Comments Locked

94 Comments

Back to Article

  • Gogar - Thursday, January 19, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Video Card: ATI Radeon X1800 XT

    Why is an ATI video card used to test gaming in combination with a dual-core processors?
    It is known that only Nvidia's drivers make use dual-core technology.
    I mean seriously.. In the benchmarks you see the FX-57 winning from the FX60 in BF2, though had a 7800GTX been used in the tests it would have been a totally different story.
  • secretanchitman - Saturday, January 14, 2006 - link

    i think that AT should update their cpu-z, as 1.24 is quite old and 1.31 is the newest!

    great cpu, and theres really no point in getting the fx-57 when this is out.
  • Zebo - Thursday, January 12, 2006 - link

    boy what a crap stepping.. guys at xtreme are habitually seeing 3Ghz with the toledo/denmarks at much lower cost for months now. Either way 2.6 Ghz AMD anything is really fast as shown in the benches.. when DDR2 comes should be total blowout.
  • Jeff7181 - Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - link

    Three gaming tests? Slackers!
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - link

    You want MORE? Go read FiringSquad's review that particular one has plenty of gaming tests.
  • Wesley Fink - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    My FX60 results for top CPU speed were almost identical to Xbit with a top speed of 2926 at default 1.35V. As we have seen on recent AMD processors, adding additional vCore does next to nothing for maximum overclock.

    However, despite the fact that we could run 209x14 with complete stability at 1.35V with an OCZ 2GB memory kit at 2-3-2, the best overall performance was at 255x11 at 2.5-3-2 timings at default vDimm. We also got very nice results at 266x11 at 3-3-2 with a slight increase in vDimm to 2.7V.

    The FX60 is rated at 2.6GHz, but it looks like most are reaching 2.9GHz at default voltage with no problem, and reduced ratios/higher memory clocks are also working well at 2.9GHz. An AMD dual-core that runs fine on air at 3GHz may have to wait for 65nm, but the FX60 is very, very close to that milestone at 90nm.
  • Yianaki - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Can someone tell me WHY oh WHY gaming site like your blindly tell people to go and get dual core systems when there is a HUGE Nvidia driver bug rendering the 7800 useless. Every driver NVIDIA has made since the 8x.xx series is buggy. Their forums are filled with 8x.xx dual core problem posts. The only solution is to revert to 78.01 drivers which have no dual core 'OPTIMIZATIONS'. But this isn't a solutions for people with newer cards.

    http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?s=b3a5a08b4a297...">http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?s=b3...9727c04b...

    It randomly crashes and people who say it has no problems haven't tried it with the incompatible programs. It won't start openGL windows programs like paint shop pro x & 9. The newest drivers errata sheet says they fixed the problems with Paint Shop Pro X this is NOT the case. I have been waiting patiently since SEPTEMBER with no fixes in site. Why doesn't someone do a report about this issue? I want the game fixes that the newer drivers have and I don't want buggy drivers! This is insane NVIDIA hasen't even disclosed this problem even exists. I would gladly give back the miniscule dual core optimization gains to get back an actual working computer!!! I have only bought NVIDIA cards since they came out with the Riva 128 but I don't think my next one will be NVIDIA especially if this isn't fixed yeasterday. And by the way all the stupid registry hacks posted on riva forums that supposedly remove dual core support for opengl and directx don't work at all. I applied the Windows dual core patch and the AMD one they fix games that ran too fast but do nothing for the random crashes and programs that won't start!
  • kilkennycat - Saturday, January 14, 2006 - link

    I have seen this very loud complaint about the 81.xx drivers on various nVidia forums, but always pointing back to Paint Shop Pro.

    Logic dictates that the bug is in the very poorly supported program called:--- Pain(t) Shop Pro, discounted heavily everywhere. Very likely that the 81.xx revised driver structure just tripped over a hidden bug in the PSP executable -- nothing to do with dual-core optimizations. About time you dumped PSP and used a program from a reputable vendor. If you are a bit more gracious, nVidia might add a work-around to their driver, as they have done for some poorly-supported games in the past, but the weight of logical evidence points to PSP being the culprit. Do PSP versions previous to PSP 9 fail also ?

