Hello to all of you people there!

What I wanted to know is this : How is an Athlon64 platform-based PC better than competing ones? Why would I choose it over other processors/Intel/etc. ?

As a matter of fact, this question is for a demo by a friend, who wants to show that the Athlon64 is best. All that I could come up with (with my limited knowledge) was:
1. It has DEP (data execution prevention) extensions to prevent hacking/app-RAM-overruns.
2. Supports SSE2 *AND* 3D-Now! 2 instruction sets.
3. Runs at good speeds, and still is cool-quiet.
4. Is reasonably future-proof with 64-bit instructions.
5. Could be faster in future, if you use 64-bit OS.
6. It is good for graphics professionals (rendering is faster).
7. Good for gamers (pairing with a high-end graphics card will give superb dX9 quality/performance).
8. It's memory bandwidth is very demonstrably good - winXP would install within 11 minutes.

I want to know how we could prove demonstrably that the Athlon-64 is superior (so that rules out technical discussions about chipset-architecture/caching-methods/Northbridge-SouthBridge integration/etc.).
Please just stick to the topic, and no flaming/fanboy-ism. We don't need suggestions to use something else instead of AMD here.

Where/how can I get worms/viruses that plague us with their memory-overrun exploits (like blaster,sasser,etc.) - for personal use only, he won't be affecting anyone else.

How, if at all, is a 64-bit desktop a better deal for an end-user (who surfs WWW,makes documents,plays music,and shuts down his computer)?

I need more demonstrative reasons (as the above post says), and quickly (within 1 or 2 days). I use the word 'demonstrative' (in the sense that, for example), I can show how faster memory access speed affects you by showing a super-fast OS-install. In the same way, DEP's usefulness can be proved by showing that the widely-cursed worms do not affect an Athlon64-based PC at all.

If you really want to find a virus/worms, just go to the P2P network and download some of the 64kb files or so. Alot of those are just virus' trojans.

Demonstrating Video editing and performance, you could use VirtualDub (freeware) to simulate how long it will take to encode the same file on a Athlon64/XP and Pentium4(comparable) and show teh time difference.
You could use Adobe Premiere if you got it for the same purpose (optomized for Pentium I think though)

Better deal, try to throw in the Longhorn side of things. At the moment and when the 64-Bit OS is released, Microsoft has said that it will be availale ONLY through OEMs with purchase of the 64-Bit system. Longhorn will probally change that.

Comparing could also be done with a program such as 3DMark or the like. It will give scores based on how it performs (hardware dependant as well).


Hope that helps.

For the NORMAL user, who browses the web, sends, e-mail, uses office, plays music, there is no real advantage to an Athlon64. The advantage is going to come when using those processor and memory hungry applications, such as video rendering, image editing 3D CADD, and anything else with heavy calculations.

There may be some noticable difference in palying #D games but I personally ouldn;t think it would be that great a difference to offset the additional cost of the processor and os. But I'm not the avid gamer.

As far as preventing worms, etc. Smart computing would do just as much as the DEP. The last time I had a virus on my machine was 1985, so that's not a concern, and I don't think that DEP will prevent system crashes anymore than I think the next version of Windows will come bug free (read 0%).

The Athlon64 is just a processor that works with 64-bit operating systems. The only one that I know of (as of now) is Windows XP 64-bit Edition. There aren't that many 64-bit applications that have been made yet, so I don't really see a big advantage to installing this kind of processor.

I think the Athlon 64 has been hyped to much as being cool because of it's 64bit support. If you look at that from a technical point of view it doesn't really do much of difference, even when using a 64bit OS. From a user point of view it makes zero difference, as the programs are required to be 64bit to even have a chance to enjoy the minor speed boost... And I doubt that many user applications will be converted into streamlined 64bit versions within the CPU cycle that the Athlon 64 represents...

Then there's the DEP, which actually should improve the end user experience as a well known exploit type now i gone from the scene... However, as far as I know, only the 64bit version of windows supports it, but, of course, I might be mistaken ...

