Archief - Core 2 Duo vs AM2

saikoboarder zei:

de quad core zie ik helemaal niet zitten. Lijkt mij een snelheidsjob gelijk de 8XX van intel. en iedereen kent de resulaten daarvan.
de FX kan mss nog wel iets worden. er waren al langer geruchten van een 3.2 of 3.4 90nm FX.
maar uberclocked gaat wss gepaard met veel watt verbruik. En de prijs van de FX reeks is ook nooit echt mals geweest.

Klik om te vergroten...

dat is ook juiste de bedoeling van AMD..

de Fx wordt omschreven als de ultieme gaming processor en hebbedingetje, voor mensne die net ietske apart willen hebben.

iets ala 911turbo, al is de turbo wat versleten

Willis zei:

dat is ook juiste de bedoeling van AMD..

de Fx wordt omschreven als de ultieme gaming processor en hebbedingetje, voor mensne die net ietske apart willen hebben.

iets ala 911turbo, al is de turbo wat versleten

Klik om te vergroten...

idd

de prijs zal ook stevig omlaag moeten dan denk ik want als de geruchten kloppen dat hij 5 tot 10% sneller zou moeten zijn dan is hij nog steeds langzamer of ongeveer zelfde niveau als een conroe van 500€

saikoboarder zei:

de prijs zal ook stevig omlaag moeten dan denk ik want als de geruchten kloppen dat hij 5 tot 10% sneller zou moeten zijn dan is hij nog steeds langzamer of ongeveer zelfde niveau als een conroe van 500€

Klik om te vergroten...

nope dan moete hem vergelijken met de high-end ook van de conroe zijnde de XE die 999$ zogezegd zal kosten......

er komt naar het schijnt geen XE conroe in het eerste stadium.
de standaard versies zouden sterk genoeg zijn.
pas als amd met een cpu komt die prijs/prestatie even goed of beter is zou de XE uitkomen.

X6800 is de XE
het enige "speciale" is dat je de multi kan wijzigen, voor de rest is er niets aan

er staan nogal wat conroes te koop
http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZgenedesign
ziet er wel fake uit

SMa zei:

X6800 is de XE
het enige "speciale" is dat je de multi kan wijzigen, voor de rest is er niets aan

Klik om te vergroten...

tuurlijk niet, zij het zo dat intel hun cpus zo danig wet te schikken dat hooogste in rang ook het hoogste zal clocken.
niks speciaal ...

met speciaal bedoel ik een grotere FSB, meer cache, ... enzovoort

SMa zei:

er staan nogal wat conroes te koop
http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQsassZgenedesign
ziet er wel fake uit

Klik om te vergroten...

der loopt nen thread over op XS, naart schijnt zijn ze echt
mja kijk nu naar die prijzen :doh:

komen van Malaysia ik wacht nog wel enkele weken

Xer0x zei:

der loopt nen thread over op XS, naart schijnt zijn ze echt
mja kijk nu naar die prijzen :doh:

Klik om te vergroten...

wat heb ik gezegd.... kijk naar mijn sig

vanaf 23juli zal ik elke dag een thread maken wat de gemiddelde leverbaarheid en prijs is in een tabelleke

info zegt overal genoeg....
veel vervroegen om toch maar iets in het nieuws te kunnen brengen, shows geven zoals in Munchen maar daar amper iets kunnen laten zien... de geleverde woodcrests zullen zelfs sowieso van R&D fabs komen. als ze het niet heet in het nieuws houden gaan ze sleche tijden hebben, (en hoe dan nog met ongelijke reviews en testen zoals op hun site) probleem van intel is headcount/oude stocks... wie koopt er nu een p4... nu kosten ze bijna niks, daarna nog minder en uiteindelijk totaal niks meer, dus restwaarde is "0". en de comentaar overal is... "ik wacht wel op de volgende core" (die dan ook maar een half preparaat is) goed in single thread en 32bit.. (superpi, meeste games) jaja wat brengt vista ons binnenkort... inderdaad full 64bit :doh:

enkel single thread, 32bit, ... ?
explain

zeker dat je niet verward met de low-end versie? core 2 solo?

hehe neenee toch effe niet, de gain die de core heeft is gewoon door de 4mb fast cache eens die moet verdelen en zelfs daarbuiten is hij niet sneller en zelfs trager op 64bit tov de K8

als ge eens wat degelijke data wil lezen: here it comes

oh en nog iets wie zegt jaja maar dit is woodcrest NEENEE de core structuur is bijna gelijk van yonah - merom - conroe - woodcrest daar zit juist hun groot probleem, ze hebben een laptop chip gemaakt (en zeker en vast een goeie, geen twijfel over, hoewel de X2 niet zoveel onder moet doen maar toch wel de mindere is (niet te vergeten van 90-65nm verschil)) en die gehyped naar desktop en server


More on Intel's Woodcrest performance claim fraud

Today, former Enron execs were found guilty on charges of fraud, false statements and conspiracy. Let's revisit Intel's Woodcrest performance claims. I pointed out that Intel's changing of the Opteron TPC-C benchmark description from 32 bit x86 to 64 bit x64 was a fraud.

