Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Anandtech] AMD Launches Excavator on Desktop: The 65W Athlon X4 845 for $70
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Anandtech] AMD Launches Excavator on Desktop: The 65W Athlon X4 845 for $70 - Page 8

post #71 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyius View Post

so this isn't fm2+ based? frown.gif

The Excavator Athlon x4 is an FM2+ part.
post #72 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

Small correction regarding your last sentence: actually it did show up in a consumer chip earlier than that, in the form of the socket 478 Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.2 Ghz, launched in 2003 (and then the 3.4 Ghz version in early 2004).

The chip was essentially a Gallatin based Xeon that Intel used to try to fight the Athlon 64 in the consumer space, so I see where you're coming from. Some people called it the Pentium 4 'Emergency Edition'. The 2 MB L3 cache (in addition to Northwood's 512 KB L2, which is what the chip is based on) did help it gain some fps in games but some productivity software was a little slower because of the added latency (but not much). It wasn't enough to fight the Athlon 64 though.
You're right. Funny, I actually mentioned the "Emergency Edition" P4 the other day on another thread. When the A64 dropped, that Xeon was the only thing Intel had that could even remotely compete. As i recall, it could just barely beat A64 on games and applications that were optimized for Netburst, but it lost almost everything else.

It showed up right out of the blue, with reviewers raving about how good the A64 was. Emergency Edition was right on the money. But AMD had theirs too. Thuban was AMD's emergency response to Sandy Bridge. They knew they could never beat it, but they could sell you six cores for $200.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuy409 View Post

core 2 quad performance? isnt that a bit far fechted?
No, not at all. Jaguar is more or less an improved K8 with DDR3 memory capability and modern HT interconnects. It holds up well against Penryn and even against K10.5 Athlons at the same clock rates. AMD developed it because the Bulldozer uarch doesn't exactly lend itself to low-power operation, although they finally pulled it off with Excavator.
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon X4 870K 4700mhz 1.63v ASUS A88X-PRO Radeon HD 6970 G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB DDR2133 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Kingston V300 Toshiba 2.5" laptop HDD, 1TB Micron C300 SSD Generic 2TB HDD WL2000GSA1672 (external) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate Momentus XT 500GB ASUS DVD-RW Prolimatech Black Series Megahalems Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon "Sarah" 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 ViewSonic VG2030wm IBM Model M Fractal Design Newton R3 600W 
CaseMouseAudioOther
Phanteks Enthoo Pro Logitech Marble Mouse Behringer UCA222 Upgraded Realistic Minimus-7 speakers, Lepai 20... 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile T9900 Dell 0G848F Intel Mobile 4 series 4GB Crucial DDR2-6400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OWC Mercury Electra 3G 44GB SSD stock DVD-RW Linux Mint Cinnamon 17.1 "Rebecca" 1366x768 WXGA 
  hide details  
Reply
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon X4 870K 4700mhz 1.63v ASUS A88X-PRO Radeon HD 6970 G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB DDR2133 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Kingston V300 Toshiba 2.5" laptop HDD, 1TB Micron C300 SSD Generic 2TB HDD WL2000GSA1672 (external) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate Momentus XT 500GB ASUS DVD-RW Prolimatech Black Series Megahalems Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon "Sarah" 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 ViewSonic VG2030wm IBM Model M Fractal Design Newton R3 600W 
CaseMouseAudioOther
Phanteks Enthoo Pro Logitech Marble Mouse Behringer UCA222 Upgraded Realistic Minimus-7 speakers, Lepai 20... 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile T9900 Dell 0G848F Intel Mobile 4 series 4GB Crucial DDR2-6400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OWC Mercury Electra 3G 44GB SSD stock DVD-RW Linux Mint Cinnamon 17.1 "Rebecca" 1366x768 WXGA 
  hide details  
Reply
post #73 of 147
"Today Intel is making the move from 800MHz up to the 1066MHz FSB, with the release of the Pentium 4 3.46 Extreme Edition. Priced at $999"

October 31, 2004 - http://www.anandtech.com/show/1529/13





AR 5650
(10 items)
 
AK 8320e
(12 items)
 
