PDA

View Full Version : AMD releases budget dual-core CPU



mattclary
08-02-2005, 06:13 AM
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050801-5155.html


AMD releases "budget" dual-core CPU, drops prices
8/1/2005 10:27:12 AM, by Eric Bangeman

AMD's recent dual-core Athlon releases have been noteworthy as much for their high price as they have been for their performance. While the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ took Intel's best out behind the cafeteria, beat it up, and took its lunch money, it was also expensive, coming in at US$1,001 per CPU in quantities of 1,000 at its release. By way of contrast, the new budget Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is a comparative bargain at US$354.

If the 3800+ moniker rings a bell, that's because AMD already has a single-core, 2.4GHz 64-bit processor with the 3800+ description (for about US$25 less). Architectually, the new X2 3800+ is most similar to the Athlon 64 X2 4200+. It shares the same 512KB L2 cache as the the 4200+, but is clocked at 2.0GHz instead of 2.2GHz. It also uses AMD's HyperTransport technology and sports DDR controllers for each core. The release of the 3800+ also marks the full transition of AMD's processor fabrication to the 90nm process.

At least the high end of AMD's product line is getting a bit cheaper, as the chip maker also announced some sweeping price cuts across the whole product line. The aforementioned 4800+ has dropped to US$902, while its fastest single-core CPU, the Athlon 64 4000+ dropped from US$480 to US$375. AMD has also reshuffled the Opteron lineup, dropping the 140 and 240, while dropping prices as well. Last of all, the company dropped the Mobile Athlon 64 CPU in favor of the Turion.

All in all, it's a nice price drop for AMD fans, and the release of the low-cost, dual-core 3800+ might prove attractive to consumers who are looking for dual-core performance but are scared off by the relatively high prices. Could the new offering find its way into this month's Ars System Guide?

Now about that 64-bit and dual-core aware software...

Funny, he's making a joke with that last line, but he is refering to LightWave without knowing it. :cool:

phil lawson
08-02-2005, 07:00 AM
The Dual Cores rock!

I have a AMD 4400+ in this machine, and can now render scenes in lw that I couldnt have waited for with my 2600+. :)

brap
08-02-2005, 07:04 AM
The Dual Cores rock!

I have a AMD 4400+ in this machine, and can now render scenes in lw that I couldnt have waited for with my 2600+. :)

Phil,

Roughly speaking, what kind of speedup did you see between the two?

thanks,
Jamie

phil lawson
08-02-2005, 08:14 AM
I had a scene that was to use HDRI and radiosity :S.

The 2600+ when started, took 15mins to get past a black screen..and even then, there wasnt much to see.

The dual core had the scene finished in 2hrs with Medium AA at 1024x768. :)

TSpyrison
08-02-2005, 09:47 AM
The Dual Cores rock!

I have a AMD 4400+ in this machine, and can now render scenes in lw that I couldnt have waited for with my 2600+. :)

Ok, you've gotta run this for us and lets us know the results! :)

http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/lwautobench.html

brap
08-02-2005, 10:52 AM
I had a scene that was to use HDRI and radiosity :S.

The 2600+ when started, took 15mins to get past a black screen..and even then, there wasnt much to see.

The dual core had the scene finished in 2hrs with Medium AA at 1024x768. :)

Thanks, that's sounding pretty darn good!

Yes, it would be great to see some LW benchmarks, particularly for the X2 4800+!

-JC

phil lawson
08-02-2005, 11:40 AM
I submitted results, but they havent appeared just yet ;)

I get 70 secs for the tpot test, and 3 secs on the DOF test. I rounded them to the nearest, whole number.

Hopefully the results will show up soon. :)

ACLOBO
08-02-2005, 10:43 PM
A roughly 600 dollar difference between the top dual core and the budget one makes me wonder what the performance difference is. Anybody know of some benchmarks done in comparison of these two chips?

