Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 17 to 24 of 24

Thread: HEXUS.beans - World Exclusive – AMD Dual Core desktop processor details

  1. #17
    YUKIKAZE arthurleung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    3,280
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked
    88 times in 83 posts
    • arthurleung's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P5E (Rampage Formula 0902)
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core2Quad Q9550 3.6Ghz 1.2V
      • Memory:
      • A-Data DDR2-800 2x2GB CL4
      • Storage:
      • 4x1TB WD1000FYPS @ RAID5 3Ware 9500S-8 / 3x 1TB Samsung Ecogreen F2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GeCube HD4870 512MB
      • PSU:
      • Corsair VX450
      • Case:
      • Antec P180
      • Operating System:
      • Windows Server 2008 Standard
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell Ultrasharp 2709W + 2001FP
      • Internet:
      • Be*Unlimited 20Mbps
    Quote Originally Posted by suryad
    Yay for dual core...so seriously guys...for an unlimited budgest gaming system, number crunching just no holds bar performance, is a dual opteron better? Or would you think a dual FX would be better? Frankly I dont understand the basic difference between an FX and an Opteron...anyone care to elaborate please?
    Dual Core is basically 2 CPUs packed together. But since the 2 Cores are closer to each other and interconnected, the effeciency is a bit higher than 2 CPUs through HT. Clock for Clock, Dual Core is 0~5% faster than 2 Independent processors depending on application used.

    Opteron requires ECC+REG memory modules which are more expensive, and Athlon 64/FX does not. Opterons are meant for Workstations and Servers and AFAIK they have a upper multiplier lock unlike the FX.

    The ECC+REG memory is slightly slower and is not suitable for overclocking.
    Since ECC+REG memory with slow timing is pretty slow compared to Fast DDR500+ type low latency memory, Opterons have 1M Cache each core and A64 only have 512K. A64 Dual Core should have the same performance as Opteron 24x/25x Clock for clock.
    Workstation 1: Intel i7 950 @ 3.8Ghz / X58 / 12GB DDR3-1600 / HD4870 512MB / Antec P180
    Workstation 2: Intel C2Q Q9550 @ 3.6Ghz / X38 / 4GB DDR2-800 / 8400GS 512MB / Open Air
    Workstation 3: Intel Xeon X3350 @ 3.2Ghz / P35 / 4GB DDR2-800 / HD4770 512MB / Shuttle SP35P2
    HTPC: AMD Athlon X4 620 @ 2.6Ghz / 780G / 4GB DDR2-1000 / Antec Mini P180 White
    Mobile Workstation: Intel C2D T8300 @ 2.4Ghz / GM965 / 3GB DDR2-667 / DELL Inspiron 1525 / 6+6+9 Cell Battery

    Display (Monitor): DELL Ultrasharp 2709W + DELL Ultrasharp 2001FP
    Display (Projector): Epson TW-3500 1080p
    Speakers: Creative Megaworks THX550 5.1
    Headphones: Etymotic hf2 / Ultimate Ears Triple.fi 10 Pro

    Storage: 8x2TB Hitachi @ DELL PERC 6/i RAID6 / 13TB Non-RAID Across 12 HDDs
    Consoles: PS3 Slim 120GB / Xbox 360 Arcade 20GB / PS2

  2. #18
    Banned StormPC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,194
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by suryad
    Yay for dual core...so seriously guys...for an unlimited budgest gaming system, number crunching just no holds bar performance, is a dual opteron better? Or would you think a dual FX would be better? Frankly I dont understand the basic difference between an FX and an Opteron...anyone care to elaborate please?
    Opteron = 940 Pin, locked multiplier, registered memory, dual core available

    FX = 939 Pin (except for FX-51 and some FX-53), unlocked multi, unregistered memory and will NOT be dual core.

    For most things a singlecore A64 or FX will be faster. If you crunch or do anything that takes advantage of multiple CPUs then the dualies are great whether it is dual CPUs or dual cores (or even more).

    If you are a gamer dualies are not for you (unless you insist on ripping video while playing Doom3).

    Also, a correction: Many A64's have 1MB cache also. Someone mistakenly said A64's have only 512k cache. It's actually split about 50/50 depending on the core. NewCastles, Winchesters and a few ClawHammers (very few) have 512k cache. SledgeHammers and most ClawHammers have 1MB cache.