AR 1151
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-6700K Kaby Lake Quad-Core Supermicro C7Z170-M LGA 1151 mATX MSI Radeon RX 480 GAMING X 4GB Team Dark 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Model TDRED4... 
CoolingPowerCase
Scythe Fuma (SCFM-1000) Twin Tower EVGA 750 GQ, 80+ GOLD 750W, Semi Modular RAIJINTEK STYX Gold, Alu Micro-ATX Case 
  hide details  
Reply
AR 5650
(10 items)
 
AK 8320e
(12 items)
 
AR 1151
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-6700K Kaby Lake Quad-Core Supermicro C7Z170-M LGA 1151 mATX MSI Radeon RX 480 GAMING X 4GB Team Dark 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Model TDRED4... 
CoolingPowerCase
Scythe Fuma (SCFM-1000) Twin Tower EVGA 750 GQ, 80+ GOLD 750W, Semi Modular RAIJINTEK STYX Gold, Alu Micro-ATX Case 
  hide details  
Reply
post #74 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedyVT View Post

AM1 is equal to a core 2 quad in performance at a fraction of the consumption. It also has 4 FPUs. So long as you stick with 270 or lower GPU it's pretty solid in performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaroonGTX View Post

Not really. AM1 is Jaguar based and in many cases Jaguar could keep up or even match Piledriver in performance in spite of being a much much smaller core physically. Pretty impressive, all things considered.
you sure you guys aren't drinking or something? like time i checked sempron 5350 is slower than Q8400.
although IPC is almost comparable, just about 10% less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1973 View Post

No, not at all. Jaguar is more or less an improved K8 with DDR3 memory capability and modern HT interconnects. It holds up well against Penryn and even against K10.5 Athlons at the same clock rates. AMD developed it because the Bulldozer uarch doesn't exactly lend itself to low-power operation, although they finally pulled it off with Excavator.
if that was the case, we would've seen a bit of a beefed up AM1 that out-performed piledriver by now.
a 3Ghz puma core with an IPC of steamroller, 4 true cores, and a TDP of <40W.
Edited by epic1337 - 2/3/16 at 2:52am
post #75 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

they're still somewhat slow though, IPC is pitifully lower than bulldozer.

though it would've been great if they made an 8core chip of that, like intel's avoton processor.

Actually, jaguar/puma IPC is a little bit better than bulldozers, but its clocked a lot lower.
BigBox
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570K  Asus P8Z77-V MSI RX480 Gaming X 8GB Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Seagate 2.5" Intel SSD 330 LiteON @ OptiArc DVD-RW Noctuanh-U12P push/pull 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 64bit AOC I2360PHU Logitech Internet Pro EVGA SuprNova G2 650W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Antec Three Hundred MS Wireless Optical Mouse 2.0A OEM Onboard 
  hide details  
Reply
BigBox
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570K  Asus P8Z77-V MSI RX480 Gaming X 8GB Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Seagate 2.5" Intel SSD 330 LiteON @ OptiArc DVD-RW Noctuanh-U12P push/pull 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 64bit AOC I2360PHU Logitech Internet Pro EVGA SuprNova G2 650W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Antec Three Hundred MS Wireless Optical Mouse 2.0A OEM Onboard 
  hide details  
Reply
post #76 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by hojnikb View Post

Actually, jaguar/puma IPC is a little bit better than bulldozers, but its clocked a lot lower.

Actually its same IPC. Pilderiver IPC is little better than Jaguars.
Of course depends on instructions... but FPU is just a little slower. Anyway Quad core jaguar will beat quad core bulldozer, because of better core scaling.

Actually I did compare ZEN core to a Jaguar core ...


Excavator at 3.8GHz might match or even beat 4.4GHz steamroller.
FPU performance from piledriver to steamroller was small @5-10%.
FPU performance from steamroller to excavator 10-20%.

probably Athlon x4 845 with fast 2133/2400Mhz dual channel DDR3 will best budget CPU.
Edited by Themisseble - 2/3/16 at 3:28am
post #77 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuriousNapper View Post

PCIE 8X

What a completely useless cpu.

 

Like everyone else, I'm also wondering how this affects add-in cards on a mATX board. It could be the case that adding in a M.2 PCI-E slot at 20GB/s chops off two lanes of interconnect, leaving just six for the GPU. That shouldn't impact performance much at all, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alastair View Post


You have ZEN and Excavator mixed up my friend. Zen has the 40% IPC improving while Excavator has probably a 5-15% IPC improvement over SR.

