🚀 go-pugleaf

JK wrote:
> 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?

I don't think it's a P4.

>
>>
>> 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.

Anandtechs Doom3 CPU comparisons.

>
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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.

Pricewatch apparently doesn't 'do' Houston, Tx neighbor.
A local shop.  'Electronics Outlet', privately owned, run by owner.  I
buy most of my 'basic build' components there, cases, mobos, cpu's, ram.
Vid cards, hard drives, sound cards are better bought at the chains.
Much cheaper.
Another local shop with a website and pricelist has the same chip today
for quite a bit more, $269.

> Are you in the PC business?

Nope, not at all.  This is a hobby.  And there are a LOT of 'hobby
shops' around Houston.
I'm looking at all my local shops for any of the AMD 64 chips and mobos.
Nobody is stocking them, special order, and I can promise you the mobo
is not stocked right now, and the chip more than your $160.

Here is something from todays pricelist at BestComputerUSA, a local
privately owned 3 store business that specializes in keeping us
hobbyists happy:
{{these top two I paid $184 and $199 for respectively on 4th June at my
own fave local shop (Electronics Outlet) thats much closer to me}}
P4-478 3.0E/800fsb/1m  $269
Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2g  400fsb) $229
Athlon 64 bit 3000+  $249
Athlon 64 bit 3200+  $299
Athlon 64 bit 3400+  $479
Athlon 64 FX53        $829
These are all boxed retail, with cooling solution and full warranty.
BUT, what about the motherboards for these 64 bit chips?  I've asked
around for them, and there aren't that many yet.  Too new.  The Athlon
64 itself is in lots of shops.  Not a single one is under $200 anywhere
in Houston.  The lowest priced mobo for the AMD64 is an Asus and is
$179.

Care for a link?
http://www.bestcomputerusa.com/

>
>>
>> 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.

Still looking for who's selling them for those prices.

McG.

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