Printable View
Along with the Mhz Myth, it goes both ways. People say that the XP is so much faster because it runs at a slower clock speed. The 2 processors cant be judged clock for clock, since their designs are so much different. Its better to just look at Intels fastest and AMD's fastest. Judging from the benckmarks Ive seen they are neck and neck. AMD pulls ahead in some applications and intel does the same in others.Quote:
Originally posted by Chronus:
whose core is running almost 600 Mhz slower!
First, why would AMD want to get t-bred to 4ghz? That would be totally pointless since hammer won't even be that fast. By the time NW is near 4ghz, then t-bred will be a memory. By that time, we will have some great hammers to do battle with and these should be getting close to 4ghz (in PR rating at least https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif). Also, if i am not mistaken, the t-bred won't have any additional pipeline stages, that will be with hammer. T-bred is a palomino shrunk to .13 micron with a couple added features (not sure what they will be but a 166fsb or 512kb cache would be great).Quote:
Originally posted by talldude:
There's a couple of flaws withing your argument. It has been shown that the current .18u atlon core has already a .13u gatelength implemented. The reduction in gatelength is probably the most signifficant improvement in providing more headroom for any given processor.
The Northwood has been shown to be able to reach 3Ghz rather easily. By the end of the year, that barrier will probably be broken. What does AMD have to counter that? I would seriously doubt that the tbred can scale to 2.3-4Ghz which it needs to stay competitive with the Northwood. Yet another advantage for the Northwood is increased L2 cache, which hasn't been confirmed for the tbred. They are believed to stick with 256kb L2.
In the future, programs are going to leave a larger footprint, this means L2 cache becomes more of a contributor for performance. Northwood will shine here.
Lastly, the Northwood has several core improvements over the Williamette:
Northwood:
512Kb L2
.13u copper interconnects
improved branch prediction
Willimette:
256Kb L2
.18u aluminum interconnects
while the tbred will essentially be a scaled down version of the XP with an extra 2 pipline stages. There are no confirmed reports of any other improvement for the core. The extra pipeline will help it to scale more but not signifficantly.
In the end, the Northwood will be the winner of the two. However...even if this battle is lost, the claw-hammer is just around the corner! https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
------------------
- Athlon XP 1700+ oced to 1650Mhz
- MSI K7T266-RAID
- 512mb pc2100 ddr crucial 2x256
- 30gb 75GXP
- HP 12x8x32 CD-RW
- Teac Floppy
- Cyclone 5000 from coolerguys.com 229cfm!!!
- Alpha PAL8045 w/sunon extreme 50cfm
- Radeon 64mb DDR
- SB Live! Value
i thought part of this was due to P4 shortage? (mobo manufacturers estimated they could have sold 20% more but because of shortages, no go. or something like that.Quote:
Originally posted by sapasion:
Well Q4 2001 sales show that the general public does seem to be either buying into AMD's PR labeling scheme or they flat out know what the benchmarks say. AMD captured a greater portion than ever before.
you might wanna read my comments again...i believe it says 2.3-4Ghz...or if you like 2.3 to 2.4Ghz. Sorry if I was unclear the first time https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/4.gifQuote:
Originally posted by chev1:
First, why would AMD want to get t-bred to 4ghz? That would be totally pointless since hammer won't even be that fast. By the time NW is near 4ghz, then t-bred will be a memory. By that time, we will have some great hammers to do battle with and these should be getting close to 4ghz (in PR rating at least https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif). Also, if i am not mistaken, the t-bred won't have any additional pipeline stages, that will be with hammer. T-bred is a palomino shrunk to .13 micron with a couple added features (not sure what they will be but a 166fsb or 512kb cache would be great).
------------------
squire of an OC Crusader
Abit SH6 (finally working :p)
p3 slot1 700@860mhz (cooled by alpha p3125)
Max OC to boot in windows 896 mhz
creative geforce 256 120@150 core 166@200 memory
soundblaster live platinum
2x 128 mb pc-100 ram cas2 (awesome stuff)
28.5GB barracuda ATA
creative CDRW 4x4x32
buffalo 11mbs wireless lan
SE Overclockers SETI@Home Team
Quote:
Originally posted by mellojoe:
For real. I bought a 32MB graphics card a while back. 32MB! Thats serious especially that its only been recent months where you can buy an OEM that sells anything but integrated with 8MB sharing. Heh.
