jerry Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Source (Needs Translation) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzla Veteran Posted March 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted March 12, 2005 (edited) ... Edited March 12, 2005 by Dazzla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neufuse Veteran Posted March 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted March 12, 2005 The difference between the 3800+ (2.4GHz) and the dual core (2.4GHz) is basically nothing. 585606635[/snapback] I'm sorry but where are you seeing there is basicly no difference? In their benchmark I see the DC 2.4GHz getting 41.4 seconds and the 3800+ getting 77.8 seconds, thats a huge difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ianmac45 Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 wow...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 The difference between the 3800+ (2.4GHz) and the dual core (2.4GHz) is basically nothing. 585606635[/snapback] well i does show a difference of 36.1 sec..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neufuse Veteran Posted March 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted March 12, 2005 can't wait to see the intel dual core benchmarks and see how they go into this mix of things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecion Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Rudy, neufuse, take a closer look, the 41,4 was by TWO dual core cpus, the single dual core chip is about the same as the 3800+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLegendOfMart Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 He means running with 1 physical, rather than 2 logical, not everything supports dual cpu/core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phemo Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 That chip there is a Socket 939 Athlon 64 Dual Core. You can't get dual Socket 939 systems so it's impossible for the benchmarks to have been using two dual core CPUs. This means that the two red bars are the same chip - the Athlon 64 2.4GHz dual core engineering sample, the 41 sec result being with two cores and the 77 sec result with just one of the two cores utilised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arneh Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Rudy, neufuse,take a closer look, the 41,4 was by TWO dual core cpus, the single dual core chip is about the same as the 3800+ 585606669[/snapback] Ecion, Athlon 64 don't have multiprocessor motherboards, so the benches are probably misnamed being that the single cpu is with one core turned on and the dual cpu is two cores running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neufuse Veteran Posted March 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted March 12, 2005 Rudy, neufuse,take a closer look, the 41,4 was by TWO dual core cpus, the single dual core chip is about the same as the 3800+ 585606669[/snapback] for some reason i saw logical when i read that in my head... yeah then 2 physical processors would definatly make a huge difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neufuse Veteran Posted March 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted March 12, 2005 That chip there is a Socket 939 Athlon 64 Dual Core. You can't get dual Socket 939 systems so it's impossible for the benchmarks to have been using two dual core CPUs.This means that the two red bars are the same chip - the Athlon 64 2.4GHz dual core engineering sample, the 41 sec result being with two cores and the 77 sec result with just one of the two cores utilised. 585606691[/snapback] if they have test engineering chips whos to say they dont have test motherboards also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stezo2k Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 wow, pretty nice benchies :) as good as 2 opterons and will probably cheaper too shame i won't be upgrading for ages..... looks like a good CPU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry Posted March 12, 2005 Author Share Posted March 12, 2005 The difference between the 3800+ (2.4GHz) and the dual core (2.4GHz) is basically nothing. 585606635[/snapback] They are almost same because of same clock speeds. When both cores are in action, we see quite a difference. ;) if they have test engineering chips whos to say they dont have test motherboards also? 585606705[/snapback] Because Athlon64 Dual Core processors will run on any of the current S939 boards, it was officially established some time back. btw, this looks promising for AMD as multi-tasking has been a home ground of Intel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzla Veteran Posted March 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted March 12, 2005 (edited) Rudy, neufuse,take a closer look, the 41,4 was by TWO dual core cpus, the single dual core chip is about the same as the 3800+ 585606669[/snapback] ... Edited March 12, 2005 by Dazzla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munashii Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 That is awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glowstick Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Logical = HT, Physical = Cores. Don't see the problem here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzla Veteran Posted March 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted March 12, 2005 The confusion is arising from the fact that they also list the Dual Core AMD as a "1 Physical CPU". I'd like to presume that they've just somehow disabled one of the cores to show the difference the second core makes to performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phemo Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 The confusion is arising from the fact that they also list the Dual Core AMD as a "1 Physical CPU". I'd like to presume that they've just somehow disabled one of the cores to show the difference the second core makes to performance. 585606765[/snapback] Yeah that's what I'd assume too. if they have test engineering chips whos to say they dont have test motherboards also? 585606705[/snapback] They won't have multiprocessor capable Socket 939 boards other than dual core. You'll only ever get one CPU socket on a Socket 939 board because multiprocessing is Opteron's territory (other than dual core, of course). If you could buy, say, a dual Socket 939 board and slap two Athlon 64s or two dual core Athlon 64s in, what would be the point of the Opteron 2xx series? They wouldn't do it for that reason :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antally Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Obviously when they say "2 physical cpu" they mean two cores, as there are actually 2 cpu's on the chip itself. There would be no point to this article if that wasn't the case. The exciting thing about this article is that AMD has dual core chips working at 2.4ghz, which is quite a bit more than I had expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Thank you, the Dual Core chip appears on there twice. In a single CPU setup and a Dual CPU setup. The Single CPU Dual Core 2.4GHz AMD offers barely any real world improvement in that cinebench benchmark compared to the 2.4GHz 3800+. The only thing that would make sense is in one the second core isn't being used and in the other it is and their terminology isn't consistent with the rest of the labelling. If that's the case then it's impressive as hell. Either way there's a definite need for clarification. It'll mean one of 2 things: "AMD Dual Core 2.4GHz 2 Phyical CPU" = Both cores enabled, single DC CPU setup = impressive as hell. or "AMD Dual Core 2.4GHz 2 Phyical CPU" = 2 seperate DC CPUs = not even news worthy. 585606741[/snapback] no, the dual core shows 2 phisycal cpu because there's 2 of them in one chip so 1 chip will give you 2 physical cpus and a dual board for this chip (if they exist) would give you 4 physical chips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzla Veteran Posted March 12, 2005 Veteran Share Posted March 12, 2005 As we've discussed above. There's a "1 Physical CPU" entry as well for the Dual Core. I can only presume that Cinebench can be configured to utilise only 1 CPU; to highlight the performance difference Dual Core makes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue` Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Interesting... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Interesting... :) 585606811[/snapback] Indeed. Can't wait for the release, I'm getting one :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rix Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Woah.. *drule* What's the price tag on one of these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts