unaccesable by most of you cheap ass losers. but hey, what else can you bitch about?

Crashman, no, faster clocks are reuired for 20 stage pipeling.

 

[charliec2uk]

Why? Surely a higher pipeline frequency will just mean that bubbles get flushed out more quickly. At the end of the day, all these problems as more real estate is given over to cache etc. and the clock speed scales, making these little glitches less important.

Thats what I think anyway. Oh, I can't think of a good sig, inspiration welcome.

Charlie

Did you know there never was there ever a cat so clever as magical Mr. Mistoffeles?