800Mhz Clawhammer Benchmarks up - looks good.

[IIB]

<A HREF="http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/937/index.html" target="_new">Looky here</A>.

tested at 800Mhz.
the (only) Quake 3 Arena bech looks pretty good - 40% faster then Athlon MP on the same clockspeeds, on par with the a 1.6 Ghz willmate.

though we have to remeber that Quake 3 Arena is pretty memory dependent, Id expect Hammer to be litle less then 40% faster then Athlon Xp on most tasks, unless, Hammer lunches with more then the tested 256kb Cahce version...

This post is best viewed with common sense enabled

 

[FatBurger]

The Quake 3 benchmark shows about a 33% higher IPC than Athlon XP. No other benchmarks though, which is strange.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>

 

[IIB]

well, it seems as they were short on time...
anyway they did other benchmarks - Quake 3 is the only gameing benchmark though...

This post is best viewed with common sense enabled

 

[IIB]

its a bit more then 33%
135Fps (fastest mp score) * 1.33 = 179.55
Hammer score = 183.

its ~35% faster then the fastes athlon MP score.


This post is best viewed with common sense enabled<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by iib on 06/07/02 01:51 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[kief]

sweet!

Jesus saves, but Mario scores!!!

 

[labdog]

bump.

now im a tank, armoured against bs@dum.
<i>if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy

 

[labdog]

bump.

now im a tank, armoured against bs@dum.
<i>if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy

 

[eden]

What impresses me most, is that this thing isn't even complete, is at A0 stepping, AND is only 256KB cache. Imagine IF it will use 1MB, this thing at 800MHZ will then be able to compete the NWBs ratio-wise the same as it did with Willy 1.6, as in 2 less speed, more performance. It is about 64% stronger than a Willy 1.6GHZ, and with the future cache, and improved steppings, at 800MHZ it will continue to compete if compared to a 1.6B 533MHZ.

--
Meow

 

[FiL]

external clock is 200Mhz..... people say the FSB will be quad pumped, equivalent to a 800Mhz FSB...interesting?


or have i got something wrong here

 

[eden]

How can it be 200MHZ? It has no FSB from what I hear. This must be the mem, which would translate to 400MHZ DDR, but that still does not make sense too.

--
Meow

 

[eden]

I'd like to see Mat's reaction on this one!

--
Meow

 

[FiL]

i agree, I'm a little confused too, but there is a northbridge still, although there's not much for it to do?

perhaps the "external clock" reading of 200Mhz was a suprious reading, much like the programs thinking it was a Duron processor....

oh and the memory they used on the benchmark was DDR 333

 

[FUGGER]

"Pentium 4 Willamette 800 MHz: Intel's CPU pumps about as much performance from the fast RDRAM as the Clawhammer from DDR333-SDRAM"

I missed where they came up with 800Mhz P4, did they take figures for a 1600Mhz wilma and divide by 2? its listed a few times as 800Mhz P4.

You are limited to what your mind can perceive.

 

[lhgpoobaa]

the role of the northbridge has changed.

it is no longer involved with cpu <--> mem interactions.
the NB is for agp and the SB

<font color=blue>Pants Down! Turn Around! Bend Over! You're about to Experience Telstra broadband! :lol:

 

[FatBurger]

How can it be 200MHZ? It has no FSB from what I hear. This must be the mem, which would translate to 400MHZ DDR, but that still does not make sense too.

That makes sense to me. Or maybe it's reading the effective clock and it's PC1600? It's possible.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>

 

[SammyBoy]

I got the impression that they either divided by 2, or had an engineering sample that they knocked the multiplier in half. I seriously doubt that they cut the FSB in half, though if it's pro-AMD that much, it's possible.

Also, it is possible that they took a range of results from the whole Willy line and extrapolated.

Edit: They stated time and again that the P4 Willy is at 400Mhz FSB, so the cutting the FSB in half to get 800Mhz is not possible.

-SammyBoy

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by SammyBoy on 06/07/02 00:37 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[SammyBoy]

Hmm... the WCPUID seems to indicate that there is no FSB or clock multiplier, as those areas are ghosted. The only thing shown is the Internal Clock... plays into the horrible side-step that I posted earlier in AMDs FAQ about the FSB of the Hammer. Said something about how it would be unlike anything seen before, or something like that.

 

[Phelk]

~ AND is only 256KB cache. Imagine IF it will use 1MB ~

With the memory controller on-die there is not as much value in having a large L2 cache provided that the memory is actually physically close (as in path length) to the CPU.

It is actually better to have a moderate L2 cache (therefore reducing CPU heat) so you can crank up the Mhz or more importantly increase the memory access speed.

<font color=blue> The Opteration was a success... I'm now a full-wit</font color=blue>

 

[Matisaro]

MMMM nummy, exactly what was stated before give or take, 35% faster IPC on a process which will be able to scale even higher than the axp, looks good to me. A hammer@1.8ghz will be equal to an axp@2.435ghz, which is over pr rating 3000 I believe, by quite a bit, and the hammer will be able to scale to 2ghz+!

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[M_C_Hammer]

Is it possible (or likely) that quake 3 gives misleading results for the hammer? i hope it doesnt, but amd said that the hammer is 15% faster than athlon for 32bit applications (and a further 10% faster for 64bit).

I need a 1.5 Ghz Athlon + 512mb ddr ram to write emails......honestly

 

[FatBurger]

It's very possible, and it's odd that there was only one benchmark.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>

 

[Kemche]

I think you are right. Quake 3 is very memory intensive application and that's where willy P4 was beating the Athlon even when all the other benches shoed that Athlon was ahead. And I remember then that everyone just ignored the Q3 benchmark since it didn't prove anything.

Anyways, no matter what it's still a big preformance improvement for Hammer since 800Mhz can come on par with 1600Mhz willy.

KG

"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity." - Sarah Chambers

 

[zengeos]

Actually. I believe AMD said Hammer performance improvement per clock would be around 25-35% for 32 bit and 10-15% better than that for 64 bit.

So, the Quake performance bench is at the high end of the 25-35% improvement. That makessense too since that was one of Athlon's weak benches.


Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>

 

[eden]

Well just keep in mind all, per clock Quake 3 is still running better on Athlon. All the P4 is doing is beating it by big clock speeds, that is all really. Hammer just makes this move easier to compete now. Consider the 512-1MB cache in the future, and you got a killer NW too.

--
Meow

 

[Matisaro]

Consider the 512-1MB cache in the future, and you got a killer NW too.

Its a northwood killer now, 1.6ghz clawhammer=3.2ghz p4(from what weve seen here), add to that the fact it should scale well past 2ghz(it has more stages than the axp thus should be able to clock higher).

Also add the possible 1 mB cache and you get a bad ass mofo of a processor.

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark