Slashdot Mirror
Core Duo Reaches the Desktop
rtt writes "AMD has long reigned the desktop CPU market due to Intel's offerings struggling to keep up in terms of performance and power consumption.
Yonah is the predecessor to the Core architecture and is predominantly a mobile chip, and is used at the heart of Intel's Viiv technology. Bit-tech has an article about Yonah beating the top of the range desktop AMD chip, the FX60, clock for clock. From the article" 'When Yonah is running at the same clock speed as AMD's Athlon 64 FX-60, we found that it beat it into a corner in just about every situation.'"
I'm sure AMD would beg to differ.
For more information, click here.
Apple is aready using the Intel Core Duo T2500 in the iMac, and the Core Duo and Core Solo in the Mac mini.
Based on these and other benchmarks it would appear that Merom ("Core 2 Duo", the next generation portable processor, Conroe (the next generation desktop/workstation processor), and Woodcrest (the next generation workstation/server processor) will have quite a bit to offer.
mp3 encoding and other floating point workloads are quite common. AMD wins hands down there.
When it supports AMD64 instruction set, it will be worth a look. Until then who cares?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
"When Yonah is running at the same clock speed as AMD's Athlon 64 FX-60, we found that it beat it into a corner in just about every situation." If this is true, it would be the first time intel made anything better than amd. But in the end, all that matters is that AMD's $200 chip outperforms intel's $200 chip.
So does this thing come with a TCPA trusted computing module / treacherous computing module / terrorist computing module, or not? It seems to be almost impossible to figure out which computers these days do and don't have TPM...
Core Duo has been available in a desktop machine for months. They are standard in every iMac.
I think they go just a bit overboard in saying that Yonah beats the FX-60 "into a corner".. Most benchmarks had it either infront or behind by around 2-3%. Is it really worth forking out a few hundred dollars for such a dismal gain in performance? Does it have better performance-per-watt? That's what really seems to count these days anyway.
Will program for karma.
From TFA:
Core Duo solves a lot of the short comings, but there is one major feature omission from Yonah's architecture: it doesn't support Intel's EM64T 64-bit extensions
and later:
The lack of 64-bit extensions may be a worry for some, as will the poor FPU performance - the latter showed up in our MP3 encoding test.
So if you are doing anything with a 64-bit, high memory, or FPU requirement, AMD still wins.
I don't understand the articles' conclusions.
1 845&page=2 , it is possible to run the Athlon X2 4800+ at 3.14 ghz , which is a 30% overclock, albeit with a very serious cooling solution. I'm wagering that at that speed it would flatten the overclock Core Duo, especially if you permit 64-bit optimizations, which DO noticeably increase speed on several programs in Linux. Please don't whine about not having a 64-bit OS; those of us in the Linux world can choose 64-bit or 32-bit at will.
Athlon X2 4800+ stock > Core Duo at stock clocks, in 32-bit mode.
Athlon X2 4800+ stock Core Duo at stock, in 32-bit mode.
Athlon FX-60 stock http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=
Now, I'll admit that the Intel's Performance per Watt is significantly better. But it ain't faster.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
As near as I can determine from reading the article, it proves that a Core Duo *slightly* outperforms an Athlon 64 XP2 when doing heavy number crunching with a 32-bit Windows application.
Comparing the same application build for 64-bit on Linux vs. 32-bit on Linux (or BSD) would have been a far more meaningful comparison.
AKA Core 2 Duo. Not sure on offical launch date, November I think. At any rate it's their high performance chip based on the Core design, targeted at desktops. Faster and has EMT64 (Intel's name for the x86 64-bit extensions). Limited testing on it at this point, since it's still engineering samples only, but AnandTech found it to be about 10-30% faster than a 2.8GHz Athlon X2 (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=1) .
First, I would hardly say it is beating it. The numbers are all close, but most the processes they are running are almost running into other limits beyond processing speed at this point. The differences are not that great and the chip still loses (and much more then it whens other tests) in anything that is single threaded.