Some of the readers said that Intel simply picked up the highest reported TPC-C results for two way servers, Woodcrest and Opteron, regardless of the operating system used. Let's test this assumption on other benchmarks. Let's look at floating point performance.

For SpecFP_rate_2000, the highest reported score for 2P 2.6GHZ Opteron 285 was 85 under Solaris 10. Guess what? Intel ignored this result, instead, it uses a lower Opteron result for Linux with a score of 72.9. The 3GHZ Woodcrest scored 83 under Linux. The 3GHZ Woodcrest (Linux) was 3% slower than 2.6GHZ Opteron (Solaris). Also, notice that Intel chose the SPECfp_rate_base2000 scores for comparison. The SPECfp_rate_base2000 is for conservative optmization of the benchmark, so it's always lower than the SPECFp_rate_2000 score. For some strange reason, the DELL 2950 Woodcrest server's optimized SPECfp_rate_2000 score was the same as the conservative SPECfp_rate_base2000 score, which may indicate that there were some issues with how the benchmark was done. Any way, Intel was shopping for the lowest Opteron scores. This clearly shows that Intel knew different configurations lead to different results. Had Intel chosen the highest score regardless of OS, the 2.6GHZ Opteron would outperform 3GHZ Woodcrest in SpecFP_rate_2000.

Let's look at another example: Intel's page on Java performance. Intel used an unpublished Woodcrest test result on a Fujitsu Siemens PRIMERGY server running Windows Server x64. But for Opteron, Intel decided to use the score from a Tyan S2895 server with two 2.6GHZ Opteron and a SATA drive, the score was only 54490. However, from www.spec.org, we can find a Fujitsu Siemens PRIMERGY server with two 2.4GHZ Opteron 280 (running Linux) scoring 61155. Again, Intel was shopping for the lowest Opteron scores.

Let's look yet another example: Intel's page on web performance. An IBM 3GHZ Woodcrest server got a SpecWeb2005 score of 9182. Mysteriously, there is no Opteron scores on this Intel page. However, going to www.spec.org, we quickly found this 2.4GHZ Opteron 280 server achieving a score of 8394. The 3GHZ Woodcrest has a 25% clockspeed advantage but only 9% performance lead over the 2.4GHZ Opteron. According to this report, the 3GHZ Woodcrest (Xeon 5160) will be the topmost chip, the next will be the 2.66GHZ Xeon 5150. According to this page, the 2.8GHZ Opteron x90 has been in the wild for quite a while now.

So why did Intel change the Opteron TPC-C description from x86 (32 bit) to x64 (b4 bit)?

The answer is obvious, to create a false impression that the two systems were running under similar conditions, and the only difference was the CPUs.

and again other data

Intel Woodcrest performance claim a fraud

Intel setup a web page showing TPC-C result of Woodcrest comparing to that of an Opteron. The 3GHZ Woodcrest server with 64GB FB-DIMM memory was running Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise x64 Edition, Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Enterprise x64 Edition. It achieved a score of 169,360 tpmC, $2.93/tpmC. The Woodcrest machine will be available by November 22, 2006.

In comparison, Intel gave the following details of an AMD system:
"Dual-Core AMD Opteron* Processor Model 285 based platform details: HP Proliant DL385 G1* server platform with two Dual-Core AMD Opteron* processor 2.60GHz, 32GB memory, Microsoft Windows Server* 2003 Enterprise x64 Edition, Microsoft SQL Server* 2005 Enterprise x64 Edition. Referenced as published at 113,628 tpmC; $2.99/tpmC; Availability Date as listed in the submitted report is May 5, 2006. Results at http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=106032001"

If you go to the executive summary of the HP DL385 at the TPC-C site, you can see that the Opteron machine was running Windows Server 2003 Enterprise x86 Edition SP1 and Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Enterprise (x86) Edition SP1. These are 32 bit versions of Windows Server 2003 and SQL server 2005. If you have any doubt on the OS and SQL server used, read the full disclosure of the DL385 TPC-C results. If it was a 64 bit OS, you would see information on Windows\SysWoW64\, but on the HP DL385 page, you only find Windows\System32\. So, the HP DL385 was running in very inefficient 32 bit PAE mode.