Now people are complaing that their video cards, which have the power to render the movie Toy Storie in real time, aren't powerful enough. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/...2002/02/11.gif What the H3LL are they doing? Can I at least watch? https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/4.gif
That's a very good point! You could also make the same argument about cpu's. I mean what the hell are you doing that you have to have a cpu at 2.2ghz. I'm not an oc guy, but i understand the whole tuning up a pc as a hobby thing, but geeze maybe Intel and Amd should take a break and let software developers catch up. Or at least catch their breath. Just my opinion.
------------------
Sprawling on the fringes of the city.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sapasion:
Well Q4 2001 sales show that the general public does seem to be either buying into AMD's PR labeling scheme or they flat out know what the benchmarks say. AMD captured a greater portion than ever before.
[/QDo you have a link to product market share comparisons for these company's? I've been looking for a while with out much luck.
------------------
C900@1333 w/Alpha PAL6035----------------------C566@850
CUSL2-C------------------------------------------P2B-f
256MB Micron-------------------------------------256MB Micron
Elsa GF2MX 32MB----------------------------------Creative TNT2 Ultra
QuantumFB 20G ATA100/7200----------------------2X WD 13G ATA66
SBLIVE! Value-------------------------------------SBLIVE! Value
Well that makes a lot more sense then. Sorry i misread it.Quote:
Originally posted by talldude:
you might wanna read my comments again...i believe it says 2.3-4Ghz...or if you like 2.3 to 2.4Ghz. Sorry if I was unclear the first time https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/4.gif
------------------
- Athlon XP 1700+ oced to 1650Mhz
- MSI K7T266-RAID
- 512mb pc2100 ddr crucial 2x256
- 30gb 75GXP
- HP 12x8x32 CD-RW
- Teac Floppy
- Cyclone 5000 from coolerguys.com 229cfm!!!
- Alpha PAL8045 w/sunon extreme 50cfm
- Radeon 64mb DDR
- SB Live! Value
Coined the phrase Hammer time for the release time of AMD clawhammer and sledgehammer :)
I'm just hoping that the chipsets that all these new processors run on are going to be bug free and stable as a rock. Via chipsets for the atlons have had so many problems it's no wonder people would rather get a P4. Also via chipsets have bad pci bus problems that make using the new ata133 hard drives and raid difficult to use because the bus can't keep up.
Speed is great but having lockups and constantly having to reboot kinda slows even the fastest processor down.
DDR1200 and the faster rambus will be great but only if it's 100% stable with no compatibility problems.
Intel has the greatest chance of having the best chipset on the market; we will see if they screw it up or one up their old 440bx chipset by giving us something so stable and compatible that even our grandmothers can't screw up.
I've yet to find a computer that was 100% compatible with everything and problem free but I'm still hopefull that someday it might be possible.
------------------
ASUS CUV4X-C
Win 98 SE
PIII 1000mhz/133 FSB 148
Sony 21" G500 monitor
2 sticks 256K pc133 cas 2
Radeon 8500
Maxtor 7200 ata100 60 gig
ALS 4000 sound card
U.S. 56k modem
floppy & cd rom drive
ANTEC 601 case
ok. we all know that with the xp's quantispeed architecture, the IPC is 9, whereas the p4's is 6. is this also the case with the northwood core? (i'm no intel expert). another thing that i just don't understand: if intel can increase their operating frequency so much without increasing their IPC, why can't AMD just go ahead and do it? AMD state:
performance = IPCxFrequency
that's all well and true, but if they increase the frequency to the level that intel has, then they would whoop arse even more, not true? help me out here!
------------------
AMD K7 Duron 650mhz
Gigabyte GA-7ZM (KT133)
416mb pc-133 @ 100mhz
Geforce 2 mx200 64mb
30 gb Seagate IDE ATA66 7200rpm
+ 3.2 gb Seagate IDE ATA66 5400
3dmark 2000: 3200pts
to put it very simply, the P4 architecture is much more scalable (you can increase operating frequency more easily) than the athlon XP architecture. Many factors contribute to this...maybe a better post for high tech guys to handle https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gifQuote:
Originally posted by morphid:
ok. we all know that with the xp's quantispeed architecture, the IPC is 9, whereas the p4's is 6. is this also the case with the northwood core? (i'm no intel expert). another thing that i just don't understand: if intel can increase their operating frequency so much without increasing their IPC, why can't AMD just go ahead and do it? AMD state:
performance = IPCxFrequency
that's all well and true, but if they increase the frequency to the level that intel has, then they would whoop arse even more, not true? help me out here!