    Have you tried installing and using "imagecfg.exe" with the appropriate switches to trial-modify the PSP executable ( after backing up the original .exe ) to force it to use just one core and see if the problem goes away ? (Google is your friend wrt "image.cfg" )

    I am running sundry professional and both recent and ancient 3D-games (both OpenGL & DX9 ) on a X2 4400+, A8N32-SLI, 7800GTX(256) using various versions of the 81.xx driver series, the latest being 81.98. Nary a problem, except for one or two games with Set Affinity problems, requiring imagecfg. Adobe Premiere 1.5, for example, run like a champ with full multi-core support.
  • kilkennycat - Saturday, January 14, 2006 - link

    Oops, correcting a sentence in my posting:-> Google is your friend wrt "imagecfg.exe"
  • bob661 - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Are you sure that all of those people are running clean, properly setup Windows installations? I have the latest Nvidia driver at work and at home, I run CAD/CAM apps and games and neither I nor my co-workers have these problems.
  • Yianaki - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    It's tested and clean. Two prime 95's one on each core. 3dmark looped. plus one of the prime 95's that tests the mem. Winamp with a vis. All at same time. Doesn't crash for 9 hours plus, then I stopped it and called it a day.
  • bob661 - Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - link

    Sounds pretty good. But I'm not totally sold on Prime95 as the be all, end all of stability. Have you thought about switching power supplies, if you haven't already? I find that a weak or bad power supply is usually the root of weird instability issues. Also, how the system run without any video drivers installed?
  • nserra - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Nvidia drivers are no longer good big discovery.
    Since GeforceFX, nvidia drivers suck, one good driver release in a FULL YEAR.

    I have The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay It says I need to have OpenGL 1.3 or better! < This is just one game but i have lots of games with problems, don’t work, render problems, lockups, refresh rate problems, .... Very annoying!

    The Ati that every one says have bad drivers works fine,
    some newer games even say it requires Catalyst 5.10 or better on the read me file and i have 5.7 with no problem!

    There must be a reason why ati drivers are certified and NVIDIA don’t.
  • Phantronius - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Your maybe you just suck and building computer systems.
  • andrep74 - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Maybe you just suck at English.
  • Yianaki - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Yes that is the main point to make about this issue. My sucky english. Thanks for your expert input.
  • andrep74 - Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - link

    Not you. The guy who can't type English worth a damn. And his cunning insight into building a system such as yours without having experienced problems.

    And, for what it's worth, most people who hear you gripe probably think you're a spoiled yuppie with too much cash to burn, having dual this and dual that, and don't give a rat's a** if you're having problems. Personally I laud the "enthusiast" because they're the ones that drive the cutting edge; it's just that I'd never have dual core and SLI myself, and since I can't do anything about it, it makes no sense to harrass nVidia.

    Since you have so much extra cash, why don't you try Crossfire and see if you get the same rush with none of the aftertaste.
  • Phantronius - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    I smell a ATi fanboy.
  • andrep74 - Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - link

    Yeah, the guy who invested in two nVidia cards, and a dual-core processor: he's a definite ATI fanboy.

    God, I hope with logic like that you're not in a technical field. And with grammar like that I hope you're not in a linguistic field.
  • Yianaki - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Actually (was) an NVIDIA fan as I said I have never bought and ATI card in my life. Bought the highest performing S3 before the days of the RIVA 128 but that's another story. But I've not heard about any ATI dual core problems. Therfore my rant.
  • Yianaki - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Thanks why didn't I think of that!! I have only been making custom systems since the original Pentium I. And of course there are the HUNDREDS! OF POSTS ON THE LINK I POSTED with the same issue. Then there is the fact that I only get BSOD with anything above 78.01. But no the problem of course lies with me.
  • Yianaki - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Oh isn't this nice CNET is the only website that notes the downside to upgrading to dual core. Wow isn't that neat. Not one completed all their tests. Gee kinda what I was saying. Now if I read the below from some site like anads instead of glowing reviews with no problems well maybe I wouldn't have spent twice as much for a crippled NVIDIA driver.


    From Cnets FX reveiw

    http://reviews.cnet.com/AMD_Athlon_64_FX_60/4505-3...">http://reviews.cnet.com/AMD_Athlon_64_FX_60/4505-3...

    Downside: As is often the case with new hardware introductions, the FX-60 is not immune to issues and incompatibilities. We received a number of FX-60 PCs in the weeks leading up to the end of the press embargo, and to date, none of them has completed all of our tests successfully. Some vendors claim the troubles have to do with Nvidia's graphics drivers, others point to conflicts with Windows. We have faith things will sort themselves out eventually, but since the Athlon 64 FX-60 is ostensibly a gamer's chip, those problems will likely give pause to the early adopting gamers most likely to purchase it at launch.

  • bob661 - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Why is it that not everyone experiences this problem? Can you explain that?
  • Yianaki - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    They all have the problem they just don't run programs that expose the flaws that happen 100% of the time. Any OpenGL non gaming windows acceleration causes problems, of which PSPx has a free tiral download of!
  • bob661 - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Name the programs and I'll test it tonight.
  • Yianaki - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Like I said a hundred times. Having problems with random crashes, that NEVER happen at all with 78.01's. Might be a confilct with a Konfabulator widget, windowblinds, I dunno. But 100% of the time Paint Shop Pro X of which you may download a trial does not work. The trial is as defective as the final version I assure you. Also any autodesk Discreet program does not work. If you look in the Forceware thread there is a Paint Shop Pro thread that lists the non funtioning OpenGL accelerated progs.

