since when does Tom do AMD :confused:
Printable View
since when does Tom do AMD :confused:
Does this mean other AM2 NDAs on the engineering samples are also over today? Would be nice to have a thread with all the links.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
I pressume they have a bad one because of the hurry to review it :D j/k... or not :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by biohead
Or they managed to get one from somewhere that ignored the NDA and they themselves never actually signed one....like what Denny does :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by gundamit
Benchmarks are up
I'm pretty sure that they used an early sample which had the memory problems..
If not, AMD will be in a world of hurt when Conroe/Merom hit the deck.
According to THG the story isQuote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
I think someone owns Lev a cookie!Quote:
The Socket AM2 generation is certainly not going to outperform comparable Socket 939 (DDR400) processors at DDR2-667 memory speeds-see our benchmarks. This is why AMD decided to wait for DDR2-800 and launch in June.
Considering it's Tom's and DDR2-667 4-4-4 vs. DDR-400 2-2-2, it's actually not bad. I expected worse from finalized retail chips. :shrug:
Look what he says:
Like I said, I'm pretty sure that chip is suffering from the memory bug.Quote:
The processor we used for our tests was an Athlon 64 X2 4800+ for Socket AM2, which made its way to motherboard companies in mid-December 2005. It has the same technical characteristics as its Socket 939 brother: 2 x 1 MB L2 cache, and 2.4 GHz clock speed. However, while we could select DDR2-800 speed in the BIOS of the engineering test motherboard, it obviously did not set the memory faster than 667. As already mentioned, the memory is suspected to suffer from a performance bug, which may be true or simple a matter of the early product stage. The upcoming processor (revision F) will fix any of this; the dual core version is being shipped to motherboard partners starting this week, with single cores to follow in the middle of May.
hmmm i thought AMD will have 65nm chips ready to go with AM2..........guess it's better this way when they both some out with big guns late this year......will be able to make up my mind then i guess heh
I smell cookies....
Well, This finally open up the can of worms that people don't want to see. In my opinion, without any architectural changes, even a full working DD2-800 will require good MB support that can run cas3 at DDR2-800 in order to show any significant improvement.
If things doesn't change significantly btw now and June 6, then Conroe at 2.66GHz for $531 will make FX-60 look like a bum.
I smell price crash here buddy.
Actually I think is a brilliant marketing move letting Toms of all sites do the first preview LOL :DQuote:
Originally Posted by biohead
Quote:
Originally Posted by krille
[Translated Binary]
is it ok to "brake" nda in binary? btw... i love your job too... wanna share? :wink: :wink:
was I correct about my earlier statement? those numbers are for dd3? or was I even close?[/Translated Binary]
No offense but you are assuming way too much. As I said *SPECIFICALLY* before this article came out, there is a bug with the dividers that is forcing the ram to obscenely low speeds (memtest showed pc2-3200) which is what is causing these issues. In time it will be fixed and M2 will be significantally faster than S939 and Conroe (on memory bandwith)Quote:
Originally Posted by agenda2005
yeah thats not a rev f cpu...
Time will surely tell. Remember, memtest was programmed to read data for known CPU xteristics, so It mght need an update to read DDR2 speeds correctly from AMD new design. I'm not trying to justify the poor performance due to memory problem, but I just don't think that the extra bandwith from a full working DDR2-800 will make any significant increase in performance knowing quite well from DDR1 experience that AMD K8 CPUs are not bandwith starve in anyway. Infact K8 benefit more from low latency than high bandwith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentential
AMD CPU's never were really bandwidth starved with DDR.. Bandwidth isn't the issue it is Bandwidth/latency..Quote:
Originally Posted by agenda2005
Sentential may have the right of it I think..
Look at the synthetic memory scores. Those are far too low for DDR2-667.
DDR2-667 in dual channel mode has a max theoretical bandwidth of 10.8 GB/S, and with the efficiency of an ODMC, those synthetic scores should be much higher than what they are.
Instead, they seem to match the bandwidth given for DDR-400, which is only 6.4 GB/S.
Yeah, I must say that Sentential's comment about f*cked up memory dividers seems credible.
do i win my cookie????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinnacle
i cant because of nda, i can only tell you its from 2 ram mannufacturers that i know this.
You're confusing revision F and socket F.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Revision F is the next step in A64 chips, Revision E was the SD/Venice/etc. Revision F is what we'll see on AM2.
AMD newest road map confirmed AM2 supports DDR2-800
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php?tid=564763
As I said before, even DDR2-800 will not give AM2 CPU any significant boost. If it does, AMD would be toutting those things with higher PR rating.This is not a good time for AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
Check my previous statement about Conroe at 2.66GHz vs FX-60. Yesterday benchmarks on Anandtech and Hexus obviously proved me right. GL AMD.