Athelon64 & Opteron vs. P4

[wkulecz]

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1276891,00.asp

Looks like the "Extreme Gamer P4" has maybe 10% improvement for what we care most about here (video encoding), but at a significant price premium.

Seems regular P4 is the bang/buck leader.

Both Athelon64 and Athelon64 lag in performance so unless AMD can have prices drop quicker than Intel is willing to match I don't see them doing much on the desktop if they can't offer better price/performance for video encoding -- one of the few "mass-market" applications that remains CPU limited.

--wally.

[Nowhere]

What is with this "Athelon" thing everywhere?

[Ray Austin]

Re: Athelon64 & Opteron vs. P4

Originally posted by wkulecz
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1276891,00.asp


Looks like the "Extreme Gamer P4" has maybe 10% improvement for what we care most about here (video encoding), but at a significant price premium.

Seems regular P4 is the bang/buck leader.

Both Athelon64 and Athelon64 lag in performance so unless AMD can have prices drop quicker than Intel is willing to match I don't see them doing much on the desktop if they can't offer better price/performance for video encoding -- one of the few "mass-market" applications that remains CPU limited.

--wally.

With the release of the P4 Extreme "that word is being used alot these days..." P4 definately has the most bang for the buck, like right now! But to see if P4 is really the one for you, you have to look at the overall picture.

What is the upgradeability? How much memory can be used with it. If you're talking just a cheapo P4 bottom of the rung you can stop reading right now... we are only talking top of the rung, break your wallet systems.

Something else to consider is that 64bit software isn't here, it's been stated many times on different sites that with 64bit code A64 will really shine. Here in lies the risk... Amd controls 15% of the market... how many software developers will change their code to 64bit?

Now I have been talking Pro- AMD and you may think I am hoping fences... However, the "Extreme" release happened what feels like minutes ago, thus making the water murkier than before.

I still feel Amd is a good safe bet and great upgradability, intel however will have short life as always... PCI express will be here next year so many changes lie ahead for that. If you can live with that then Intel is for you.

And if you look at the numbers Amd is not far off for not being obsolete as soon as you buy it. That is the advantage to moving to 64bit now as opposed to later.

[wkulecz]

Upgradability is pretty much a myth these days. You have to look at CPU, Motherboard and Memory as pretty much a single entity to get any serious performance gains.

For what I spend my time waiting for the CPU to finish on the P4 Extreame seems near zero benefit from these video encoding bechmarks -- it'd have to be with 10% of the price of the plain P4 before I'd even consider it.

I tend to buy at the "sweek spot" one of two speed grades below the top which seems to be 2.6 or 2.8 GHz P4.

I want to upgrade, but the hassle of re-installing all my apps is holding me back. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

--wally.

[Fluff]

Am i correct in saying that a dual opteron will perform better in windows 2003 server than win2k server due to extra support for it in the operating system?

MY general rule of thumb (similar to above).. for me any way wait 6-9 months after launch and buy 2nd from top of range CPU to get best VFM. And decent choice of MOBO. GOing to wait till i have my 2x speed improvement over my XP 1700. could be a while yet..

Looks LIke NF3 has USB2 speed issues looking at some of the benchmarks.

Pete

[Ray Austin]

Originally posted by wkulecz
Upgradability is pretty much a myth these days. You have to look at CPU, Motherboard and Memory as pretty much a single entity to get any serious performance gains.

--wally.

yeah I can agree with that, but I think the biggest problem is every company out there has their own roadmap as to what they think will be the best route for you and me. [I.E. Intel 32bit vs. Amd 64bit]

No one knows who will win, well you could guess based on past performance... but sometimes the underdog does win.

Things can change on a dime. This probably won't be resolved until WOW64 [windows on windows] gets here and even then the pond may still be murky at best. By then we should have a closer glimpse of PCI-express... hopefully that will be what it's hyped up to be.

Personally I can't see spending over $300 for a cpu. So I agree with the sweet spot theory as well, but I do like to dream a little.

[Flying dutchman]

It's all too soon. Windows XP for Athlon 64 is not nearly ready and most hardware manufacturers haven't committed themselves to writing drivers for it yet.

A problem with 64-bit CPU's is that they waste twice as much bandwidth and memory doing trivial things such as pushing and popping registers on the stack, so you're gonna need twice as much memory as before to accomplish the same tasks!

32 bits can already address 4 gigabytes of memory, so unless one invests massively in memory chips the other 32 bits will be unused anyway most of the time.

Besides, there aren't that many applications where 64 bit CPU's really shine (with the possible exception of integer matrix arithmetics). If a 64-bit CPU is acquired only to perform fast mpeg encoding, I'd recommend buying a hardware encoder or standalone DVD recorder instead.

I have to agree with Intel here - 32 bit CPU's, preferably with hyperthreading etc, are more efficient for today's applications. If Intel designs a 3-GHz version of the Pentium-M it will make all other CPU's look old.

[Jerry Jones]

I'm a 64-Bit fan, but I plan to wait.

The time to jump for 64-Bit will be when Microsoft has the 64-Bit version of Windows ready to go.

I see Ulead has announced...

http://www.ulead.com/aboutulead/press/pr09-23-03.htm

...that they are "evaluating 64-Bit port technology."

To get full benefit of 64-Bit (which is awesome) requires three things:

1. 64-Bit processor (obviously)

2. 64-Bit operating system

3. 64-Bit application

I'll be ready to jump when we get #1 and #2.

Then I'll be ready to buy #3 when it is ready.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[wkulecz]

I thought Opteron/Hammer was to beat P4 on 32 bit code.

Its not looking like this is gonna happen, at least for the type of code I care about.

As to hardware MPEG encoders, know of any that can match MainConcept in quality and cost seriously less than a new CPU/MB/RAM upgrade? Then wanna bet that this hardware will have drivers for the next version of windows?

--wally.

[Jerry Jones]

According to this September 23 (Tuesday of this week) article...

http://news.com.com/2100-1016-5080522.html?tag=nl

...Microsoft has released a beta version of 64-bit Windows called "Windows XP 64-Bit Edition for 64-Bit Extended Systems."

Yes - this has happened later than expected.

As the article points out:

"The test version, which Microsoft released this week, was supposed to have come out mid-year, with many analysts expecting a final version by the end of this year."

"However, Microsoft confirmed Tuesday that the final version of 64-bit Windows won't be available until the ***FIRST*** quarter of next year."

So Microsoft is essentially one quarter late, if the article is correct.

Nevertheless, my next computer system will be a 64-Bit AMD system.

I see no point in upgrading between now and when 64-Bit Windows will - allegedly - be available in the first quarter of next year.

Interesting quote from the article above:

"While most performance PCs sold today come with between 512MB and 1GB of RAM, systems with between 4GB and 8GB will become more commonplace as 64-bit software works its way onto the desktop and as RAM module sizes gain more data storage capacity, AMD has said."

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Chrono_Wanderer]

Hey guys, don't forget these are review sites!

Chances are they get nice hand-picked silicons shipped to them.

Achieveing 3.6GHz for every chip is different thing. IMO this ee thing is just a stupid paper lanuch to threaten AMD.

And because they put in 2MB L3 cache, I wonder if EE will get high yields. (big die due to large cache, higher chance of damaged chips)

If the yields are good, then Intel is great. Otherwise EE will cost so much due to low yields that the price is not justified for the performance.

AMD, on the other hand, is a different story. They should have some good headrooms for higher clock by Q1 next year. From THG, I read they are getting 60% yields right? not too bad. If there is enough supply, which should be around Q1 next year as far as I see it, I am sure AMD will bring their price down to kick intel.

And if people starts to adopt it, chances are we will shift to 64bit apps.

Hopeful AMD has some luck on this interstruction set, which they never succeed in this area (64bit is kinda like a different thing tho, its not just a simple x86 extention)

[Ray Austin]

Originally posted by Flying dutchman
A problem with 64-bit CPU's is that they waste twice as much bandwidth and memory doing trivial things such as pushing and popping registers on the stack, so you're gonna need twice as much memory as before to accomplish the same tasks!

32 bits can already address 4 gigabytes of memory, so unless one invests massively in memory chips the other 32 bits will be unused anyway most of the time.

