http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2858
Better buy those x2 4000+s while you can.
Printable View
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2858
Better buy those x2 4000+s while you can.
Yeah, this really pissed me off when I found out.
Cache takes up a lot of die space, so AMD couldn't go into a pricewar while using 1MB per core. Sad I know, but true.
Just ordered an OEM x2 4000+ am2 at excaliberpc.com
4 left after my order
Retails versions are gone everywhere
wow now im really pissed newegg messed up my 4400 order....now i'll probably never get one
They haven't even landed in this country yet and they are already axed..... :stick:
some of them landed. Newegg already received and sold out thier first shipment of 4400s. The are supposed to have 2 more shipments coming in so hopefully those will be the last of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by taemun
That will at least give me the chance to once again try and get one.
Ahh .. wrong country :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ludeboy12
I'm from Australia (mate), and all [local] sites that I've seen list it as "pre-order" or "TBA" :(
t
ah :banana::banana::banana::banana: my bad. Dont know why i just assumed you meant the states. sorry bout that.
this seems to be the scary start of AMD's downhill roll :( :eek:
Why are you all quickly ordering AM2s when you could get conroe which is cheaper and faster?
It's intels turn to shine. I love my opty 165 w/ 2x1mb but amd has been taking a lot of wrong turns lately.
where has AMD made such "wrong turns"? there was no "wrong turn" with AM2; they never touted it as kickass performance boost, just 1-5%, and it delivered that. it did exactly as promised. dropping 1Mx2 makes sense for AMD, because they need to start plummeting their ASP to keep market share, and ASP is a lot easier to plummet with 512x2 than 1x2 chips. Also, the performance between 1x2 chips and 512x2 chips is quite close that they could simply up everything a speed grade and get better performance returns from that than wasting vast amounts of die real estate on extra cache.
Also, they're not asleep at the wheel. K8L is knocking at the door in 07 and its a nice, strong, healthy response to Conroe.
Intel did the ASP-murder move for 3 years while AMD reigned king and they retained market share... now AMD plans on murdering ASP for 6-10 months to retain market share until they can return with K8L on AM2.
because i like AMD. Doesnt really bother me that i wont have the fastest computer.
well you have to look at it from a cpu to cpu comparison.
now we already know outside the conroe the AMD chips just kick the :banana::banana::banana::banana:e out of intel.. ther ejust is no argument.
no wlook at it from a $ for $ cpu to cpu perspective and if you can get an 802 2x1mb cpu that clocks like nutz...
and get... well.. the new AM2 lets say 3800 X2 2x512k ...
dollar for dollar someone is going to look at the intel and guy them..
performance wise the amd will still mop the floor with intel but the lack of a 2x1mb cache is hurting its performance even more.
Pent D to AM2 the AM2 wins hands down anyone who argues to the contrary has no clue what they are talking about.
but this isnt a speed war its a price war,,, and in that price people look for several things.
Price - intel
Performance - AMD
overclocking - Intel Pent D
WE look at the performance more than anything and then overclocking then price.
overall when people are looking to pinch some pennies adn get a new cpu mobo etc. they will go with Intel cuz its cheaper.
this is a BAD move on amd's part unless you are people like us who know that the amd will still kick the intel's nutz...
its an undeniable fact we all know it.
but we also know the performance increase using a single or dual core with a 1meg L2.... its better.
1mb and 512KB have same performance for same Ghz ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrewv
No, 1mb is slightly better; 1-3% better but it cost alot more. This is only true with AMD though.
AMD isn't affected by the size of cache that much because of the on-die memory controller. That's how it was on s939 though. DDR2 has looser timings which hurt AMD's performance. Intel's CPUs on the other hand LOVE bigger cache.
DDR2 still has lower latencies than DDR1 because of the massively higher clockspeeds.
[linky]
lucky thing i got my x2 4000+ from monarch before they left :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pipi
Can't be more wrong than this. :nono:
Regardless of architecture, more cache is always better. Simple fact: Opterons have larger cache than the Athlon 64s.
The sole reason AMD getting rid of the 1MB Athlon 64 x2s is cost. 1MB cache is just too costly to produce for AMD on 90nm process, especially at price points post 7/24 price cut. AMD is bone dry.
there is barely any performance gain between an AMD with 512kb of L2 cache and one with 1mb of L2 cache. I dont see a problem with this move. very little performance gain, if any at all. makes sense though. also makes the FX's look a little better...
Only thing im concerned about is clock.... We have a 3800+ with 512k per core, with 2000 mhz, then we have a 4000+ with 1mb per core, and 2000 mhz... 4200 with 512k per core, 2200 mhz. ect ect.
I wonder if they are going to sell the 3800+ and the 4000+ both same clock speeds, and same cache... All im wondering about, I dont care if we have 1 mb of cache or 2 mb of cache, performance isnt much to include the 512k of cache.
~Mike
Maybe they will cut the 1 mb counter parts. 4000+, 4400+, 4800+
Who knows.
~Mike
I guess it makes sense, but they'll probably increase it again once K8L drops, maybe a shift to the use of ZRAM. Short-term, they're aiming for a shift to 65nm and increased clock speeds, or so it seems.
More L2 cache does improve performance, especially in games. Its not a huge difference but its as much as you would see with like a 200MHz increase in clock speed for AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by breakfromyou
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2762&p=6
AMD is cutting the 4000+, 4400+, and 4800+ because with the deep price cuts they're going to be more expensive to produce and everyone will go for the 2x1MB models instead of the 2x512kb models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJF
ZRAM is a technology hyped created by those without any technical backgrounds (i.e. overclockers, AMD fan, etc).
If you actually read the technical white papers and publications, ZRAM, although consumes little real estate, is way too slow to be used as L1 or L2 cache. It's feasible to use it as L3 cache, but the actual die savings is minimal if you look at the recently published K8L spec.
BTW, if you look at the most recent published die picture of K8L, AMD did not replace any cache with ZRAM yet.
yeah, I've been watching for 4000+ in the UK ...Quote:
Originally Posted by taemun
i realy think it makes sense of amd to make all those 1mb per core cache chips into opterons - you have the standard desktop series all have 512mb cache per core - and rename all the 1mb cache per core chips to the workstation opteron family without having to make any changes at the production lines
wonder if thats whats really happening here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pipi
It can certainly be more wrong, although what Pipi said about DDR2 having looser timings is false.Quote:
Originally Posted by vitaminc
The big L1, the IMC and the write policy (which reduces the length of the R/W queues relative to P4s) make the L2 size less significant for AMD CPUs. The P4s additional cache-to-RAM update-rate stresses the importance of aggressive cache prefetching (thus the cache size) because of the increased loaded latency of the memory subsystem. And there is no general rule stating that more cache is always better, although it is the case with the K8 family because any L2 size has similar latencies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vitaminc
My bad, I didn't mean to say that ZRAM would be a replacement for L2, because it is, as you said, much too slow. Also as you pointed out, it would be quite applicable for L3, which will probably be introduced in an AMD product "shortly" after K8L.
I have no illusions of ZRAM being tossed into a L2 cache position until the latencies involved drop dramatically. It is, however, great stuff that very well may prove to be a great enhancement in future products. Probably when quad-core chips start rolling out. Not sure what you even meant by your last sentence.
AMD has done other things for improvements in K8L...but that's old news.
I would say more cache is always better, but only if you hold all other factors constant.Quote:
Originally Posted by _damien_
Prescott to Prescott-2M didn't produce much gains on cache as the cahce used on Prescott-2M is slower then the original Prescott.
Pat Gelsinger said " cache+exceptional prefetch vs. IMC , cache always wins " :) Look at Conroe...Quote:
Originally Posted by _damien_
And to quote him again " Who cares if the RAM latency is 70ns or 100 ? I can serve it in 4ns from the cache " talking about the difference between IMC and MC in the NB.
I can't believe they're doing this unless they're just trying to boost fx sales, but it doesn't make sense to me
Well, I never denied that. I was merely explaining why the cache size is of less importance to AMD CPUs than P4s. The IMC is certainly part of the explanation, because it reduces the cache miss penalty. Sticking with the same architecture, and comparing two CPUs whose only difference is the L2 size, there would be less performance difference between the two AMD CPUs than the Intel CPUs. So reducing the L2 size takes a smaller performance hit for AMDs.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
See above ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
...which is another way of saying more isn't always better... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by coldpower27
capacity, capacity, capacity.Quote:
Originally Posted by toddm27
AMD is bone dry and can't grind out more juices as their new fab is ramping while old fab is transitioning to 65nm/300mm.
too much sex could kill.
To keep things straight, the new 1207 socket will be the Opteron socket for DDR2 correct? The only processors for the new AM2 940 are Sempy's A64's FX's and X2's???
Have me FedX tracking # on a
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ 2.0GHz, Winsdor, Dual-Core, 2x1MB :)
http://www.excaliberpc.com/AMD_Athlo...id-565923.html
the guy talked like they had alot more than 5 - ordered last night
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickster_64
New Opterons will only work in Socket F. There will be no Socket AM2 Opterons available.
Smart move by AMD to prevent its own market erosions by overlapping processors, aka overclockers getting opty on desktop or ODM putting athlon on server.