------------------
squire of an OC Crusader
Abit SH6 (finally working :p)
p3 slot1 700@860mhz (cooled by alpha p3125)
Max OC to boot in windows 896 mhz
creative geforce 256 120@150 core 166@200 memory
soundblaster live platinum
2x 128 mb pc-100 ram cas2 (awesome stuff)
28.5GB barracuda ATA
creative CDRW 4x4x32
buffalo 11mbs wireless lan
SE Overclockers SETI@Home Team
You don't have to be a high tech guy to answer that question! ( not that i am no high tech guy https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif )Quote:
Originally posted by talldude:
to put it very simply, the P4 architecture is much more scalable (you can increase operating frequency more easily) than the athlon XP architecture. Many factors contribute to this...maybe a better post for high tech guys to handle https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
Anyway it is rather simple: increasing frequency will increase heat output and that is something that is somewhat of a problem with CPU's unless you go with finer manufacturing methods like .13u or what amd will soon use : SOI Silicon On Insulator , these methods decrease heat output and icrease the frequency at which the chip can operate.
AMD now has the ability to relase faster chips but that way they would not have anything more to relase in the future so they phase their relase scehdule out so that they can release new CPU's over a long periond of time.
------------------
Aopen 300 Watt Case
Abit BE6
Celeron 1 Ghz + SK-6
256 MB CAS-2 RAM
Geforce 2 MX 400 32 MB
SoundBlaster Live
IBM 13 GB HD
LiteOn 24x10x40 CD-RW
Aopen 52X CDROM
No, you're wrong.
In some countries (according to CNBC market watch), such as Japan, AMD already possesses nearly 50 % of the market shares.
Worldwide, AMD is beginning to make INTEL chew its fingernails, with something like a 40% market share.
So I'd say it's not a marked domination. More like a trembling domination.
It seems AMD is on the right track. Let's hope it continues that way.
Chronus www.sim-news.com
Sim-News Contributing Editor
Quote:
Originally posted by CJ8879:
[B...
[/B]
AMD claims 25% of the desktop market, Intel claims high seventies for overall processor sales. The 40% number may be realistic or even low if you exclude tier 1 vendors like Dell, Compaq, IBM etc. AMD still has almost no sales in the largest segments of the desktop market. (Corporate, government, large OEM sales to consumers (like Dell) etc)Quote:
Originally posted by Chronus:
No, you're wrong.
Worldwide, AMD is beginning to make INTEL chew its fingernails, with something like a 40% market share.
------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
Performace = # of instructions in the code path/(IPC * MHz)Quote:
Originally posted by morphid:
ok. we all know that with the xp's quantispeed architecture, the IPC is 9, whereas the p4's is 6. is this also the case with the northwood core? (i'm no intel expert). another thing that i just don't understand: if intel can increase their operating frequency so much without increasing their IPC, why can't AMD just go ahead and do it? AMD state:
performance = IPCxFrequency
that's all well and true, but if they increase the frequency to the level that intel has, then they would whoop arse even more, not true? help me out here!
not
IPC * MHz
You do no that IPC has nothing to do with peek throughput right?
The numbers I have seen indicate that, on average, most X86 processors execute around 1 X86 or X87 instruction or around 1.5 micro-ops/risk ops per clock. Even the 486 was close to this mark.
This is what IPC is. You run a specific program, count the instructions that were executed and divide by the time in seconds. It has nothing to do with how many execution resources the processor has.
For a quick comparison, in one clock cycle, the AXP can theoretically execute:
3 Integer instructions
3 loads/stores
1 FP add or subtract
1 FP multiply or divide
1 FP load/store
The AXP has a semi dual ported L1, so it is really limited to 1 or sometimes 2 64-bit load/stores per clock, no matter what the internal execution resources seem capable of.
The P4 can execute
4 integer instructions
2 Integer load/stores
1 FP load/store
1 FP instruction (Add, subt, multiply, or divide.)
I forget whether SSE2 instructions can be mixed with X87 instructions, but I don’t think they can. With SSE2 this changes to
4 integer instructions
2 Integer load/stores
2 SSE2 load/store
4 single precision FP operations
or
2 Double precision FP operations
The P4 has a single ported 128-bit L1 access, so it is limited to a single 64-bit or a single 128-bit load/store per clock regardless of the throughput of the load store units.
(I was working from memory, and didn’t go back to data sheets to confirm these numbers. Some may be a little off, if they are please feel free to correct me on them.)
------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
Please incorporate the SSE-equivalent (3D Now! enhanced) to that "theoretical" capability of the AXP. It's easy to make these figures appear out of linear reasoning.
Chronus
PS: I will not explain it in detail as I don't remember the exact figures from AMD's papers. But feel free to object. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/6.gif
Quote:
Originally posted by Moridin:
...