AM2... review

fade2green514

fade2green514

Active Member
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/23/amd_reinvents_itself/index.html
some issues to note:

socket AM2 has a new retention module. if you have a 754/939 socket compatible heatsink, it won't work with AM2.

memory issues... the memory controller in the AM2 lines is a bit inefficient. read up on it. http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/23/amd_reinvents_itself/page9.html
with ddr1 the cpu could easily set the memory to ddr400 by dividing by the cpu multiplier. with AM2 socket cpu's this isn't possible because the cpu frequency may not be divisible with say ddr2 800 which is 400mhz...
AMD hasn't fixed this problem yet and overclocking will be necessary to make up for lost memory bandwidth if you find it necessary.

THG also does a review on s939 vs. AM2 like everyone has been wondering performance wise. :D read up!
 
Ku-sama said:
whats harder to process then FEAR besides Oblivion
Click to expand...
Quake 4 :D
Arm_Pit said:
I bet in things that are ahrder to rocess it would be more different. Thats like running Windows 3.1 with a AMD A64 3000+ or a AMD 4000+ and it only loading .000000000001 seconds faster. Dont know if im right, Just my thoery.
Click to expand...
loading depends on hard drive.
processing depends on processor (whether it be a graphics processor or a central processor)
 
yes, but im talking about the price diffrence... $1,200 to $100~ there should be more preformance gain then whats there
 
Last edited:
fade2green514 said:
Quake 4 :D

loading depends on hard drive.
processing depends on processor (whether it be a graphics processor or a central processor)
Click to expand...
No, Quake 4 is easier to process than FEAR.
 
Ku-sama said:
yes, but im talking about the price diffrence... $1,200 to $100~ there should be more preformance gain then whats there
Click to expand...

true, but i bet if you look at superpi time, they'll be a big difference =)
 
liquidshadow said:
No, Quake 4 is easier to process than FEAR.
Click to expand...
lol HOW SO? quake 4 utilizes 75-100% of my cpu at all times... now im no genius but thats more than one core. not to mention i run this thing at 2.6ghz which is really fast for an AMD dual core.
 
yea, well something was bottlenecking that benchmark other than the cpu because the FX-62 is definitely much much better than the 3200+
by about 800mhz worth of cpu speed per core... and by an extra core.
if i had to choose between the two id get the FX-62... unless i had to pay for it. lol then id get the 3200+
actually no id probly wait for core 2 duo
 
yea well people have been asking what the advantages/disadvantages of the new AMD socket are... so i answered :D
i figured it needed its own thread though, since so many people had inquiries.
 
well i dunno if it has the abilities right now to compete with core 2 duo or even if its that much better than socket 939, but you have to look ahead. By next year, k8l will be out (thats quad core people) and those processors coupled with a suitable am2 nforce 5 mobo will be able to utilize the ddr2 memory to its full potential. That's why it seems better to go for an am2 setup (which is actually the same price as a 939) setup so that the upgrade path will be right in front of you in the next several years.
 
yea AMD will do just fine im sure... they still hold the crown when it comes to memory bandwidth im sure... but when your looking for pure processing power it looks like core 2 duo will steal that crown.
 
fade2green514 said:
yea AMD will do just fine im sure... they still hold the crown when it comes to memory bandwidth im sure... but when your looking for pure processing power it looks like core 2 duo will steal that crown.
Click to expand...

i'll agree with you there, but when you look at the intel counterparts (at least in dual core, i don't know as much about single core processors) to amd processors, intel always seems way ahead in terms of core processing speed/power. And yet, because of amd's more advanced technology (hyper transport, advanced memory controller, etc) they're much more efficient and come out on top 90% of the time when it comes to games and single high end multi-threaded applications. Although intel is better in a multi-threaded non-gaming environment, i think that the performance difference is realistically unnoticable. All the processors out there right now (those above entry level and several below) have the capability to handle the multitasking needed by the majority of users. If you're exceptional, however, that's where exceptional processors come into play. When i see how much amd quad core costs compared to conroe ill make my definite choice, but if they're remotely similar in pricing im going to hit up newegg for the first K8L i can get my hands on!
 
Last edited:
lol dude... Intel's netburst technology is just schooled by an Athlon 64. the only reason pentium d's are good is because theyre offered at low prices and extremely overclockable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top