    And I am more than I little perterbed there are people making excuses for NVIDIA making beta dual core hacks that give a 1 or 2 frame increase which cause a long list of problems. They just fixed the prince of persia 2 bug with their newest release but it still has bugs and is unfit for release. If CNET can't run all thier tests then there IS a problem. I don't think I have ever read that little tidbit on CNET for any computer release ever. I mean they might say that about one companies system but not every one they tested.

    There was a much longer list of 100% game crashes in Sept which I wish ANADS, HARDOCP, OR TOMS brought to my attention before a dumped a lot of money on a computer that can't use the newest NVIDIA drivers. I pulled my hair for a few days till I had it figured out. Not one site mentioned that a game totally crashed or BSOD. Worse thing they said was that you had to manually attach affinity to a processor to keep it from going too fast.
  • bob661 - Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - link

    Sounds like you may have other issues. I run Autodesk AutoCAD, Mechanical Desktop, Inventor, Solidworks (for testing), Cosmos DesignStar, EFD Lab, PCAD, Altium DXP, and etc with version 81.98 drivers at work. I don't have any games at work but I have Solidworks, Inventor plus COD2, BF2, UT2004, and Quake 4 installed and running at home. My co-worker has the same CAD/CAM apps installed at work (also no games) and at home he has UT2004, Quake 4, BF2 and some older games and Solidworks and Inventor (I think he's got some other CAD stuff installed but I don't know) and he has no problems there either. I don't know what to tell ya dude.
  • flyck - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    because if i recall correctly that driver 8x.xx isn't WHQL yet. but when it is is will work and you will have those performance gains with dual core. You have to look in the near future also.
  • Yianaki - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    FROM THE ASSES MOUTH

    Windows XP/2000 32-bit

    ForceWare Logo (200 x 30)

    ForceWare Release 80
    Version: 81.98
    Release Date: December 21, 2005
    WHQL Certified

    WHQL WHAT!! MY ASS! The amgry posts on thier own forum are after this release as well!

    This one says it FIXES Paint Shop Pro as well as other problems I have been having but they don't even let the program install or if you were to install it with 78.01's then try to load it after updating to the 81.98's it doesn't let the program start. So they fixed nothing. There are no betas at all with fixes. I was using the 8x series drivers with my older SINGLE core computer with no problems and with all the game fixes working correctly. But buying a expensive dual core upgrade(broken with normal dual processor systems too) is a downgrade. WHAT!!!

    WHY ISN"T ANYONE FROM ANADS MAKING AN ISSUE OF THIS! WRITE A STORY BE ACTUALL JOURNALISTS!! Instead of these companies mouthpiece!

    My computer hasn't crashed in months with the 78.01 series if I install the 8x drivers upon boot up it will randomly crash, won't let me use certain programs, or corrupt windows to the point that I need to do a clean install. This issue totally caught me off guard too as I have read every dual core review and NOT ONE has mentioned anything about buggy NVIDIA drivers. I was upset and blaming my motherboard for BSOD when installing the drivers. I WOULDN'T believe that NVIDIA was the cause even though the blue screen said nvdia.dll or whatever. And dual core gaming is NOT new! The gaming press has been writing stories about dual proceesor gaming for years, even if it is mainstream now. These problems effect computers with two seperate chips on the motherboard same as dual core.
  • Questar - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    "WHY ISN"T ANYONE FROM ANADS MAKING AN ISSUE OF THIS! WRITE A STORY BE ACTUALL JOURNALISTS!! Instead of these companies mouthpiece!"

    Don't expect an unbiased Nvidia review here. Look at the image quality issues with the 7800 that don't get discussed here.
  • shortylickens - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Is it just me or does AMD seem to be moving architectures along a little too quickly?
    Socket A had an incredibly long lifespan. It moved from Athlon B's to C's (thunderbird) to XP to MP and even a Duron thrown in for good measure.
    With the tow of the latest passing on (754,940) it seems like AMD just cant get it right. Now they are are already peaking with socket 939. From now on, we'll only have pity chips thrown to us just so we dont feel bad about going into it.
    Well I feel bad. :(
  • Nyati13 - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Socket A was around for a long time, but there were 4 different FSB specs, several different chipsets, and 2 different RAM types all lumped under Socket A. You couldn't tell for certain that a Socket A CPU would work with any random Socket A motherboard because of all the spec changes. You can say that any Socket 939 CPU will work in any Socket 939 motherboard.
  • DigitalDivine - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    That's the disadvantage of having an integrated memory controller. Memory types change, and in the past there have been numerous memory types, in order to take advantage of the changes, amd has to change their socket.
  • jakerugged - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    In the review under the gaming tests you say - "We should also mention that we had to re-run our AMD numbers in this test since the last review as we were seeing sub-par AMD performance. A clean install and re-run of the numbers yielded the results you see today; the Intel numbers didn't change." Why did the Intel numbers NOT change and why did the AMD numbers change? Was it only in the Gaming tests or once you had good AMD numbers in the gaming tests did you then run the SYSMARK, etc tests in order to get max performance? If you did thats not good testing methodolgy. Can we see these sub-par numbers, how bad are they?

