AMD FX-62 vs Conroe

[ea6gka]

εχω να κανω μια σημαντικη αποκαλυψη....εθεαθη στο Village Park Ρεντη ο John-Dr σημερα το βραδυ με μπλουζιτσα που ελεγε μπροστα "Who cares for AM2..." και απο πισω "when you have Conroe!"

ηταν λοιπον ολα ενα ψεμα

[yanni]

ΠΡΟΔΟΤΗ!!!!

[ea6gka]

αστα αυτα , η ταινια ητανε καλη?

[dellman]

Χάλια ήταν

[ironraven]

η ταινία είχε γίνει mix με apple-intel e?

[steve_m]

Σωστος. Ο τροχος γυριζει, ετσι θα πηγαινει το πραμα, μια εδω μια εκει!

:118:αλλα για την ωρα JOIN THE DARKSIDE & FEEL THE POWER !! λεμε

"now you will experience the full power of the dark side"

[Cyber_Cookie]

Ξεφέυγετε λέμε...

The RAW power of the darkness has green glow ΛΕΜΕ!!! :118:

[squid]

.

κατι που βρηκα σημερα

"mid-end Intel E6600 "Conroe" 2.4 GHz CPU (due next month) against the just released flagship extreme edition AMD FX-62 CPU, I started wondering if AMD worst nightmare was coming true. Intel's ~$250 E6600 CPU annihilated AMD's ~$1000 Extreme Edition AM2 based FX-62!"

Συμφωνα με το αρθρο "Will AMD's fastest CPU be obsolete next month?" στο http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=240&tag=nl.e539

Eπισης απο το ιδιο αρθρο: "Intel's Conroe spanks AMD FX-62's botty - for real!!" http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5692&page=3

(και για να μην παρεξηγηθω, προσωπικα δεν ειμαι υποστηρικτης ουτε της Ιntel ουτε της ΑΜD, υποστηριζω οπως ειπωθηκε εδω οτι τα θεμα ειναι να πετυχαινουμε οσο το δυνατο πιο αντικειμενικη, πληρη και ανταποκρινομενη στην πραγματικοτητα εικονα - γνωση για οτι υπαρχει στην αγορα, και να μπορουμε να πετυχαινουμε να κανουμε αγορες με τον βελτιστο λογο μεγιστο τιμης / αποδοση και ακριβειας ανταποκρισης στις συγκεκριμενες αναγκες μας / επιυθμιες, οποιοι και εαν ειναι οι κατασκευαστες. Αυτη η ανθηση επιδοσεων και μειωμενων τιμων μονο καλο ειναι, η Ιntel αυτη τη στιγμη ειναι στριμωγμενη και επιτιθεται πολυ δυναμικα με προοπτικες να ανακαμψει, και η ΑΜD μετα την πορεια των τελευταιων χρονων πολυ πιθανο να εχει πλεον τα μεσα να ανταποκριθει και στην πτωση των τιμων (και της καταλωσης ρευματος) και την αυξηση των επιδοσεων, προσωπικα μου αρεσει περισσοτερο το μαυρο πρασινο ετσι απο βιτισιο, αλλα αν επαιρνα τωρα , αυτη τη στιγμη, υπολογιστη καινουριο δε βλεπω γιατι να μην ητανε Ιntel , οπως επισης μου αρεσει περισσοτερο η ΑΤΙ αλλα εχω nVidia γιατι τη στιγμη που εκανα την παρουσα αναβαθμιση η nV μου εκανε φθηνοτερα, αν και με μια μικρη υποχωρηση που ειναι ανεκτη, αυτα που προσωπικα ηθελα, κλπ κλπ)

.

[sakattack1442169065]

ομως το αρθρο αυτο λεει οτι το revG ειναι εκδοση 65nm χωρις αλλες βελτιωσεις (κατι σαν τους Winchester οταν πηγαν στα 90nm) και μαλιστα θα κυκλοφορησουν το Δεκεμβριο.

ή εχει αλλες βελτιωσεις που δεν προσεξα?

τελικα ισως η μεταβαση στα 65nm να δωσει την ευκαιρια και για κατι παραπανω που θα μειωσει την ψαλιδα

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32322

[kyr_soronas1442169136]

Η δική μου απορία είναι άλλη, και όποιος ξέρει από ηλεκτρονικά ας μου απαντήσει. Αν πάμε τον K8 όπως είναι από τα 90nm στα 65nm τι διαφορές μπορούμε να περιμένουμε; Ας υποθέσουμε ότι όλα τα άλλα, συχνότητες κλπ, παραμένουν ίδια.