    Oh, and ECC Registered DOES overclock very well if it's the highend Corsair stuff, but there is a small latency hit.
    Last edited by StormPC; 15-04-2005 at 04:11 AM.

  3. #19
    Agent of the System ikonia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    South West UK (Bath)
    Posts
    3,736
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked
    75 times in 56 posts
    be very interesting to see how gamers rate these.

    obviously 2 cores = faster cpu, but previous attempts to run games on dual cpu's could actually prove a lot slower performance based on the games code not being scalable to dual cpu/core configuration as games write code optimised for majority desktop configurations, eg: they would right for i686 instead of P4 and Amd-XP cpu's

    Intel's P4 HT technology seems to work with the games ok so this should be interesting to see how the games rate it.
    It is Inevitable.....


  4. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Posts
    221
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    Thanks for all the replies to my question.

    I really hope that with various improvements and revisions AMD will be able to have a multicore 3 ghz setup out in the market soon. I have been waiting for a while for AMD to achieve that watermark. I am pretty sure Intel will not scale beyond 4 ghz.

    Intel's mobile cores might be able to give the AMD 64 for its money though...just might.

  5. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    321
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    4 times in 4 posts
    Even if games don't take advantage of dual cores, I'm sure you'd feel an improvement by allowing the OS and background apps to use one core and the game to use the other only.

    Hell, it would be great if for games one core handles the physics of the game engine and the other core everything else.

  6. #22
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    42
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    4 times in 2 posts
    • moshpit's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Z270 TUF Mark 1
      • CPU:
      • Core i7 7700K@stock
      • Memory:
      • 32Gb (4x8Gb) 3200mhz Corsair Dominator RGB
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 960 Pro 512Gb M.2, Toshiba X300 6Tb SATA
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte Aorus GTX 1080 Ti 11Gb
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX850i
      • Case:
      • Corsair Carbide C400
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Viewsonic XG2703-GS 1440p@165hz IPS Gsync
      • Internet:
      • d-220mbs/u-22mbs
    I'm unconvinced of the truth of the HKEPC benchmarks at all. They show the dual core, dual proc 866 beating a single 866 in several gaming benchmarks and that just doesn't make sence at all considering they've always shown better performance on single threaded apps with single CPU's. Aquamark and 3Dmark don't show improvements with multiple CPUs, ever. So why do they on THIS CPU? Does the 866 have something up it's sleeve that's changed the rule of SMP causing games to run a tad slower?

  7. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    AMD copies ... even Intel?

    Maybe I am late to this discussion, but here is a thought. AMD can create great products, but they should name the products better than just following other companies.

    Brief History:
    Athlon XP sounds like Microsoft Windows XP
    Athlon 64 FX ... nVidia, anyone?

    And now the Athlon 64 X2 looks very similar to the "X" in Intel PEE's logo.

    For those who have not seen the PEE logo, here it is.


  8. #24
    Rys
    Rys is offline
    Tiled
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Abbots Langley
    Posts
    1,479
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2 times in 1 post
    Quote Originally Posted by moshpit
    I'm unconvinced of the truth of the HKEPC benchmarks at all. They show the dual core, dual proc 866 beating a single 866 in several gaming benchmarks and that just doesn't make sence at all considering they've always shown better performance on single threaded apps with single CPU's. Aquamark and 3Dmark don't show improvements with multiple CPUs, ever. So why do they on THIS CPU? Does the 866 have something up it's sleeve that's changed the rule of SMP causing games to run a tad slower?
    I'll answer the gaming question at some point () but before I do, I'd just like to point out that the CPU you'll maybe see as an Opteron x66, such as the 866 on HKEPC, is now an Opteron x75. Slight renaming from AMD, which is confusing some CPU identification tools before the official documentation is launched and they can pick up the OPN data and decipher it correctly.

    More on dual-core from us very soon.
    MOLLY AND POPPY!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Dual core and all that - enlighten me please
    By iranu in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 22-03-2005, 03:43 PM
  2. AMD Dual Core Processor Plans @ PC Perspective
    By Steve in forum HEXUS News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19-03-2005, 03:15 PM
  3. AMD Dual Core Benchmarks
    By speedy_s in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 13-03-2005, 10:55 AM
  4. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 24-02-2005, 05:39 PM
  5. AMD to release dual core processor
    By megah0 in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 16-06-2004, 07:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •