Dual Core Unleashed in 64-bit

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by jiggie2g, Aug 8, 2005.

  1. jiggie2g macrumors 6502

    jiggie2g

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn,NY
    #1
    Well I was looking through Amdzone and stumbled across this review of the brand new Athlon X2 3800+ , This CPU must have over 20 reviews in by now but this one in particular impressed me by displaying it's performance in Win XP 64-Bit.

    All i can say is whoa , Expecially in those Cinebench scores. I wonder what Hector has to say about that. It would seem once on a 64bit OS these things really start to come to life.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-x2-3800_11.html
     
  2. greatdevourer macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    #2
    Old, but it makes me wonder why Apple didn't go for AMD. They're cheaper and faster
     
  3. strider42 macrumors 65816

    strider42

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    #3
    most reports are because AMD completely lacks the manufacturing capacity to really expand and apple may be worried about that, and intel may have a better long term roadmap (as they move away from the pentium 4 architecture to the architecture usde on their mobile chips, the performance and heat dissipation appears to be very good).

    Also, intel gives massive discounts to manufacturers who use intel chips across their entire product line, so apple can leverage that in getting ARM chips for the iPod from them that are more capable than what they are currently using.

    I'm also pretty sure that processor in question costs like over a thousand dollars wholesale. Not exactly cheaper.

    Arstechnica.com had a few good write ups on their speculation on why intel over amd, as well as about this AMD chip.
     
  4. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    thats an imprssive cpu for the price, i may save up and buy one some time, as for apple not switching to AMD they are switching for intels notebook chips in 2006 which the pentium M is best and they are switching for the desktop version of the pentium M in 2007 which no one even knows what AMD will have by then anyway, apple is not switching for current x86 cpu's they are switching for what is going to be around in 2006-2007, jiggie, i'm not a blind mac zealot, nor am i a gamer AMD lover, not even an intel fanboy i disagree with people at any extremity unless it is justified and at this point it's not, each cpu has it's own merits apart from P4's which plain suck ass.
     
  5. jiggie2g thread starter macrumors 6502

    jiggie2g

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn,NY
    #5
    Well I know AMD's next CPU will be based on the Socket M2/1207 will feature DDR2 667-800mhz , Pacifica(virtualization), Hypert Transport 2 , and will also feature the PCIe bus built into the CPU core to go along with the memory controller. AMD is also expected to debut Quad-core K9 chips by then.

    Intel has 1 chance to catch up or it will fall forever, Conroe(memron based desktop CPU) better be everything Intel is saying it will be or else Intel is going to look like a fool and Apple an even bigger one for betting on the wrong horse.
     
  6. andiwm2003 macrumors 601

    andiwm2003

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #6
    apple probably went with intel because it's the more stable and reliable source for chips.
    let's be honest, apple won't be the company with the fastest machines anyway. they never really were (except for a short time with very expensive powermacs).
    but they won't be able to match the high model turnover that all those small companies have. on top of that for consumers it is less and less important to have the fastest chip. just look how good the G4 does. and the 1.8GHz imac with its lousy graphics is easily able to do everything you want.

    so i guess design, usability and the ability to deliver get more important than speed.

    so apple leaves the high performance field and gaming to the alienware and home build people.
    for the mass consumer market 15% speed increase means nothing. even in gaming.
    i just hope this does not turn off the video and graphics pros. because they are what drives the innovation and quality in macs.
     
  7. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #7
    Going strictly by memory, Intel has 11 manufacturing sites, while AMD has 2. Why switch from IBM to AMD if they're going to have supply problems all over again?

    Intel is a strong bet. They may not end up being the fastest, but they're going to be competitive and provide fast processors.

    And yes that AMD dual core 64-bit chip may be fast, but it's expensive, and any computer sporting that chip and similar features will cost more than a PowerMac. The PowerMac still provides great speed-to-price ratio.
     
  8. andiwm2003 macrumors 601

    andiwm2003

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #8
    the speed differences between different OS and software is much higher than speed differences between the CPUs.
    my guess is that the users will buy the machine that fit's the software they like rather than going for the fastest chip and then try to get buy with the software available.
    so going with the reliable standard is probably better that going with the raw power of a smaller company.
    and btw. a switch from intel to amd down the road will be painfree compared to the ppc to intel switch.

    i wonder at what point it is better to run two or three powermacs in parallel compared to an expensive dual dual core amd? consider the redundancy of such a system if you make your money from it.
     
  9. Christofari macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    #9
    they dont even make 3800 x2s are far as i can see...4800 is more like it...the 4800 x2 is around 1000$ at a few different sites, wholesale its probly a little cheaper than that. and as for the mobile chips im pretty sure amd is beating intel on that one too (turion) im not sure if its actually better than a pentium m but its definately comparable...amd has the best chip on the market in every catagory in my opinion which means there was only one real reason to switch to intel...
     