The other thing we need to remember is pricing. I was checking prices the other day for 4200+ processors and D950 processors. While almost exactly the same price, right now the AMD would still be much cheaper because of RAM price differences (especially if you get large RAM sticks, I am looking for 2x 1GB) and motherboards. Find motherboards for AMD and Intel that I believe were equal in features had the Intel motherboard almost $20 more then the AMD one.
Now, while I cannot attest for the power consumption on Intel right off, AMD is releasing more energy efficient processors with the AM2 release, due in just a few weeks. There should also be a slight (5-10%) performance increase based off of information from reviews of the processors and boards while still in development (improvements may be better in production models), so I would not call this a win for Intel yet.
I am glad that Intel finally seems to be catching up with AMD, which hopefully will only lead to better competition between the two over time. I really do not like these speculative reviews (remember those Opteron 64-bit reviews before the first Athlon64s hit), so someone wake me up when Socket AM2 and its processor are out and the new line of Intel chips is actually available and not just a ramped up Yonah. Especially since the cost of the motherboard they used makes you want to cringe. (I have yet to have to break $100 on my motherboards.)
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Yes, until Conroe arrives later this year.
Until then the consumer space really doesn't need 64-bit processors for most work people do.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ok, Intel is getting some game, 'bout freaking time. But this isn't an "AMD killer" by any means.
Notice how they only included ONE FPU intensive task and AMD (and several of the Intel products) schooled this mobile offering? Most reviews include a lot more balanced set of tests, this one obviously had their storyline written for them and was tailoring the tests to fit the plot.
And also, let us not forget that the STOCK benchmark numbers for this chip were anything but impressive, so they played up the overclocked numbers. However, while this chip does have some seriously intersting overclock potential it isn't the first chip to be massively overclocked. Just last week we were salivating over a budgie Intel chip that somebody overclocked into the world's fastest CPU. So why not include THAT firebreathing monster's numbers on the chart along with some seriously overclocked AMD parts? Perhaps that would't have had such a dramatic narrative? Ah.
Meanwhile, I'll keep comparing parts running at factory spec and waiting to see what AMD drops next week to compare current gen parts to current gen parts.
Democrat delenda est
Vendors that are tired of AMD's focus on the high end of everything. Go ahead, look for a low end AMD processor. You won't find one anymore. AMD is all about Opterons and X2's now. My local and loyal AMD computer shop here just went to Intel for their low end machines. The prices Intel is offering low end chips for is a real bargain and hard to pass up no matter how big a fan you are of AMD.
You might think that the low end isn't all that important, but remember, it's how AMD got it's foot in the door.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
It seems to be one of those mysterious things like IBM's "SAA" or Microsoft's ".NET" or Vitalis' "V7..." .
It's a secret miracle ingredient about which all that is clear is that you're supposed to think it's good without needing to know what it is, exactly, or what it does, or why it's good.
Intel says: With Intel Viiv technology, you control a highly integrated Intel platform designed for digital entertainment. That means you can: Take charge of your media. Share experiences with movies, photos, and music with your friends and family. Simplify your digital life.
It's sort of like saying "Texaco gasoline has CleanSystem3, which will help you score with hot chicks."
Will somebody please explain to me what technical characteristics of a processor allow you to "share experiences with movies, photos, and music with your friends and family?"
Unless that means it doesn't support DRM?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
So.. What they are saying is Intel's latest and greatest CPU is finally gonna beat something AMD released, what, 5 or 6 months ago? Intel is STILL playing catch-up.
As others have pointed out, the Core Duo only beat out the Athlon64 FX-60 when overclocked. If the chip, when overclocked, was safe for production environments, then the chip would have shipped at a higher default clock speed.
The whole tone of the article is wrong...it seems more interested in Intel than in technology. Notice that the "most impressive thing" is that the Core Duo chip does better than a high-end Intel chip. The only negative thing they mention in the article is a reminder that AMD's AM2 architecture is supposed to come out next week.
