http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/story.html?id=1013575024
So it will be around 30% faster than the Athlon XP at the same frequency
ClawHammer: Everything Goes As Scheduled
- Thread starter pascal
- Start date
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/story.html?id=1013575024
So it will be around 30% faster than the Athlon XP at the same frequency
Yeah, 30% is what a few folks said. I think the 50% faster kicks in when you recompile for x86-64, the extra registers are likely where they get a decent boost.
These marketing numbers are getting out of hand. 3400+, is SUPPOSE to mean it's equivelent to a 3.4GHz TBird's performance extrapolated from a 1GHz TBird --probably running on SDR. In any case, I'm not entirely convinced it'll be ahead of the P4. Of course, that's because I don't think DDR in its current state can meet modern x86 MPU's bandwidth demands, I think Tom's overclocking articles definately made that VERY clear.
These marketing numbers are getting out of hand. 3400+, is SUPPOSE to mean it's equivelent to a 3.4GHz TBird's performance extrapolated from a 1GHz TBird --probably running on SDR
. In any case, I'm not entirely convinced it'll be ahead of the P4. Of course, that's because I don't think DDR in its current state can meet modern x86 MPU's bandwidth demands, I think Tom's overclocking articles definately made that VERY clear.Johnny Rotten
Regular
If its not ahead of the P4, then they will have failed in my eyes and alot of others as well.
Fortunately this shouldnt be the case. The Athlon is [currently] performance equivalent to the P4, just losing out on future scalability. [Claw]Hammer should have plenty of future headroom as WELL as being faster clock for clock.
Fortunately this shouldnt be the case. The Athlon is [currently] performance equivalent to the P4, just losing out on future scalability. [Claw]Hammer should have plenty of future headroom as WELL as being faster clock for clock.
i bet the coming 0.13µ xps will give a fair fight to p4s, not at clock speeds, but at computing power. And if intel is going according it plans and the last speed to come out this year is 2.8G and amd hammer is rated 3400+, until now the pr rating has been quite right, northwood tipped the balance a little, but not 2.8->3400 much. I just wish there will be graphics card to do hammer any justice, gf4ti 4600 mem bandwith should be doubled, and then we can start talking, and the price halved=)
It will fail for several reasons:
1) Costs to produce such CPU must be high, and people do not appreciate paying premium price for AMD cpus.
2) Noone is going to compile programs to take advantage of its propritary 64bit instructions, look, even the intel 64 bit CPU is not doing well.
3) DDR memory is pathetic.
4) In order to upgrade to that CPU the poor XP owners will have to replace motherboard, cpu and probably RAM, that in case if AMD wakes up and starts using RDRAM. For intel owners it will be just the matter of replacing the chip.
5) Via.
1) Costs to produce such CPU must be high, and people do not appreciate paying premium price for AMD cpus.
2) Noone is going to compile programs to take advantage of its propritary 64bit instructions, look, even the intel 64 bit CPU is not doing well.
3) DDR memory is pathetic.
4) In order to upgrade to that CPU the poor XP owners will have to replace motherboard, cpu and probably RAM, that in case if AMD wakes up and starts using RDRAM. For intel owners it will be just the matter of replacing the chip.
5) Via.
Bah!
Die sizes at 0.13:
Thoroughbred: 80mm²
Clawhammer: 104mm²
Northwood: 145mm²
Which CPU will therefore be more costly to produce..?
Even if no one compiles for AA64/x86-64 it will be the fastest IA32/x86-32 CPU. But OS support will be there, and where a OS is there are programs (remember the first 32bit OSs?).
Please elaborate.
How many sockets have we seen lately from Intel? And how long does AMD uses (and will continue to do so with Thoroughbred and beyond) Socket-A? You also cried that you where not able to upgrade your P3 to a P4, right? :smile:
Please visit: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_4699_4741,00.html
AMD won't depend so much on VIA this time, and others are also working on K8 chipsets.
Die size isn't necessarily equal to lower cost, yields are where it's at.
