Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
SlingXShot said:Is the 4800 processor releasing with the 4400+
wizzackr said:"That being said, we have made it a point to bring you a preview of Athlon 64 X2 performance in this article, despite the fact that AMD isnt introducing the chips for another two months."
sounds like they are going to release all at the same time IMHO. 4400+ seems to be the sweet spot when it comes to bang/buck considerations. the premium they charge on the 4800+ seems a bit high
7718 said:Sure their sweet, but for the first time in years i'm thinking I might go intel on my next upgrade. If i can get a dual core p4d for [email protected] when the very cheapest (and probably better performing than intels highest end dualcore) is over 500$, that makes alot more sense to me. It seems to me AMD is freaking out, scared that their dual cores athlons will stunt opteron sales and their gonna stop it by pricing them into rediculousness. It never ceases to amaze me how AMD can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like they do over and over again. I love AMD but sometimes they make me wonder about their logic.
eloj said:The Anandtech piece was all Windows(TM), Windows(TM), Windows(TM), Windows(TM).
Hope the Tech-Report guys are a bit more serious (they usually are).
7718 said:but the whole dual core pricing thing might push me to intel. You have an intel sys and your flip floping the other way.. Did I wake up in Bizzaro world?
tsuehpsyde said:I've never been so excited to read a review before 4800+ Oh man I want that 4.8 GHz and 2 megs of cache worth of AMD power in one chip!
tsuehpsyde said:AMD GHz.
tsuehpsyde said:The benches are crazy! Things Intel used to be the king of it's getting stomped out of by AMD....and they're using the middle chip for AMD (4400+) while it's going against the new EE with Hyperthreading (4 cores, in a manner of speaking) and an FX-55 (obviously not cheap or slo) and it's slaying left and right. I don't wanna sound like a fan-boy but hot damn!
Hito Bahadur said:I would think prices will get much more competitive when Fab 36 comes up and they have switched over to 300mm wafers.
eloj said:The Anandtech piece was all Windows(TM), Windows(TM), Windows(TM), Windows(TM).
Hope the Tech-Report guys are a bit more serious (they usually are).
Anands "Final words" said:...there's no question that dual core is desirable on all fronts
AMD Marketing department said:The cheque's in the post Anand
7718 said:4800+... I wonder how a thunderbird core athlon would perform at 4.8ghz.. I wonder if AMD manufactures one tbird everytime they refine their manufacturing process so they can use it to make sure their model numbering sys is still correct. Anybody have a high end nf2 board w/phase change cooling they want to OC the snot out of so we can see some serious comparisons? AXIA chips were capable of 1500ish mhz with proper cooling right? I don't know if anybody carried one of those chips over to a mature socket a board or not. Somewhere somebodys ocing a oldschool socket A athlon somewhere right?
Yes, but the cooling for that Pentium D will make up for the difference All kidding aside, the overall costs to operate a Pentium D significantly offset the lower purchase cost of the processor alone. With a Pentium D setup, one needs ensure that the chassis, power supply, motherboard, and CPU cooler are up to the task of operating these demanding CPUs.7718 said:Sure their sweet, but for the first time in years i'm thinking I might go intel on my next upgrade. If i can get a dual core p4d for [email protected] when the very cheapest (and probably better performing than intels highest end dualcore) is over 500$, that makes alot more sense to me.
Do you really believe that?It seems to me AMD is freaking out, scared that their dual cores athlons will stunt opteron sales and their gonna stop it by pricing them into rediculousness.
Jonsey said:The whole PR system no longer makes sense. The new dual cores don't compare to a 1.4 T-bird at 4.8 GHz (official) or a 4.8 GHz prescott. Neither even exist. The PR system is now perpetuating the very myth (GHz matters) that it was originally designed to combat. Just give the damn things a model number like the Intels, the Opterons, and the FXs, and be done with it.
xonik said:That's how I see it, too. AMD shouldn't cause any more confusion by immediately switching to an Intel naming style. In the meantime, AMD can also catch any consumers who haven't caught on to the "myth" part of the "MHz myth."
Jonsey said:Why would you want AMD to make sales from clueless customers?
xonik said:First off, the comparison to the "Thunderbird" Athlon has been dropped ever since the Athlon 64 was released. AMD themselves make no such distinction as to what the model number compares with. I believe that the model number was normalized to Pentium 4 processors as they progressed--with the exception of dual core processors, of course.
Anyways, that's beside the point. I don't care much for AMD's Athlon 64 system anyways, but that does not mean they should drop it. AMD can't afford to appear capricious right now. They should stick it out for a while before changing. Another thing: I don't care much for Intel's naming system either. The 800 series is not 33% faster than the 600 series, nor is it 14.3% faster than the 700 series (Pentium M). It's just a bad way to show relative performance differences.
The best way, in my opinion, would be something like this:
Pentium D 2.4D-2P or Pentium D 640-2P
or
Athlon 64 X2 3500+ or Athlon 64 X2 Model 175
In other words, give the processor some sort of performance indicator, followed by an indication of the number of cores present.
Except games, but that's another story. Unfortunately for the marketing people, relative performance does not stay constant from application to application, which is one reason for all of this confusion.Jonsey said:The question is, does a dual core AMD 4800+ have performance comparible to a prescott at 4.8 GHz? No. In single threaded benchmarks, I would imagine the prescott would win by a large margin.
It doesn't seem right, at this moment. If multithreaded applications were ubiquitous at this point, I think you'd be singing another tune. In this reality, however, you're absolutely right.Besides, why use a PR system designed for a single core processor when the X2 will be competing with dual core parts from intel?
True. Perhaps I oversimplified the nature of this problem.As for model numbers implying performance, that's only true to a point. A 800 series implies better performance than a 600 series, but not necessarily the ratio of 800/600. Is a BMW 5 series 1.6 times better than a 3 series? Is a FX-55 only 3.7 percent faster than a FX-53? Model numbers don't have to be a indicator of pure performance.
Good point, I agree.So why not start fresh and give the dual core AMD64's a new numbering scheme?
That's an old statement, and I don't even know if it's an official AMD statement anyways.Hito Bahadur said:It was basically the performance of Athlon XP's compared to the Speed of an Athlon.
xonik said:That's an old statement, and I don't even know if it's an official AMD statement anyways.