Why did Intel change x86 to x64 for the HP DL385 benchmark description? Let's first rule out the possibility that Intel did this accidentally. 86 and 64 are too distinctive from each other to be confused with one another.

If Intel told you that the Opteron result was actually from 32 bit, you would ask immediately: wait a minute, how about running Opteron in 64 bit and also with 64GB ram (instead of 32 GB PC2700 RAM)?

We know that Opteron performs 20-40% better in 64 bit mode -- which will immediately wipe out Intel's claimed performance lead. So, cunny Intel changed 86 to 64.

By changing x86 to x64 for the Opteron tests, Intel was trying to create an impression that it has a big lead over AMD under similar conditions. This is similar to Intel's previous acts of putting a faster harddrive in its own server and claiming its CPU is faster.

In fact, not only the Woodcrest was running 64 bit OS, it costs $158,000 or 47% more than the Opteron system. The Woodcrest system has 64GB RAM and 48 MSA 60 StorageWorks with 576 SAS drives at 15K RPM. The Opteron system has 32GB ram and 18 MSA 30 StorageWorks wtih 380 SCISI drives. There is a huge difference in storage performance between the two. TPC-C is a database benchmark. A database reads data from disk to memory and write data from memory to disk.

Independent results show Intel's Woodcrest 10% slower than Opteron at the same clock under 64 bit mode.

With new architecture, Intel will be four generations behind AMD

After three years of hard work, Intel seem have made a major improvement in its next generation Conroe/Merom CPUs: its implementation of AMD64 instruction set is looking good, unlike EM64T in Pentium 4, which is about 10-20% slower than 32 bit mode.

However, 64 bit was just one of the five disruptive technologies AMD introduced with Opteron. Intel's new architecture will still be four generations behind AMD.

An AMD CPU consists of two major functional parts: execution and communication. AMD CPUs have circuits for Core-Core communications (XBAR), Processor-Processor communications (ccHT), Processor-I/O communications (HT) and Processor-Memory communications (IMC). The communication channels are dedicated and separate from each other. Also, since these communication circuits run at CPU's clockspeed, they have very high performance and consume little power. The communication circuits are also very intelligent, for instance, ccHT establishes a single physical memory space from multiple memory banks controlled by different CPUs.

Intel CPUs have none of the above. In Intel architecture, all communications happen on an external shared bus controlled by an external chipset manufactured on 130nm process. The fastest future Intel bus has a bandwidth of 10.6GB/s, less than the bandwidth required for DDR2 800MHZ(12.8GB/s). If you add a couple of GbEs and SATAII drives to an Intel system, you are jamming the bus. When you add more Intel cores, you are choking the bus. An Intel quadcore system will be like an IBM XT connected to a 2400baud modem.

We expect AMD to continue to innovate on both execution and communication with its next generation processors.

en last but not least het statement van intel zelf: in the third quarter. All three variants will be shipping "in volume."

Santa Clara (CA) - Faced with increasing competitive pressure from AMD, Intel apparently has accelerated its launch schedule of its new Core microarchitecture. While Woodcrest, which will carry the Xeon 5100-series designation, was always scheduled for a Q3 introduction, chief executive Paul Otellini on Wednesday confirmed that the company will also be announcing the desktop processor "Conroe" (Core Duo E4000 and E6000 series) as well as the mobile CPU "Merom" (Core Duo T5000 and T7000 series) in the third quarter. All three variants will be shipping "in volume."

Sources previously indicated that especially Merom may see an October or possibly November launch. Conroe recently was also rumored to be slipping into October. Otellini indicated that Intel is gearing up for mass production of its Core architecture at this time; if Intel will be able to keep its Q3 promise, the company may be shipping Woodcrests, Conroes and Meroms for revenue as early as in June or July of this year.

In preparation of Core, Intel has to deal with rising inventory levels of 90 nm and also 65 nm processors. According to the company, already higher than usual inventory levels will continue to climb during Q2 and improve in Q3. The company now has three 65 nm factories online and mentioned that it will see more 65 nm than 90 nm wafer starts during this month. Despite increasing inventory levels, the company does not intend to slow its 65 nm chip production: "The 65 nm ramp and yields are on target. We are not slowing the process down. 65 nm is our future," said chief financial officer Andy Bryant during a conference call with analysts.