 

He might be referring to this graph that AMD released last year, where AMD said the total platform power was down by 40%. Then again, they're talking about low-power SOC implementations, not desktop parts. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

you sure you guys aren't drinking or something? like time i checked sempron 5350 is slower than Q8400.
although IPC is almost comparable, just about 10% less.
if that was the case, we would've seen a bit of a beefed up AM1 that out-performed piledriver by now.
a 3Ghz puma core with an IPC of steamroller, 4 true cores, and a TDP of <40W.

 

AMD's 28nm process that they use at GloFo to make Jaguar isn't tuned for higher clock speeds, it's a low-power process. This isn't in any of the slides that they released yesterday, but during the conference call I asked about forthcoming AM1 products, and there's a 2.6GHz Athlon 5350 successor coming out sometime this year.

 

AMD has to juggle TDP and power use in Jaguar much more than they do for desktop APUs because it doesn't make use of resonant clock mesh technology, IIRC. That's why you don't see a 3.0GHz quad-core Jaguar, because it just wouldn't be power-efficient and the extra power might come at the expense of very small performance gains.

post #78 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post


you sure you guys aren't drinking or something? like time i checked sempron 5350 is slower than Q8400.
although IPC is almost comparable, just about 10% less.

Yep.



MT/ST

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/921-7/vs-core-2-duo-e6600-core-2-quad-q6600.html

If you put overclocking in the mix, the "old" FX-4300 is still a better buy than this X4 845, but it's on AM3 though.
post #79 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by CataclysmZA View Post

AMD's 28nm process that they use at GloFo to make Jaguar isn't tuned for higher clock speeds, it's a low-power process. This isn't in any of the slides that they released yesterday, but during the conference call I asked about forthcoming AM1 products, and there's a 2.6GHz Athlon 5350 successor coming out sometime this year.

AMD has to juggle TDP and power use in Jaguar much more than they do for desktop APUs because it doesn't make use of resonant clock mesh technology, IIRC. That's why you don't see a 3.0GHz quad-core Jaguar, because it just wouldn't be power-efficient and the extra power might come at the expense of very small performance gains.

too bad releasing it now is a bit too late, it would be a whole other matter if its a puma core at 2.6Ghz though.

yes i figured as much, but if the theoretical limit is assumed to be 3Ghz, it shouldn't be impossible to clock it as such.
except, it would no doubt hit a TDP of 40~50W, nearly doubling power consumption just for the sake of an additional 1000Mhz.

in any case, jaguar and puma cores are a bit better off than the current low-end APUs.
they could even attempt to make a big-die version of the puma APUs, an 8core behemoth with the same prowess as the PS4's die.
post #80 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon View Post

Yep.



MT/ST

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/921-7/vs-core-2-duo-e6600-core-2-quad-q6600.html

If you put overclocking in the mix, the "old" FX-4300 is still a better buy than this X4 845, but it's on AM3 though.

Not best comparison... Dont know why they didnt do all test clock vs clock at 2GHz or 2.5Ghz.
I think Q6600 = Athlon 5350 clock vs clock.
Q6600 at 2.4GHz scores around 2.6p
Atlon 5350 2.4GHz scores around 2.5p

Here is 3.2 P comparison
http://hwbot.org/submission/2385498_dziarson_cinebench___r11.5_core_2_q6600_(2.4ghz)_3.2_points/
http://hwbot.org/submission/2683088_delly_cinebench___r11.5_athlon_5350_3.16_points

so yes Jaguar is little behind in FPU performance.

Geekbench MT
http://hwbot.org/submission/2873701_marcelwallace_geekbench3___multi_core_core_2_q6600_(2.4ghz)_5120_points/
http://hwbot.org/submission/2725228_pasatoiutd_geekbench3___multi_core_athlon_5350_5314_points

ST
http://hwbot.org/submission/2725226_pasatoiutd_geekbench3___single_core_athlon_5350_1644_points/
http://hwbot.org/submission/2873698_marcelwallace_geekbench3___single_core_core_2_q6600_(2.4ghz)_1468_points/

Actually jaguar is faster.
I dont know where they got numbers for Q6600... but on that test it looks much faster than Jaguar.


FX 6300 + GA-970-UD3P + 1866Mhz ram is still a killer for budget gamers
Edited by Themisseble - 2/3/16 at 6:31am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Anandtech] AMD Launches Excavator on Desktop: The 65W Athlon X4 845 for $70