CPU-Z AMD 65nm Brisbane

[DrMrLordX]

What makes you think it's going to be slow "getting the data from the RAM to the Core"? When was the last time AMD ever had problems with this on K8 designs?

Btw, OcHungry = less sane than ever.

 

[Metr0]

you are wrong mate, i got the first am2 90nm cpu also and it had 2*1mb i compared it to a 2*512Kb same cpu and performance was lower that 3% better.

AMD did this PR change to bo more competitive with C2D, for benchs is gonna be hard, launch was a softlaunch and not many bios updates available

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Metr0
you are wrong mate, i got the first am2 90nm cpu also and it had 2*1mb i compared it to a 2*512Kb same cpu and performance was lower that 3% better.

AMD did this PR change to bo more competitive with C2D, for benchs is gonna be hard, launch was a softlaunch and not many bios updates available

So where are the OC results dude? It's been days now, get a move on!

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Metr0
you are wrong mate, i got the first am2 90nm cpu also and it had 2*1mb i compared it to a 2*512Kb same cpu and performance was lower that 3% better.

3% of 2.4 ghz = 72 mhz

In other words, by your own admission, a 512k l2 X2 would need to run 72 mhz faster to match a 90nm 4800+ at stock (2.4 ghz). That falls in line with myocardia's estimate, or very close to it.

Most people have reported a 5% difference in performance between 1 meg and 512k l2 chips, not 3%, so I'm guessing the performance difference is more like 120 mhz, not 72 mhz.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: myocardia
Ooh, I didn't look at the amount of L2 cache. That means that it's really the same speed, but needs to run 100 Mhz faster to get the same amount of work done. That's not good.*

* There's a 75-100 Mhz performance difference between two A64's at the same speed, if one has 1MB of L2.

That's the dumbest statement I have read. I guess some people never owned AMD and make false claim about. It's not like C2D that relys on huge cache because the FSB bottlencks.

The C2D has no FSB bottlenecks. Even C2Q is not remotely FSB limited. Link

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy

Originally posted by: OcHungry

Originally posted by: myocardia
Ooh, I didn't look at the amount of L2 cache. That means that it's really the same speed, but needs to run 100 Mhz faster to get the same amount of work done. That's not good.*

* There's a 75-100 Mhz performance difference between two A64's at the same speed, if one has 1MB of L2.

That's the dumbest statement I have read. I guess some people never owned AMD and make false claim about. It's not like C2D that relys on huge cache because the FSB bottlencks.

The C2D has no FSB bottlenecks. Even C2Q is not remotely FSB limited. Link

Two things here...

1. Large cache is to improve latency, not to remove bottlenecks. That's why it's much more necessary for C2D and not for AMD (because of the ODMC).

2. The THG link doesn't really show anything about data bottlenecks from the FSB at all (either way)...what you need to show that is heavy transaction processing on all 4 cores.

 

[harpoon84]

How about this then?

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2879&p=7

For the supposed FSB bottleneck of Kentsfield, it scales surprisingly well.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: Metr0
you are wrong mate, i got the first am2 90nm cpu also and it had 2*1mb i compared it to a 2*512Kb same cpu and performance was lower that 3% better.

3% of 2.4 ghz = 72 mhz

In other words, by your own admission, a 512k l2 X2 would need to run 72 mhz faster to match a 90nm 4800+ at stock (2.4 ghz). That falls in line with myocardia's estimate, or very close to it.

Most people have reported a 5% difference in performance between 1 meg and 512k l2 chips, not 3%, so I'm guessing the performance difference is more like 120 mhz, not 72 mhz.

The performance differences between 1mb and 512k cache models depends on the application. For example, in some apps the 1mb cpu will outperforms a 512k cpu clocked 200mhz higher. In some other apps the cache will barely make any difference. See this article and compare the Opteron 165 with a X2 3800.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Yes, I know different applications can show different performance deltas between the 512k and 1 meg l2 chips (same deal for 2 meg and 4 meg Core 2s). I was only dealing with averages.

 

[harpoon84]

This Metr0 guy is full of ******. How long does it take to overclock a CPU?

 

[DrMrLordX]

By reading his other threads on other forums, it seems that he does not actually have the chip himself. Reportedly, a friend of his has one and metro is awaiting results. That's all I know.