According to Otellini, Intel will be using the second quarter time frame to "reset" its business a lay the foundation for the launch of Core, which he described as "the most compelling product lineup in years." During 2007 he plans to thoroughly analyze and improve the overall efficiency of the company - a process that Intel has not seen in about 20 years.

and and again just can't stop posting today... (forum heeft toch nog genoeg space op hun opteron servers?????

INTEL to suffer severely from Osborne effect

Tech companies try to avoid pre-announcing products as much as possible, especially if current products will be end of lifed when the new ones come out. The Osborne effect gave a good lesson, purchases of current products may stop cold as customers wait for the next generation.

INTEL is hyping its Pentium-III based NGMA CPUs, including Merom mobile chip, Conroe desktop chip and Woodcrest server chip like crazy. What we have learnt so far:

*) The NGMA chips are designed for high performance and low power consumption instead of clockspeed

*) The NGMA chips perform 50% better than current IA32 chips (Pentium 4, Xeon, Core Duo)

*) The NGMA chips consumes maximum of 60 watts instead of the current 130 watts.

*) The NGMA chips are AMD64 and Windows Vista compatible, unlike the current IA32 chips

*) The NGMA chips require new chipsets and even new VRMs, they will not be compatible with current motherboards

*) The NGMA chips run at bus frequency of up to 1333MHZ, current IA32 CPUs can't run on NGMA motherboards

*) Current IA32 CPUs already hit the frequency ceiling, there won't be any upgrade path for current chips.

*) NGMA chips are expected in 3Q06, July 2006 the earliest, only 4 months away.

*) INTEL plans to convert 20% of its CPU production to NGMA by the end of 2006.

Needlessly to say, an informed INTEL customer will incline to hold off purchases as long as possible for the super duper NGMA, consequently, in the next four months before NGMA shows up in store, INTEL sales will definitely suffer a slow down.

Then at the time when NGMA arrives in stores, we run into an even bigger problem: because of limited availability, INTEL can't meet the demand, but nobody wants IA32 chips any more. It's just like Microsoft shipped a handful of Xbox360s ahead of PS3, then the thing quickly ran out of stock, and few want to buy the old Xbox with a Celeron inside. Microsoft doesn't care, because Xbox wasn't making money any way. But for INTEL, the situation is quite different.

Another major problem is that AMD has already prepared the next round of frags for INTEL. I bet both INTEL and AMD showed its roadmaps and next generation chips, yet Google decided to go AMD, that confirms my point that INTEL's NGMA is over promising. So when people can't get hold of NGMA due to availability, they will have no choice but choose AMD's Rev F.

AMD platform choices provide stability and continuity. Socket 754, 939, 940, AM2 platforms can all be upgraded, AMD keeps providing core revisions and clockspeed upgrades. For now, there is no motivation to wait for Socket AM2, as the Tomshardware tests showed that Socket AM2 version of the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ had identical performance as current Socket 939 ones -- AMD is careful to avoid the Osborne effect.

Once AMD and Intel move to quad-core in 1Q07, any enhancement made by Intel at the dual core level will be wiped out in a flash. Four Conroe cores sharing a 1333MHZ FSB will be worse than two Presler cores sharing a 800MHZ FSB. The 1333MHZ bus (10.6 GB/s) is not even fast enough to handle dual channel 800MHZ DDR2 (12.8GB/s), while the Rev F AM2 has a dedicated memory interface for 800MHZ DDR2 plus up to 3 hypertransport links with 8GB/s each. Furthermore, I expect AMD to increase AM2's clockspeed to up to 4GHZ using stress technology, leading to another round of GHZ war in 2007.

conroe = paperlaunch
dat zullen we eerst moeten zien.
conroe is nog redelijk ver en intel heeft toch een redelijk groot budget voor het maken en stocken van cpu's.
ook is er nog geen fatsoenlijke 64 bit OS dus echt testen kunnen we dat ook nog niet. En de architectuur van de core duo en de core2duo is toch redelijk verschillend als ge het mij vraagt.

Woodcrest is single core
Core 2 Duo is dual core

ik heb het snel eens overlezen en al veel gevonden waarvan het tegendeel makkelijk kan bewezen worden
vanaf lees ik het eens grondig

wat is je bron?

aangezien mijn engels niet ZO goed is om zulke toch wel complexe teksten volledig te begrijpen en dit bij andere mensen ook wel het geval gaat zijn heb ik het nu juist dat de conroe volgens de posts hierboven overroepen is?
dat hij enkel op papier snel gaat zijn?