Another interesting thing about the Athlon 64 is the fact that it has internal memory controller... That means that the low end Athlon 64 (Those just called "Athlon 64"), doesn't support dual channel ram, which really suxx, since speed-o-holics have to buy the far more expensive Athlon 64 FX, which support dual channel ram.

So, basicly, there aren't really any features which scream "buy me!"... The only thing you should be concerned about is performance. The Athlon 64 is, as you say, quite fast and run quite cool.

Personlly I would have would probably choose an Athlon 64, but that's purely because of my geeky nature... The average non geeky user would have no use for the "extra features" ...

Ok, well im back to impart some knowledge.....

Ok, the atlon 64 is not really the best processor out there (there may be a few that disagree). It merely has optimised 32 bit extensions that allow it to process information faster, the benefits can be seen in gaming and word processing. It does not really add much otherwise (except maybe bragging rights). Now as you said if the person is just a normal home user (characterised by the traits you mentioned) a 64 may be a bit on the extreme and not to mention expensive side.

However if you have the money, why not its a pretty impressive piece of hardware, go ahead and buy it. There have been numerous bench marks that have been done comparing it and the Intel line of Performance processors. Check these out:::;

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040318/index.html

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1550760,00.asp

Now about the viruses, cant really say where you can get those..sry

Sunil

@gamehead200-
The entire purpose of this thread was that I want to *DEMONSTRABLY* prove how/why an Athlon64 was better than any other.

@Alanoll-
You seem to be able to 'catch' viruses/worms as easily as you would catch a butter-fly. Could you please rar/zip them up and PM them to me? Please remember that I only want viruses that get stopped in their tracks by the DEP feature (in other words, the competing Intel machine should be show-able as "feeling the pain").

Can anyone come up with names of such viruses which aren't able to affect DEP-enabled machines?


@the rest of the posters-
Thanks for writing in with all the info you did - it is surely going to find a place in my demo. Well, in fact, I'm stuck up as to how I could prove the point that this processor has better performance (without the aid of labyrinthine benchmarks and numbers which an end-user cannot understand - they need 'see-able', 'hear-able' proof). Suggestions anyone ?

The responses aren't exactly flying in at the rate that would be cool.....
I guess more people could take a try at hitting the "Reply to this topic" button.

This is only usefull in the event an exploit uses a buffer overflow to gain access to the computer, or to willfully do damage. This won't stop other exploits which don't use buffer overflows.



In this day and age, it doesn't really make a huge difference what instructions the CPU uses. I haven't really seen many programs that take advantage of the 3D-Now! instruction set, but I'm sure that they do still exist.

This is true, however, the stock fan for the Athlon is not a particularly effecient fan.
As a comparison, my P4 Northwood 3.0GHz CPU has a fairly effecient stock fan, which is somewhat just as quiet as the Athlon. That said, I've removed it and replaced it with an all copper unit, which has a 9.2cm fan running at 1500RPM. At this speed, the copper HSF unit keeps my processor at the same temps as the stock Intel HSF. There are better HSFs available for both platforms.



This doesn't mean much when you're still waiting for software to be developed on a hardware platform that has had around a year or so on the market.
'Future proof' is not something that the computing world understands very well, because no computer is ever 'future proof'. You can only ever minimise the amount of times you 'have' to upgrade your computer.

Somewhat true, as it all depends on the operating system implementation, and the software implementation, and how the software is compiled. But generally speaking, there should be "some" performance gain, even if it is relatively low. However, the performance gain may not justify the cost to change over to a new platform, if you've already got a fairly decent spec'd machine.



Not entirely true, in some cases, the performance is on par with other 32bit AMD cpu's, and even 32bit P4's.
When software is properly optimised, and updated to support 64bit's, this may change.

Refer to my answer to point 6.



Thats the advantage of having the memory controller on the CPU die. However, I can't comment a great deal on the bandwidth to other parts of the system as I don't have an AMD machine.


