PDA

View Full Version : AM2 Preview: Performance Lackluster?


ViN86
03-15-06, 04:43 PM
Tom's Hardware did a review. im not too impressed with the numbers atm. however, this is only with DDR2-667. they say production chips will support DDR2-800, which should offer more bandwidth over DDR-400, as opposed to DDR2-667, which is approximately equivalent (due to increased latencies).

check it out, let us know what you think :)
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/02/21/a_look_at_amds_socket_am2_platform/

Sazar
03-15-06, 04:47 PM
Read anand's blog as well. Same thing is reported by him but he is optimistic some things will be fixed.

Dazz
03-15-06, 05:04 PM
It's said that the AM2 will be around 3~5% faster then the same sk939 chips not much really.

superklye
03-15-06, 05:27 PM
I've been saying this since day 1. I poo-poo AM2.

Mr_LoL
03-15-06, 05:46 PM
If it offers no tangible benefits why are AMD bringing this new socket to the table?

superklye
03-15-06, 05:56 PM
...because maybe they where caught off guard by conroe.
If that was actually the case (which it isn't), this would be the most pathetic comeback of all time.

The only thing that's changed about these chips is the memory controller. It's not a new architecture or anything. Hell, I don't even think they're on a new process yet. Eventually they'll be 65nm, but they're still 90nm for the first generation or two.

I could be wrong though and I'm just not-bored enough to not Google it and see.

Sazar
03-15-06, 06:17 PM
Yah, ddr-2 never really excited me. I would prefer for AMD to simply concentrate on a new beastie (which they are) and not worry about dabbling in little things like this.

However, from their perspective, it will define how their controller works and increased bandwidth is never a bad thing :cool:

Intel though have some awesome products on the horizon that are in sampling right now :cool:

keith33
03-15-06, 06:20 PM
Yeah, as soon as I read this I was thinking "whatever". It's almost a product refresh, nothing even evolutionary, DDR2 is still pretty unnecessary. I'm thinking conroe has a place in my house by the time I'm ready to switch processors. Intel has been continously innovating being the new underdog, AMD sat on their lead, and its about to be taken from under them.

jAkUp
03-15-06, 08:21 PM
Conroe FTW, AMD slept, AMD lost :(

Riptide
03-15-06, 08:56 PM
Some of us saw this coming.

SH0DAN
03-15-06, 08:59 PM
AMD has not slept,and has certainly not lost,its just a little bit early to be making dire predictions such as that jAkUp,dont you think?

keith33
03-15-06, 09:25 PM
AMD has not slept,and has certainly not lost,its just a little bit early to be making dire predictions such as that jAkUp,dont you think?

AMD made it pretty clear there weren't going to be any significant architecture changes, Intel started from scratch. Unless AMD pulls a rabbit out of their hat I don't think its presumptuous to say Intel may have the performance crown this time around.

Riptide
03-15-06, 09:47 PM
AMD should just close up shop and give it up.




j/k ofcourse :angel:

JoKeRr
03-15-06, 10:14 PM
AMD should've designed the A64 architecture from the beginning to utilize more memory bandwidth. I saw signs of trouble when Anandtech first did the A64 with DDR500 test, and the improvements were very very little.

On the other hand, Intel's netburst has always been bandwidth hungry, and now Conroe utilize the DDR2 bandwidth nicely as well, but we still don't know how Conroe scales with increased memory bandwidth. If Conroe scales well, then DDR2-800 + Conroe could definitely deliver a bigger blow than what we saw from the preview.

Wonder if the situation changes for AMD's K8L.

Mr_LoL
03-15-06, 11:29 PM
Does anyone know how long amd plan on staying with this new socket?

john19055
03-16-06, 05:50 AM
The new intel Conroe chip looks like it is going to be good and AMD is going to have to do more then just DDR2.

Riptide
03-16-06, 08:23 AM
AMD should've designed the A64 architecture from the beginning to utilize more memory bandwidth.No they did exactly what they should've done - get good performance without a requirement of high bandwidth utilization. Just making it more bandwidth hungry is not a good thing necessarily.

I'd rather see them do exactly what they've already done in the past - get competitive performance w/o requiring high bandwidth.

Sazar
03-16-06, 10:14 AM
I agree with Rip.

The proc's are not exactly starved for bw right now. Consider the relative lack of performance boost (other than theoretical) between 754 and 939.

The procs will benefit, yes, but they are hardly going to experience a night and day difference.