They're misrepresenting the product. I have to wonder if they were paid for this review.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
When Yonah is running at the same clock speed as AMD's Athlon 64 FX-60, we found that it beat it into a corner in just about every situation.
In other words, the Athlon 64 ran fine - it just needed a bit more time to cache up to it.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
When OTS software supports 64-bit processors, they'll be worth a look. Until then who cares? --see I can play too...
The authors of TFA had to overclock the Intel chip for it to beat the FX-60 or even the 4800+. For a fair comparison, if they overclock one vendor's chips, they should overclock the other vendor's. Based on stock performance, AMD would have won then. This is even in 32-bit where only the Intel chips can use all of their abilities.
This is ridiculous. Core Duo is a great processor, but it by no way tops AMD's highend offerings as far as speed goes.
If you want to argue power management or performance per watt, that's another story, but TFA was a pure speed benchmark.
if by 'long' you mean 'the past few years' then yeah.
If you are comparing it to the history of the desktop CPU, then no it ahs not been long. Looking at some market factors, I would guess temporary might even be a better word.
Don't get me wrong, I like the competition in the market. This mean AMD helps keep the price of the good chips^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Intel chips down.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Entry obligatory AMD zealot, "intel can't possibly make something better then AMD" comments here _______.
Seriously, I'm sick of the overly zealous statements when it comes to "OS vs. OS" "Company vs. Company" etc. debates. Why is it so threatening when another companies/organizations happen to produce something better than your favorite company/organization?
Sometimes intel will get it right and sometimes AMD will. Deal with it.
Ya, I know. This is probably eligible for flaimbait and/or troll mod points. Oh well, I just needed to get this off my chest.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
On my Athlon64 3700+, I decided to try out 32 vs 64 bit in their current state using Gentoo Linux. I setup two hard drives, one had everything compiled 32bit, and the other hard drive I had 64bit. I didn't think there would be any difference for everyday desktop use, but the system did feel a tad more responsive over all. I would like to do that again, this time as a server. Like SQL maybe. That's where the biggest difference would be as of right now.
I don't think it is yet... As a matter a fact, Vista is still not a complete product. So, everything is more than clear! :)
Big booty
It's how I have obtained everything I have on a meager income. (1> meager 100000) /hr. 5x what I bill my clients, and 17x what I make hourly.
For instance when I bought my car, I spent about 10 hours researching. I saved over $4000 off of sticker, and 70000 miles later I am still a happy camper! that was between 12-18% off the price. My time was worth $400
How to buy anything.
1. Set a realistic budget for the item you wish to purchase & save money for it
2. Do research on the best Price:Performance
a. Look up your options, consider items that are similar, look at diferent brands.
b. Compare reviews
c. Don't spend so much time researching that your savings is no longer worth it. (don't spend tons of time looking how to save 10 cents on dryer sheets!)
3. Look for a reputable vendor for said product.
4. Make purchase, and enjoy without feeling guilty about what you spent!
Thats why I purchased an AMD x2 4400
and an nvida geforce 7900 gt. Great games performance / Excellent multitasking
Smokin like the tires on my car!
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Yonah = "Core Duo/Solo"
Conroe, Merom = "Core 2 Duo/Solo"
The Woodcrest, who knows?
Conroe, Merom, Woodcrest = "Next Generation Architecture" = "Core Architecture"
Although Yonah is the "Core Duo/Solo," it is not actually part of the "Core Architecture."
Capisci?
They just re-work Steve Jobs' talking points for the day.
Others on the payroll come by later and mod them up.
Bottom line is "Intel and Apple beats AMD and Unix" is bullshit.
AMD kicks Intels ass.
Just ask Dell.
one should also point out that it's designed as a mobile chip, but for some reason they used as a desktop chip.
My question is: what's the bottom line in Power Usage, Heat Usage (have to run those fans or add weight for heatsinks), Price (Intel is generally more expensive), etc.