    Its ok to say that this CPU is fast but only if you add in that you may have to repeatedly re-load and re set-up your system until it is "just so" before it gives the kind of performance that you would expect.
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    About the of FX-60, they(both the websites) find:

    "our processor worked just fine at 2.8GHz clock speed. Unfortunately, Athlon 64 FX-60 didn’t get along with the 15x clock multiplier."--from xbitlabs


    "With a retail AMD heatsink/fan, the best we could do is 2.8GHz at 1.40V. With more exotic cooling you could probably manage better, but stepping up the voltage all the way up to 1.50V wouldn't yield a 3GHz overclock on air."--from anand

    They agree.
  • jakerugged - Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - link

    Whoa there.....This has gone on a little bit longer than even I thought.

    My original comment was about the general stability of the FX60, because Anandtech.com just put in a little one liner about how they had to re-load the entire FX60 test rig (Im assuming this means re-install the O/S, all drivers, patches and benchmark tools.) because it was not performing correctly. They still have not said why or what these low figures were?

    To be honest, Im not really into O/Cing but I am into stability and I dont want to have to re-load my system just so I can play a few games after using Word or sending a couple of e-mails.
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    About the of FX-60, they(both the websites) find:

    "our processor worked just fine at 2.8GHz clock speed. Unfortunately, Athlon 64 FX-60 didn’t get along with the 15x clock multiplier."--from xbitlabs


    "With a retail AMD heatsink/fan, the best we could do is 2.8GHz at 1.40V. With more exotic cooling you could probably manage better, but stepping up the voltage all the way up to 1.50V wouldn't yield a 3GHz overclock on air."--from anand

    They agree.
  • PrinceGaz - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Why don't you quote a bit more of what xbit labs said, Betwon?

    "We managed to get our CPU to work stably with the clock frequency multiplier set to 14x without increasing the Vcore, which equaled 1.3V throughout the entire test. In other words, our processor worked just fine at 2.8GHz clock speed. Unfortunately, Athlon 64 FX-60 didn’t get along with the 15x clock multiplier.

    Having increased the Vcore by 10% above the nominal, we still couldn’t get our hero to run stably at 3GHz frequency. Although the CPU would boot the Windows XP just fine and could even go through some test applications, it would still crash to the Blue Screen of Death (BSOD) when both cores were fully loaded. So, we had to give up or desperate intention to conquer the 3GHz height.

    We managed to get our processor to work absolutely impeccably at 2.9GHz with the Vcore set to 1.44V. This frequency was achieved as 14 x 207MHz."

    So they managed 2.9GHz totally stable, not just 2.8GHz. And on the final page

    "However, we shouldn’t say that Presler got completely and hopelessly defeated by the new Athlon 64 FX-60. Due to the new finer production technology, the new dual-core processors from Intel can boast excellent overclocking potential. As for the frequency potential of the AMD processors, it has been almost completely exhausted by now. As a result, when we compare the results demonstrated by the overclocked AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 and Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 955, the former is not always the winner. So, if you do not mind your system being a little bit noisy and generating quite a bit of heat, then Pentium Extreme Edition 955 might be a way to go."

    Note the wording-- "the former [o/c FX-60] is not always the winner". The meaning being that the FX-60 at 2.9GHz beats the EE955 at 4.26GHz more often than not, but there are situations where the o/c EE955 wins. So when both are overclocked to their max, they are either equal or the FX-60 has a slight advantage overall. Of course the FX-60 has a significant advantage when it comes to heat, power consumption, and noise.
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    I had say that:
    "OC:
    955 is 4.26GHz, FX-60 is 2.9GHz -->Now, the ratio is 1.46 (4.26/2.9). -->P4 starts to be better than X2. "
    Note:
    "As for the frequency potential of the AMD processors, it has been almost completely exhausted by now."
    "Due to the new finer production technology, the new dual-core processors from Intel can boast excellent overclocking potential."
  • flyck - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    but they also benchmark them both... and p4 is overclocked in those benchmarks still slower then X2. And they also say the power consumption of that overclocked p4 is insane.
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Yes, It is well known that P4 need more power than X2, but P4 is still able to overclock.
    While X2 need less power than P4, but both of them(anand & xbitlabs) find that they can't OC X2 any more (15X).
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    In fact, those tests show that:
    X2 is overclocked in those benchmarks still slower then P4.