I really believe that it is a matter of personal preference, and that currently, both sides of the camp have their own advantages and disadvantages. Given that Intel are already releasing 64bit chips (the Itanium was never a readily available consumer chip) in the form of the Xeon (and P4's coming soon), I would think that most arguments are going to be moot.
Also given that Microsoft's Windows XP 64bit editions currently only support the AMD64 platform, the major advantage is definately with the AMD64 (Linux also supports the AMD64 platform).
But, like I've said, it really is more a matter of personal opinion.

Haven't come across anything like that, WinXP 32-bit runs the same as is usually does, coming up with errors with "Could not access memory".
Had this on my old TBird too.


Do these make any real difference?


Okay, this is one I have to agree with. My Athlon64 3200+ has a stock clockspeed of 2GHz. I've overclocked it to 2.1GHz, where it seems stable. The stock CPU fan keeps the CPU at 34°C when at 0% load (which isn't very often considering I run SETI), and 43°C at max load. And that's WITHOUT Cool 'n' Quiet turned on. So it's still sitting at 2.1GHz when at 0% load. I figure I could get it down to about 28°C or so if I did. I might go try it in a sec.


Too bad M$ isn't getting off their arses and doing something about it. One wonders if we'll see a "proper" release of XP or S2003 with 64-bit extensions. All the ones I've seen are all "tech previews" or whatnot.


This is something that I agree with, I did experience a slight speed increase when using 64-bit gentoo, as opposed to 32. While it was there, it was not remarkable.


I think you pulled that out of your arse...


Not to be rude, but we've moved to a place where the graphics card takes virtually all of the rendering of games. The CPU does little, apart from things like AI, gameplay etc. - very little graphics processing.
EDIT: Umm yeah, remind me to read the full statement next time
Still relevant though, you can get just as good performance on a 32-bit machine.


It still takes 40-odd minutes for a base install on here. Admittedly, that's probably because I'm still installing XP off CDs, but in general it's nowhere near as fast as you quoted. HDD install may be different.



As you can see, fanboy-ism isn't really an issue here

I like it, I really do, but some things just aren't what they have said them to be.
I expected as much though, and even though some things may be misleading, it's still a great processor.

Hope it helps, maybe you should just edit out the negative things when you need to give this "demonstration"

prolly you have just said the most applicable comment with that sentence


@wraith & neophyte-
do make a note of this : I want *POSITIVE* info and I said so in the first post in this thread. Please see my 2nd post in this thread - and do get back to me on what you think - but remember I want to *SHOW* to the average-id***-on-the-street what benefits Athlon64 can bring him.


@wraith-
On a sidenote, just FYKI, WinXP plain (SP2 RC2) installs within 11 mins (in my experience on the A64 3000+); and an unattended install with all possible worldly junk (a 2.5 GB setup process gelled together by means of XPlode 1.00) finishes in approx. 25 minutes. All of this on a space-optimized CD.

Intriguing.

Off a DVD, Network or HDD?

----------

As for the positive comments, I can't think of any reasons as to why you'd want an Ath64 over a 32. Personally, I'd wait until the software caught up with the hardware before buying into it, as the hardware's capabilities just aren't utilised.

I would've liked to have bought my Ath64 when 64-bit windows or whatever came out, but my purchase was due to need, rather than want. Fried CPU's are fun.

About the only things I can say are:

Cheap.
Cool, relatively quiet.
Nice for bragging.
Really, the only reason is the speed. They're just really fast for the clockspeed.

As Wraith said, having a 64-bit processor is only a real advantage if you have 64-bit applications. Otherwise, your just testing the same sort of performance as any other processor.

You could try some top of the line games (like FarCry etc.) to test graphics performance (show the differences in how it looks). To test most of that stuff though, you need a top of the graphics card and top of the line soundcard.

The only way I can think of to test the processor against others to run some high memory/processing power applications. Applications like SiSoft Sandra, Bryce3D (render some BIG 3D scenes and see how long that takes...). Just find some resource intensive (not graphic or sound intensive) programs and compare results like that.

The best time to buy an AMD64 system may be Feb '05, alongwith PCI-E and a Win64 OS. Some linuxes are already available, such as SuSe 9.1.

Also, AMD does not have DEP, it has NX. The thing is same: the registered trademark or what else is different. Right now Intel is also going XD (again the same thing but different name) with their E0 Prescott (the xxxJ series).
NX/XD/DEP protect from buffer overruns, but the OS must support it, the upcoming Windows XP SP2 will. So if you see viruses, NX isn't at fault, OS is.

For a normal user who plays music, uses office and the net, even a Celeron 300 MHz would prove an overkill. Who is talking about grandad?

However, working at a PC repair store, installation time matters me/cleint the most. Since time=money. The best thing a home user would get from any AMD system is a faster install time. AND mind it: I am no crazy AMD fan. The credit of faster install does NOT go to AMD. Its because of the faster chipset interconnect, that taiwanese manufacturers e.g nVidia, VIA, SIS employ in their designs. I have tries many Intel 845s, 865s and they take more than thrice the time for a complete HDD to HDD install, than a grandpa's times old technology like the VIA KM400.

If I go out today to buy a new PC, I'd buy an Athlon XP, and up it to Athlon 64 around Feb '05 as I told you ppl. Just because I detest a Prescott. Look here: http://www.intel.com/design/pentium4/specupdt/30235203.pdf

But I am going for a second hand, and it will be a Tualatin 512. Times keep changing for companies, and consumer should see his own benefit. No company will pin a badge on consumer's chest for loyalty.

_______________________________
;config.tXt
;27.06.2004
;21:05 PST

Graphic Card: Matrox Millenium G450 DualHead (32 MB DDR)
Model #: G45FMDHA32DB
Sr #: PBG19967
Driver version: 6.83.017 in Win98, 5.92.006 in WinXP
PD version: 6.83.017 in Win98, 6.92.004 in WinXP
VT version: N/A
MGA Bios version: 1.4.004
Hardware rev.: 133
CPU: AMD Athlon 600 MHz (AMD K7600MTR51B) @687MHz (FSB114)
Chipset: VIA Apollo KX133 (VT8731 + 82C686A)
Motherboard: SL-77KV
Motherboard Bios: L5
PCB ver: M5
Motherboard chipset patches: AGP GART 1.80a from VIA Hyperion 4.51v
RAM: 1x Kingston 256MB KVR133X64C3/256 (@148MHz)
OS: Windows 4.10.2222A & Windows XP 5.1.2600.1106 SP1a
Desktop resolution and color depth: 1024x768, 32bpp
DirectX version: DX9.0b, 4.09.0000.0902 in Win98, Win2000
Hard Drive: Seagate Baraccuda 7200.7, ST380011A; firmware v3.06
SCSI card type: NIL
Sound card and driver version: Integrated VIA AC'97, drv v5.40a in Win98/WinXP
Hardware rev.: 032
Monitor brand: Philips 105S2
CD-ROM Drive (make/model): Asus S520/A, firmware rev. 2.0L
Network card: NIL
Fax MODEM: Amigo AMI-2019E, (also called AM HW 3056) (PCI slot 3 of 5)
Driver Version: 3.37
Hardware revision: 001
IRQ settings and other devices:

-----------------------
Ahsan Zaheer Shaikh
Student
H.S.C.-II
Adamjee Govt. Science College,
Karachi.

I've built quite a number of AMD-64 machines and I am very, very impressed.

I think the best things about the AMD-64 architecture are:

1] They're a lot cheaper than the comparitive speed Pentium IV
2] They're extremely fast at running 32bit code as well as being future proof for 64 bit code (obviously)
3] The mainboards are cheaper than the comparitively spec'd Intel mainboards
4] They finally sorted out their thermal issues
5] Just like a P4, you cannot break it easily as it has a heat spreader (finally)

I think it is bad they have already moved from Socket754 to Socket939 in such a short time period...