DDR isn't pathetic, but it isn't good either. Scaling the frequency and maintaining aggressive timings with DDR on motherboards is difficult. JEDEC is also not on the ball when it comes to formalizing specs, chances are Hammer might get delayed because certian DDR specs haven't been finalized or it might be the case they have to resort to dropping support for faster DDRRAM. In Tom's overclocking tests, it clearly shows DDR just isn't upto delivering the bandwidth needed by number crunching beasts such as a 3.0GHz P4.
The Clawhammer will NOT NECESSARILY be the fastest IA32/x86 MPU. The P4 with DRDRAM and a 533MHz bus is PLENTY of competition. It'll all depend on how high Intel decides to scale the P4.
Repeat after me, Clawhammer isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. There are sooooooo many droids out there continually touting the great performance of a processor about which little is known.
Via, SiS and ALi make cheap buggy garbage. nVidia and AMD really are only ones on the current list of chipset designers that have the potential to make any real head way into the workstation/server market. It would be nice if they could get Serverworks, Compaq, IBM and other to build chipsets for them, AMD is in desperate need to get a good brand name backing them. The workstation/server market is VERY picky about reliability and quality, something that currently AMD processors fail to demonstarte to said group.
DDR isn't pathetic, but it isn't good either. Scaling the frequency and maintaining aggressive timings with DDR on motherboards is difficult. JEDEC is also not on the ball when it comes to formalizing specs, chances are Hammer might get delayed because certian DDR specs haven't been finalized or it might be the case they have to resort to dropping support for faster DDRRAM. In Tom's overclocking tests, it clearly shows DDR just isn't upto delivering the bandwidth needed by number crunching beasts such as a 3.0GHz P4.
The Clawhammer will NOT NECESSARILY be the fastest IA32/x86 MPU. The P4 with DRDRAM and a 533MHz bus is PLENTY of competition. It'll all depend on how high Intel decides to scale the P4.
Repeat after me, Clawhammer isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. There are sooooooo many droids out there continually touting the great performance of a processor about which little is known.
Via, SiS and ALi make cheap buggy garbage. nVidia and AMD really are only ones on the current list of chipset designers that have the potential to make any real head way into the workstation/server market. It would be nice if they could get Serverworks, Compaq, IBM and other to build chipsets for them, AMD is in desperate need to get a good brand name backing them. The workstation/server market is VERY picky about reliability and quality, something that currently AMD processors fail to demonstarte to said group.
Yield also depend on die size. Murphy's law can also be applied on die size/yield, the bigger the chip the worse the yield. Take a look here:
You can also download the "Gross and Net Die Calculator" from http://www.icknowledge.com/misc_technology/miscelaneous_technology.html and calculate the numbers for the different die sizes.
It's indeed more difficult than with DRDAM, but nevertheless we will see DDR333, DDR400 and DDRII/533 becoming mainstream, question is when.
The Hammers will support PC2700/DDR333, which will be standardized in the following weeks, enough time before the Hammer launch - no need for a delay.
Single channel DDR isn't up to the task. Remember that it looks like DDR will be the main platform for the P4 in the future.
You mentioned THG's article above, which shows that even the Athlon/Thoroughbred will fare quite well against future P4, not to talk about a Clawhammer at a PR of 3400+.
Well, if AMD delivers what *is known* those "droids" will be right.
Rumours has it that prototype Hammers already run on Alpha motherboards, I wouldn't be too concerned about the motherboard situation.
The Athlon only did well with a significant increase in the FSB, something that the Athlon will NOT be getting in it's 0.13 incarnation. Likely due to the fact AMD doesn't really care to release a new FSB only to can it for the Hammer shortly after.
Also, die size is a contributing factor but doesn't say anything about the cost of the waffer -I believe they're using SOI, it's quite expensive- or chip complexitity, number of metal layers and so on. The thing is, die size isn't necessarily telling of cost. I believe they need such a small die size to offset the potentially lower -with respect to their current line up- yield.