    We find the truth.
    Without OC:
    955 is 3.46GHz, FX-60 is 2.6GHz --> the ratio is 1.33 (3.46/2.6). -->In most tests, X2 is better than P4.

    OC:
    955 is 4.26GHz, FX-60 is 2.9GHz -->Now, the ratio is 1.46 (4.26/2.9). -->P4 starts to be better than X2.

    It is very simple:
    The ratio

  • flyck - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    quote:

    In fact, those tests show that:
    X2 is overclocked in those benchmarks still slower then P4.



    p4 wins one test the others it is way behind. you reversed it. p4 overclocked is still slower in those benchmarks.

    overclocked
    FX 2.8/ FX 2.6/ XE 4.266

    UT 2004 : 95.8 / 90.5 / 82.4
    Cinebench : 963 / 891 / 928

    only tests they did overclocked. p4 wins none of them. it is just edges above or around the normal FX 60.


    ow yeah your ratio... you have found a way for perfect scaling ? great, there will be people intrested....
    not even talking about the fact that your primary ratio is wrong because @ those frequencys p4 wins nonthing, so is not even equal. and oced is comes close it will probably win some and lose some (like in those 2 test) so then they are about equal.

    so the more accurate ratio will be 1.40-1.50. for equal performance. in which case p 4 should run above 4.5GHz before it has a noticeable gap over the FX60 overall.....
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    P4 better than X2.
    Ratio is the key.

    The ratio below 1.33 -- P4 is behide.
    ratio above 1.4x -- P4 is competitive. Intel 4.26GHz VS AMD 2.9GHz

    For the ratio of intel 820 VS AMD 3800+ 165 170? see the benchmark of spec cpu2000 rates for 2 core 1 chip:
    The float point performance(under windows OS/32-bit):

    PD 820 SPECfp_rate_base2000 29.9 SPECfp_rate2000 30.0
    http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...
    170(939-pin 2GHz 1MX2) SPECfp_rate_base2000 25.2 SPECfp_rate2000 26.3
    http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...

    We don't find the benchmark of 165 and 3800+, but we find the benchmark of 175.
    170(939-pin 2.2GHz 1MX2) SPECfp_rate_base2000 26.2 SPECfp_rate2000 27.3
    http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/...

    We don't find the benchmark of both PD and X2/opteron dc under windows OS/64bit, so we can not compare the dual-core float point performance 64-bit directly.

    The test--SPECfp_rate is the most important test for CPU float performance. AMD approbate SPECfp_rate for testing dual-core's FP performance.AMD think it is a fair test.
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Edit:
    175(939-pin 2.2GHz 1MX2) SPECfp_rate_base2000 26.2 SPECfp_rate2000 27.3
    http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/...

    It is not 170.
  • flyck - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    ProLiant DL145 G2 (AMD Opteron (TM) 275) 2 cores, 1 chip, 2 cores/chip 30.3 32.4
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    We find the 270(2GHz) FP benchmark of 32-bit under windows OS.
    http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q2/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q2/...
    270(not 939-pin ) SPECfp_rate_base2000 27.1 SPECfp_rate2000 28.3
    But PD820 SPECfp_rate_base2000 29.x SPECfp_rate2000 30.x
    better
    Now, ratio is 2.8/2=1.4.
  • Questar - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    You know, I pretty much favor Intel chips, but I still wish you stop your ranting.
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    You know, I do not favor Intel chips, and I wish you stop your favor of Intel.
    Because we know the spec is not favor of Intel, and AMD knew it.
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    rates
    275
    It is FP benchmark under 64-bit and Linux, but not the FP benchmark under 32-bit and windows.
    And 275 is 2.2GHz

    PD820 is 2.8GHz
    ratio: 2.8/2.2 = 1.22(only).
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Edit:
    Ratio is 1.27 only.
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    NO.
    It is not 939-pin 175.

    The most important:

    It is the FP performance/64-bit and Linux OS.

    Few people use Linux OS.

    PD820 -- the FP performance of windows/32bit
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    P4 better than X2.
    Ratio is the key.

    The ratio below 1.33 -- P4 is behide.
    ratio above 1.4x -- P4 is competitive. Intel 4.26GHz VS AMD 2.9GHz

    For the ratio of intel 820 VS AMD 3800+ 165 170? see the benchmark of spec cpu2000 rates for 2 core 1 chip:
    The float point performance(under windows OS/32-bit):

    PD 820 SPECfp_rate_base2000 29.9 SPECfp_rate2000 30.0
    http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...
    170(939-pin 2GHz 1MX2) SPECfp_rate_base2000 25.2 SPECfp_rate2000 26.3
    http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...