But, I would highly recommend purchasing an AMD-64 over a PentiumIV for a gaming computer........ however, we still recommend PentiumIV's for business computers, based on their reliability under adverse conditions (heat + no maintenance)

If you are upgrading now, I would say go for Athlon 64. They are faster than any other amd chip out at the moment, and will excel when more 64bit apps are available (mainly windows 64bit). The ondie memory controller is a huge benefit, and don't complain about not having dual channel, you wont see much of a performance gain with it.

However, I would wait, there are far too many new technologies coming out at the moment for me to even consider upgrading, the main ones being PCI-Express, DDR 2 and the phasing out of legacy stuff like PATA

so far, why is athlon64 better than similar competing products? il make this quick. please correct me if im wrong about any of these assumptions im making here.

anyway, my opinion is based on what i read from a couple of review sites like tomshardware, anandtech and xbitlabs... as well as some opinions from the inquirer web.

for one, even having the a similar architecture as its predecessor, the athlonxp... the improvements made to it really boosted its performance.

what performance enhancements were given to the amd64 architecture?

basically, the only notable improvement i am seeing is the integration of a single channel (athlon64) or a dual channel (athlon fx/opteron) memory controller on the cpu.

another notable performance improvement is the use of bi-directional hypertransport bus... its a high-speed interconnect bus designed by AMD and nVidia. this one is very useful for multiprocessor systems.

basically, these 2 components alone can dramatically reduce latency which improves performance noticably.

also is the increase of L2 cache... although i doubt that amd64-cpus benefit that much from higher L2 cache as intel CPU does... way back, the athlon 64 already has an exclusive 128kb L1 cache... higher than any similar intel CPUs.

sse/sse2 performance has increased but hasn't catched up with intel's implementation, since as optimized as amd's implementation of sse/sse2 is, those instruction sets merely depend on the clock speed of the host processor... intel has a clock advantage here. sse3 is just a minor improvement to sse2 however, so i can't say that sse3 is the reason why high-end intel x86 CPUs with sse3 beats high-end amd x86-64 CPUs with sse2 only.

other advantages aren't for performance reasons, like NX-bit, cool n quiet...

i doubt on the 64-bit capability of the CPU as well. microsoft, software and driver developers will have to prove that one for AMD. intel itself is backing out of the x86-64 hype as it killed tejas (successor to prescott). intel considered implementing dual-core cpus instead. as i understand it, the only purpose of adding 64-bit capability is to address the memory limitation that 32-bit CPUs can address... which is up to 4gb of RAM only. 64-bit CPUs can address way beyond that. this makes AMD CPUs fit for server apps that require heavy amounts of memory.

as i can see, an AMD64 CPU is a great 32-bit CPU. since its basically the same as a 32-bit x86 CPUs with integrated memory controller and a fast hypertransport bus. it will work well (or will work very excellent with existing 32-bit Windows) as well as future 64-bit-extended OSes... like Win2k3 server, WinXPSP2, WinXP for 64-bit extended systems.

so, what applications benefit from all these enhancements? basically the ones that stresses the PC the most will benefit from it... which is games. 3d rendering apps may benefit from this as well, provided they support the 64-bit extended capabilities of the OS.

otherwise, intel still dominates video/audio encoding as it requires fast sse/sse2/3 instructions.

archiving may also benefit intel a bit than amd64 cpus as archiving (data compression) requires large L2 caches.

usual applications like web browsing, word processing, or similar apps, wont benefit that much over these as these kinds of apps depend more on the disk i/o performance.

