Yonah

[Mats]

Overclocked Dothans already outperform AthlonFX-57. For gaming, it's 10% faster than Athlon64 clock-by-clock.

And overclocked FX-57s outperform overclocked Dothans, so?

No, not in gaming. I'm surprised too, but it's a fact. Check out www.xtremesystems.org/forums for instance. Sorry, couldn't find the right thread, I've asked for it before. There's no magic in this, PM got 2 MB level 2 cache with lower latency than A64's 1 MB cache.
But yes, it sucks in many other areas such as FPU intensive tasks.

[rpsgc]

Wanna bet?

Half-Life 2:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content ... x57&page=6
FX-57 -> 124FPS

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content ... 780&page=6
P-M 780 @ 2.75 GHz (O/C) -> 128FPS

Bare in mind, the second review has a 7800GTX instead of a 6800Ultra present on the first one. The difference on average is 3fps more. So, it's 127 vs 128, not a big difference, and we haven't even O/C'ed the FX-57.

Next,
Far Cry:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content ... x57&page=7
FX-57 -> 88FPS

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content ... 780&page=7
P-M 780 @ 2.75 GHz (O/C) -> 95FPS

Compensating for the 7800GTX, in the end it's around 91/92 vs 95FPS.
Lastly we have Doom 3, the only game were we see a significant difference.

Doom 3:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content ... x57&page=6
FX-57 -> 172FPS

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content ... 780&page=7
P-M 780 @ 2.75 GHz (O/C) -> 202FPS

The change from the 6800U to the 7800GTX varies.

Athlon 64 4000+ increases 7
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ increases 8
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ increases 12

P-M 202 vs anywhere between 180 and 184 FPS.

----



This isn't an exact comparision, just to show that it isn't that much of a difference.

[~El~Jefe~]

fx-57 can wipe out a dothan anytime any day, and just about anyone and everyone does know that. without overclocking or with. intel doesnt have a chip that compares to it currently.

yonah single core might be the new 300mhz celeron though with its 65 nm aspect making it cooler/less wattage yet able to be stretched to higher mhz's. If its 65nm actually produces non voltage leaking power, it should take the crown for a few months.

However, intel's choice of boards and tweaking are wretched and not focused upon for the home tweaker/oc person. However again, if the chip becomes popular, there MIGHT be a board manufacturer that will market something actually interesting in this area for the gaming crowd.

of course, that's what everyone said about prescott when it was the latest greatest 90nm. apparently nm size has little to do with things compared to engineering of the chip in general.

I think that currently no one of note will bother with new intel chips. People are very happy with 939 systems in their cheap cost, oc'ing ability and their low wattage levels. It takes a good big push of something great to get people buying something new. people held on for 2 years (at least) to their athlonXP chip systems and their 2.4-2.8ghz p4's.

[Mats]

rpsgc:
I actually referred to FX-55, forgot that a new one have showed up, sorry. Well, it doesn't really make any difference, does it?
While you actually may be right, I really don't trust GamePC just because it's a computer store. Other reviewers may have some economical reasons for presenting certain results too, but I have never seen so many strange results from any reviewer like those I've seen at GamePC (except THG, of course!! ) Besides, they're using that crappy Aopen mobo. Lots of features, yes, but everybody knows that Asus CT-479 is the best overclocking solution for PM right now.

I trust people like macci @ XS more than an online computer store.

[rpsgc]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... 80_15.html

At default the 780 gets his ass kicked by the FX-55.

[Mats]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... 80_15.html

At default the 780 gets his ass kicked by the FX-55.

Yes, of course. It's because of the low clock speed. You have to overclock it to get the best from it, like I said. PM will never beat FX at stock speeds.
On the other hand, you can use a cheaper 730 instead and compare to a more expensive 3700+, both overclocked of course. Another test, no obvious winner in games. PM 730 is the way to go if you want a budget gaming machine though.

[Mats]

Another test, PM 760 @ 2.77 GHz wins 12-3 to FX-55 @ 2.8 GHz in gaming.

[rpsgc]

What about the "low clock speed"? Aren't they supposed to be more efficient? Of course it will beat a FX-57 if overclocked, but what's the point of that affirmation? Saying that is just exclaiming its inferiority

If one is O/C'ed then the other should also be O/C'ed.

[rpsgc]

Another test, PM 760 @ 2.77 GHz wins 12-3 to FX-55 @ 2.8 GHz in gaming.

For f.... sake. That's a 38% overclock, and the FX-55 only has a 7% O/C. Plus the difference is so meager. I still don't get what your trying to say? See post above.

[Mats]

What about the "low clock speed"? Aren't they supposed to be more efficient? Of course it will beat a FX-57 if overclocked, but what's the point of that affirmation? Saying that is just exclaiming its inferiority ;)

If one is O/C'ed then the other should also be O/C'ed.

