AMD's dual core Opteron & Athlon 64 X2 - Server/Desktop Performance Preview
by Anand Lal Shimpi, Jason Clark & Ross Whitehead on April 21, 2005 9:25 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
The Lineup - Athlon 64 X2
As we mentioned earlier, the Athlon 64 X2 isn't going to be officially launched until June. While AMD is purposefully vague in their discussion of availability, it looks like their plans are for system builders and OEMs to offer Athlon 64 X2 systems in Q3 of this year and for retail availability to be in Q4 of this year.For AMD, the Athlon 64 4000+ was the last single core Athlon 64 that they will make; all model numbers after 4000+ will be dual core Athlon 64 X2s. Starting at 4200+ and going up to 4800+, the Athlon 64 X2 continues AMD's trend of basing model numbers on clock speeds and cache sizes. You can see the breakdown below:
The other major difference between AMD and Intel's dual core desktop approach is in pricing. Let's take a look at the cost per core of the Athlon 64 X2:
That being said, let's compare it to Intel's pricing:
AMD's answer to Intel's aggressive pricing is two-fold. Eventually, all of AMD's CPUs will be dual core, and thus, prices will be driven back down to single core levels. But for now, AMD feels confident enough that their single core CPUs are fast enough to compete with Intel's low clocked Pentium Ds. We put that exact thinking to the test in Part II of our Intel dual core preview and concluded that it really depends on what type of a user you are. If you tend to multitask a lot or run a lot of multithreaded applications, then a slower Intel dual core is what you need; otherwise, a faster single core AMD is your best bet.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
144 Comments
View All Comments
Opteron - Monday, June 20, 2005 - link
mikeshoup - Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - link
I think a better option for testing compiling speed would be to pass a -j argument to make when compiling FireFox, and tell it to run as many parallel operations as the processor can take threads. IE: -j2 for a dual core or ht cpufritz64 - Thursday, May 5, 2005 - link
I know what I will be getting after fall this year. Those numbers are impresive!jvarszegi - Friday, April 29, 2005 - link
So they're reproducible, but only in secret. And you knew, as usual, about mistakes you were making, but made them anyway to, um, make a valid comparison to something else that no one can verify. Nicely done. Whatever they're paying you, it's not enough.Ross Whitehead - Thursday, April 28, 2005 - link
Zebo -You are correct you can not reproduce them, but we can and have 10's of times over the last year w/ different hardware. I do not believe that because you cannot reproduce them discounts their validity but it does require you have a small amount of trust in us.
We have detailed the interaction of the application with the database. With this description you should be able to draw conclusions as to whether it matches the profile of your applications and database servers. Keep in mind, when it comes to performance tuning the most command phrase is "it depends". This means that there are so many variables in a test, that unless all are carefully maintained the results will vary greatly. So, even if you could reproduce it I would not recommend a change to your application hardware until it was validated with your own application as the benchmark.
The owner of the benchmark is not AMD, or Intel, or anyone remotely related to PC hardware.
I think if you can get beyond the trust factor there is a lot to gain from the benchmarks and our tests.
Reginhild - Thursday, April 28, 2005 - link
Wow, the new AMD dual cores blow away the "patched together" Intel dual cores!!I can't see why anyone would choose the Intel dually over AMD unless all the AMDs are sold out.
Intel needs to get off their arse and design a true dual core chip instead of just slapping two "unconnected" processors on one chip. The fact that the processors have to communicate with each other by going outside the chip is what killed Intel in all the benchmarks.
Zebo - Thursday, April 28, 2005 - link
Ross,How can I reproduce them when they are not available to me?
From your article:
" We cannot reveal the identity of the Corporation that provided us with the application because of non-disclosure agreements in place. As a result, we will not go into specifics of the application, but rather provide an overview of its database interaction so that you can grasp the profile of this application, and understand the results of the tests better (and how they relate to your database environment)."
Then don't include them. Benchmarking tools to which no one else has access is not scientific because it can't be reproduced so that anyone with a similar setup can verify the results.
I don't even know what they do. How are they imporatant to me? How will this translate to anything real world I need to do? How can I trust the mysterious company? Could be AMD for all I know.
MPE - Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - link
#134How can it be the best for the buck ? Unless you are seeing benchmarks from Anand that says so how could come to the conclusion?
At some tests the 3800+ was the worse performer while the X2 and PD where the best.
You are extrapolating logic from air.
Ross Whitehead - Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - link
#131"no mystery unreproducable benchmarks like Anand's database stuff."
It is not clear what you mean by this statement. The database benchmarks are 100% reproducable and are real life apps not synthetic or academic calcs.
nserra - Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - link
You are discussion price and it's not correct since intel goes from 2800 to 3200 and amd goes from 3500+ into 4000+ (i'm ignoring amd new model numbers, still based on older).I complete disagree the AMD model numbers, the should be = to single core, the should just had the X2.
The TRUE X2 will be more performer than opteron, by 2% to 5%.