An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
Hey man. AMD doesn't need high processor frequencies because their processors do more work in each cycle. Who cares if they can get 3.0Ghz? They could just make the FX-55 do even more work in each clock cycle.
Hey CALCULUS/T-3/Nemesis
Sure, AMD is much more efficient, but if they didn't scale up their clock speeds they would only have 1-2 CPU's out, and a new one would only come out every 8-14 months. Plus it cots MILLIONS to re-design a CPU to make it more efficient.
Not to mention you can only take it so far. EX. a basically perfectly efficient CPU running at 100MHz vs. an extremely in-efficient CPU running at 4GHz... the 4GHz will still win.
Hey man. AMD doesn't need high processor frequencies because their processors do more work in each cycle. Who cares if they can get 3.0Ghz? They could just make the FX-55 do even more work in each clock cycle.
Hey CALCULUS/T-3/Nemesis
Sure, AMD is much more efficient, but if they didn't scale up their clock speeds they would only have 1-2 CPU's out, and a new one would only come out every 8-14 months. Plus it cots MILLIONS to re-design a CPU to make it more efficient.
Not to mention you can only take it so far. EX. a basically perfectly efficient CPU running at 100MHz vs. an extremely in-efficient CPU running at 4GHz... the 4GHz will still win.
I would have to disagree. I think AMD's Price/Performance would win hands down. Could this be the reason Intel scrapped there 4GHz P4 plans? ;)
I never said their price/performance ratio was high, I said it would be MUCH HIGER if they had to design a new core every time they wanted to up the performance as T-3/Calc/Nemesis said.
well maybe if AMD started rating there processors differently....sure it wouldn't be the \"AMD\" thing to do...but it'll probably get more consumers to buy amd-built compus rather than intel....i have experienced first hand how and why ppl choose what computers they want from selling them at circuit city....they look at intel and it says \"Intel p4 3.60ghz\" and then they look at an amd which says \"AMD AthlonXP 3200\" and obviously they would THINK that the intel is faster/better than the amd just by the numbers...they interpret the 3200 as in 3200mhz and the 3.6 as 3600 mhz....and also on our price tags (if u ever go to a circuit city, look at the price tag of an amd) it has the actual speed of the amd processor in smaller print at the bottom, and the raw speed is usually very low, although amd's at 3200 outperform intel's at 3.2 by 25%
I never said their price/performance ratio was high, I said it would be MUCH HIGER if they had to design a new core every time they wanted to up the performance as T-3/Calc/Nemesis said.
I see what you mean. AMD has good reason why they design there CPU's as they do. First, let me state that AMD?s CPU's are more efficient in design & newer than Intel's CPU's due to the Athlon 64?s newer architecture.
AMD's Athlon 64's have 12 stage pipelines where as Intel's new CPU's uses 31 stage pipelines. This will explain why Intel CPU's can scale upward in clock where as AMD CPU's cannot go as high.
AMD figured out a way to design a CPU which will outperform Intel CPU's without scaling the clock like mad. They did this for a cost effective way to design a CPU for us to buy a faster CPU for a cheaper price. AMD CPU?s are also cheaper to produce than Intel?s CPU?s.
This was the only alternative to try & compete with a monster of a company Intel. Intel?s CPU cost more to manufacture than AMD CPU?s.
I would say that Intel may come out with a new CPU architecture in say 2007 to 2008 or so and finally rid themselves of this age old net burst architecture which is keeping them behind AMD.
Here is a link where Intel?s new 660 series CPU over clocked @ 5.20GHz needs that speed just to keep up with AMD?s Athlon 64 FX-55 @ 2.60GHz.
That is basically twice the speed Intel needs to compete with AMD. 5,200GHz (2,600 x 2 = 5,200).
Well, the AMD is the flavor here, and its mine, B)
the duel cores, are going to be something different and will require new everything, there was some info I was reading that shows the mobos that are around now are not equiped to run the new CPU because of their setups and hardware used.
The FX55 on 130 their was some comming out on the 90Nm cores (san deigo) which hasnt really shown its self. Cooler, yes and no the older CPU ran 1.65Vcore at around 40oC then the 90Nm run @ 1.4Vcore and 25oC
the funny thing I had seen was a 3200 @2.6Ghz with a 1.55core and a FX55 @2.7Ghz with a 1.55 where the FX ran hotter, it was odd that there really wasnt any differenct between the air and water cooling that i used on both processors?? I dont really think that the Air cooling is that great its not stock btw pc cooler P8AC
But its the last few weeks of the 130 I would think as the 90Nm would be alot better and cooler, it got alot of over head for clocking and runs cooler in general ( becuase of the lower voltage required)
As long as you have a Socket 939 motherboard with 90nm support, then you can use the new Athlon 64 Dual Core CPU's with no problems. All you will ever need is a Bios Update for your mobo.
This step was very important to AMD, where as for Intel Users, they will have to buy completely new system's to use Intel's Dual Core CPU's.
But I rather go for the FX-57 San Diego Core with Rev. E & the Strained Silicon ;)
Digg Topic
Tag topic on On del.icio.us
Technorati Search
Post to Slashdot
