Slashdot Mirror
AMD Athlon 64 Performance Preview
k-hell writes "It seems like X-bit Labs have gotten their hands on an 'engineering sample of the AMD Athlon 64 2800+ processor'. Damage at Tech Report is writing that 'This is really fun, but I am a little concerned about their memory latency numbers.'"
On the picture of the chip, it's stamped "Copyright 2001".
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
'This is really fun, but I am a little concerned about their memory latency numbers.'
Note, this is not because they're bad numbers, but rather because the units aren't specified, and may be clock cycles, which wouldn't be a fair comparison to the other processors.
lemme sum up the article:
- WAHOO! CHECK dis shit OUT! we got an athlon 64 chipz0rz!
- it's beefcake, dood. memory controller insIIIIDE!
- we're just gonna test it with 32 bit shizzle.
- it's like, good at some things, not so good at others.
anyway, here's something to consider: the sample they tested is 2800+ per AMD's performance rating spec, and it runs at 1.6gHz. yeah. most of the tests and graphs n stuff show it running around the level of a P4@2.53gHz. alright, so it doesn't exactly match the P4@2.8gHz. but think about this:
it's running at 1.6gHz!
nevermind the fact that it doesn't squash the fastest P4 they tested it against into the ground. it's just amusing to see how good the architecture is of the A64. i dunno. i think it's pretty cool, anyway.
anyway, seriously speaking: what use is testing a processor touted as being a 32-bit compatible 64-bit chip, when _NO_ 64 bit apps were used in testing?!
"uh. well. it ran the 32 bit stuff fine. and uh. it didn't fry."
To add more fuel to the "its only an engineering sample", check out the date on the
processor itself.
Imagine, with nearly two years of time to improve on this piece of silicon just what is in store for the Clawhammer. Personally, i'm waiting for it so I can finally upgrade my Athlon 600.
I always get the shakes before a drop.
Why not? One of the supposed selling point for the Athlon 64 is that it will run 32-bit software equally well (unlike the Itanic). Also, at its introduction, there will not be that many 64-bit software available. Hence, it is important to look at its 32-bit performance so that you could decide whether to get it early (if the 32-but performance is good) or wait until more 64-bit software is available (if 32-bit performance is worse than current Athlon XP).
Where is the 1.6 ghz P4 in this?
That's irrelevant. The proper way to square off chips is based on money. In other words a $200 dollar chip should go head to head with another $200 dollar chip, and an $800 chip goes against another $800 chip.
That's the only way to get fair results that are independant of implementation details. Clock rate the chip runs at is an implementation detail. It's not important. What's important is WORK per DOLLAR. That's the only thing that matters. Period.
Uh, the Itanium 2 processor at 1GHz performs about as well as a 2.5GHz P4.
On 32-bit x86 code, which is what this benchmarking tested?
There won't be a cache difference either, the 64bit chips are word aligned to 64bits. They are optimized for that.
Generally no differnece at all between 64 and 32bit processors, as demonstrated by sparc and POWER/PowerPC.
True in general, but there's one more factor -- the x86-64 instruction set has more registers than x86-32.
They are from Russia, you got to cut them some slack. I've been pondering talking to Anna and offer some sort of proofreading service. Then again, my English ain't perfect :)