Dual channel DDR is not a good solution. nVidia has shown this, to have the board run stability -expected by picky consumers such as I and the workstation market- you can't aggressively clock it. It drops down to 100MHz instead of 133MHz. Also, even if you run it in the aggressive mode, I believe the timings goto 3, instead of 2.5. 4 layer PCBs and dual channel DDR don't mix. Dual channel DRDRAM, seems very capable of this, however. In the begining it was on 6 layers, however, they've gotten around it and many overclockers are easily uping the FSB and DRDRAM well above 533MHz. As for DDRII, I believe -can't remember- it has startling similarities to DRDRAM, isn't it supposed to be quite serialized rather than parallel and packetized?
Also, die size is a contributing factor but doesn't say anything about the cost of the waffer -I believe they're using SOI, it's quite expensive- or chip complexitity, number of metal layers and so on. The thing is, die size isn't necessarily telling of cost. I believe they need such a small die size to offset the potentially lower -with respect to their current line up- yield.
Dual channel DDR is not a good solution. nVidia has shown this, to have the board run stability -expected by picky consumers such as I and the workstation market- you can't aggressively clock it. It drops down to 100MHz instead of 133MHz. Also, even if you run it in the aggressive mode, I believe the timings goto 3, instead of 2.5. 4 layer PCBs and dual channel DDR don't mix. Dual channel DRDRAM, seems very capable of this, however. In the begining it was on 6 layers, however, they've gotten around it and many overclockers are easily uping the FSB and DRDRAM well above 533MHz. As for DDRII, I believe -can't remember- it has startling similarities to DRDRAM, isn't it supposed to be quite serialized rather than parallel and packetized?
" 4 layer PCBs and dual channel DDR don't mix. Dual channel DRDRAM, seems very capable of this, however. In the begining it was on 6 layers, however, they've gotten around it"
Saem, sounds to me like you need to make up your mind.
First yous tate 4 layer PCB's and dual channel DDR dont mix, then you show that they dont mix with RDRAM either - at least at first. And it is now "at first" for DDR dual channel chipsets. Why dont you give them the same range of improvements?
And as for nVidia's stability problems, they are non-existent with the correct DDR config. It doesnt drop in speed unless certain config is used. Sure, this is a BUG. Oh no! I dont doubt it will be corrected..why do you? You seem to shit on DDR constantly for no reason? did JEDEC kill your parents?
As for VIA being crap, you are flat out wrong. As for instability, ha! Read up on current events, and stop judging current hardware absed on years old bugs.
Saem, sounds to me like you need to make up your mind.
First yous tate 4 layer PCB's and dual channel DDR dont mix, then you show that they dont mix with RDRAM either - at least at first. And it is now "at first" for DDR dual channel chipsets. Why dont you give them the same range of improvements?
And as for nVidia's stability problems, they are non-existent with the correct DDR config. It doesnt drop in speed unless certain config is used. Sure, this is a BUG. Oh no! I dont doubt it will be corrected..why do you? You seem to shit on DDR constantly for no reason? did JEDEC kill your parents?
As for VIA being crap, you are flat out wrong. As for instability, ha! Read up on current events, and stop judging current hardware absed on years old bugs.
Thats right, because linux geeks know everything about computer chipsets :smile:
Its called tradition. IT managers will buy what worked in the past, they hate "going out on a limb" with something they havent used before. Trust me, thats where i work, and i see it all the time. they'd rather pay 2 times as much for Intel, not because of stability problems, but because the've always had Intel. Its just like the idea that only macs are good for video editing/photoshop...tradition.
[Q]Thats right, because linux geeks know everything about computer chipsets[/Q]
Actually, these geeks would be reasonable authorities, seeing as they would have worked on more than one chipset from more than one company. ie. they've compared Intel to others and found them lacking. Via, SiS and ALi chipsets suck.
[Q]Its called tradition. IT managers will buy what worked in the past, they hate "going out on a limb" with something they havent used before. Trust me, thats where i work, and i see it all the time. they'd rather pay 2 times as much for Intel, not because of stability problems, but because the've always had Intel. Its just like the idea that only macs are good for video editing/photoshop...tradition.[/Q]
BTW, I know folks who work as net admins and stuff too. I know why they buy and it's usually based on internal QA, they do test Via. Your above statements maybe the case for some but not for all. I know some places that don't have big budgets and they do some of their own -less rigirious- QA on various chipsets and they still find Intel to be the best, out of the usual, Via, SiS, ALi and AMD bunch!
