AMD Athlon 64 Performance Preview 188
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.'"
For strange values of "worse" (Score:4, Funny)
I don't think that word means what they think it does.
Re:For strange values of "worse" (Score:2)
also, their writing is pretty bad. also, it's terrible. i have no facking clue how one cooks hard nuts. also, i am thinking that cooked hard nuts are much worse.
crapfully yours,
herrdoktor.
Re:For strange values of "worse" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For strange values of "worse" (Score:2)
Re:For strange values of "worse" (Score:2)
Re:For strange values of "worse" (Score:2)
here's a mirror (Score:3, Informative)
Context Context Context (Score:5, Informative)
You should include the full quote of Damage, because just quoting out of context can be misleading. Here's the full paragraph (emphasis is mine):
This is really fun, but I am a little concerned about their memory latency numbers. They haven't specified what units those numbers are in, but latency numbers come out of programs like cachemem in CPU cycles. Obviously, processors with higher clock speeds will see more clock cycles pass per second than processors with lower clock speeds. One must convert those numbers into comparable units, such as nanoseconds, in order to compare CPUs at different clock speeds. I do expect the Athlon 64 to have low memory access latencies because of its integrated memory controller, but I don't think the gap will be so great as the X-bit numbers would seem to indicate.
So, the worry is about the units the latency numbers are expressed in. And when you'd see the numbers below, you get an idea why it is so:
Athlon 64 2800+
Athlon XP 1.6GHz
Pentium 4 2.8C
See it [xbitlabs.com] for yourself.
Re:Context Context Context (Score:1)
Re:Context Context Context (Score:5, Informative)
latency: 96 cycles or 96/1.6 => 60 ns
Pentium 4 2.8C
latency: 260 cycles or 260/2.8 => 92 ns
So there is a 33% improvement, which is cool. (i.e. the P4 is 50% slower)
The SSE2 instructions were pretty much in equal to the P4 in throughput per cycle, that is as a SEE2 processor it performs like a 1.6Ghz P4... Hopefully they can push the clocks up as fast as Intel has with NetBurst.
Re:Context Context Context (Score:1)
Look down a bit further and you'll see times in ns for various memory sizes.
WORST case is about 2.5 vs 4.3 or so (72% improvement) on the smallest size. The others are all close to or above a 100% improvement.
Re:Context Context Context (Score:2)
You also forget about bandwith. Here are some more benchmarks. [consumptionjunction.com]
Re:Context Context Context (Score:2)
heh (Score:2)
naw.. probably just slashdot
Got their hands on it? (Score:4, Funny)
How old is this "'engineering sample"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How old is this "'engineering sample"? (Score:3, Informative)
3DNow!: Cause of Slow Clock Frequency in InnerCore (Score:3, Interesting)
So, what could be the problem? The problem is that AMD is trying to support too many instruction sets. AMD should have axed 3DNow! and swallowed its pride. Supporting MMX, SSE, and SSE2 is sufficient.
When you try to put everything and the chicken sink into a chip, you inevitably pay for it with a slower clock speed.
Re:3DNow!: Cause of Slow Clock Frequency in InnerC (Score:4, Informative)
best processor/price? (Score:1, Offtopic)
I'll soon be getting a server that does involved calculations for for members of Math Addicts Anonymous [mathaddicts.org]. These will involve things like prime factorizations of insanely large numbers and calculating pi to more digits than anyone could ever care about. Assuming a budget of $500(the server will have other duties) for the motherboard/ram/processor, what would be the best architecture for the job?
Re:best processor/price? (Score:2)
Re:best processor/price? (Score:3, Informative)
More like very high range. A quick glance at Pricewatch [pricewatch.com] will show you that currently, the fastest Intel, 3.06 ghz, costs $388. The fasted Athlon, the 3000+, costs $320. Even the 2.8 Xeon is $425.