  10. jiggie2g thread starter macrumors 6502

    jiggie2g

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn,NY
    #10
    Intel can have 100 manufacturing sites for all I care but you still need a product worth making or else it's just waste of resources. Intel does not have that as far as desktops are concerned. Nor will it till sometime in mid 2007 with Conroe. however by then AMD will have launched it's K9 CPU(which I mentioned in my post above). Chipzilla is realy starting to look like chumpzilla.

    Expensive? Then the G5 must be a bargin chip then right? I am posoitive If IBM sold G5 cpus on the open market like Intel and AMD. They would not cost $199 per CPU, at the very least $499 for a single core chip.

    Last time I checked X2 and Pentium D machines didn't sell for $3000 but power macs do with bargin bin parts(video card, ram , HD) to further insult the mac loyalist.

    All you see is price , I see absolute value , where a top end PM G5 cost $3000 just for the standard machine , a $3000 PC will be maxxed out with the best CPU , 10,000 rpm RAID , 400 GB drive , SLI etc ...the works.


    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=142113&page=2&highlight=dual+processor
     
  11. jiggie2g thread starter macrumors 6502

    jiggie2g

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn,NY
    #11

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103562

    Uhh , Yes they do make them.

    Sorry for the double post.
     
  12. Christofari macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    #12
    whoo! a pc friend...macs are definately priced a little differently than pcs. im just waiting for x86 osx so i can experience the glory of osx. it will be interesting to see how the performance/price is compared to some pc manufacturors when apple switches to intel. cant wait!!! maybe ill be able to afford a beautiful machine without sacraficing performance...i assumed since they were talking about the 1000$ neighborhood they couldnt be serious about that...but i guess i was wrong
     
  13. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #13
    I think some of you guys are making a mountain out of molehill. The difference in performance between comprable AMD and Intel chips is pretty small, less than the performance difference between both of the above mentioned manufaturers and the IBM's G5 as seen in the Powermac.

    Both Intel and AMD make competitive chips. I don't think anybody could say that either one is clearly superior. Personally I'd prefer AMD, but Apple wins either way, and so do we - we get faster Macs.

    I think that down the road, if Apple can expand its marketshare significantly, we may see AMD-powered Macs, but, assuming the transition to x86 is smooth, I don't think most of us will be too concerned. Priority #1 for Apple right now is to get a Pentium M in the Powerbook.
     
  14. ravenvii macrumors 604

    ravenvii

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Location:
    Melenkurion Skyweir
    #14
    Why can't anyone grasp that Apple is picking Intel for chips two years down the road, not today? Is the concept too complicated for you, people?

    I suspect Apple will win with the bet on Intel.

    1. It's a package deal. It's not just their CPUs - the package also includes massive manufacturing capability, ready-designed chipsets, ready-made mobile platforms (Centrino), EFI (new firmware booting platform) and ARM. I'm sure there's a few I missed. AMD doesn't offer any of those bonuses.

    3. Integration. AMD's CPUs are awesome, and coupled with a nice nForce motherboard, will make a DIY PC that smokes anyone out there. But it's integration solutions - in other words, whole packages - that Apple is looking for, that the market that Apple is cantering ti is looking for. Apple is not, and have never, cantered to the bleeding-edge gamer-l33t market.
     
  15. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #15
    Very true, and that is AMD's core user base. Intel offers a more comprehensive total package, even though AMD might have a slight performance edge on some of its products.

    As far as people mentioning ARM as being used by Apple for iPods and whatnot, I seem to remeber a recent rumor that Sharp has been contracted to manufacure the CPUs for the next generation of iPods...but an ARM chip would certainly be up to the task.
     
  16. jiggie2g thread starter macrumors 6502

    jiggie2g

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn,NY
    #16

    AMD's processors are vastly superior to Intels , with the exception of the Pentium M , but even that is weak at floating points , something that AMD 64 is a monster at. It's performance edge is not slight , if it were Intel would not be going back to the drawing board to make a new CPU from the ground up. This is a fact and is beyond question. Even Intel fanboys have to admit to that.

    Especially with the emergence of the Athlon X2 the performance gap is now huge.

    There is generaly a 1ghz performance difference between P4 vs. Athlon 64.

    To sum it up. Athlon 64@2.0ghz = P4@3.0ghz ....Thats just shameful.
     
  17. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #18
    HUGE performance, but it shows the law of diminishing returns coming into effect i.e. the 4 CPU system was nowhere near twice as fast as the mentioned 2 CPU system.

    Hideous case too.

    To jiggie2g:

    The P4 is a lame-duck CPU, I honestly don't think Apple will be using that processor in anything other than the current development rig. Intel's CPUs have very good performance, better than the G4 and some better than the G5. I don't think we have anything to worry about in terms of performance. AMD has great stuff but not so much better that I'm upset about the prospect of using an Intel chip.
     