I suppose you haven't figure it out, but why do you think there is an insane amount of revisioning for all those cheapo chipsets, that's because their always cleaning up bugs! They don't release errata because that would show how much ass they suck. They cost less because they don't invest as much into R&D and QA! That's one of the biggest reason Intel products cost more! As for MS not "working" with the other chipset manufacturers because of their releationship with Intel, that's not true. It might have been, but why would MS want to deal with chipsets and their drivers that are revised 10 million times, they've been spoilled by Intel's level of proffesionalism so to speak. Which doesn't revise their chipsets a whole lot and doesn't continaully have to release bois updates to hide some bug, they even make their errata and bugs they find available for PUBLIC viewing. AMD recently started to do the same. But their chipsets still don't come to par with the testing Intel chipsets go through. BTW, why doesn't Dell and the rest sell workstations/servers based on Via chipsets, you know as a second line? They've obviously been through their (IBM's, Compaq's, Dell's) QA. When Via has some bug they throw out a new revision with a few other bug fixes which removes the need for micro code speeds it up a bit do a few other things to make it spiffier and slap an "A" on it's ass and call it new! If Intel had some show stoppers they'd recall the product, that examplifies the significant difference in commitment to quality!
IT IS BECAUSE THEY SUCK!
You may find them to be all right for YOUR home use, but I don't find them to be upto par and neither does the workstation/server market. Everytime I've encountered a Via chipsets I've encountered a problem and I have lots of friends who like to save a buck - that's fine mind you, they save a few bucks I cash in on laughs.
Sorry, if I'm coming off as condescending, it's one thing to buy Via to save money, but to say it's comparable in quality to Intel is plain nuts. I'm not an Intel zealot, I do believe their hardware is over priced, but I definately too much lower, they wouldn't able to do the great R&D and QA like they do currently. And unlike other companies, they don't have coat-tails to ride on.
Actually, these geeks would be reasonable authorities, seeing as they would have worked on more than one chipset from more than one company. ie. they've compared Intel to others and found them lacking. Via, SiS and ALi chipsets suck.
[Q]Its called tradition. IT managers will buy what worked in the past, they hate "going out on a limb" with something they havent used before. Trust me, thats where i work, and i see it all the time. they'd rather pay 2 times as much for Intel, not because of stability problems, but because the've always had Intel. Its just like the idea that only macs are good for video editing/photoshop...tradition.[/Q]
BTW, I know folks who work as net admins and stuff too. I know why they buy and it's usually based on internal QA, they do test Via. Your above statements maybe the case for some but not for all. I know some places that don't have big budgets and they do some of their own -less rigirious- QA on various chipsets and they still find Intel to be the best, out of the usual, Via, SiS, ALi and AMD bunch!
I suppose you haven't figure it out, but why do you think there is an insane amount of revisioning for all those cheapo chipsets, that's because their always cleaning up bugs! They don't release errata because that would show how much ass they suck. They cost less because they don't invest as much into R&D and QA! That's one of the biggest reason Intel products cost more! As for MS not "working" with the other chipset manufacturers because of their releationship with Intel, that's not true. It might have been, but why would MS want to deal with chipsets and their drivers that are revised 10 million times, they've been spoilled by Intel's level of proffesionalism so to speak. Which doesn't revise their chipsets a whole lot and doesn't continaully have to release bois updates to hide some bug, they even make their errata and bugs they find available for PUBLIC viewing. AMD recently started to do the same. But their chipsets still don't come to par with the testing Intel chipsets go through. BTW, why doesn't Dell and the rest sell workstations/servers based on Via chipsets, you know as a second line? They've obviously been through their (IBM's, Compaq's, Dell's) QA. When Via has some bug they throw out a new revision with a few other bug fixes which removes the need for micro code speeds it up a bit do a few other things to make it spiffier and slap an "A" on it's ass and call it new! If Intel had some show stoppers they'd recall the product, that examplifies the significant difference in commitment to quality!
IT IS BECAUSE THEY SUCK!