Yeah, but you know there are no high speed PM's out there but they overclock well. There are no FX's @ 2.2 GHz so what can we do? FX's are already maxed out when you buy it, don't expect more than a 10 % overclock from a FX-57 with air cooling. That's why I think PM 730 or A64 3700+ is a much better choice.

[Mats]

Another test, PM 760 @ 2.77 GHz wins 12-3 to FX-55 @ 2.8 GHz in gaming.

For f.... sake. That's a 38% overclock, and the FX-55 only has a 7% O/C. Plus the difference is so meager. I still don't get what your trying to say? See post above.

Still, PM is faster clock for clock. The reason why they are so difficult to compare is because of the totally different markets they're made for. PM is simply not made for desktop computers, that's why it's not very good in other areas. PM and FX was never intended to compete against each other, otherwise we would have 2.6 and 2.8 GHz PM's.

Besides, that 7 % overclock of the FX is probably what they could get from it with air cooling.

[rpsgc]

They don't make high-speed P-M for a reason. And point is: P-M are supposed to be more efficient than Athlon 64s, so you can't compare them per clock speed.

[Mats]

This is how many reviewers do. Overclock two CPU's as much as you can and then compare them. If one of them is not a good overclocker then it's not really unfair? It just makes it a less useful CPU from a overclocking point of view. They could never make a 38 % overclock with that FX-55 and air cooling.
People who buy a PM 780 know what they'll get. They pay a lot but they won't get the fastest CPU, they know they have to overclock it.

[cotdt]

Great discussion!

Need I say that Intel claims Yonah will be much better for gaming with "vastly improved floating point performance"? And Dothan was already good in gaming. Not to mention it can handle 100C temperatures w/o crashing, whereas my 2.5GHz Athlon64 crashes at anything above 65C.

Something strange I've noticed is that overclocked Dothans still use the same amount of power as stock. Anyone else notice that? Well in terms of performance/watt this Yonah will be a munster.

[perplex]

dual core Yonah laptops will be nice to use i'm imagining. too bad (or not) that i already bought a nice Toshiba centrino laptop :] - i'll upgrade my single core based computers when atleast quad core is mainstream :]

[smilingcrow]

Overclocked Dothans already outperform AthlonFX-57. For gaming, it's 10% faster than Athlon64 clock-by-clock.

And overclocked FX-57s outperform overclocked Dothans, so?

Isn't the relevant point here that Dothan and FX have a similar IPC and not how high they overclock. Of course FX is released at higher clock speeds, because it's a desktop part. Dothan has been you could say, castrated, to produce a good laptop part. I was very suprised to see how competitive it is against FX, when they are both overclocked. Considering the relative power consumptions, Dothan would get my vote easily. It certainly seems to bode well for the 65nm Intel parts.

Something strange I've noticed is that overclocked Dothans still use the same amount of power as stock. Anyone else notice that? Well in terms of performance/watt this Yonah will be a munster.

Yeah, I noticed that mentioned in two separate reviews and it struck me as very odd. I've never seen any other CPU charts that show that behaviour. What the hell is all that about? It seems to go against the laws of physics, Scotty

[perplex]

it shows Intel mean business when it comes to their technology and they may have now woken up ready to eliminate AMD once and for all

my XP2400+ in my desktop i think will be my last AMD chipset. my new laptop has a pentium M 1.6GHz.

from 2006 onwards the future looks bright, the future looks blue

[vertigo]

from 2006 onwards the future looks bright, the future looks blue

Before you get too happy, just realise that we get great processors when both these companies have good products. Intel tried to 'eliminate' the competition with the P4 by lengthening the pipelines, which they had to do because they couldn't compete with the Athlon anyhow.

We know that backfired seriously. They are only righting it now. You can thank AMD for that. Also, thanks to AMD we have desktop cpu's with 64-bit capability, that also wouldn't have happened otherwise.

Now we are going to see better performance/watt, which is great, but don't hope that AMD gets 'eliminated', that's the worst thing that can happen. Let's hope they continue to be competitive.

[bobo5195]

the x86 secert and gamepc test are not inline with many other test run by reputable websites. Examples are anandtech of the top of my head for one. Dothans have a crappy fpu unit and low bandwidth memory interface compared to A64. They definitly show that an oc'd fsb woudl be good for them but dominace over a similarly clocked a64 is not apparent to me from the benches.

[Mats]

it shows Intel mean business when it comes to their technology and they may have now woken up ready to eliminate AMD once and for all

Since when became monopoly a good thing for customers?

[rpsgc]

it shows Intel mean business when it comes to their technology and they may have now woken up ready to eliminate AMD once and for all

Seriously

[~El~Jefe~]

This is whacked.

the fx 57 isnt overclocked. a 2.1ghz to 2.7 ghz dothan is OC'd in both FSB and it's own chip by a large multiplier.