Re:best processor/price? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:best processor/price? (Score:1)
That's all I know. If you can afford it I'd get a dual x86-64 box, put
Re:best processor/price? (Score:2)
My Observations (Score:4, Interesting)
The processor doesn't take to many benchmarks, but you can't fault it too much. It's nice to see some numbers are the CPU in 32 bit mode, but let's not forget that EVERYTHING here is 32 bit (OS, programs, etc). I'd LOVE to see a comparison between 32 bit programs running under and identicle OS versions that do and don't support 64 bits (Win XP vs Win XP for x86-64 for example). I'd suspect that the performance would go up with a 64 bit OS (especially on the games, where drivers and such play such a big part). Considering it's clockspeed, it holds up very well. The fact that it's almost never far behind a current athlon with an identicle performance rating (which is actually like 400 mhz faster) shows that it can definatly run things well. This isn't the horridly crippled performance that we've all heard about with the Itanic.
So what's my take on all of this? I think that this shows that the x86-64 can really become a success. I know some of you out there are thinking "Why would I buy one? I've got a 2.4 ghz Octium 7 and my PC is faster than that thing." That may be true, but many people aren't like you. My fastest computer is a PIII 933, so even at 1.6 ghz that Athlon64 can run circles around my best PC. If you are using a PC that's even a year or so old, you can probably benefit alot if you were to move up to an Athlon64 when it comes out.
My notes on some specific benchmarks:
Now my objections to the benchmarking
My final thoughts are this: it looks quite promising, and I can't wait to see more. More and more people with comeout with benchmarks as time goes on, and with the Opteron released now, we'll soon see benchmarks of it in SMP mode against other chips in both 32 and 64 bit OSes with 32 and 64 bit code. Either way, it looks like it's more successful than the Itanic.
Re:My Observations (Score:1, Insightful)
Also, you have to consider that by the time there is a lot of 64-bit code in use, there will probably be significantly more advanced processors avail
Re:My Observations (Score:1)
Re:My Observations (Score:1)
WORK per DOLLAR is all that matters (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:WORK per DOLLAR is all that matters (Score:2)
I'm also able to leverage that further: by running Gentoo Linux, you can optimize for your CPU architecture, which helps the Athlon, as any SW out there is focused for the P4
Not that I'm complaining, as the last Intel processor I bought was a Celeron 400MHz. I've gone Athlon and haven't looked back.
Re:WORK per DOLLAR is all that matters (Score:2)
Or, if you're hard-core, you would compare the best possible chip you can get from one manufacturer against the best possible chip you can get from another.
Re:WORK per DOLLAR is all that matters (Score:2)
It's more important for reviews to focus on the advantages and disadvantages of a whole family of chips rather than on one particular model clocked at one particular speed. This is particularly important when the product hasn't even been released yet. A chip family like the Pentium 4 or the Althon 64 may last
Re:WORK per DOLLAR is all that matters (Score:2)
So in the meantime, benchmarks which show the performance per clock of the Athlon64 have their place..
Re:WORK per DOLLAR is all that matters (Score:2, Insightful)
So what matters is: work per time and then you can calculate costs later....
Then AMD's way ahead (Score:2)
To the point that an AMD chip can sometimes be cheaper by 3 figures over a Intel chip of the same performance (that's performance, not bus speed).
Gez I remember when Duron 600s were heaps cheaper than the P6 Celeron 600 (Cu'mine), even though they trounced 'em performance wise. & still outperformed them even when one plays arround with the Celeron's bus speed & then unlocked the Duron & played arround with its bus speed & multipler, so that both ch
Re:My Observations (Score:2)
Uh, the Itanium 2 processor at 1GHz performs about as well as a 2.5GHz P4. Even better at FP ops, close to 2.8GHz.
Re:My Observations (Score:5, Insightful)
On 32-bit x86 code, which is what this benchmarking tested?
Re:My Observations (Score:2)
Re:My Observations (Score:2)
Re:My Observations (Score:3, Informative)
The only ways to gain performance moving to 64 bits are:
1) re-write software that needs a >4GB working set (e.g. databases) to use 64-bit pointers rather than paged or segmented 32-bit addressing
2) re-write high-performance integer code to process values in wider chunks (although you c
Re:My Observations (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:My Observations (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the great part is... (Score:2)
64-bit registers and bigger-than-32-bit addressing (40-bit for now, I think, with higher models using 48-bit) are there mainly to give AMD a fo
Re:My Observations (Score:2)
For those who don't RTFA (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
tested with windows (Score:3, Interesting)
couldnt they have used any one of the 64bit linuxes? this sounds like a bs review to me;
Re:tested with windows (Score:1)
Re:tested with windows (Score:2)
Re:tested with windows (Score:2)
Re:No, they didn't (Score:2)
Re:No, they didn't (Score:2)
Re:tested with windows (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:tested with windows (Score:2)
Good news is that it seems like it can.
doh! (Score:1)
If non-Slashdotted traffic can bring down their site.. god help them now.
