Why AMD is better than Intel? - Page 2

I meant the name of the core. Is it going to use the exact same core, or are they keeping quiet about it on purpose?

Alright, have it your way.
Conroe > FX62
LGA775 > AM2
happy?

Damn I cannot remember I thought an article on THG had the core names for these processors but im not sure.

Sharikou's Blog!

Conroe performance claim being busted

FUD is like ghost movies, you don't get scared by seeing a ghost, you get scared by not seeing one -- Sharikou






Recall Intel's Mooly Eden said Con-roe will be 20% faster than AMD's future chips without even knowing AMD's plans? During the Spring 2006 IDF, Intel setup a Conroe and an Athlon 64 box, then directed benchmarkers such as Anand to push buttons*, but peaking into Windows device manager of the alleged Conroe wasn't allowed.
During the IDF, I emailed various Intel execs, AMD execs and Anand, I pointed out that such a pre-arranged blackbox Intel setup against AMD was unfair and challenged Intel to lend the Conroe box to Anand for a real drill. However, Intel dared not to answer such a simple challenge based on the rules of fair competition. The INQ sharply criticised this kind of guerilla benchmarketing.

In fact, Anand had no way to verify Intel's IDF Conroe setup, the Conroe configuration parameters were provided by Intel. Anand noted that "it looked like Intel had done the unimaginable" with regard to the situation. Nonetheless, Anand assured readers that "there was nothing fishy going on with the benchmarks or the install" based on his trust on Intel's honesty -- which was seriously lacking from past records. Thus we had an interesting situation: Anand relied on Intel's reputation to validate the Conroe setup while Intel relied on Anand's reputation to validate the Conroe scores -- a loop of trust was formed to convince the world + dog.
Now, for the very first time, someone actually got hold of a Conroe chip in their own lab and did some tests. It was a 2.4GHZ Conroe (Link: CPU-Z) against an Athlon 64 overclocked to 2.8GHZ. The overclocked Athlon 64 had a 2.8/2.4 -1 = 16.7% clockspeed advantage.
The following results were obtained by running 32 bit ScienceMark binaries optimized for Intel Pentium:

Molecular DynamicsA64: 1872.68Conroe : 2133.38 -- 14% faster
Primordia (Energy calculations for 1 atom)Athlon64: 1506.83 -- 10% fasterConroe: 1365.85
CryptographyAthlon64: 1345.05 -- 26.3% fasterConroe: 1065.59
STREAMAthlon64: 1512.55 -- 21.7% fasterConroe: 1242.94
The above results were for an Athlon overclocked to 2.8GHZ and a Conroe at 2.4GHZ, with the Athlon having a 16.7% clockspeed advantage. For a direct comparision at the same clockspeed, we normalize the Conroe scores by taking into account the frequency difference. Assuming the best scenario in which Conroe scores scale linearly with clock speed, we multiply the Conroe scores by a factor of 2.8/2.4. Thus, with a 2.8GHZ Conroe, we would have
Molecular DynamicsAthlon 64 2.8GHZ: 1872.68Conroe 2.8GHZ : 2133.38 * 2.8/2.4 = 2489 -- 32.9% faster
Primordia (Atom)Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1506.83Conroe 2.8GHZ: 1365.85 * 2.8/2.4 = 1593.49 -- 5.7% faster
CryptographyAthlon64 2.8GHZ: 1345.05 -- 8.2% fasterConroe 2.8GHZ: 1065.59 * 2.8/2.4
STREAM *Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1512.55 -- 4.3% fasterConroe 2.8GHZ: 1242.94 * 2.8/2.4 = 1450


