Athlon 64 X2 already in june
Surprisingly AMD has already now announced a dual-core Athlon for June 2005:
Athlon 64 X2 ("Toledo", 1 HT1000-Link, 90nm, socket 939)
Athlon 64 X2 4800+
2,4 GHz 1 MB L2/core
1001 USD
Athlon 64 X2 4600+
2,4 GHz 512 KB L2/core
803 USD
Athlon 64 X2 4400+
2,2 GHz 1 MB L2/core
581 USD
Athlon 64 X2 4200+
2,2 GHz 512 KB L2/core
537 USD
OEM prices for batch of 1000
Originally the Athlon 64 X2 was planned for Q4
Athlon 64 X2 ("Toledo", 1 HT1000-Link, 90nm, socket 939)
Athlon 64 X2 4800+
2,4 GHz 1 MB L2/core
1001 USD
Athlon 64 X2 4600+
2,4 GHz 512 KB L2/core
803 USD
Athlon 64 X2 4400+
2,2 GHz 1 MB L2/core
581 USD
Athlon 64 X2 4200+
2,2 GHz 512 KB L2/core
537 USD
OEM prices for batch of 1000
Originally the Athlon 64 X2 was planned for Q4
Comments
As far as I remember, 4600 means that it should be as fast as a Pentium 4 at 4.6Ghz. So a 512kb increase of L2 cache is equivalent to 200mhz???
Originally posted by mattyj
As far as I remember, 4600 means that it should be as fast as a Pentium 4 at 4.6Ghz. So a 512kb increase of L2 cache is equivalent to 200mhz???
In that clock speed range, where 200 MHz represent a 4-5% performance gain, perhaps.
Originally posted by mattyj
Are the speed ratings the give for them justified?
As far as I remember, 4600 means that it should be as fast as a Pentium 4 at 4.6Ghz. So a 512kb increase of L2 cache is equivalent to 200mhz???
Actually, the speed ratings are in reference to the original K7 core (Athlon Throughbred).
If you want a comparison to P4's, the Athlon 64 FX-55 (@2.6GHz) is about equivalent to a 5.2GHz P4E at gaming, FPU and 3D related benchmarks. In comparison to G5s, a 2.5GHz G5 is roughly equivalent to a 3.2GHz Pentium P4E (optimistically, much lower in some things like gaming). Thus, a 2.5GHz G5 is roughly equivalent to a 1.6-2.0 GHz Athlon 64.
Originally posted by smalM
Surprisingly AMD has already now announced a dual-core Athlon for June 2005:
Athlon 64 X2 ("Toledo", 1 HT1000-Link, 90nm, socket 939)
Athlon 64 X2 4800+
2,4 GHz 1 MB L2/core
1001 USD
Athlon 64 X2 4600+
2,4 GHz 512 KB L2/core
803 USD
Athlon 64 X2 4400+
2,2 GHz 1 MB L2/core
581 USD
Athlon 64 X2 4200+
2,2 GHz 512 KB L2/core
537 USD
OEM prices for batch of 1000
Originally the Athlon 64 X2 was planned for Q4
Ouch, I'm unlikely to ever pay that much for a processor alone if/when I ever build myself another PC box (seriously considering converting entirely to Mac with my next round of upgrades).
"If you want a comparison to P4's, the Athlon 64 FX-55 (@2.6GHz) is about equivalent to a 5.2GHz P4E at gaming, FPU and 3D related benchmarks. In comparison to G5s, a 2.5GHz G5 is roughly equivalent to a 3.2GHz Pentium P4E (optimistically, much lower in some things like gaming). Thus, a 2.5GHz G5 is roughly equivalent to a 1.6-2.0 GHz Athlon 64."
When you talk about the 2.5 Ghz G5, you are talking about a single processor right?....I will assume that. So by these standards a dual 2.5 loaded with RAM should be one hell of a kick @ss machine.
I own a single 1.6 G5 running Jaguar, and it is very fast at pretty nearly everything, and it handles multi-tasking really well.
I really want to update my system soon for rendering, as that is what it is slower at, especially animations which can take 70 hours for a one minute animation at medium settings. I don't even bother with animation now because it is so slow.
I've been seriously considering buying a nice PC workstation, maybe through Alienware to use just for rendering, and then use my Mac for internet, business stuff and content creation for my website. I need recommendations. In this case, I really wish I knew where Apple was going with the G5 and PowerMac platform.
Any thoughts?
Originally posted by Existence
In comparison to G5s, a 2.5GHz G5 is roughly equivalent to a 3.2GHz Pentium P4E (optimistically, much lower in some things like gaming). Thus, a 2.5GHz G5 is roughly equivalent to a 1.6-2.0 GHz Athlon 64.
I don't think you can generalize comparative performance like this. I think you can probably say that for games oriented benchmarks, but for many others, it's a different story.
For instance with Cinebench, the 2.5 GHz G5 has scores of ~355 for single CPU rendering, compared to a 2.2 GHz Opteron at ~300, 2.6 GHz Athlon 64 at ~365, 2.4 GHz Athlon 64 at ~340, 3.47 GHz P4EE at ~350, or 3.8 GHz P4 at ~340. With PS7bench, the 2 GHz G5 has a normalized score of ~400 for single CPU compared to a 2 GHz Opteron at ~400 and a 3.2 GHz P4 at ~410.
Cinebench is essentially an FPU benchmark and PS7Bench is a combination Integer and SIMD benchmark. They are saying that the Athlon 64 and G5 have about the same performance per clock, and a bit of variation to the P4 depending on cache size.
Originally posted by G520incher
I really want to update my system soon for rendering, as that is what it is slower at, especially animations which can take 70 hours for a one minute animation at medium settings. I don't even bother with animation now because it is so slow.
If the CPU rendering is primarily integer, go with an Athlon 64, Opteron, or P4 depending on how much you want to spend. If it is primarily FPU or SIMD, the G5 systems should be at rough parity to the x86 machines available.
If you can get dual-core Prescott, that's probably the best bang for the buck right now.
Originally posted by onlooker
I'm surprised AMD announced this. They said earlier that the 200 series DC Opterons would be released before the DC Athlon.
They will be. The Opterons will be released in May and the Athlons in June.
Originally posted by wmf
They will be. The Opterons will be released in May and the Athlons in June.
The 200's, or the 800's? Big difference. The prices between the two are in the $1000's
Originally posted by onlooker
The 200's, or the 800's? Big difference. The prices between the two are in the $1000's
800s in April, 200s in May, X2s in June.
Originally posted by wmf
800s in April, 200s in May, X2s in June.
kewl!