Intel eliminate AMD? yeah right. it has been several years since intel has made a faster gaming system than amd.

now the business machines from amd are even faster, AND the overly talked about yet no one uses function of "video encoding time" which lame paid off places like tomshardware would site as reason to buy an HT P4 over an amd, now is held as best done by an AMD dual core.

so that's about that. when a company really makes a good chip for a good while and isnt an aggressive monopoly, and doesnt ignite clothing if it touches the chip, I might buy it.

thats my anti intel rant for the month.

I still have my tualatin computer, its a great machine. unfortunately, it's the last intel I would buy for a long time.

[smilingcrow]

I'm just glad to see that Intel are going to be back in the game on the desktop from next year; I'm all for more choice. Whatever AMD come up with, at least Intel are going to be useable again.
For the last 18 months or so my easy choices have been AMD desktop and Intel laptop. With Dothan now an easier desktop prospect, Conroe on the horizon and Turion out already, dual-core to follow, there's a lot more options. Oh no, that's even more reviews to read to discern what to buy

One area where Intel may have an advantage is at the platform level. Producing their own chipsets and having their own fabs could give them an edge. It's a matter of whether they can use that to their advantage though. Centrino as a platform certainly seems better than the Turion with 3rd party chipsets. Not sure how significant that is though or whether Intel can capatilize on it? At the least they do tend to get products to market quicker at a given process size.
Interesting times ahead. Next year sounds like the biggest shake up in PC technology ever, from my perspective. New version of Windows which also brings 64 bit to the mainstream, dual-core processors at low prices and useable TDPs, good products from both competing CPU companies, OSX for Intel. Wow, that's a lot. And what do I hear, people harping on about platform x being faster than platform y in benchmark z by 5%! Just enjoy it, these are good times for PC technology.

[vertigo]

New version of Windows

... with more bloat than ever before. Our faster PC's will be put to good use (well, not good use...).

[cotdt]

Speaking of 64-bit, I don't think Yonah will be 64-bit since that would require the use of more transistors which would increase power consumption. Maybe Intel will do it, but maybe not.

[smilingcrow]

Speaking of 64-bit, I don't think Yonah will be 64-bit since that would require the use of more transistors which would increase power consumption. Maybe Intel will do it, but maybe not.

Yonah is 32 bit, but its replacement Merom, which is due out the 2nd half of next year is 64 bit.
I don't think that adding 64 bit will add significantly to power consumption. Adding a 2nd core certainly will though

[smilingcrow]

New version of Windows

... with more bloat than ever before. Our faster PC's will be put to good use (well, not good use...).

Aagh, that's why dual-core will be needed, to run the bleedin' new virtual reality interface thingy, or whatever it is they are getting up to

[perplex]

when Yonah arrives will it be dual core to begin with? or single-core first? because i heard there'll be bother eventually.

[vertigo]

Aagh, that's why dual-core will be needed, to run the bleedin' new virtual reality interface thingy, or whatever it is they are getting up to

No, that's not it. One core will harvest your private data and send it off to Microsoft, so they can keep tabs on who is using their products. It will also sabotage your PC if you use Google products.

[Shining Arcanine]

Another test, PM 760 @ 2.77 GHz wins 12-3 to FX-55 @ 2.8 GHz in gaming.

For f.... sake. That's a 38% overclock, and the FX-55 only has a 7% O/C. Plus the difference is so meager. I still don't get what your trying to say? See post above.

Why not just run the memory and CPUs at the same speeds to get an accurate comparison of the architectures? It couldn't be that hard to do, now could it?

it shows Intel mean business when it comes to their technology and they may have now woken up ready to eliminate AMD once and for all

Since when became monopoly a good thing for customers?

When they strive to outdo themselves, like Google.

This is whacked.

the fx 57 isnt overclocked. a 2.1ghz to 2.7 ghz dothan is OC'd in both FSB and it's own chip by a large multiplier.

Intel eliminate AMD? yeah right. it has been several years since intel has made a faster gaming system than amd.

now the business machines from amd are even faster, AND the overly talked about yet no one uses function of "video encoding time" which lame paid off places like tomshardware would site as reason to buy an HT P4 over an amd, now is held as best done by an AMD dual core.

so that's about that. when a company really makes a good chip for a good while and isnt an aggressive monopoly, and doesnt ignite clothing if it touches the chip, I might buy it.

thats my anti intel rant for the month.

I still have my tualatin computer, its a great machine. unfortunately, it's the last intel I would buy for a long time.

It has only been two years if my memory serves me right. Anyone else remember the Pentium 4 Revision C Processors vs. the Althon XP Processors?

http://techreport.com/reviews/2003q2/pe ... dex.x?pg=1