Re:doh! (Score:2)
Re:doh! (Score:2)
thats like watching someone gett hit with a 1 ton block of lead, then hit with a 20 ton block of lead, dead is dead.
Single page view (Score:4, Informative)
Umm.... (Score:5, Funny)
Really? I could have sworn...
re: athlon 64 performance. (Score:4, Insightful)
- 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."
Re: athlon 64 performance. (Score:2)
I also understand that the pipeline is a bit longer so I wonder if this decreases the IPC of the chip in comparison to the AXP or whether the other enhancements like the memory controller and HT link make up for that.
Re: athlon 64 performance. (Score:2)
but my concern is that there are a lot of factors that go into dictating the clock speed limitations of the chip. i mean-- the latest 32-bit athlons run pretty darn well compared to P4s, considering their clock speeds. but one gets the feeling that they're reaching the upper strata of how high they can be ramped up.
i think so
Re: athlon 64 performance. (Score:3, Interesting)
The big downside to a longer pipeline is that it increase the performance penalty of flushing the pipeline after a mispredicted branch. However, AMD did two things here. First the Athlon64 has a better branch predictor than the AthlonXP, which should reduce the number of mispredicted branches. The second thing that AMD did was to change the pipeli
Re: athlon 64 performance. (Score:1, Insightful)
it's running at 1.6gHz!
And what is your point exactly ?
Take an Itanium2 at 1Ghz [*] and it will beat that 1.6 GHz processor to the ground. So are you going to sing the praise of the Itanium2 now ? No ? Ah sure it doesn't come from AMD but from Intel (and HP), so surely it must be a marketing trick.
You are a moron.
[*] soon to be replaced by a 1.5Ghz version
Re: athlon 64 performance. (Score:2)
Take an Itanium2 at 1Ghz [*] and it will beat that 1.6 GHz processor to the ground. So are you going to sing the praise of the Itanium2 now ? No ? Ah sure it doesn't come from AMD but from Intel (and HP), so surely it must be a marketing trick.
You are a moron.
yes, i will sing the holiest of holy praises for the i2 . it's nifty that it can perform so well at a lower clock speed . yes . and no
and finally,
You are presumptious. [*]
[*] your space bar seems to be malfun
Too bad ... (Score:2)
Maybe they should have got their hands on one of those Liquid Nitrogen cooling units (or whatever) and just overclocked the hell out of it, see just how fast this bad boy will really go
I mean if you are going to dream, dream BIG.
Re: athlon 64 performance. (Score:2)
Re: athlon 64 performance. (Score:2)
Maybe because the majority of people who will be buying it will be running a 32bit Operating System, with 32 bit applications.
Unless you think Microsoft is gonna release a 64 bit XP Home anytime soon.
The Athlon64 is a successor to the Athlon XP, not an alternative, so it has to run 32 bit code as fast or faster than an XP, or no one will touch it.
Tho
For those who don't follow every AMD move. (Score:4, Informative)
Now the reviews that out in 4 days time should be much more interesting reads. I expect to see someone do a solid x86-32 vs. x86-64 comparison using Linux, maybe other OS's too. And yes, probably even Quake frame rate results. =)
Re:For those who don't follow every AMD move. (Score:2)
Wonder why the memory was crippled? (Score:2)
Re:Wonder why the memory was crippled? (Score:2)
Re:Wonder why the memory was crippled? (Score:2)
Why? Because the Athlon64 has an on-die memory controller, which means two very important things. First, there is no longer any processor-side bus (or "front-side bus" as it is usually, somewhat inaccurately referred to). The AthlonXP might have had 5GB/s+ of potential bandwidth on the memory bus, but it's limited to 3.2GB/s on the processor side bus (assuming AMD brings
Check out date on processor. (Score:3, Insightful)
[xbitlabs.com]
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.
Re:Check out date on processor. (Score:2)
Re:Check out date on processor. (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, so that doesn't clear up anything.
Re:Check out date on processor. (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly, date codes on chips, which tell you the date of manufacture, are usually 4 digits: two digits for the year, then two digits for the week in that year.
