PDA

View Full Version : Dual Core Athlon 64 X2



osxuser
23rd April 2005, 09:44 PM
I guess that everyone's heard that AMD has announced its dual core processor- athlon 64 x and a server version opteron 2** something. However it turned out that the price would be 50% higher for athlon 64 x2 and you would only be able to buy it in June, more likely next year :). Intel is about to announce it too if it hasn't (I don't really track them :) ) Looks like Apple is a bit late with dual core CPUs!!?? But looking at macrumors.com the due date for the new PM, iMac and other desktops is really soon, so maybe, maybe Apple is late officially but might make something up and start shipping before PC people do?? Any thoughts?

iSlayer
23rd April 2005, 09:48 PM
intel already announced thiers last week or the week before.
i wouldnt say apple are behind because there wont be many consumer systems using duals cores just yet.
the first lot of dual cores will be for servers and hardcre gamers

the_OM
23rd April 2005, 10:00 PM
Yeah, they target market is servers and gamers.
But in saying that, they new x86 offerings are pretty exciting. Intel's dual-core pentium clocks in at 3.2ghz, but they haven't announced anything on the Xeon side of things just yet (i think). But have dual dual-core Xeon's would be an absolutely killer machine (although you'd have to rob a bank to afford one)

Anyone know what the bus speeds are? Do g5's still have an advantage in that area?

decryption
23rd April 2005, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by the_OM@Apr 23 2005, 10:00 PM
Yeah, they target market is servers and gamers.
But in saying that, they new x86 offerings are pretty exciting. Intel's dual-core pentium clocks in at 3.2ghz, but they haven't announced anything on the Xeon side of things just yet (i think). But have dual dual-core Xeon's would be an absolutely killer machine (although you'd have to rob a bank to afford one)

Anyone know what the bus speeds are? Do g5's still have an advantage in that area?
The latest P4's have used a 1066MHz FSB for a while now :P

osxuser
23rd April 2005, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by the_OM@Apr 23 2005, 10:00 PM
Anyone know what the bus speeds are? Do g5's still have an advantage in that area?
I think they do, the top intel P4's front bus speed is 1066 Hz which they call it 'effective' speed, physically it is less, and AMD is cutching up - I think 1800 Hz and G5 2.5's bus speed is 1.25GHz, so yeah, AMD is better in this area. But G5 is the best processor anyway :)

X_RuLeZ
24th April 2005, 03:01 PM
AMD's offerings will be quite expensive for a while yet so people will continue to mainly buy the single core A64 or Sempron CPUs.

Intel is going to pricing their new dual core CPUs' very aggressively though; i.e. the price of a 3.2GHz dual core Pentium D will be the same as a regular 3.2GHz Pentium 4. It shows how serious Intel now is about this new strategy and is a good sign IMO, so in other words Intel is looking to eventually totally overhaul their Pentium 4 line to become dual core.

On the other hand though these new dual core Pentium D CPU's are at a rather large disadvantage technically to the Athlon64 X2; the AMD K8 platform was designed from the very beginning to be used in multiple core configuration, AMD has just been waiting for manufactuing processes to make it viable i.e. 90nm and eventually 65nm.

That is why AMD went with the onboard memory controllers in the K8; so each core can communicate directly with each other effectively without bottleneck, but with the new Pentium D CPUs' each core can only communicate with each other via the external 800MHz FSB (no 1066MHz FSB for the dual core Intel CPUs' as of yet) which means communication is limited to a theoretical 6.4GBps which is not great.

Also the other factor with Intel's dual core CPUs' is the fact that they will be limited to lower clockspeeds (600MHz gap right now) than their single core counterparts because of the huge heat that the P4 architecture creates, but with AMD their dual core solutions should be able to technically have the same clockspeeds as their single core solutions which will make their performance just as viable in single threaded applications.

Insanely
24th April 2005, 03:17 PM
What is dual core?


I never heard of it. I must be out of touch!

iSlayer
24th April 2005, 03:22 PM
1 processor with 2 cores.
so its essentially two cpu's in one

the_OM
24th April 2005, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Insanely@Apr 24 2005, 03:17 PM
What is dual core?


I never heard of it. I must be out of touch!
Almost like two processors, but its two processor cores on the one chip.

Edit: damn you islayer!! :D

Fear
24th April 2005, 04:11 PM
Front side buss speed on the amd 939 sockets cpus is 2000Mhz the socket 754 is 1600mhz.

all the dual core cpu's will be 2000mhz front side buss.

Plus amd's use Hypertransport witch imho is very efficent, well comparing my 3000+ 754 / Nofrce 3 250GB setup to my cousins P4 3gighrz / viapt800 setup.
(both 64 bit mem) and my system spanks it so hard in terms of feel of the speed and games :P

Looks like will be saving for a 939/dual core cpu setup soon :D

My blue and white rocks for photoshop / imovie / idvd / websurfing tho :)

geektechnu
24th April 2005, 07:07 PM
I'm sure there's some old x86 functionality that could be dumped to shorten the pipeline.

