AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ in Q4

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-28-2006, 07:18 PM
nn_step

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thorry

w000t, my next upgrade!

AGP FTW :D

wait they have socket AM2 AGP boards :rolleyes: Seems kind of pointless to me...
06-29-2006, 02:20 AM
VulgarHandle

US$139-160
http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20060628A7034.html

hmm
06-29-2006, 08:45 PM
coldpower27

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOE

thats a guess
3800+ is expected to be about 160-170$
so 140 would be a nice price tag...

amd should also make 256kb chips with higher freq - they will perform well and will be almost 2 times cheaper, what they need is volume and low prices until 65nm chips arrive

x2 3800+ will be 169US, this is very widely known from the leaked AMD pricing lists, as we knew Intel's prices so long ago on Conroe.
06-29-2006, 10:29 PM
nn_step

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOE

Well, time will tell...

Anyways, the idea of Sempron X2 is vevy good, amd should launch more chips like this one, even @2.4 and @2.6 Ghz. Speed will be good due to high clock speed and chips will be small and cheap. Yeah it will be low end, but a fast low end... AMD cannot really think of high end until they get some 65 nm parts

funny because in the real high end (servers) they seem to still be kicking ass
06-29-2006, 10:31 PM
keiths

Intel already has a response with the e4200. ETA is Q1 07, so this Sempron X2 will have around three months before it's competing against an equivalently priced but faster Conroe.
06-30-2006, 12:05 AM
mursaat

Quote:

Originally Posted by girth_maul

Wonder how that cache size will affect real world performance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by twiggy

Cache doesnt affect the A64 too much at all and why would it be priced at 150$ when the 3800x2 will be 169$. I'd say ~125$ which would be frreaking awsome!

I think it was at that point (256 -> 512kb) where L2 started to affect A64s. If I can (I'm at work) I will search and edit with some results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by situman

Is this a 512kb with half its cache disabled or a built from scratch 256kb L2 cache? If its the latter, what would happen if some of those 256kb cache is defective? "Real" Sempron x2? :P

I think AMD wants to have a single production line, so I think it will be 512kb with 256 disabled. Of course that's a guess :p:
06-30-2006, 12:41 AM
TEDY

what will be E4200 ?
06-30-2006, 12:55 AM
Nedjo

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOE

Cache impact on K8 core here:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...on-2600_5.html

They might as well go with 128K! This is what makes Semprons with 256K pointless...
06-30-2006, 01:07 AM
keiths

Quote:

Originally Posted by TEDY

what will be E4200 ?

1.6 GHz, 2 MB l2, 800 FSB.
06-30-2006, 01:58 AM
Lightman

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOE

well conroe 3Ghz is about 22% faster than X2 @2.8Ghz at least according to anand

E4200 will feature only 2mb cache which will make it slower

maybe will be as fast as a 2-2.2 Ghz X2 with 256k cache

And slower in heavy FP tasks!
06-30-2006, 05:49 AM
keiths

You guys are all too easy to shoot down:
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/623-...o-dossier.html
07-01-2006, 09:59 PM
coldpower27

E4200 with the current rumors are pointing to a Q4 2006 release...

We will have to see the 3600+ might have a chance against the E4200, could be interesting.
07-01-2006, 10:55 PM
keiths

The performance of both can be easily deduced from the results already out. The e4200 should be mid x2 performance, 4200-4600. The sempron x2 will be slower than an x2 3800.
07-02-2006, 06:03 AM
gOJDO

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOE

hello there, they are using a single app to test difference, think what would happen if the cpu is running two or even more cache hungry apps?
conroe cores share cache, there is no dedicated cache to each core...

Imagine X2 with 256kB of L2 to run cache hungry apps, it will perform horible.
Also, I would like to see some benchmarks where Conroe at 3GHz is only 22% faster than 2.8GHz X2. There are a lot of articles with benchmarks on 2.66GHz Conroe and they are clearly showing that it is faster in average for different tasks than 2.8Ghz FX-62 by the procent you've mentioned.

The X2-3600+ will be the most valuable sAM2 performance/price, but it will not be better than E4200.
They might perform equal in average if the X2-3600+ has decend memory, DDR2-800 CL3 3-3-X. But no one will give more money on RAM than on CPU, when the with the difference in cost of cheaper RAM he can buy faster CPU and have more system performance that way.
07-02-2006, 06:13 AM
grimREEFER

the 4200 comes with a relativley decent multi(8) for such a low end chip...i like it! u only have to overclock a little(to about 2.3ghz) before it starts beating an fx62
07-02-2006, 06:40 AM
gOJDO

1600MHz / 100% = 16MHz per 1%
2300MHz-1600MHz=700MHz
700MHz/16Mhz=43.75%
43.75% is not a little, when we talk about overclocking.
Anyway at 2.3GHz with 2MB shared L2, I don't think that Conroe will start beating FX-62. But the E6600 2.4GHz with 4MB is performing a little beat better than FX-62.
07-02-2006, 10:43 AM
nn_step

Quote:

Originally Posted by gOJDO

Imagine X2 with 256kB of L2 to run cache hungry apps, it will perform horible.
Also, I would like to see some benchmarks where Conroe at 3GHz is only 22% faster than 2.8GHz X2. There are a lot of articles with benchmarks on 2.66GHz Conroe and they are clearly showing that it is faster in average for different tasks than 2.8Ghz FX-62 by the procent you've mentioned.

The X2-3600+ will be the most valuable sAM2 performance/price, but it will not be better than E4200.
They might perform equal in average if the X2-3600+ has decend memory, DDR2-800 CL3 3-3-X. But no one will give more money on RAM than on CPU, when the with the difference in cost of cheaper RAM he can buy faster CPU and have more system performance that way.

:rofl: not really dude. beleive it or not AMD IMC latency is getting smaller and smaller. with in the next year AMD users will have access to memory that can do 800Mhz (DDR2/3-1600) with Cas of 4. with an Access latency of just 16ns in stark constrast to the 7ns L2 latency of Intel's L2 cache. and it is only going to get better and better
then it will be like comparing 1Gb of Cache vs just 4Mb. So who cares that it takes twice as long if it is nearly a thousand times larger
07-02-2006, 11:10 AM
situman

Quote:

Originally Posted by nn_step

:rofl: not really dude. beleive it or not AMD IMC latency is getting smaller and smaller. with in the next year AMD users will have access to memory that can do 800Mhz (DDR2/3-1600) with Cas of 4. with an Access latency of just 16ns in stark constrast to the 7ns L2 latency of Intel's L2 cache. and it is only going to get better and better
then it will be like comparing 1Gb of Cache vs just 4Mb. So who cares that it takes twice as long if it is nearly a thousand times larger

Can you back that up or "we will see."

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page