If you RTFA (as opposed to just looking at the pretty pictures), they say, right under that image: "The production date in the next line of the marking indicates the beginning of this year."
This is pretty standard, I can pull out my old 8088 MB and read the date code off the processor: 8937 (1989, 37th week) You can find similar date codes on most chips and PCBs. (eg, that 8088 MB has 8945 printed on the back)
very old rev (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, one thing is for sure, xbit labs just blew their chances of ever getting their hands on another upcoming bleeding edge technology again.
Re:very old rev (Score:2)
It's a 64 Bit processor that doesn't perform like a dog in 32bit mode. I want to see 64 bit performance numbers.
If the 64Bit mode performance numbers are decent, and if the 32Bit mode performance numbers are decent, then AMD could have a huge hit on thier hand
The two ways of looking at a half-empty glass (Score:5, Informative)
But here's another way to look at it - Itanium also has an x86 layer, but because it's really just an emulation, its performance sucks.
So I view this as a huge success. Why ? Because an Athlon-64 will be able to run "legacy" 32 apps at the same speed, while 64 apps will run faster.
You'd probably wonder why this is the case. Well, IMNSHO it's not because of the wider registers/ALUs, etc, but because of other improvements to the Instruction Set Architecture, like the 8 extra registers (16 total). Because you only have 8 registers on a regular x86, compilers can register-allocate very little. Adding 8 more registers means that you can keep more stuff in the register file, and you don't have to go to the stack (data cache) every single time.
I wonder... (Score:2)
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
UT2003... (Score:2, Interesting)
Now this doesn't make much sense, because how can you run that in 64-bit mode even though you have a 64-bit processor, when the OS is running in 32-bit mode?
Or am I dreaming?
Re:UT2003... (Score:2)
Re:UT2003... (Score:3, Informative)
The UT2003 they tested was the normal 32 bit version.
And as they said, it already favoured the Athlon XP, and the Athlon64 is very similar to an XP.
Tests ignored the most important aspect (Score:2)
It holds is own with 32bit chips, but the real benefit of this is when its used in an environment where more than 4GB of memory is an important parameter. Those other competitive chips won't stand a chance.
On my web site (under building PCs) I have some rather old data about ENTRY level machines and predictions of where these will be in the future. It looks as though we are get
This Athlon 64 = repackaged Opteron 242 (?) (Score:2)
The 64-bit memory controller (which doesn't actually support 64-bit addressing, BTW) is even less relevant for normal users. Most people don't have any use for more than 512 MB. Even workstations can work perfectly with 2 GB or so (unless you're working with floatin
Classic Hardware Review Article (Score:2)
Classic hardware review article. Take every bit of old-news, re-hashed, "everyone's seen it before" information you can find to pad out your 2-page article to at least 10 pages. Insert lots of huge pictures to pad it out even further. After all, you get paid by the banner impression, right?
Yowsa! (Score:2)
The memory controller in the chip they tested handily beat out the dual-channel Nforce platform, and while it didn't beat the dual-channel DDR 400 memory of the P4, it wasn't too far behind.
Here's the cool part: That was an Athlon64. A desktop-oriented chip with a single-channel memory controller. The chips that are coming out on Tuesday are the "Hammer" multi-processing chips, targetted at servers, with *dual-channel* memory interfaces. Look at the memory numbers on the single-channel, and co
Re:Yowsa! (Score:2)
Why didn't they boot Linux? (Score:2)
low latency numbers = good (Score:2)
Re:Quick conclusion (Score:5, Funny)
here's a graphic:
Pages:1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
click here^^
AMAZING! MODERATORS: MOD ME UP AS +10000, INFORMATIVE! 8P
Re:Quick conclusion (Score:2)
Re:Quick conclusion (Score:2, Funny)
Re:No SMP?? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No SMP?? (Score:2)
C//
Look at GCC (Score:2)
Re:How about a processor ... (Score:2)
Re:How about a processor ... (Score:2)
For desktop use (and even for video editing / workstations / etc.), it's a complete waste of money. Top ATA drives give you more than 50 GB/s on a single read, and can even handle simultaneous reads quite well. Get one with a big cache (8 MB), and you can even get away with a couple of mixed read and write operations.
Get one of those nice big 3Ware ATA RAID