If we could somehow trick the PC community into adopting RISC processors...

X_RuLeZ
24th April 2005, 08:11 PM
These days x86 CPUs' such as the Athlon and Pentium are in actual fact really more RISC than CISC, a similar thing goes for the PowerPC platform i.e. the G4 and G5 are not totally RISC in the true sense either (look at Alti-Vec), all todays desktop chips are sort of hybrids.

In effect todays x86 processor translate macro-ops (i.e x86 CISC instructions) into micro-ops to be completed by todays more RISC like CPUs'. The RISC vs. CISC arguement was over a long time ago; RISC effectively won.

It is true that the current x86 fuctionality would have a performance overhead compared to a whole new system being designed to run on todays chips from scratch but that will never happen as ~90% of todays personal computers are x86; imagine how much work and money it would take.

BTW: I think some people are confused when they point out that the P4 FSB is not a true 800/1066MHz. I hate to tell you but the same thing goes for the G5 system bus (and the Athlon); they are all quad/double pumped and Intel is not the only computer/cpu maker that quote the 'effective' speed of their busses instead of the real frequency.

In actual fact a 1066MHz FSB P4 system would theoretically still have more memory bandwidth than a 2.5GHz G5 (1.25GHz FSB) system simply because the dual channel DDR400 of the G5 only has a theoretical thoughput of 6.4GBps whilst the P4 with dual channel DDR2 533 has a theoretical thoughput of 8.4GBps. Of course these numbers really mean little in real world performance.

Kildare
24th April 2005, 08:23 PM
Dual core processors are generally slower than the higher clocked single core options atm as most games (& software) are not multi-threaded & thus unable to take full advantage of dual core technology.

Good initial review of the Intel Pentium EE 840 here...
http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/revie...mlld19JRD0xMDg1 (http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD0xMDg1)
...pretty impressive as it has dual physical cores plus dual logical cores with HT.

AMD review here...
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397

The onboard memory controller is definately an advantage. As stated the HyperTransport bus is 2GHz.

After coming from a PC background & looking @ the G5 series it is definately a great processor but new & emerging x86 technologies are definately "better"

Undoubtablely Apple will shift to dual core options as the manufacturing limitations (speed / heat / process) effective the entire industry.

geektechnu
24th April 2005, 09:01 PM
I've been holding off on upgrading my AthlonXP 3000+ mostly due to heat.
Wonder how these new chips will be in this regard...

That's was just me resisting the urge to start planning an upgrade :P

X_RuLeZ
24th April 2005, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by geektechnu@Apr 24 2005, 09:01 PM
I've been holding off on upgrading my AthlonXP 3000+ mostly due to heat.
Wonder how these new chips will be in this regard...

That's was just me resisting the urge to start planning an upgrade :P
I would recommend waiting if you possibly can until the Athlon64 X2 CPUs' come down in price and are more common... their heat output will not be too bad and definiately not enough to hold of upgrading. Also they should not be slower in single threaded apps than their single core counterparts, they should be roughly the same because as I said before their clockspeed will be equal.

Now the dual core Pentium D CPUs' on the other hand are bloody hot chips hence the reason that the top of the line currently sits at 3.2GHz and probably will remain that way until they can improve their 90nm process slightly or perfect and move to 65nm. I think that the Pentium D is only an interim solution anyway until Intel eventually gets a newer architecture that is more efficient. Perhaps like dual core Pentium M with SSE3, a faster bus and a slightly longer pipeline... but who knows?

I must say that people seem to underestimate the usefulness of a dual core system even with only single-threaded apps; the ability to be able to effectively multitask is greatly improved even when running multiple single-threaded apps. For me that would be justification enough to upgrade my 3500+ to a dual core CPU... multitasking is one area the single core A64 CPUs' do not excel at, at about the only thing my "old" hyperthreaded 2.8GHz P4E beat my current system at.

the_OM
25th April 2005, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by Kildare@Apr 24 2005, 08:23 PM
Dual core processors are generally slower than the higher clocked single core options atm as most games (& software) are not multi-threaded & thus unable to take full advantage of dual core technology.
I thought that the dual-core chips have an on-board controller that effectively splits the instructions between each core and then gives an output, so that a dual-core can take advantage of any instruction without requiring any sort of special code like the way altivec operates?

I could be wrong, but that's the interpretation that I got from them.

X_RuLeZ
25th April 2005, 11:46 AM
No... for any one piece of software to effectively untilize both cores at once it needs to be multi-threaded exactly the same as if you were running it on a dual processor setup. Having one dual core CPU or two single core CPUs' is effectively the same thing when you are talking about how software has to be written.