[caveat - I own Intel shares and don't own AMD shares]
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I'm not a gamer. My computer runs fine with my XP2100+. I may upgrade to the 35W dual core 3800+. Not for performance, but for power usage/heat dissipation. However, I'll wait until the Core 2 Duo is released so that the prices will be lower :)
Unless something crazy happens, I don't think that I'll need anything faster (ever). My machine is already faster than me in all but network bandwidth and file IO.
The server market is where it's at...
Hold on. The Core Duo "creams" the Athlon64 FX by 2%-3% when overclocked? First off, last I checked this is within the margin of error of most benchmarks. Once again, I would like to plug the notion of better statistical validity in benchmarking. Rather than just giving us a single number, they should be giving us the average AND the standard deviation range, because if one part isn't beating another by at least a std dev unit, it just isn't accurate to say one part "beats" another. In fact, the difference will hardly be noticable at all until you get at least a couple of std dev units out.
Anyway, leaving that off, the other issue is that, last I checked, the only way to overclock an Intel processor is to overclock the FSB (and hence memory). So is this performance gain (assuming it's real) really due to CPU architecture, or is it because of the bus overclock? Because when the "real" part running at these speeds is released, you can bet it wont be on an overclocked bus! 2%-3% performance difference could easily be achieved by overclocking the Athlon's memory/HTT and lowering the multiplier to keep the CPU frequency the same.
Wake me when the clock for clock performance delta is > 5%-10%, then I'll buy one processor is "creaming" another. Early indications are this will indeed be the case with Conroe. On the bright side, a competative Intel can only be beneficial, because it'll force AMD to stop resting on the laurels of their K8 architecture and start making real improvements again. In the end, we as consumers can only benefit.
"it is possible to run the Athlon X2 4800+ at 3.14 ghz , which is a 30% overclock, albeit with a very serious cooling solution."
Note the "very serious cooling solution". In the case of the OCed Core Duo, they used the stock cooler and it didn't even get hot when clocked WAY beyond the speed they tested it at. If you read the article they were able to run it as high as 3.1 GHz or so and the stock heatsink was still cold to the touch at that speed.
I've been a big AMD fan for a long time, but now that I own a Core Duo laptop (Intel has managed to maintain superiority in the mobile market) I am definately considering going to Conroe for my next desktop upgrade depending on price and what AMD comes out with. I already have an X2 3800+ based file server, and in terms of raw CPU, the Core Duo beats it. I'll admit that other than transcoding of video I can't do many comparisons between the two machines though.
That would've been a good comparison to make - Core Duo T2500 (approx $350-360) vs. Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (Approx $300). Like the FX-60 vs. OCed Core Duo, they run at the same clock speed. Note that the Core Duo has a TDP of 31W and the X2 3800+ has a TDP of 89W. Price/performance is close if not equal in my experience, and performance per watt of the Core Duo is WAY ahead.
One key here - Intel has a roadmap that includes a clear performance boost beyond that of the Core Duo within months, while AMD only has incremental upgrades (Socket AM2) planned. I've also seen references to a new A64 core with an extra FPU, but nothing about availability of that.
Just because AMD has been the king of the desktop for a while doesn't mean you should count Intel out now that they've finally ditched the Netburst architecture.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Geek Religion
/. comments? If you can't stand baseless bickering over meaningless arguments, it's best to probably stay away from the Comments section of this site.
You're sick of techie holy wars. But you're reading
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
This is a $300 processor, that with a $100 motherboard can hit 2.5GHZ without any effort. Not only that but it's proven, and the motherboard it uses are prooven and have been put through the paces. This Core Duo 2GHZ Cpu is $420, and no one knows much about overclocking with the available motherboards. Only ones on newegg are $150 and micro atx (and in my experience these types of boards do not overclock well. This is comparing apples and oranges. Simple fact, my 3800 X2 using Sandra's bench's outbenches every Intel CPU except the $1000 EE Edition. and it's damn close on that.
