Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by Imtoodumbtothinkofone, Aug 10, 2006.
Is it worthwhile or is it just a quick fix to jump on the DDR2 bandwagon?
quick fix that AMD will have to rely on for a while. Intel caught AMD with their pants down... not unlike what AMD did to Intel a while back.
At least they're both "sans culottes" for the time being. mamoru: at his passing knowledge of french history)
AM2 is the same as Socket 939, except that it can connect to DDR2 RAM instead of DDR(1) RAM. So there is an improvement, but it's not a huge one. That said, when it comes to A/V mastering and editing, AMD's 64-bit CPUs still kick the shit out of Intel. (Oddly enough, the dual cores aren't good for this kind of work, because A/V recording apps tend to get tied in knots when their threads get out of order. You can still configure the app to run on one corre while all your other stuff runs on the second core, though.) Intel is just winning back the business PC market that it had started to lose its grip on during the past few years. Case in point: Dell now sells AMD CPUs for the first time in its 20-some year history.
i thought that said A2M
You sick bastard. Take it to OTAH.
You're such a fucking idiot. INTEL has been the company holding the A/V mastering/editing (content creation) title.
I thought Intel was better at A/V editing, and AMD was better for gaming.
You haven't read any A/V recording magazines lately, have you? They're all saying that 64-bit vastly improves sound and video quality, if you have software to use it.
you're a fucking idiot. Again. 64-bit does NOTHING for A/V quality. And Intel has EMT64 which is the SAME THING as what AMD64 is.
Read this, bitch: http://www.cakewalk.com/x64/whitepaper.asp
I'll spare everyone else the trouble and provide a few choice quotes:
- - -
Intel has 64-bit processing too, yes. AMD is still better at it.
you're a fucking idiot.
PERFORMANCE != QUALITY.
Audio QUALITY is the SAME in both instances... One simply can load/generate FASTER.
And Intel EMT64 == AMD64. It's the SAME FUCKING THING!!!
Core 2 Duo > *.AMD . Period .
we really need to get you one of those books, what do they call them: a DICTIONARY!
Performance != quality
Exactly. Deus, none of the links you provided say anything about AMD > Intel. lol. They pretty much just say 64-bit > 32-bit.
I see you've found yourself a new Mini-Me, Jolly; good for you. Anyway...
If performance != quality, but quality is the same in both cases, then performance is left as the only key issue, isn't it? And all the DA/DV articles and forums I've read say that AMD64 outperforms anything intel has to offer, even if they are identical on paper.
EMT64 didn't get out until 2004 and waqsn't widely offered until 2005. Furthermore, It's still the Netburst arch vs. whatever AMD calls theirs.
Fact: Core 2 Duo has the same "quality" output with better performance from A to B.
Yeah, intel underestimated the demand for 64-bit desktop PCs pretty badly. Can't say I'm sorry to see that, though, because it gave AMD a chance to take the lead and innovate for a while.
If Core 2 Duo is 64-bit (I honestly don't know, I haven't read much about it yet) then yes, it would have 64-bit precision, wouldn't it? It's also very new, whereas the Athlon 64 has been around for long enough that enough weekend musicians own them by now for there to be a strong opinion in AMD's favor, and for DA/DV applications to have been optimized for the A64's idiosyncrasies. So it will probably take a while yet before intel sees the same usage in that realm as AMD does, though I'm sure they'll subsidize the hell out of any vendor who is willing to use all intel parts.
I believe AMD's architecture is called HyperTransport...but I might be thinking of something else.
When AMD first released AMD64, there weren't many desktop apps that took advantage of it. From the article you posted...
EM64T has the same instruction set as AMD64, with minor differences. These differences are trivial because most compilers make binaries for both AMD64 and EM64T.
AMD's Athlon64/Opteron architecture is called Direct Connect Architecture, Hypertransport is a component of that architecture.
If AMD owns the content creation market, this is the first time I've heard it. If its true, then Core 2 Duo will change this easily.
People have been investing in AMD64 hardware for years now. It's going to take some time for that investment to depreciate to the point that it's worth buying new hardware again. AMD64 and its related hardware is a more mature 64-bit desktop implementation, that's all I'm saying.
In the power user category, I'd say refreshes are more common and the cost is easily justified by productivity increases. People who can afford more than 4GB on a workstation don't mind spending. 5k for a new workstation if it ups performance significantly. Lot of workstation boards still don't have more than 4 RAM slots and 2GB+ sticks are not cheap. In engineering we don't wait for hardware to depreciate to purchase new hardware. As long as there is measurable performance to be had we can justify it. They just recycle our workstations to non-R&D and interns or leave it for us to use as secondary machines. On a single project last year, I managed to get up to 4 Dell 380's. The single greatest restriction is IT dept's that don't like to order outside the standard configuration for support reasons.
Intel's 64 bit implementation is effectively no different other than AMD did a far better job marketing it. Intel's huge complicated product mix and focus on Ghz and then dual core since Windows 64bit is less mature than either product. The lack of drivers alone make its effectiveness as a mainstream OS and pending Vista, 64bit computing is still reserved to a few power users. That said, a large number of P4/dual core systems out there are already 64 bit enabled when it becomes necessary. Even so casual users will not likely invest in that much RAM and below 4GB, performance is effectively the same.
Wow. A cogent argument in C&P that didn't involve any insults. I'm impressed.
I think that AM2 is still a solid investment even though we have seen Core 2 Duo wipe the board. Socket AM3 chips will be compatible with DDR2 and DDR3, and since they use the same pin configuration, AMD has announced that the AM3 chips will run on AM2 boards (perhaps with a bios flash).
So, if you believe in AMD being able to come back and beat intel's performance, you are essentially future-proofed by buuying AM2 right now.
AM3? Is that going to be AMD's answer to Core 2?
Do I believe in AMD's ability to beat intel? Well, they did it once before and for the first time ever, no less, so it's always possible. That said, intel has many of the same qualities as a freight train (overwhelming force combined with overwhelming inertia), and the general wisdom regarding freight trains is that if one is coming towards you, move out of the way. You won't win the fight, but you won't lose either.
If AMD wants to retain its newfound competitiveness instead of just following along and justifying intel's de-facto monopoly, it will most likely have to make a living by diving into niche markets and bringing them into the mainstream, like it did when it singlehandedly made the PC gamer market start caring about 64-bit. Since intel has set itself firmly on the path of high-speed and low power, AMD will probably have to go in the direction of massively-parallel CPUs like the kind Sun Microsystems makes.
It might even be a good idea for them to invest brainpower in intelligent thread redirection, so it could have two or three Athlon cores on the same carrier as five or six K6 cores. Why? Because then it could redirect "light" threads to the K6 cores and "heavy" threads to the Athlon cores. Not every program needs 3GHz, after all. It would be an innovative approach to parallelism and power-saving, all while not standing square in the path of intel.