I was just telling you places to look for the virus, not that I have them If i do accidentally click those files, one of my virusscanners picks it off before it's done downloading. (couple secnods)

The average enduser only knows one thing, raw performance. Speed. If they don't understand numbers, show them one is faster.

i won't buy an athlon64 for now and i explain my reasons:
1.- they are expensive compared to other processors with similar benchmarks
2.- faster?? don't think so. probably a 64bit emulating 32bit operations could be equal or slowest.
3.- "in the future 64bit systems will be dominant and we need them". don't think so again, thinking how marked goes i can say that xp 64bit have been out for 2 years and there are not many 64bit programs. and companies of software will first integrate pci-e, ddrII, etc. until 64bits.
4.- probably if we wait a little, the new processor from amd using socket A will be faster than athlon64 with 32bits apps

hmm, as for the question... proof that athlon64 is better... well, here are my opinions:
- its a tad faster than competing processors from intel.
- its an x86 CPU... meaning it can run all x86 apps from way way back up to the present w/o any loss of speed, plus it has 64-bit extensions... meaning its the 1st 64-bit x86 CPU. meaning, as computing appreciates to 64-bits, the x86 still has life in it as a 64-bit platform, rather than consider the more expensive and radical itanium solution.
- its way cheaper than other 64-bit CPUs.
- its scalable, since it uses a very fast hypertransport bus, multiprocessing isn't lagged by the northbridge since each cpu has its own memory controller (unlike p4's/xeon's approach wherein all CPUs share one memory controller from the northbridge).

-You're asking for POSITIVE comments on the Athlon 64 - "why is it superior".
-The answer to that is quite simple IMHO: there is (I think) NO superior CPU. Why: because each CPU (or most of them) are excelling in a couple of benchmarks, another CPU in other benchmarks. You've got to choose the CPU that 'fits' you: for what do you use your computer? And: what's your budget?

*Price/performance: there's no CPU that can beat AMD Athlon XP Mobile processors ON DESKTOP MOTHERBOARDS, by which I mean when they're overclocked.
E.g.: AMD Athlon XP Mobile 2600+, 100€ runs easily at 2.6-2.8 GHz with decent air cooling. Which gives it the performance of about a P4 3.2 GHz (270€) / Athlon 64 3200+ (220€)
As you can see, nothing comes close to this CPU, price/performance wise.
Winner: AMD Athlon XP Mobile, if only looking to desktop CPU's the regular Athlon XP

*choosing a CPU for a specific task: as you all might know, a couple of months ago AMD couldn't beat Intel in video encoding/rendering benchmarks. They even didn't come close! By now, this has changed: AMD's Athlon 64 3800+ is leading the benchmarks now! (note: of course the FX-53 is slightly faster, but as this is a server CPU, I didn't choose this one)
Winner: AMD Athlon 64

*dissipated heat, power consumption: Of course Mobile CPU's are doing better in this one, but I'll leave them out of this. I think we've got again a clear winner: Athlon 64 has a great feature, better known as Cool 'n Quiet. This superb function makes sure you're only using the CPU speed (so also the needed power and heat dissipation) you actually need! This function may help to shrink your energy bill!
Winner: AMD Athlon 64

*prolly I forgot alot of things

Conclusion:
-if you're a normal user or a power user that's quickly satisfied, go for a Athlon XP or
Athlon XP Mobile.
-if you've got enough (or too much) money, buy a Athlon 64 as it outranges a Pentium 4 in almost everything!

hope this is useful...

EDIT: longest reply ever

prathapml,

Sorry, but I don't check my inbox that often. It looks like that thread has been beaten to death already. Currently, if I were in the market for a new CPU I would seriously consider an A64 Nforce 3 combo, but this is not a good time for making long-term purchases. I currently have a 3.4 Ghz P4 (overclocked Northwood) and I am very happy with it. In an overclocked environment (fast DDR memory to feed it) it is still very competitive with AMD's latest. I do a lot of 3D rendering in Lightwave and the Pentium 4C with hyperthreading can shave hours off of a complicated scene. So, keeping the P4 just makes sense for me.

The amount of engineering that has gone into the A64 is very impressive, but I doubt that the 64 bit extensions will really be the "holy grail" that the AMDroids are hoping for. There are very few (relatively) that can truly take advantage of the ability to use >4GB of RAM and even fewer that are willing/able to work in a true 64 bit environment on x86-64 hardware (only Linux, UNIX currently). Keep in mind that I'm not talking about servers here, I'm thinking of desktops.

