It is a big deal seeing as its currently the *only* quad core out right now. Have you seen any samples of K8L? No. Neither have I. And on the note of Intel being useless crap, that is the biggest fanboy statement I've ever heard. You buy something because its the best, not because of the name. Conroe is soundly pounding on AMD right now because they still haven't released their K8L and won't till around 2008. Read the roadmaps. AM2 is a transition and you still have to get to AM3 before you get to a true Nex-Gen AMD experience and even then they will still lag behind Intel because guess what? You know who chooses the way we use DDR3 memory? Intel. You know who works hand in hand with Samsung and Hynix and all the other chip makers? Intel. Intel is not just called the darkside for kicks my friend, they have lots of push in the engineering and making of everything you use. Right now I'd say AMD needs to focus on getting RevG out and then we will see how 65nm fares.
And what you're currently doing is comparing old technology vs new tecnology. For all you know there could be sames out there, most just being on an NDA.
And I don't know where you get 2008 last i read from AMD it was coming out 2007.
starting 9/24/2006 if your problem has been solved please edit your first post and add [solved] to the begining of the title. Thanks.
08-08-2006, 12:38 PM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2006, 01:23 PM by BEAN.)
Right now the new Intel is going against basically 3 year old technology and finally caught up. As far as intel having the edge over AMD we will see when the quad comes out in 2007, 3d quarter is the release they are giving us now. Intel's flaw is in the mem controller being on the board not on the chip. That is why AMD's last group of chips destroyed intels and why intel could not compete.
I am happy that your a fan of Intel and you bought all your new hardware. Will it stand up a year from now when AMD comes out with the quad, I highly doubt it.
As far as the kentsfield is concerned it is now 65nm and Intel is rushing in order to get their quad out first making it 65nm. This will be interesting in deed since finally we will have a show down mith modern technology coming out basically at the same time in order to prove who is the victor in this next series of chips. My money is on AMD since they aren't rushing their chip like intel, it is based on an well known architecture that has been top dog for over 2 years.
Intel has made major changes just to keep up. The Conroe is the only chip standing up and being able to do something since you have to overclock the hell out of the other intels in order to get them perform better over the AMD's. How long is your chips going to last when you have to clock them that hard in order to get the performance? I personally will stick with AMD because I have only had issues with any piece of Intel I have owned and my AMD's have proven time and time again to be flawless in anything I throw at them.
09-11-2006, 06:57 PM (This post was last modified: 09-11-2006, 07:10 PM by USB.)
Here is my imput on the subject. As we all know, what makes AMD's fast is the ondie memory controller and the smaller pipeline. So, this is a big advantage over an intel CPU using a seprate memory controller on the motherboard and a 32 Stage pipeline as aposed to AMD's 12.
Intels have high clocks, so should be used on Servers that are more intensive on CPU. IMO, if you dont overload your servers, you will run our of ram way before you do CPU cycles. so i will always go for an AMD CPU for srcds as its not VERY cpu intensive, but requires alot of ram.
Some of you are probaly wondering why intels can clock much higher then AMD's, this comes down to what makes amd fast and intel a "little" slower at processing, the pipes inside the CPU. the higher the pipes the higher it will clock, but process slower.
[quote=jackaL]
Ok. Im Sorry but I HAVE to get into this. Clay Meow, How long have you been on these forums? Posts: 6 = Not very long. Drocona has been here WAY Longer. Posts: 448 = Longer. Why do ALL the newest members start flame wars with the people who've been here longer. It is really amazing how they are immature and have to argue to get what they want. I know, Im 14 years old. This is supposed to be a FRIENDLY forum where people get info on "SRCDS" issues. Not a GIANT FLAME WAR FORUM. If you'll want to flame so bad, Make your own forums and name it " LMAOS FLAME WARS". Sorry I had to get into this.
Jackal
[/quote]
lol, check his other credentials first there bud, dont knowledge by post count.
