Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!
Discussion on Article:
AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 CPU Review
They always do manufacturing right, but the P7 design is so bad it doesn't help a heck of a lot.
I agree 2006 will be a good year for Intel, with the P8 (or P6++) core coming out, and the P7 finally dying an ignoble death. The dual Yonah is already impressive, and the Merom/Conroe should be considerably better. It's hard to think of a bad scenario for Intel in the near future, but anything can happen as you no doubt know.
I really hate overclocking results put in reviews, because they are so unprofessional. No professionals I know would even consider running something out of spec. On top of this you can't guarantee a processor bought will exhibit the same frequency head room, and on top of that they are rarely apples to apples anyway. For example, why was the Athlon allowed a faster FSB? Was every attempt made to squeeze a little more clock speed out of the Presler by slightling increasing the FSB instead of the multiplier? Does anyone believe that Intel sent out a typical Presler, instead of one they know would overclock well (considering they knew this would be part of a review). AMD would do the same thing, of course, but their chip is probably less variable at this point of manufacturing.
I'm not saying it isn't worth mentioning, but to add it to benchmarks on the very top gives it grossly undue importance. As I mentioned, it is almost certainly not representative of a processor because the manufacturer will certainly cherry pick, and in any event, the vast majority of buyers would never even consider overclocking a chip costing this much, or even consider overclocking a high end processor. Even the tiny majority of people that do overclock generally buy lower clocked processors that are cheap, and then clock them to an rate that is consistent with other processors in the family that are sold at much higher cost.
It isn't useless information, because it does show AMD is pretty much out of headroom and Intel probably isn't, I just don't think it should be presented as the most important thing (which it is, being on top). I think it would be better to mention it, reiterate it at the conclusion, and not present it in such an overpowering way.
But the uneducated writer is an exaqmple of the new any idiot can overclock craze.
Higher Clock is always better. in the mind of this craze.
Higher Buses should be a priority over higher multipliers.
Even if a lower multiplier is necessary.
a 3000mhz chip with 1111bus should outperform a 3200mhz chip with 1000bus.
note im not gonna bother with the math so the numbers are illistration guides only
Dualcore Presler (950/955) = 4.26GHz
Singelcore Cedar Mill (3.6GHz) = 4.5GHz
Dualcore A64 (FX60) = 2.9GHz
Singelcore A64 (FX57) = 3.0Ghz
Overclocking can of course be further improved with watercooling or phasechange. However these numbers has less interest to most of us. The overclocking results tells us:
1) Intel has with 65nm frequency room enough to release a dualcore 4.0GHz and singelcore 4.2GHz, if needed before Conroe.
2) AMD will probably only release the FX62 with the next improved manufacturing F-stepping on 90nm (expected to launch in april/may with a new air-overclocking limit around 3.5GHz).
3) After overclocking with air, AMD still tops out Intels dualcores in most cases (and always in games).
Where did you see the Intel single core maximum overclocking?
I doubt that AMD .90 will do 3.5 Ghz even at single core (that AMD is phasing out?).
I think that the new materials AMD/IBM will be using will lower power consuming but not better clock potential. However sometimes both things are related but o doubt so.
I was expecting AMD would also release the FX-59 at 3.0 Ghz with the FX60. AMD seems is phasing out single core processors (last speed jump October 2004)? Or are they waiting for the Intel P4 to hit 4.0Ghz?
Yes, there is more heat and more power draw, but Netburst was not a bad way to go, all things considered. But it is dead, and hopefully the replacements (Conroe, Yonah) will be worthy competitors.
If Intel merely built an Athlon64 using their 65 nm process, they would be the undisputed kings of performance.
But the on-processor memory controller is not really a big deal - see some Yonah results versus the 3800 X2.
Competition certainly gives us consumers more and better choices!
The P7 design sucks, and sucks bad. It is atrocious that despite a smaller manufacturing lithography that this beast is a power hungry monster and still very large. Intel deserves credit for wonderful execution in manufacturing, they alway seem to be earlier than everyone else, but the design flat out sucks.
Look at it a different way, if Intel were manufacturing the K8 on with all their expertise on 65nm, and it were being compared to a 90 nm P7, what do you think the review would look like? It would be grotesque, right?
So, this failed design by Intel is rightfully dying. It always sucked, even when it first came out Intel had to do eveything they could to make the Pentium III less competitive, just so this pig would sell. In the end, it is losing market share and Intel is widely disrespected for this horrible processor. Luckily for Intel, their superior manufacturing has made the processor less inferior than it was, but it is still a sorry piece of crap.
I have little doubt the Merom/Conroe will forever dispel any feeling that the P7 should have been extended. It looks like Intel did everything right for this processor, but it is still too soon to tell for sure. Even the Yonah is very impressive, and it appears it will be improved upon quite a bit.
I'm a "big" fan of netburst, but after reading your post it really look bad.
I thought that the P4 prescott was bad because:
-Processor design hit a maximum clock frequency point [like P3 hit 1.0Ghz remember?].
-Thermal dissipation increased because of the 1MB cache and others.
-Because of EMT64 (I don’t know the size this is taking on the processor die, everyone when saw the P4 prescott die size was talking of a dual core design because of the increased transistor count over northwood [no way 512kb more cache would take that much]), I think even today that question remains unanswered.
-I’m not sure but I think 2 northwood cores on one die is smaller than just one prescott core.
Add your Comment
Enter your username and e-mail address. Password will be sent to you.