You may find them to be all right for YOUR home use, but I don't find them to be upto par and neither does the workstation/server market. Everytime I've encountered a Via chipsets I've encountered a problem and I have lots of friends who like to save a buck - that's fine mind you, they save a few bucks I cash in on laughs.
Sorry, if I'm coming off as condescending, it's one thing to buy Via to save money, but to say it's comparable in quality to Intel is plain nuts. I'm not an Intel zealot, I do believe their hardware is over priced, but I definately too much lower, they wouldn't able to do the great R&D and QA like they do currently. And unlike other companies, they don't have coat-tails to ride on.
Saem, I would like to add to your point - Another reason why VIA isn't particularly popular in server market is because many net admins make in excess of $50 an hour, and it would cost the company less to buy quality intel motherboard than having their admins spend hours trying to fix cheap VIA crap.
Sorry, i just dont buy it.
I do work in this area, and i run servers at home, and at my work, on boxes that I built, using VIA and INTEL chipsets.
To say "VIA is crap" is bullshit. To say "VIA is unstable" is bullshit.
You are right that VIA chipsets have more compatability issues, but as long as you stay away from problematic hardware, it all runs like a fucking ROCK.
You can think what you want about Dell and the others, but i tell you the reason they are Intel only shops is that they get a cost decrease/kickback from intel for staying so. Has little to nothing to do with any QA testing.
EDIT: Like you, i dont want/mean to come off sounding condescending (because i plainly think you are foolish, in at least this one aspect) or as some weird "VIA 0wnes j00" freak either. I just think that most of your VIA bashing is based on hearsay and not personal experience. I think your points are invalid and trumped up. While i NEVER said VIA is better than or equal to Intel, you are saying that Intel is infinitely superior to the crap VIA which is bullshit. You guys totally underrate tradition in the role of computers. Most computer geeks tend to blow it off, but when you deal with "normal" people all the time, Tradition rules. Why are macs still the "kings of desktop publishing?" THey aint better...its all tradition.
_________________
YHWH is here.....
Use Trillian! AOL Sucks.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Althornin on 2002-02-27 08:18 ]</font>
I do work in this area, and i run servers at home, and at my work, on boxes that I built, using VIA and INTEL chipsets.
To say "VIA is crap" is bullshit. To say "VIA is unstable" is bullshit.
You are right that VIA chipsets have more compatability issues, but as long as you stay away from problematic hardware, it all runs like a fucking ROCK.
You can think what you want about Dell and the others, but i tell you the reason they are Intel only shops is that they get a cost decrease/kickback from intel for staying so. Has little to nothing to do with any QA testing.
EDIT: Like you, i dont want/mean to come off sounding condescending (because i plainly think you are foolish, in at least this one aspect) or as some weird "VIA 0wnes j00" freak either. I just think that most of your VIA bashing is based on hearsay and not personal experience. I think your points are invalid and trumped up. While i NEVER said VIA is better than or equal to Intel, you are saying that Intel is infinitely superior to the crap VIA which is bullshit. You guys totally underrate tradition in the role of computers. Most computer geeks tend to blow it off, but when you deal with "normal" people all the time, Tradition rules. Why are macs still the "kings of desktop publishing?" THey aint better...its all tradition.
_________________
YHWH is here.....
Use Trillian! AOL Sucks.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Althornin on 2002-02-27 08:18 ]</font>
I don't know, but it is a fact that VIA needs more driver updates to make things right. I believes many people using Intel chipsets don't have to update their driver.
Btw, I read in Anandtech that Clawhammer has 754 pins. The packaing is not going to be cheap IMHO.
Btw, I read in Anandtech that Clawhammer has 754 pins. The packaing is not going to be cheap IMHO.
i wouldnt consider via chipsets to be as good as the intel ones.
i have a KT133a and it took me about 6 months (and an inofficial Latancy Patch) to get my SB Live working without constant crashes, my 2nd IDE controller is unusable (possible data loss on my Harddisks).
i dont think my next mainboard will have a Via Chipset
i have a KT133a and it took me about 6 months (and an inofficial Latancy Patch) to get my SB Live working without constant crashes, my 2nd IDE controller is unusable (possible data loss on my Harddisks).
i dont think my next mainboard will have a Via Chipset
Similar threads