Did anyone who is posting replies even read to the end of the summary? All its saying is the Intel has "caught up" in the work per mhz race, a race they were seriously behind in with the p4.
Hmmmm my Opty 165 which is perfectly happy at 2.6 gig costs 'bout $330 US. The Core Duo T2600 is $700. I am quite happy with my choice and I look forward to a good fight between Intel and AMD ;).
... Standards and Practices !
PenGun
Do What Now ???
After all, AMD typically performs better when it runs at a smaller clock speed. :^)
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
A computer shop in Manchester will begin selling AM2 motherboards and CPUs in a matter of days. Compare it to the FX-62 and we'll see. A fair test this time, please.
A block of code, sufficiently well-written, is indistinguishable from magick.
Wasn't it Intel that "taught" us that performance per clock cycle isn't important? This entire benchmark is a a little skewed since most people will not be running the core duo *overclocked*. So in reality, the Athlon FX-60 is still king of this benchmark. Don't get me wrong, I believe the core duo is a wonderful processor and I'll be sure to have it in my next notebook.
We all already know it has poor FPU performance, poor blah and that Intel is evil, we have to thank all those AMD fanboys to remember it to all Intel fanboys ( im either one, i hv systems from both and even from VIA, they all hv their place ).
I'm more interested in Conroe aka Intel Core 2. It has all the 'goodies' that u all want like EM64T ( wich 90% of the consumer market will not use anytime soon ).l eid=794&cid=1.
Plus it will give some serious performance boost and will have lower power consumption. Conroe, if things continue as they are now, will reverse that benchmark scenario, with the stock Conroe beating the overclocked FX-60 to a 'pulp', with a 20% performance boost average coming from an early sample is considerable http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?artic
From what has been seen ( search anandtech for that ), the new AMD socket won't bring anything very new, so we can at least assume that Intel might be in a position to be the king of performance.
I keep hearing all about Conroe but when is it supposed to hit the market in a buyable form for us regular folks?
Let me get this straight. This processor does not support 64 bit instructions. Microsoft is about to relase Vitsa, a 64 bit operating system. Why the F@#$% would anyone buy a 32 bit processor, only to replace it several months later for a 64 bit one!?!?!
The fact that Vista will come in a 32 bit flavor is irrelevant. This article is all about speed and performance. Well, 64 bit computing is a hell of lot faster than 32 bit. Clearly Intel hopes a bunch of idiots buy this propaganda.
AMD got it right. Put out a 64 bit processor that can handle 32 bit instructions. That way we can run our 32 bit operating systems until 64 bit ones arrive and not have to replace the bloody processor!
Don't forget that the Intel chip is a laptop chip that is designed to run in nice small enclosures. These enclosures have poor ventilation and the rated clock speed must take this into account. Put the same laptop chip into a desktop with a real heat sink/fan and proper ventilation and it should overclock just fine. In fact, when real desktop chips are released they will probably just relabel the portable chips with a higher power consumption, voltage and clock frequency.
Prove it.
"AMD has long reigned the desktop CPU market"
AMD has never (or infrequently and briefly) ruled the market. Their often superior tech might sometimes "lead the pack", or even "lead the market" in the sense of directing development. But more people buy Intel desktop CPUs, which is what rules the market.
--
make install -not war
...introduced in x86-64 are a) an additional 8 registers, and b) default 32-bit pointers (no need to lug around 64-bits all the time).
While I don't know x86 asm, doubling the register file while keeping the pointers the same size will certainly impact performance. Metrics would be interesting.
NetBurst is dead. Core is their mainstream solution. Not just their mobile solution.
Bottom line: it outperforms AMD clock for clock (of course, it cannot be clocked as high as the fastest AMDs) and uses much less power, partly due to great design, partly due to 65nm process (which AMD won't have until December).
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&p=1
This review is weeks old.