  18. jiggie2g thread starter macrumors 6502

    jiggie2g

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn,NY
    #19
  19. RandomDeadHead macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    fennario
    #20
    Yo jiggie2g, I'm not trying to piss in your corn flakes but, reading over this thread i can't help but see that you are by far the biggest AMD supporter that has graced this thread with their presence. I'm really really NOT trying to be rude or offend. You do make some decent points, however your opinion is irrelevant on the "Apple chose the wrong proc" issue, for one glance at your sig reviles this:
    --------------------------------------------
    Athlon 64 3000+@2.6ghz(Venice) / 1GB(512x2) Corsair DDR3200 / Nvidia Geforce 6600GT 128MB GDDR3 / DFI LP NF4 Ultra-D / NEC ND-3500A / Hitachi Deskstar 80GB SATA 2 & 250GB SATA HD / Sound Blaster Audigy 2 / Antec P180 Case / Antec True Power 2.0 550 Watt PSU / Zalman CNPS-7700 Copper Heatsink.

    iMac G4 800mhz / 15in LCD / 512MB SDRAM / 60GB HD / 2X Superdrive.

    Silver Gen 2 iPod Mini 4GB.
    ---------------------------------------------

    Now im just a hippie, but from the look of it, that a pretty smokin' homegrown PC you got there. I bet it beats the tar out of my piddly ol iMac. I can understand the immense pride you must have for creating your own machine, and a top shelf one at that. You even have a nice custom shiny copper heatsink, and are proud enough of it that you even provided the model number of it.

    My point is, Apple do not care what you think, for you are not the customer that Apple seeks.

    However, I own a local newspaper. I am the customer Apple seek.
    We have used macs exclusively since 1984. I am the customer Apple wishes to keep.
    The girl driving down the street in a convertible beetle who doesn't know scsi from frag, is the customer apple seeks

    Like other posters have stated, AMD has faster procs (at present), but Intel has integration.

    Bleeding edge and brute force is what you seek
    Integration is what Apple seeks.
     
  20. JFreak macrumors 68040

    JFreak

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #21
    if i remember correctly, AMD manufactures its chips on an IBM manufacturing plant, so as apple has been burnt by IBM then they might not want to even consider AMD as they would then once again have to rely on IBM only having one middleman in between. not good. if IBM indeed dropped the ball, apple had no other alternative than intel - but i hope the change was not motivated by negative things from IBM but instead positive prospects on intel developement.

    (i hope apple only uses 64bit intels and never sells the legacy x86 chips. that architechture is dead and i guess we have not been yet told the whole truth about this intel transition; the developer machine is most likely very far from the retail configuration.)
     
  21. JFreak macrumors 68040

    JFreak

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #22
    what makes you think that apple benefits from any package deal they could get? apple excels in the wifi arena and only needs a power-conservative cpu to have everything "centrino" promises. and apples have been able to boot for very long time, so intel's bios expertise is not something apple drools for. chipsets? why would apple benefit from inferior chipset as they have shown excellence in building their own?

    no, apple only benefits from their processors. surely intel will license the tech behind its chipsets to be used by apple with its designs, but i bet apple will want to design its own motherboards from the ground up. they only need the cpu.
     
  22. JFreak macrumors 68040

    JFreak

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #23
    i'm by no means an intel fanboy - in my opinion pentium four sucks big time, and i'm praying none of that crap tech is ever going to retail macs. pentium M has so far proved to be a good chip, and even intel has seen that it is the future for them.

    i'm a bit scared about intel's floating point performance, though. you're very right about the current situation, intel sucks at what is most important for a multimedia content creation, that's why i keep recommending everyone i know to prepare to buy one of the last PPC powermacs available; the point is, we just do not know yet what intel is actually delivering for apple - maybe there is a new floating point implementation coming, maybe there isn't. we'll have to wait for now.

    but even if intel came up with something that'd be able to compete with AMD, would it be able to compete with altivec? i'm waiting to hear something really positive about this, until i get excited.
     
  23. JFreak macrumors 68040

    JFreak

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #24
    actually, you're wrong. until motorola G4 problems arose, apple was always faster than the rest of the PC industry. it was however impossible to compare directly, as microsoft didn't have a stable graphical operating system until NT4 service pack 3 which was in 1998 if i remember correctly, anyway roughly at the same time motorola was coming out with the G4. at that time intel was at pentium-two and a lot slower.

    it was only after 2000 when intel transformed their cpu into a room-heater when apple lost the performance crown due to motorola's inability to deliver.
     
  24. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    at that time the ceo of motorola was the current ceo of AMD, and he totally screwed over the ppc production and was responsible for the 500MHz wall.

    funny thing is my amd pc is faster than jiggys, yet i use my mac 90% of the time.
     

Share This Page