ScienceMark is a strictly CPU/memory test, it doesn't involve video or disk I/O, it is basically a raw speed test. The ScienceMark is freely available from http://www.sciencemark.org/ for both Windows XP and Windows XP x64.
However, the above results showed a violent CPU performance fluctuation for Conroe, from it being 32% faster to being 8% slower. How can this be explained?
The cause of the Conroe performance fluctuations can't be the types of computation involved. We notice that MolDyn is a floating point computation while the Cipher is an integer computation. However, both MolDyn and Primordia are floating point calaculations on quantum mechanical properties of matter, yet, the Primodia showed a 27% relative performance drop.
As we look deeper in the ScienceMark, we notice that in the default MolDyn benchmark setting, there are only 4 cells with a simple cubic lattice, no more than 32 molecules are involved. The program is basically tracking the momenta and positions of a handful of molecules and computing scattering effects. About 2MB to 4MB memory is needed. The Primodia calculation for a single Ag (silver) atom with 47 electrons needs just a bit more memory than MolDyn. However, both the Cipher and STREAM tests involve a lot more than 4MB.
The reason why Conroe did so well in the MolDyn test is simple: Conroe has a huge 4MB of unified cache, for such single threaded tests that can fit in 4MB*, Conroe can just run off the cache with very high speed. Since cache misses drastically reduce peformance, applications run off cache exhibit unrealistic performance numbers.
However, once you go over the 4MB limit, Conroe is slower than Athlon 64 at the same clock. Both the Cryptography and STREM tests use a lot more than 4MB, larger than Conroe's 4MB cache, and Conroe immediately falls below Athlon 64 on the performance curve.


I can bet on this: if one increases the number of cells in the MolDyn test to 9, thus increases the working set to larger than 4MB, Conroe will perform worse than Athlon 64 at the same clockspeed.

There is another set of results on Conroe and Athlon 64, showing Athlon 64 beating Conroe on WinRAR file compression at the same frequency.
I have added a comparison between Clovertown(double Conroe) and Athlon 64 2800+.
The conclusion is: clock for clock, Athlon 64 will beat Conroe in real application environments that require a working set of larger than 4MB, or in other words, larger than Conroe's 4MB cache. This means in any real multi-tasking or server environment the Core architecture will be an underdog. Even worse, for Intel's shared cache architecture, cache thrashing is a distinct possibility under heavy loads.

Most modern applications need a lot more then 4MB. IE needs at least 50MB when viewing a normal web page(with Flash, JS, DHTML, AJAX..); Photo Editing apps need around 40MB; FireFox takes 23MB when I use it to view yahoo.com; DivX grabs 23MB even before I open a video...
Frankly, I am really disappointed by Intel's decisions. This gimmick of using 4MB cache to get unreasonably good scores on the most simplistic tests is cheap from design point of view but expensive for manufacturing. Mooly Eden kept talking about the 4 Meg cache in the technology analyst meeting, and promised to add even more cache, however, the 4MB cache is definitely eating a lot of die area and Intel's limited capacity. It is almost like using Netburst's ridiculous hyperpipeline to pump up GHZ at the expense of power consumption and real performance. I wouldn't accuse Intel of benchmark fraud, but people need to know the 4MB limitation of the Conroe.
So far, Athlon 64 is being tested under 32 bit mode with executables optimized for the Pentium. Athlon 64 gets 10-40% performance improvement running in 64 bit mode, a benchmark under Windows x64 or Windows Vista should show the real strength of AMD64 architecture.
As a test drive, I downloaded the 64 bit version of ScienceMark and ran it on my Athlon 64 2800+(Socket 754, 130nm, 512K L2, at 1.799GHZ stock frequency, with 1GB PC3200 DDR) under Windows XP x64. For the 64 bit MolDyn test, I got a score of 1479.12 ScienceMarks, almost 50% faster than the 32 bit result on the same old PC. I suspect that on a Socket 939 Rev E6 platform with SSE3 support, the 64 bit result will be even better. A reader submit the 64 bit result for a 2GHZ Athlon 64, you can view the result here.
AMD should work with benchmark creators to ensure that application benchmarks have a working set larger than the cache size of Conroe -- 4MB.
AMD's Rev F socket AM2 will be available for system builders on May 15, 2006. At 65nm, using Stress Memorization Technology co-developed with IBM, AMD will be able to increase clockspeed to 4GHZ. AMD is also working on Z-RAM, a SOI based technology that may increase cache density by 500%.
*For those who question this authenticity of this Conroe benchmark, the person who posted the result had shown at least some CPU-Z screen captures indicating the various properties of the Conroe CPU. Anand wasn't even allowed to look at the Windows device manager, all he did was pushing some buttons as directed by Intel IDF staff. All the system specs of the Conroe system was provided by Intel. Anand had no verification of the setup. Also, unlike Anand, who receives a lot of ad money from Intel, this person who posted the Conroe results had nothing to gain financially either way. Clearly, this test has more credibility than Anand's. Anand's failure to mention that he was merely a button pusher and his obvious pumping style made his credibility very much in doubt.
*Intel touted its 1 cycle SSE execution, but the STREAM results weren't impressive. Henri Richard mentioned Conroe is more like K8.
*To verify this, you can download ScienceMark, then run the MolDyn, Primordia, Cipher and STREAM benchmarks on your own PC. You will find that the default MolDyn test uses very little memroy, Primodia uses a bit more, but Cipher and STREAM use a lot more than 4MB. To check this, you launch the ScienceMark program, then launch the dialog box for running MolDyn benchmark, at this point, the simulation hasn's started, two threads are created for this task, using a process viewer program, you note the memory used for the task so far is about 7MB. Then you click at the Run Simulation button, you will notice that another thread is created to run the simulation, now the memory used by whole task is smaller than 11MB for most of the time, meaning the benchmark thread uses less than 4MB and thus can fit in the 4MB cache of a Conroe.