Core Duo beats Opteron 175 clock-for-clock in nearly every test (including all that measure primarily CPU performance and bandwidth). Yes, the Core Duo was massively overclocked, it wins clock-for-clock, but if you want the highest performance right now with no overclocking, it's still AMD. But you'll pay a big power/heat price for it.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
http://memory4less.com/memory/m4l_ddr.asp
Looks the same to me. Within a dollar. High performance DDR (above PC3200) costs more than DDR2, actually.
That's great AMD is making slightly more efficient systems soon. This is likely because DDR2 uses less power (1.8V instead 2.4V). But AMD is so far behind, they won't come near catching up until they get to 65nm.
It bugs me to see so many people in denial about Intel vs. AMD right now. When people moved to AMD, I thought it was because they were doing the smart thing, and paying attention to relative performance and excellence. But if that was the case, I those same people wouldn't be making excuses for AMD right now.
Intel is beating them at the moment in all but the highest performance systems. And when Core 2 Duo (awful name) comes out, Intel will have that too.
I currently own an Athlon X2 4200+ and I love it. But I'm not a fanboy, I know AMD is in 2nd place right now.
Please AMD, keep the pressure on, pass up Intel again.
When these two companies compete, we all win.
Here's another bonus link of a Core Duo beating out an Opteron 175 (AMD dual) clock for clock.
http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Nothing, but the chips will offer better performance for all code and offer 64 bit computing for those misguided souls that think they need it even if they don't.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So? The FX chips are high end desktop chips, not workstation chips. If you want a workstation chip, use an Opteron system.
Ha ha BZZZZT. Sorry, thank you for playing.
Intel is honestly doing a horrible job getting the word out about their new chips.
But yeah, it's their mainstream chip.
That means mobile and also mainstream desktops. They understand most people don't need the fastest CPU around, so they have one that is faster than most, but not as fast as the fastest out there. And that's their new mainstream.
There should be dozens of 3rd tier Core motherboards out there by now for people to use to make their own PCs. Instead there is one, and it costs $300. Intel is not doing a great job indicating to the market which way they are headed.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
I could have sworn I saw a review that said exactly that, though I can't remember where it was from.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yeah... uh. No.
... 1 opcode, 1 immediate (auto-zero-extend) ... 1 opcode, 1 reg/rm, 4 immediate
... 1 opcode, 1 imm ... 1 opcode, 1 reg/rm, 8 imm
:-/
32-bit:
mov 9,eax #2 bytes
add 6,eax #6 bytes
64-bit
mov 9,rax #2 bytes
add 6,rax #10 bytes
So the immediates doubled in size. Big deal. You could just use the 8-bit form into rbx and then add...
Improved:
mov 9,rax #2 bytes
mov 6,rbx #2 bytes
add rbx,rax #1 byte
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I think Intel has purposely restricted their promotion of Core Duo for desktops. The only type of Core Duo desktops that I've seen promoted (by Intel) are pre-built, small, quiet ViiV desktops. Since Core Duo is designed to be a notebook processor (low TDP), maybe they think the best way to promote its desktop use is to show off how fast and quiet it can be in tiny computers.
If they wanted to promote it as an all-around desktop CPU, they could have easily made faster versions for bigger computers. However, Core Duo's current weaknesses (32-bit and average floating point performance) would be more exposed when compared to desktop processors. I think they're waiting for Conroe, with its EM64T and improved floating point, to make their big bang on the desktop.
That said, I don't understand why more motherboard manufacturers are not offering ViiV-oriented motherboards like Asus's. Intel has been offering a desktop chipset for Core Duo for a while now. AOpen does offer a Tivo-sized Core Duo "media center" barebones using that chipset, but it's not cheap (around $400 without CPU, hard drive, and memory). It looks fantastic for building a HTPC with no external parts, though.
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
But the weakness don't amount to much.
Most people do just main, web surfing and perhaps some Excel. 32-bit and average floating point does quite well for those things.