    We don't find the benchmark of 165 and 3800+, but we find the benchmark of 175.
    170(939-pin 2.2GHz 1MX2) SPECfp_rate_base2000 26.2 SPECfp_rate2000 27.3
    http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/...

    We don't find the benchmark of both PD and X2/opteron dc under windows OS/64bit, so we can not compare the dual-core float point performance 64-bit directly.

    The test--SPECfp_rate is the most important test for CPU float performance. AMD approbate SPECfp_rate for testing dual-core's FP performance.AMD think it is a fair test.
  • flyck - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    in my opinion spec scores arent that meaningfull. for example look @ the scores of a P-M and then in real applications.
    It is great for giving a fast overall impression but hardly something to base your overall descission on.


    but i do agree with your ratio you wrote down now.(if you discount ram overclock and others)

    1.33 p4 is slower
    1.4x p4 is competive
    >1.55 p4 is faster

    But in this case : you can overclock that p4 very well but say you overclock them both max with prom or other good cooling devices. you'll have 3-3.3GHz compared to 4.5-5Ghz p4. and i think those are pretty competive against eachother. But still that doesn't convince me in buying that p4. ok it overclocks better but in the end the difference is nothing.
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    AMD think spec cpu2000 rates for testing multi-core is very very important.

    And lots of professional and smart person who really know cpu's tech think it is the best benchmark for testing FP/Int performance.

    If you look at some professional articles about how to improve the CPU's performance ac about , you will find that spec cpu is the most important and most frequently used for the standard of performance benchmark.
  • flyck - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    that doesn't mean it is not a benchmark with its flaws. and if you look @ those scores there are many fluctuations depending on the cpu.

    don't get me wrong, spec is nice to measure performance but has his major flaws to test overall performance or the performance the cpu really will get.
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    spec don't measure video card's performance. But it measures the performance of cpu, memory and so on.
    So, it is the most important performance test, and show the performance the cpu really get.

    If you find another more important performance test which can measure the FP/INT performance, please tell us.

    But you can not find it. We can not find it too.

    fluctuations?
    275 is different with 939-pin 175, and it's benchmark is under 64-bit(275) but not under 32-bit(175).
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    No. you don't how to understand the tests.

    Yes, X2 win the games, but X2 lose in many tests.(I think that (for games) the ratio need at least 1.5 or more)
    Let's look at the ratio 1.46(4.26/2.9)

    PCMark05 test for CPU
    955 7431
    FX-60 5912

    DiVX6.1
    955 354sec
    FX-60 388sec

    XviD1.1
    955 364sec
    FX-60 380sec

    CS2
    955 98sec
    FX-60 107sec

    Premiere Pro 1.5
    955 163sec
    FX-60 178sec

    FineReader8.0
    955 140sec
    FX-60 160sec

    3D rendering
    3ds max7.0 CPU Render
    955 3.46
    FX-60 3.19

    Maya7.0
    955 40.9sec
    FX-60 41.96sec

    Only one?

    The more accurate ratio will be ?
    Without OC, for most poeple , they will not buy X2@2.4G or X2@2.6G or PD@3.2G or PD 3.46G, they may buy PD820/920 or X2@1.8G or 2.0G(such as 3800+ ,165, 170).
    We can get the more accurate ratio from spec cpu2000 rates for dual-core.
    Note: spec cpu2000 rates is admit by AMD.
    For integer performance,
  • flyck - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    pcmark05 :roll: overall it is equal between the two.

    DIVX6.1 p4 8% faster
    XVID p4 4% faster
    mp3 ecoding same time
    WME : FX 25% faster
    photoshop : p4 8% faster
    3dsmax interactive : FX 12% faster
    cpu rendering : p4 8% faster
    Maya : equal
    far cry : FX 16% faster
    half life: FX 17% faster

    this is hardly called a victory for p4 ... i would even say overall FX is faster.

  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    No. you don't know how to understand the tests.

    pcmark05 overall? NO, it will include video card/harddisk benchmark.
    Now let's the benchmark of CPU:

    PCMark05 test for CPU
    955 7431
    FX-60 5912
    Intel faster 25.7%

    About encoding
    DiVX6.1
    955 354sec
    FX-60 388sec
    Intel faster 9.6%

    XviD1.1
    955 364sec
    FX-60 380sec
    Intel faster 4.4%

    CS2
    955 98sec
    FX-60 107sec
    Intel faster 9.2%

    Premiere Pro 1.5
    955 163sec
    FX-60 178sec
    Intel faster 9.2%

    FineReader8.0
    955 140sec
    FX-60 160sec
    Intel faster 14.3%

    3D rendering
    3ds max7.0 CPU Render
    955 3.46
    FX-60 3.19
    Intel faster 8.5%

    Maya7.0
    955 40.9sec
    FX-60 41.96sec
    Intel faster 2.6%

    Except the games, this is hardly called a victory for X2 ... i would even say overall P4 is faster.
    Note: Now , the ratio is 1.46 -- 4.266GHz/2.926GHz
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Let's see the real test(better than anandtech).
    After OC, the tests bentween Intel 955 and AMD FX-60:
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlo...">http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlo...
  • Cygni - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    I have to say, im pretty surprised by the results in single threaded apps, like most games. Despite a 200mhz deficit, it still beats the 57... pretty interesting. Im guessing that the second core is getting SOMETHING to it... maybe the background OS procedures? Dunno.
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Stop surprising.
    Because The benchmark of Business Winstone 2004,Overall WorldBench 5 and Office Productivity SYSMark 2004 may be benefit from multi-core.(a little or more?)

    For the multi-thread-paralle apps:
    Not only Fx-60 but also PD 820 beat, beats FX-57.
    http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%20athlon%20...">http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%...lon%2064...
    http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%20athlon%20...">http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%...lon%2064...
    http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%20athlon%20...">http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%...lon%2064...
    http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%20athlon%20...">http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%...lon%2064...
    http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%20athlon%20...">http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amd%...lon%2064...
  • highlandsun - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Agreed. The only way you'd see truly single-threaded performance on a machine would be running something like DOS that has no task scheduler whatsoever.
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    No surprise about games.
    FX-60 is defeated by FX-57 in most games.
    Only in the SMP games, FX-60 beats the FX-57, And PD 820 beats the FX-57 too.
  • Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    No surprise about games.
    FX-60 is defeated by FX-57 in most games.
    Only in the SMP games, FX-60 beats the FX-57, And PD 820 beats the FX-57 too.
  • Avalon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    I'm still amazed at the performance difference in Quake 4 between the P-D 820 and FX-60, plus the fact that dual core optimizations in the game engine enable noticeable framerate gains.
  • Xenoterranos - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Didn't Carmack himself day that that was basically a dry-run, that they didn't really how to go about multithreading it from the start. If Carmack is basically saying that the result we see here are preliminary and "rough", I can't wait until trully optimized code comes along to max both those cores out! Maybe then a quad-sli system will be able to do some damage without suffering the diminishing returns we've recently seen.
  • latrosicarius - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    I think the future of graphics will be single cards with multiple chips/cores.
  • Furen - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Dont get me started on diminishing returns... lol
  • LupusQA - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    I just don't see the point in spending $1000+ plus for a CPU like this. My Opteron 165 has the same amount of cache, and is currently running stable at 2.7Ghz. Not to mention it only cost me $300.

    The only use this chip would have is for bragging rights to show off how much cash you have, or for those who wouldn't think of straying into the area of overclocking. Guess thats why AMD cancelled the 939 Opterons.. :p
  • SynthDude2001 - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    I feel the exact same way. I've got a $356 Opteron 170, runs as fast as 2.75GHz. I'm glad overclocking is still alive and well, easy way to save $800. ;-)
  • Furen - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Lots of X2s and Opterons can hit 2.7GHz without a problem but most people dont overclock. Sure buying this CPU wont give you the best bang for the buck but what high-end part does? The reason why AMD is against regular people buying Opterons instead of X2s is not because people are buying them to overclock them but because a) the supply of these is pretty limited as it is, b) some people will buy these things throw them onto a regular socket 939 motherboard AND expect support, and c) it messes up the market segmentation and will make it hard to gauge whether or not going socket 939 helped the 100 series with its intended market. People who overclock lowend CPUs are not the ones that would buy the higher-end CPUs even if the lower-end ones didnt overclock so well so I'd be hardpressed to call it a loss of revenue for AMD.
  • lsman - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    ?
    a) supply is not our issue... asks AMD and mostly their pricing policy
    b) Opteron 939 can't work on regular 939 mobo? huh?
    c) again, that's AMD policy/decision to go Opteron 939, as well as their pricing policy. Ask them. (I personally think they shot themselves in the foot with such pricing structure. May as well cut price on those X2...)

    And, no ppl bought low-end to OC move up to high end? I once won't spend over $60 for a CPU and now spend over $150 and eyeing on those $300+.
  • Furen - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    One last thing: You are eyeing a $300 dollar CPU (a dual-core, I'd guess) because there's nothing that's cheaper with the same features. Before we could buy full-featured Athlon XPs for 60-70 bucks but now you'd be hard-pressed to find one below $150. If you think about it, however, you're still looking at the "low-end" CPUs in each feature set, which is why AMD refuses to drop the prices on A64s below ~$150 and X2s below ~$300, because people will buy these anyway. Regardless, I meant that most of us (yes, I normally buy the lowend stuff for myself) would not buy a $1000 CPU if the $300 X2 did not reach 2.6-2.7GHz, hell, most of us would not even look at a 4400+ or a 4600+.
  • Furen - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    I said that AMD doesnt want people to use Opterons as desktop chips, not that we dont want to use them.

    a) Supply is AMD's concern but I'd hardly think that they could go much higher on the price. Remember that Socket 940 Opteron 100s were actually quite a bit cheaper than current socket 939 Opteron 100s, they got a price hike but raising the price too much would have resulted in no one using them.

    b) I didnt say that they would not work, I just said that their use on "unapproved" motherboards would mean that the chip would be unsupported (as in technical support) and unwarranted by AMD.

    c) Most Opterons ended up having quite a big price increase when AMD went to socket 939. When AMD released its S939 Opteron it also lowered the price of A64s. In the end the Price of A64s and their equivalent Opterons ended up being something like the average of AMD's Old Opteron Price and AMD's Old A64 price. The market normally opposes price increases unless there is a shortage which is probably why AMD did not try to saturate the market these chips. Having more chips than the predicted demand would have just led to having idle inventories which would have forced them to drop the price on these even further. The problem was that there was a very big demand increase (which AMD should have forseen but didn't, then again, it could have just been that AMD wanted to have a shortage in order to make people accept the price hikes) so the few units out there were immediately snapped up by consumers.

  • Viditor - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    quote:

    After today’s launch of the FX-60, there will be no faster Socket-939 CPUs produced

    The previous announcements from AMD were that they would continue with socket 939 till at least 2007, though the first release chips were going to be AM2. Are you sure that they are really stopping all 939 chips immediately??

    Cheers
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    According to the roadmaps I've seen, Socket-939 will continue but it will top out at FX-60. So while they will still make Socket-939 processors, the fastest you'll be able to get will be the dual core 2.6GHz FX-60.

    Take care,
    Anand
  • ohnnyj - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Uh oh, does that mean my faithful CPU is going to jump out of my computer and move to Florida :).
  • ohnnyj - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Oops, this was suppose to go under the post about the FX-55's retirement above. Sorry.
  • latrosicarius - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Would have been funny too :-P
  • Furen - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    The key word is "faster"... AMD will continue producing socket 939 CPUs for a while yet, we just wont get any speed bumps, kind of like they did with socket 754. I thought we'd get an extra X2 on socket 939 though...
  • Furen - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Is the FX-55 being retired? Or is it just getting a price drop?
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Retired, only the FX-57 and 60 will remain on the market.

    Take care,
    Anand
  • Rand - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    I wish the gaming tests had been done at 640x480 so as to attempt to minimize the graphics cards influence on the results.
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Normally I'm not in favor of running things at that low of a resolution, especially with this pricey of a graphics card, but I am looking at some other options for getting more useful gaming results. Who knows, it may not be too long before we have something in house that's a little less GPU bound to pair up with these ultra-fast CPUs :)

    I am also considering doing a high end CPU + SLI/Crossfire article to look at exactly what the CPU/GPU balance of today's games happens to be.

    But to keep this post short - request heard and understood :)

    Take care,
    Anand
  • bob661 - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Who knows, it may not be too long before we have something in house that's a little less GPU bound to pair up with these ultra-fast CPUs :)

    Aaawwwww sooky sooky!! Come on, give us a little more please!!!!
  • Questar - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    How about using the D3D Null driver?
  • Tytanium - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    I would have liked to have seen it running at 14x200 so it had the same clock as an FX-57 though :/, for comparison's sake (dual core and all that)
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    We've done dual core vs. single core articles in the past that would be able to give you the answers you're looking for. While they weren't at 2.6GHz, their results are still applicable today.

    Take care,
    Anand
  • AnandThenMan - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    What no overclocking tests. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? The thing is totally unlocked! What the hell.
  • ViRGE - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    It's the same Toledo core as the rest of the 1MB X2's, I doubt it would overclock much better in the first place.
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    With a retail AMD heatsink/fan, the best we could do is 2.8GHz at 1.40V. With more exotic cooling you could probably manage better, but stepping up the voltage all the way up to 1.50V wouldn't yield a 3GHz overclock on air.

    I'm going to update the article with the results, I meant to have them in the conclusion initially but it slipped my mind when posting.

    Take care,
    Anand
  • ckbrame - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link

    Where can I get one woot woot!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now