Not sure where you are getting your info, but you might want to have a talk with them...

quote from exteme tech... http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1276898,00.asp

When it comes to the mainstream desktop systems of today, though, it's all about 32-bit performance. As we've seen, the Athlon 64 processor line can deliver great 32-bit performance, particularly in those applications that benefit from the increased memory efficiency and bandwidth offered by the CPU's integrated memory controller. The Athlon 64 is a natural pick for gamers looking for leading edge game performance. Even the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition can't quite keep pace with the FX-51 and even the more mainstream Athlon 64 3200+ in most games. In other cases, the Pentium4 is a better choice – especially for 3D content creation, media encoding, and other similar applications.

However, when it comes to everyday use of standard office applications, the answer isn't so clear. While the Athlon 64s outpace even the P4 EE in Business Winstone 2003, that particular benchmark isn't threaded. If AMD's silver bullet is 64-bit processing, then Intel's silver bullet is Hyper-Threading. In a heavy multitasking environment, background apps, such as virus checkers, often kick off without notice. In those cases, simultaneous multithreading may make a system "feel" more responsive. Intel certainly believes that.

[Jerry Jones]

Yep - many typical office PC users will probably stick with 32-Bit systems.

But I can't imagine why anybody would not want the advantages of 64-Bit processing for heavy-duty video and 3D applications.

We'll see far better performance results when the first 64-Bit applications hit the market - which I predict will happen within 6 months of the launch of 64-Bit Microsoft Windows in the first quarter of next year.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Marshmallowman]

P4 is in midstream in its life cycle, slapping a 2mb cache on one to keep it "up there with the best" is a good interim measure and may give bring real benefits to a lot of workstations users that have stuff that will benefit from a larger cache...but it may actualy cut into their Xeon sales. And its a noice marketing ploy as well.
And intel has the new one in the wings, albeit with afew problems to sort out, heat...etc.

If somone gave me one I would be more than happy to use it. But I would not pay that much for one.

AMD64 has just started its life cycle, it has two main branches the 754 and 940, pick one once the hiccups and you will have a nice upgrade path.

A problem with 64-bit CPU's is that they waste twice as much bandwidth and memory doing trivial things such as pushing and popping registers on the stack, so you're gonna need twice as much memory as before to accomplish the same tasks!

This is simply not true, even in 64 bit mode the instruction length and data size are variable and you only ever pop whatever your working with on the stack...but it will use s "little bit" more than in 32 bit mode.

I have never upgraded the CPU on an intel based board. It has always been both. But so far I am averaging at least 2 sometimes 3 CPU upgrades per board with AMD based systems, their midrange performance CPU's are so cheap that you can keep just behind the cutting edge for a significant cost saving compared to intel.

And if AMD keep doing that I'll keep buying there chips.

PS: ATI actually has 64bit catalysts drivers in the latest XP beta.

When everything is sorted I think 64bits will really pay off, not in office apps etc. but specificly in codecs rendering stuff and graphics in general...Latest VPU's are 256bit?

Not to mention CAD and scientifc workstations... previously you can see a lot of researchers buying old alpha 64 bit boxes etc because of the benfits. Now they have a choice an up to date workstation with a slight/if any cost premium.

My next board will be an opteron or AMD 64, actually with a bit of luck this may be my first dual CPU computer.
2xCPU = double the memory bandwidth and address space :drool: <- we need a drooling smiley

[Jerry Jones]

The largest - and perhaps the last - major chip maker in the U.S. is headquartered right here in little Boise, Idaho - Micron Technology.

Now - remember that quote from the article here...

http://news.com.com/2100-1016-5080522.html?tag=nl

""While most performance PCs sold today come with between 512MB and 1GB of RAM, systems with between 4GB and 8GB will become more commonplace as 64-bit software works its way onto the desktop and as RAM module sizes gain more data storage capacity, AMD has said."

Well, let's suppose AMD is correct and suddenly ram sales shoot through the roof to keep up with the demand for video workstations (and other power users) running 8gb of memory.

Guess who still wins?

Intel.

Why?

Intel is quietly hedging their bet and investing in Micron Technology as a significant shareholder.

What a great game!

By the way, when people think of Idaho they usually think of potatoes.

But the fact is Micron Technology is a huge employer here in Boise.

As Micron goes - so goes the Idaho economy.

That's how significant they are.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net