It's a good mainstream processor. The market needs to realize which machines do need to be the fastest processors out there and which don't. Intel should be helping them understand this, but they're doing a crappy job.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
I seem to recall a plethora of "but clock for clock AMD beats the snot out of Intel" comments (when they [AMD] had to be overclocked) back from the P4 days. From TFA:
"First, we benchmarked at its default 2.16GHz clock speed to find out how fast the chip was at its factory settings, and then also tested at 2.6GHz in order to compare the Yonah architecture in a clock-for-clock shootout with AMD's Athlon 64 FX-60."
I see way too many comments here that fail to acknowledge this.
I should point out that they mention a problem with the motherboard and at stock speeds the memory is not running at full speed. Pay attention please people.
Don't ask me why, but I think this is a pinch of salt story.
please type the word in this image: remarked
verification text - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org
Has the alt text on this image changed again? wtf.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
AMD 8086 would be the official second source for the Intel 8086. Seemed pretty good back then. They never mentioned Zilog's Z80. It smoked 'em both util we overclocked the 8086 to 20Mhz.
Also a key thing to note that seems to have passed alot of peoples radars... They are comparing an Intel MOBILE chip & chipset, which are notoriously underclocked, to AMD's HIGH END Desktop processors, which are very robust. The fact that any Mobile platform can surpass or pretty much be the equal to the high end of the FX line is quite the achievement. And as somebody else said above, this isnt the new architecture, its still using Netburst. To me atleast it shows that Intel is moving in the right direction..the Conroe(Core Duo 2) should be quite the sight to see. And dont get all hyped up on not having seen Conroe benchmarks online, i havent seen any AM2 benchmarks either and its coming out in afew days not afew weeks/months like Conroe.
That's the most baseless, ridiculous, nonsensical claim I've heard in a long time. There's serious demand for the benefits that 64-bit CPUs bring. The added memory space... Additional registers... All-around faster performance... etc.
To enumerate the problems with your responses:
* Added memory space - per process, more that 2GB or so of memory allowed. Does your mom need more than 2GB to browse the web in the forseeable future? I'm not saying there will never be a consumer need, just that it's not imminent. The closest use I can see is photographers and video editors but that starts to move out of the realm of consumer equipment and more into the grey "prosumer" area.
* Added registers - nothing to do with a chip being 64-bit or not.
* Faster performance - actually 64-bit code can slow some things down as it instructions take twice as long to load. The code may or may not execute faster depending on what it is doing, but in some cases can be slower.
Not to mention that the consumer space really DOES need faster FPU performance, fast CPUs that don't need to be overclocked, lower prices, etc.
Please explain how 64-bit chips help any of those things. That's just advancing processor design in general.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
La la la I can't hear youuuuuu..
So today it's Intel beating AMD, tomorrow some kid will "prove" that AMD still kicks Intel's ass. Right now I absolutely don't give a crap. I've got my AMD X2, which I dearly love. Until I get my hands on someone else's Intel Yonah and actually see a difference, if any, then I'll make my judgement.
Just like nobody buys a car without test-driving it.. well.. nobody sane anyways.. I won't buy a CPU before seeing what it can do for me. In my books, Intel has held a horrible track record for the last five years and they will have to pull some magnificent hacks in order to regain my favor.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
So anyone that ever burns a DVD-R isn't a consumer anymore? Anyone that records videos on their computers (from a capture card, or downloaded), and wants to edit out a few bits is no longer a consumer?
So what is the difference between doing that today, which I do with great regularity, and doing the same thing using a 64-bit processor? The thing you're missing is that a 64-bit procesor has nothing to do with maximum FILE SIZE.
In other words, a faster chip isn't always faster, so everyone should stick with the slower one... Good logic there.
With all else beign equal, my original statemnet remains true as does my point that you seem to lack certain fundmental understandings about what processors actually do and how they work. Thus the point you need to study processor design, which you have demonstrated to an alarming degree througout your response.
You didn't say 64-bit memory space... You said "64-bit processors", and rightly so. The 64-bit chips have many advantages other than JUST being 64-bit.
Well since you need a 64-bit processor to address a 64-bit memory space...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley