🚀 go-pugleaf

McGrandpa wrote:

> JK wrote:
> > McGrandpa wrote:
> >
> >> JK wrote:
> >>> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
> >>
> >> Yeah, a 64 bit processor beats a 32 bit processor by 18%.  I knew
> >> this one months ago, where you all been?
> >
> > The reason for the high score on the Athlon 64 is the on chip memory
> > controller and other enhancements, and the 64 bit ability. Those
> > benchmarks were done with 32 bit software.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> So, what's AMD gonna do when Intel releases a 64 bit processor?
> >
> > When 64 bit software is released, I expect the Athlon 64 chips  to
> > show
> > even greater leads over comparably priced Intel 64 bit processors.
> >
> >> Or
> >> perhaps they shouldn't so they can assist the competition in staying
> >> alive?   AMD simply hasn't built anything they can scale the clock up
> >
> > High clock speeds are a bad thing. They are associated with high power
> > consumption and hot chips. It is better to increase performance in
> > other ways if possible, such as using on chip memory controllers.
> > Notice that Intel is swiitching to model numbers for its processors.
> > I guess Intel will now
> > try to increase performance by other means than just ramping clock
> > speeds. The best chips are probably those that have the greatest
> > performance
> > per unit of power consumed, which probably translates to the best
> > performance per unit of clock speed. It looks like Intel has made some
> > progress with the Centrino, although its very high price seems to be
> > an issue.
> >
> >>
> >> in, so they spread the architecture out to 64 bits.  And they STILL
> >> can't scale the speed up in their hardware.
> >
> > The speed in terms of benchmarks is great. Clock speed tends to
> > correlate with high power consumption and hot chips, so knowledgeable
> > people will
> > tend to want a great performing chip with a low clock speed.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> This race is an Indy 500 in which the leader is forced to allow the
> >> 2nd place car to advance, to use a new engine in mid lap.  All in
> >> order for there to even be a race.
> >
> > Are you implying that the  P4 EE chips are like an aircraft engine
> > mounted on a car?  If someone can't get a car engine to compete well
> > enough against other car engines, then they take an aircraft
> > engine and mount it on a car.
>
> No.  I've been saying that transistor for transistor, the AMD core runs
> hotter at lower core speeds than Intels.

What counts is performance, price, and power consumption.
Notice the thermal design power of the Athlon 64 FX-53 is 89 watts,
while the P4 3.4 EE has a thermal design power of 109.6 or 102.9 watts.
http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm

Look at the other power consumption numbers.


> And that AMD, rather than work
> on that issue at mask level to *allow* use of higher clocks with lower
> temps, simply chose to spread into 64 bit.  And, as you say, use onboard
> memory controller.
> Intels Prescott die is 9 nanometer, AMD's 64 bit is 11.

Actually .13, however AMD has 90 nm chips scheduled
for October.

http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/

 What will Intel release in October?

> The technology
> exists to run at higher freqs

Clock speed means nothing. Performance is what counts. A centipede
may take many more steps per minute than a horse, however no sane
person would expect a centipede to run  faster than a horse.

> with lower temps.  Intel is still pushing
> that end and hasn't yet gone to running the same sort of functions that
> AMD uses now.  WHEN Intel does, they will have a similar level of
> performance per clock, and a much faster clock.

Is that why Intel delayed the 4ghz Pentium 4 until next year?

>
> And it bothers me that the 64 bit processor is outperforming the 32 bit
> processor by only 18%.  Even with running under a 32bit opsystem, I'd
> think that the AMD 64 should be performing some 30 to 40% faster.

Why? Running 64 bit software vs 32 bit software it might be 30-40% faster,
or even more than that. Running in 32 bit mode with a 32 bit OS, one shouldn't
expect huge differences, however an 18%(where did you get that number?)
decrease in run time might mean a chip that is worth 5x the slower one or more.



>
>
> My own chip is a 3.0E Prescott 800 fsb.  I saw the scores.  Mine is dead
> in the middle of everything.  That seemed reasonable for a $184 chip.

Is it, when a competator's $160 chip performs much better in most application ,
and has the ability to run 64 bit software thrown in as a free bonus? BTW, how
did you get it for $184? www.pricewatch.com  has the lowest price listed as
$205.
Are you in the PC business?

>
> The same day, I bought a Athlon 3200+, for $199.
> So who is selling the top AMD processors for $160?

$160 is for the Athlon 64 3000+. The 3200+ is around $210.

>  Nobody here in
> Houston, Texas is.
> McG.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> It's no secret, Intel has the die waiting.
> >
> >> And waiting.
> >>
> >> McG.