αν γ΄κινουν τα πραπάνω που λές τότε με πολύ απλά λόγια θα έχουμε ένα επεξεργαστή που θα έχει περισσότερα τρανζίστορ με αποτέκλεσμα στην ίδια συχνότητα να εκτελεί περισσότερες εντολές οπότε αυξημένες επιδόσεις....επίσης...ΜΑΣ ΣΥΜΦΕΡΕΙ να πηγαίνει μια μπροστα η intel μια η AMD...μην είμαστε κολλημένοι με τις μάρκες...και οι δυο εταιρίες φτιάχνουν πολύ καλά προιόντα.:030: :054: :113: :020:

[tester21]

ΔΕΙΤΕ και αυτο: http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=71397

intel conroe dissected : gobsmacked

Recall Intel's Mooly Eden said Con-roe will be 20% faster than AMD's future chips without even knowing AMD's plans? During the Spring 2006 IDF, Intel setup a Conroe and an Athlon 64 box, then directed benchmarkers such as Anand to push buttons*, but peaking into Windows device manager of the alleged Conroe wasn't allowed.

During the IDF, I emailed various Intel execs, AMD execs and Anand, I pointed out that such a pre-arranged blackbox Intel setup against AMD was unfair and challenged Intel to lend the Conroe box to Anand for a real drill. However, Intel dared not to answer such a simple challenge based on the rules of fair competition. The INQ sharply criticised this kind of guerilla benchmarketing.

In fact, Anand had no way to verify Intel's IDF Conroe setup, the Conroe configuration parameters were provided by Intel. Anand noted that "it looked like Intel had done the unimaginable" with regard to the situation. Nonetheless, Anand assured readers that "there was nothing fishy going on with the benchmarks or the install" based on his trust on Intel's honesty -- which was seriously lacking from past records. Thus we had an interesting situation: Anand relied on Intel's reputation to validate the Conroe setup while Intel relied on Anand's reputation to validate the Conroe scores -- a loop of trust was formed to convince the world + dog.

Now, for the very first time, someone actually got hold of a Conroe chip in their own lab and did some tests. It was a 2.4GHZ Conroe (Link: CPU-Z) against an Athlon 64 overclocked to 2.8GHZ. The overclocked Athlon 64 had a 2.8/2.4 -1 = 16.7% clockspeed advantage.

The following results were obtained by running 32 bit ScienceMark binaries optimized for Intel Pentium:

Molecular Dynamics

A64: 1872.68

Conroe : 2133.38 -- 14% faster

Primordia (Energy calculations for 1 atom)

Athlon64: 1506.83 -- 10% faster

Conroe: 1365.85

Cryptography

Athlon64: 1345.05 -- 26.3% faster

Conroe: 1065.59

STREAM

Athlon64: 1512.55 -- 21.7% faster

Conroe: 1242.94

The above results were for an Athlon overclocked to 2.8GHZ and a Conroe at 2.4GHZ, with the Athlon having a 16.7% clockspeed advantage. For a direct comparision at the same clockspeed, we normalize the Conroe scores by taking into account the frequency difference. Assuming the best scenario in which Conroe scores scale linearly with clock speed, we multiply the Conroe scores by a factor of 2.8/2.4. Thus, with a 2.8GHZ Conroe, we would have

Molecular Dynamics

Athlon 64 2.8GHZ: 1872.68

Conroe 2.8GHZ : 2133.38 * 2.8/2.4 = 2489 -- 32.9% faster

Primordia (Atom)

Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1506.83

Conroe 2.8GHZ: 1365.85 * 2.8/2.4 = 1593.49 -- 5.7% faster

Cryptography

Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1345.05 -- 8.2% faster

Conroe 2.8GHZ: 1065.59 * 2.8/2.4

STREAM *

Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1512.55 -- 4.3% faster

Conroe 2.8GHZ: 1242.94 * 2.8/2.4 = 1450

ScienceMark is a strictly CPU/memory test, it doesn't involve video or disk I/O, it is basically a raw speed test. The ScienceMark is freely available from http://www.sciencemark.org/ for both Windows XP and Windows XP x64.

However, the above results showed a violent CPU performance fluctuation for Conroe, from it being 32% faster to being 8% slower. How can this be explained?

