Slashdot Mirror
AMD's New Venice Core Shows Overclocking Potential
Vigile writes "It looks like the new Venice core processors from AMD are going to offer more than just 90nm technology through the entire line up. According to this article on PC Perspective, it is going to offer a lot of headroom for future processors as the author was able to overclock their 2.0 GHz sample to 2.8 GHz! I think I hear an FX-61 calling my name!"
What real good does overclocking 2 to 2.8 really do? These cores keep getting faster and faster, yet the increase in number of floating-point operations per second achieved isn't really that spectacular. How about a more intelligent (parallel) architecture to begin with?
Take off every sig. For great justice.
Or were you just trolling for Intel?
Help fight continental drift.
gigahertz are a fairly useless comparison between different chip types. A 2.0 ghz AMD64 might run circles around your 2.8ghz P4, while a 1.5Ghz Pentium-M could go faster than an AMD XP 1800 without worries. Architectures make this happen. If a 2.0ghz AMD64 can go the same speed as a 2.8ghz P4, obviously the 2.0ghz AMD64 is running more instructions per megahert. This means, that each one counts for more. Thus, a .8ghz increase is a huge increase in speed. Imagine running a 2.0ghz P4. Not very fun, eh? Now, the difference between a 2.0ghz P4 and a 2.8Ghz P4 is smaller than the difference between a 2.0Ghz AMD64, and a 2.8Ghz version of the same exact chip. That is a huge speed increase!
Help Fight SPAM today!
Intel and AMD chips have completely different designs. In general, Intel chips are designed to blast through simple code very quickly (as Intel thought that's all chips would be doing by now), and AMD chips are designed to be able to handle branches and conditional code better. Also, current AMD chips have a memory controller on the chip itself rather than on a helper chip on the motherboard, which makes their memory access faster.
Before Intel hit the gHz wall, the strategy was actually working out pretty well. They were at a bit of a disandvantage in some areas, but for the most part the clock speeds were so high it didn't matter.
With the new Prescott core in Intel chips, they increased the penalty for branching in anticipation of still higher clock speeds. Those speeds never came, so they're at a disadvantage now.
At more or less the same time, AMD upgraded the memory interface of their chips, which improves performance in most areas in addition to helping them catch up with media stuff. At the same time they kept and in some cases improved their performance on branchy code. They avoided the gHz wall by improving performance without pumping clock speed.
I think Intel assumed Itanium would take over in areas that needed branchy code back when they comitted to the Pentium 4 design in the 90s. It arrived very late, and it turns out regular desktop users still need to deal with branchy code.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Not necessarily. A lot of CPU's fail testing at very high speeds but run with perfect stability at lower speeds. The CPU companies are profit driven, so they're happy to get some money for the CPU instead of throwing it.
Now, you can get yourself a cheaper CPU and overclock it, knowing it's probably capable of higher speeds, but there's a big risk of stability issues.
The current generations of CPU manufacturing process make very good error free batches compared to what it used to be like. So CPU's tend to work quite well at high speeds but still get badged down. That makes sense from a corporate perspective - if there is demand for a slower, cheaper CPU, you can sell into that market with higher specced CPU's. That just happens to be the way the market works.
The alternatives are untenable. It makes no sense for AMD to deliberately make a batch of CPU's specifically intended to be 2.0GHz when it costs the same as making a batch of 2.8GHz CPUs. AMD then has the *choice* of selling these CPUs at whatever speeds and prices the market demands.
Would the parent prefer than AMD make special 2GHz only CPU's to sell? Or perhaps AMD should instead only sell > $600 high end CPUs and not sell budget range CPUs at all?
This is the way the industry works. If you don't like it, feel free to go back to using transistors instead of IC's.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.