Well How many of you think this is true...?

I doubt buy it. The superpi results coming out are mind boggling, but superpi is almost always a clear indicator of the best CPU.
Also, a lot of the suspicious ideas following Intel's AMD set up were laid to rest by the Anandtech re-do of the testing.

Not his work, doesn't count.

And, thanks ak47is1337, I was hoping someone would finally get comparisons right.

Although, there is no conclusive evidence at this point which core/socket is better. Benchmarks that differ between companies by a few FPS or marks prove nothing.

My current preference for AMD comes from the variety of motherboards and chipsets, not just the chips themselves. I think we can all agree that Prescott was a complete thermal failure, and AMD has made their share of crap as well.

like you .because you don't use your mind resources 8O

Even tho i own a machine with AMD in it

threads like this are getting really old

we need more constructive threads than this crap

The author who wrote that article is a complete moron and ignorant to the facts. He was simply blinded by his love for amd. Not allowed into task manager ???? http://www.hardwarezone.com/articl [...] =2&id=1845 seems like they were allowed. You do know how much pc mark gets hindered by even a slight processor load ?. Since we are seeing parallel results for amd systems and conroe systems being posted all over the internet I find it really hard to say how intel cheated. It doesnt matter the author will find out in july about how fast the conroe is, prepare because the author may whine all he wants but that will not change the results of the platform. You do know why they did a set up of a skt 939 platform, you do know also AM2's flagship processor is an FX60 clocked at 2.8 ghz. Thats why intel used an FX 60 clocked @ 2.8 ghz STRANGE!!!!!. Intel also knew the limited performance increases DDR 2 was going to give amd. Intel also in the tests had really aggresive timings on the amd system and loose timings on the conroe system to equal the ram out. So you can throw all of those theorys out of the window.
That authors article is pure bs and filled with loose claims which dont stack up.

Yeah, he's a moron. I love when madmodmike quotes his BS.

Oh
My
God

are you an idiot, want to put it bluntly? Intels conroe makes AMD look like a P4, and P4 was DESIGNED to run at high speeds to make it (unfairly too) look faster then AMD (AMD 1400 sounds slower then a P4 1700), it wasnt a matter of efficency at the time, and it sadly worked.

Dam fcuking noob fanboy.

Conroe isn't even released yet so I think you should calm down until it is...

Agreed. Conroe isnt out for 6 months and AMD should have better things on AM2 by then...noob fanboy lol. thats funny because that's what i was thinking of apache, betting on something not even benchmarked (by someone other than intel). Buddy, conroe isnt out for half a year. How about we stay in the now? Currently P4 is poop, and AMD is a lot better because theirs give superior price/performance. Conroe might just top A64 but my prediction is not by much. Then the A64 65nms come out and pawn the conroes.
I'm probably going to get called a noob fanboy for this. And I know I contradict myself when I say "lets stay in the now" so meh.


and Im still wondering why the fuck you guys keep comparing a SOCKET vs a CORE PROCESSOR

its CONROE VS WINDSOR morons!!

"amd should have something better than AM2" <-- clearly stupid remark
since all new cores will be in AM2 socket.

Should we really reply to that ?

Windsor and Manila I think.(not sure about the manila, I think they posted the core names a few ago around the forum )

Windsor for the X2 series and FX
and Manila for semprons

Intel chipsets own.

as far as i know AMD dosent make Chipsets

AMD64 is under public licensing, nothing was stolen. Intel has been able to compensate for a lack of integration with massive FSB's, which will change eventually.

AMD and Intel make fine CPU's, each of which represents the pinnicle of engineering achievement, and the crowning glory of literally millions of person hours of sweat, toil, and dedication.