The cause of the Conroe performance fluctuations can't be the types of computation involved. We notice that MolDyn is a floating point computation while the Cipher is an integer computation. However, both MolDyn and Primordia are floating point calaculations on quantum mechanical properties of matter, yet, Conroe's Primodia performance is only 5.7% faster than Athlon 64, a 27% relative performance drop from MolDyn.

As we look deeper in the ScienceMark, we notice that in the default MolDyn benchmark setting, there are only 4 cells with a simple cubic lattice, no more than 32 molecules are involved. The program is basically tracking the momenta and positions of a handful of molecules and computing scattering effects. About 2MB to 4MB memory is needed. The Primodia calculation for a single Ag (silver) atom with 47 electrons needs just a bit more memory than MolDyn. However, both the Cipher and STREAM tests involve a lot more than 4MB.

The reason why Conroe did so well in the MolDyn test is simple: Conroe has a huge 4MB of unified cache, for such single threaded tests that can fit in 4MB*, Conroe can just run off the cache with very high speed. Since cache misses drastically reduce peformance, applications run off cache exhibit unrealistic performance numbers.

However, once you go over the 4MB limit, Conroe is slower than Athlon 64 at the same clock. Both the Cryptography and STREM tests use a lot more than 4MB, larger than Conroe's 4MB cache, and Conroe immediately falls below Athlon 64 on the performance curve.

I can bet on this: if one increases the number of cells in the MolDyn test to 9, thus increases the working set to larger than 4MB, Conroe will perform worse than Athlon 64 at the same clockspeed.

There is another set of results on Conroe and Athlon 64, showing Athlon 64 beating Conroe on WinRAR file compression at the same frequency.

Most games are also cache sensitive, increasing Athlon 64's cache by 512KB, you see up to 8% performance increase in FPS.

I have added a comparison between Clovertown(double Conroe) and Athlon 64 2800+.

The conclusion is: clock for clock, Athlon 64 will beat Conroe in real application environments that require a working set of larger than 4MB, or in other words, larger than Conroe's 4MB cache. This means in any real multi-tasking or server environment the Core architecture will be an underdog. Even worse, for Intel's shared cache architecture, cache thrashing is a distinct possibility under heavy loads.

Most modern applications need a lot more then 4MB. IE needs at least 50MB when viewing a normal web page(with Flash, JS, DHTML, AJAX..); Photo Editing apps need around 40MB; FireFox takes 23MB when I use it to view yahoo.com; DivX grabs 23MB even before I open a video...

Frankly, I am really disappointed by Intel's decisions. This gimmick of using 4MB cache to get unreasonably good scores on the most simplistic tests is cheap from design point of view but expensive for manufacturing. Mooly Eden kept talking about the 4 Meg cache in the technology analyst meeting, and promised to add even more cache, however, the 4MB cache is definitely eating a lot of die area and Intel's limited capacity. It is almost like using Netburst's ridiculous hyperpipeline to pump up GHZ at the expense of power consumption and real performance. I wouldn't accuse Intel of benchmark fraud, but people need to know the 4MB limitation of the Conroe.

So far, Athlon 64 is being tested under 32 bit mode with executables optimized for the Pentium. Athlon 64 gets 10-40% performance improvement running in 64 bit mode, a benchmark under Windows x64 or Windows Vista should show the real strength of AMD64 architecture.

As a test drive, I downloaded the 64 bit version of ScienceMark and ran it on my Athlon 64 2800+(Socket 754, 130nm, 512K L2, at 1.799GHZ stock frequency, with 1GB PC3200 DDR) under Windows XP x64. For the 64 bit MolDyn test, I got a score of 1479.12 ScienceMarks, almost 50% faster than the 32 bit result on the same old PC. I suspect that on a Socket 939 Rev E6 platform with SSE3 support, the 64 bit result will be even better. A reader submit the 64 bit result for a 2GHZ Athlon 64, you can view the result here.

AMD should work with benchmark creators to ensure that application benchmarks have a working set larger than the cache size of Conroe -- 4MB.

AMD's Rev F socket AM2 will be available for system builders on May 15, 2006. At 65nm, using Stress Memorization Technology co-developed with IBM, AMD will be able to increase clockspeed to 4GHZ. AMD is also working on Z-RAM, a SOI based technology that may increase cache density by 500%.

posted by Sharikou, Ph. D

[yanni]

Εγώ πάλι θα ξαναπροτείνω να περιμένουμε. Ο κάθε ένας τώρα μπορεί να κάνει τις αναλύσεις του. Αλλά αυτές λίγα θα μας πούνε τελικά, σε σχέση με αυτά που θα δούμε σε 1,5 μήνα.