[quote=cryotek]
If you wanna consider the fact that the K8L will sport 4 cores instead of 2, a faster HyperTransport link of 5.2GT/sec compared to amd64's current 2GT/sec Not to mention the fact the K8L finally goes 65nm. The L2 cache will be about 128KB or something like that but it'll have a shared L3 cache with a minimum of 2MB and i think can do about 12MB.
heres a nice little preview http://www.realworldtech.com/includes/images/articles/K8L-preview-1.png
What would have done well against the K8L from intel, i belive was either scrapped or pushed till 2008.
AMD has had 65nm cores for along time, though they where not available to YOU. and they have had them for a while, though they just decided to put them into publicly available chips.
I am a Computer enthusiast, i dont have any qualifications because i feel they improve your ego NOT your knowledge, i just happen to know ALOT about computers, so much so that i happen to be a hardware reviewer. And i agree with what ClayMeow, and Sdy said, i would honestly check your facts bud. (not you Cryo)
09-12-2006, 01:51 PM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2006, 01:53 PM by USB.)
the nanometer doesnt matter too much, it all still comes down to latency inside the cpu. of corse, it will be better but your talking minimal gains from 90nm to 65. (apart from heat and overclocking gains due to less heat) Also, HTT speed doesnt have much effect too, not like BUS speed does on an intel. its that god damn memory controller and the small latency.
however, with this in mind, Tau you got any ideas on the new latency and bandwidth these conroes output?
USB Wrote:the nanometer doesnt matter too much, it all still comes down to latency inside the cpu. of corse, it will be better but your talking minimal gains from 90nm to 65. (apart from heat and overclocking gains due to less heat) Also, HTT speed doesnt have much effect too, not like BUS speed does on an intel. its that god damn memory controller and the small latency.
however, with this in mind, Tau you got any ideas on the new latency and bandwidth these conroes output?
unfortunatly not to much, only what i have read in other reviews, though i do have a Conroe machine in the works (working out details), so there will be an artivle on http://www.overclockersclub.com about it when i do
and i beg to differ, the dye (SP?) shrink from 90 to 65 alows to a MUCH higher overhead, i know that the XF60 (90nm) will be hard pressed to hit 4Ghz but the 65nm version of the FX60 will go over 4Ghz easy, (have seen them at 4.6 24/7) but in the end what good is overclockability in a server? none, as you dont overclock a server. that is just one more possiable thing to fail.
im actually debating what kind of box to get right now, as i am curiouse ( i want to see some numbers) of the performance diffrence of SRCDS between intel, and AMD boxes. and weather or not it actually benefits from 64Bit marchitecture.
Well, theres no "real" way to test the performance, as fps seems to be at fixed rates, 64/99/256/512/997. so im not sure how your going to calculate it. and your from overclockersclub? kool im from xtremesystems.org.
The only benefit i can see from 90nm to 65 is a mass overclock ability, and more enery efficient. i ouldnt imagine your going to see any better latency.
i would like to see more L1 cache from AMD though.
USB Wrote:i can run some tests between the following cpu's
AMD64 4000+ single core
Intel 3.0 pentium d 4MB l2 (dualcore) 65nm (does a nice 4972Mhz on my single stage -55c unit)
AMD64 AM2 3800+ x2
im also awaiting on a conroe.
that would be nice, i have a 3.0c sitting here that i had to to 4Ghz on stock volts and air would go higher if i had the time to play with it.
and im dissapointed in AM2 >.< no performance gain, there is actually a decrease, though it may be slightly changed now that the marchiteture, and the motherboards have had a bit more time to mature.
But pretty soon here i will be making a rather large purchase of a few servers, and it would be great to see what SRCDS beefits best from
AM2's arnt a decrease with a DFI infinity mobo, they are about the same with the right selected memory, and i think they have a better memory controller (stronger) it definitly opens a new window for amd.
i can test an opteron single core, but not dual. a x2 Athlon 64 compared to a X2 opteron with the exact clock speed and l1 /l2 cache will basicly output the same results.
i have a quad Xeon here too sitting in my bedroom... 4x 3.2Ghz cores
but to tell you the truth, i hate xeons....
![[Image: userbar_wow.jpg]](http://highperformancegaming.net/images/userbars/userbar_wow.jpg)
im from xtremesystems.org.