-Adrian

connerh
08-02-2005, 11:04 PM
I own a 4400+ rig as well, and I must say I'm loving it. I came off of a 2.0GHz P4 system, and am seeing render times that are less than half it. Also, my mobo is an ASUS A8N SLI nforce4 Premium, in case anyone was wondering. I'd suggest going dual core, if you have the money.

mattclary
08-03-2005, 04:25 AM
A roughly 600 dollar difference between the top dual core and the budget one makes me wonder what the performance difference is. Anybody know of some benchmarks done in comparison of these two chips?

-Adrian

From what I can tell, 200mhz (x2 cpus, of course) worth. You always pay a premium for what is usually a marginal performance gain.

Captain Obvious
08-03-2005, 05:48 AM
From what I can tell, 200mhz (x2 cpus, of course) worth. You always pay a premium for what is usually a marginal performance gain.
And, even moreso, you always pay a premium to get the best of the bunch. ;)

benhaines
08-03-2005, 03:15 PM
Nice indeed, but what about this problem? http://www.presetcentral.com/?p=18

I'm keen to hear some opinions...

My AMD64 3000+ will have to do for the moment :(

prospector
08-03-2005, 05:18 PM
So the code is scaled back for anything other than Intel.
Tho all instruction sets can run what Intel runs.

I hope AMD gets no less than 10 billion from Intel.

Now, why can't Newtek put the code bypass in that was used in the report, so that AMD chips run full speed on LW?

Bigboy
08-04-2005, 08:45 AM
I'll tell you the best thing I've found about them. You can render away on a 4400+ which is still bloody quick, and STILL have a free 4400+ for modeling and basic machine use. You machine is as fast as ever, and its actually rendering in the background!

Then, when you dont need it, you can set both cores going on the render and get double the speed. Its a win-win...excpet for the cash! :rolleyes:

I'm seeing about a 3-4 times speed up on a scene compared to a 2600+, which is great!

TSpyrison
08-04-2005, 11:39 AM
Im actually eyeing one of those dual processor motherboards.. to put a couple of those dual core processors in..

That would be sweeeeeet... :D

Bigboy
08-04-2005, 01:09 PM
Dont you need to get the more expensive Opteron cores?

TSpyrison
08-04-2005, 09:14 PM
Dont you need to get the more expensive Opteron cores?

Donno.. havent looked into it that far yet...

benhaines
08-05-2005, 07:08 AM
To my knowledge you won't be able to have two dual core AMD64 cpu's running side by side. Unfortunately that configuration would compete with their more expensive Server & Workstation range. So you'll have to choose Opterons.

This might help http://www.amdboard.com/amdroadmap.html

Celshader
08-05-2005, 08:32 AM
Triple-check dual-socket motherboards before you buy them to make sure they can take dual-core CPUs. I have a dual-socket, ATX-sized Tyan Tiger K8W. From what I've read, this board cannot handle dual-core CPUs. I will have to buy a new motherboard if I want four cores in one system. :(

Dave Jerrard has a dual-socket, EATX-sized IWILL DK8X. With a BIOS upgrade, he can swap out his dual-Opterons for dual-core Opterons.

As mentioned above, you can't drop two Athlon64 chips into a dual-socket motherboard. However, the Athlon64 X2's a good value for folks looking to build a dual-core, 64-bit ready computer, since it uses cheaper single-socket motherboards and cheaper unbuffered RAM.

Bigboy
08-05-2005, 12:10 PM
Dual core Opteron's are either out, or comming. But Im fairly sure this is what you need to build an effective quad system.

But it would be yummy!

(report on dual-core opterons)
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/opteron-x75/index.x?pg=1


Just had a read up on it. You need to buy a cople of dual core opteron 100 or 200's. There are several motherboards that can take 2 of these, but they cost. Chips start around 600 each(!) and motherboards at around 200.

ouch....but then again.... 4 CPU's!!! :D