Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,245 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
<font size="4">AMD 'roadmap' shows 65nm Athlons coming this year<br />
<br />
Link <a href="http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=34802" target="_blank">here</a><br />
<br />
Courtesy L'INQ.<br />
</font>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,110 Posts
I wonder how theyll stack up to the current x6800...<br />
<br />
I heard conroes suck at 64-bit and I really want the next AMD processor to beat the conroe...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
Will the Architecture be the same as K8 for the 65nm or will the architecture be different and alot faster than the current like up? I noticed they labaled the processors as "Athlon 64 X2 4000+, 4400+, 4800+ and 5000+" This would suggest these 65nm chips will be no faster than the current offering. They must be going for Performance Per Watt.
 

·
Bod ***s rock
Joined
·
22,857 Posts
its the same K8 architecture K8L will be out on 65nm some time next year
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,439 Posts
Unhappy to see no new S939 being made, and all S939 shipments will be dead by the end of the year
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,046 Posts
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>
<table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="99%">
<tr>
<td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset">

<div>
Originally Posted by <strong>Murlocke</strong>

</div>
<div style="font-style:italic">I wonder how theyll stack up to the current x6800...<br />
<br />
I heard conroes suck at 64-bit and I really want the next AMD processor to beat the conroe...</div>

</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div><br />
They dont suck at 64-bit. They still run extensions instead of native 64-bit, but they are still quite fast. There are a few tests where the X6800 slips behind (gasp) the 9XX Intel, but thats without any overclock. Unfortunately for AMD fans, the conroe still pretty much whips up the Athlon Fx-62.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-64bit_4.html" target="_blank">http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...o-64bit_4.html</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Rumors like "Conroe sucks at 64-bit" piss me off, so, if people (not to come down on anyone) want to make such statements, please at least include a link to show where your getting your info from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,890 Posts
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>
<table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="99%">
<tr>
<td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset">

<div>
Originally Posted by <strong>Bitemarks and bloodstains</strong>

</div>
<div style="font-style:italic">its the same K8 architecture K8L will be out on 65nm some time next year</div>

</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>I think that is AMD's plan anyway. They are waiting to make there move. I think all this other stuff is to get them by for now. I think they are waiting to make a big deal until they put out the quad core!!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,110 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>killnine</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">They dont suck at 64-bit. They still run extensions instead of native 64-bit, but they are still quite fast. There are a few tests where the X6800 slips behind (gasp) the 9XX Intel, but thats without any overclock. Unfortunately for AMD fans, the conroe still pretty much whips up the Athlon Fx-62.<br><br><a href="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-64bit_4.html" target="_blank">http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...o-64bit_4.html</a><br><br><br>
Rumors like "Conroe sucks at 64-bit" piss me off, so, if people (not to come down on anyone) want to make such statements, please at least include a link to show where your getting your info from.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
I read that conroes loose 40% performance in a 64-bit. Pretty shocking and made me hold off on buying a conroe. I can't find the link that claimed that now...<br><br>
Thx for the link though, even with the small performance lose it still beats the FX.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,394 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Xerphiel</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">This would suggest these 65nm chips will be no faster than the current offering. They must be going for Performance Per Watt.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
It's also a price issue. Smaller die sizes = more chips per silicon wafer = lower cost per chip = more profit per chip or lower cost for consumers.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,876 Posts
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>
<table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="99%">
<tr>
<td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset">

<div>
Originally Posted by <strong>Murlocke</strong>

</div>
<div style="font-style:italic">I read that conroes loose 40% performance in a 64-bit. Pretty shocking and made me hold off on buying a conroe. I can't find the link that claimed that now...<br />
<br />
Thx for the link though, even with the small performance lose it still beats the FX.</div>

</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>If Conroes lose 40% performance, than AMD chips would lose the same 40% since they both use the same x86-64 extensions.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,807 Posts
Does anyone have reputable sources to validate these claims? What's this Conroe running 64-bit extensions whereas AMD is native? Thought EM64T is just rebranded AMD64.......
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,351 Posts
Yess!!! Yess!! C'mooon AMD!! I knew I chose AM2 for my upcoming build for a reason! <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/thumb.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Thumb"> Score! <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/thumb.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Thumb"><br><br>
Brisbane here I come, w00t!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,876 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Cheetos316</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Does anyone have reputable sources to validate these claims? What's this Conroe running 64-bit extensions whereas AMD is native? Thought EM64T is just rebranded AMD64.......</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
AMD64 and EM64T are <b>both</b> X86-64, which are 64-bit extensions of the X86 code.<br><br>
Intel licensed X86-64 from AMD in exchange for AMD licensing the SSE3 instruction set from Intel.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
45,674 Posts
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>
<table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="99%">
<tr>
<td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset">

<div>
Originally Posted by <strong>HrnyGoat</strong>

</div>
<div style="font-style:italic">AMD64 and EM64T are <b>both</b> X86-64, which are 64-bit extensions of the X86 code.<br />
<br />
Intel licensed X86-64 from AMD in exchange for AMD licensing the SSE3 instruction set from Intel.</div>

</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div> Intel gained from AMD ... the knowledge of the ability to make a true 32/64 bit CPU in that transaction! <br />
<br />
Anyway, for everyones sake, we need the competition to help the price competition and R&D from both camps <img src="/images/smilies/smile.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Smile" class="inlineimg" />
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,807 Posts
So if both are running the same 64-bit extensions, why is Conroe worse at 64bit?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,876 Posts
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>
<table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="99%">
<tr>
<td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset">

<div>
Originally Posted by <strong>Cheetos316</strong>

</div>
<div style="font-style:italic">So if both are running the same 64-bit extensions, why is Conroe worse at 64bit?</div>

</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>I havent seen anything to prove it. All the benchmarks I have seen show Conroe with a significant lead over the K8 architecture. Now which ones were run in a 64-bit environment and which ones were run in a 32-bit evironment, Im not sure. But I do remember that Anandtech benchmarked a dual Xeon (Woodcrest) Mac Pro against a dual G5 and the dual G5 system got thoroughly licked. That testing was done in OSX 10.4, a 64-bit operating system.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,952 Posts
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>
<table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="99%">
<tr>
<td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset">

<div>
Originally Posted by <strong>VulcanDragon</strong>

</div>
<div style="font-style:italic">It's also a price issue. Smaller die sizes = more chips per silicon wafer = lower cost per chip = more profit per chip or lower cost for consumers.</div>

</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>And yet, we still have to pay 1G for the top of the line chip <img src="/images/smilies/frown.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Frown" class="inlineimg" />
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
45,674 Posts
<div style="margin:20px; margin-top:5px; ">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div>
<table cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="99%">
<tr>
<td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset">

<div>
Originally Posted by <strong>wowza</strong>

</div>
<div style="font-style:italic">And yet, we still have to pay 1G for the top of the line chip <img src="/images/smilies/frown.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Frown" class="inlineimg" /></div>

</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>With time the efficency will change the cost factor. After all, AMD had spend big bucks to upgrade and they are in the works of building a new fab in the U.S. too! More production to keep up with the increased demand for units <img src="/images/smilies/smile.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Smile" class="inlineimg" />
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top