That being said....

They are just F#$king pieces of silicon.

This fanboyism on both sides defeats the efficient operation of capitalism, and thus undermines the economy, and indeed a rational basis for intelligent commerce.

We all need to buy CPU's based on reason over passion.

Back when Intel + Rambus were trying to stick us with slow and absurdly overpriced P4s + Rambus, I bought AMD T-Birds with DDR..

Then AMD started to release vapourware 2800+ chips (that performed like Northwood 2.4s) so I loaded up on Northwood Cs..

Then Prescott overheated it's way to nowhere and I started buying Athlon 64s.

Then AMD started to get cocky and charge waaaay to much for it's x2 series, so I'm buying fire sale priced 9xx chips....

If Conroe is as good as advertised, I'll buy some, if not.. then not...

They are just F#$king pieces of silicon.

I buy the most I can get for the money I can afford to spend... end of story.

You still don't get it. Conroe is not a new processor... It's 2 Pentium M cores. A much more advanced proc then the P4. Should know I have one in my laptop. I'm not an Intel person, been AMD since 386dx40.

So to say the conroe is not new either.....

Oh
My
God

are you an idiot, want to put it bluntly? Intels conroe makes AMD look like a P4, and P4 was DESIGNED to run at high speeds to make it (unfairly too) look faster then AMD (AMD 1400 sounds slower then a P4 1700), it wasnt a matter of efficency at the time, and it sadly worked.

Dam fcuking noob fanboy.

Conroe isn't even released yet so I think you should calm down until it is...

Agreed. Conroe isnt out for 6 months and AMD should have better things on AM2 by then...noob fanboy lol. thats funny because that's what i was thinking of apache, betting on something not even benchmarked (by someone other than intel). Buddy, conroe isnt out for half a year. How about we stay in the now? Currently P4 is poop, and AMD is a lot better because theirs give superior price/performance. Conroe might just top A64 but my prediction is not by much. Then the A64 65nms come out and pawn the conroes.
I'm probably going to get called a noob fanboy for this. And I know I contradict myself when I say "lets stay in the now" so meh.
Do you smoke crack? Conroe comes out in July. Now, if my scientific calculations are correct, that's approximately 2 months.
Oh, and when AM2 comes out in June...guess what it has new? Hey, it has DDR2 so dumb ass newb fanboys can buy it just because it's the new AMD processor on the block. Conroe will blow it away because it offers nothing new but DDR2.
Oh, and about 65nm AM2 chips, when those relese in 07, Intel unveils 45nm.
And just to top this off, Intel currently offers much more bang for the buck. AMD dual cores are very expensive, and a competitively performing Intel chip is almost always cheaper.

No, that's absolutely false. Name one P'M chip that has 64 bit instructions or SSE4. Or find me a P'M chip that will demolish an FX60. The point is, it's based off the architecture, but it's still a hell of a lot different. It is FAR improved.

not much just an updated version

Yes AMD64 is open, but what ever happiend to the Intel Itanium chips??

HT has HUGE implements for latency versus FSB.

Bandwidth isn't anything. uber low latency is the major advantage of HT. BTW, Intel is going to have to move to an integrated bus soon as multi-core and multi-cpu systems cut FSB in half, in fourth and in eigths, thus killing any CHANCE of competing with the Opty's. Moving from a northbridge to a CPU based memory controller is no ez switch, so it won't happen for awhile but Intel will eventually have no choice.

you fail to miss the point. just because you can't feel the difference doesn't mean it isn't there. with AMD's integrated bus, it could be possible to get CAS latency 2 on DDR2 speeds with some modification. Why do you think AMD was more than capable with DDR1 low latency for so long? (hell, they still are) It's not about how much bandwidth you create, but if you actually need it. On the other hand, lower latency for anything will always translate into better performance. Also, dual core CPU's are feeling the squeece of the FSB. Conroe, despite it sporting a 1066mhz FSB, it supposed to be terribly bandwidth starved, and remember, that is cut in half for each CPU. Can you imagine what kind of performance we can imagine that get with quad cores on a measly 1ghz FSB? The point is, yes sure it's economical, but from a performance standpoint I would rather upgrade my CPU/mobo every few years.

Do you even realize that folks wont be buying AMD anytime soon seeing what idiots (you) use them?

Whatever BS youve come up with, it could easily be proven wrong, goes to show what a no-brainer you are IMHO.