True, but only available in an unreleased Windows Xp service pack. Intel will be rolling this out in Prescott shortly.


SSE2 is really all that matters since most professional apps rely heavily on SSE2 (Lightwave as I mentioned earlier). Prescott has SSE3 support, A64 does not.

What is a "good" speed? You should tout the A64's higher IPC rather than overall clock frequency. The fact that it uses less power may be significant for some, i.e. those purchasing a room full of computers for a lab, etc.


By the time we have a mature 64 bit Windows OS the A64 arcitecture will be antiquated.

See above.


Not true. Multithreaded apps love a P4 with HT. There are some cases where the A64 is faster though.


Dx9 games are much more GPU (instead of CPU) bound than Dx8- games. A P4 paired with a high-end graphics card will also give superb dx9 performance. The CPU present in the user's machine also has nothing to do with image quality in Dx (or OpenGL for that matter).


Its difficult to link how long your OS installs with memory bandwidth. I would mention the fact that the A64 has an on-die memory controller and paired with low latency DDR you can expect very good performance.

Ok, and my quotes aren't working because.....?

I guess it is because you forgot one backslash (/) , in the first quote.

fixed em for ya.


Back to the topic in general....
Why is everyone giving him advice like he was buing the thing? This one is better because, this one is better here. He said he wanted ways to demonstrate that it was better, not reasons why it was better.

- if you'll be testing video/audio encoding, intel will be a better cpu as most video/audio encoding tasks are heavily SSE/SSE2 optimized, although amd64 cpu's already has SSE2, its lower clock speed implementation of SSE/SSE2 puts it at a disadvantage over intel's.

- the best test to prove the athlon64 is better... funny as it may sound, but consider, running 3d games.

- office/net apps? i think, it will all depend on how optimized the chipset's disk i/o performance is.

- data compression? this rely much on a large L2 cache... so i suppose this is an equal ground between intel and amd CPUs with large L2 caches (like 1mb above).

- photoshop tests? i think here, amd wons, as most filter tests here are memory intensive. unless there's are specific filter optimizations for the P4, like Hyperthreading.

Demonstrating it is better, isn't that quite the same as saying: "you'd better buy THAT CPU because it's better here, the other CPU is better there"

I mean: how would YOU explain it?

(Or am I being such an id*** not understanding what your point is?)

Alanoll's statement above hits the bull's eye dudes!

Yup, we got lot's of wonderful info and posts here on this thread until now. But I would still like to get a few ideas for showing to the <AVERAGE END-USER> (not to the know-all techie) how an Athlon64 is any better than something else out there.

I really wouldn't mind it if more posts were coming onto this thread quicker. The more discussion, the merrier. Besides, the (to-prove) demo is still waiting........


Example:
1. Currently an a64 is the only processor with the native HW tech. to prevent many worms/hack-attacks (resulting from memory overruns).

2. Since a 64-bit platform can transfer data much quicker, BLAH-BLAH-BLAH......
it can render faster, carry out scientific processing quicker, install OSes sooner, etc.

@ Alanoll: sorry, but I really didn't get the point...

Okay, I think I'm getting the point:

NOT compare

ONLY unique features or areas where it excells (if this word exists )

Then I think you've collected about everything, not?

EDIT:

• NX (non execution feature)
• Cool 'n Quiet
• heat dissipation & power consumption
• support for all instruction sets except for SSE3 (comin with the 90 nm A64)
• ... and lots of things I forgot....

Well, not so actually - comparisons (where the a64 wins) would be the main pillar of differences I think.

I have to reveal that I am deeply interested about this point....... LOL

I consider it more of a car dealer selling me a car.

If he's trying to sell me a Mazda, he isn't going to tell me how great a Toyota or a Nissan are. Or vice versa. He wants to sell me the Mazda.


But as stated before,the AVERAGE END USER won't have a clue what you're talking about You just have to impress them with all teh features and demonstrate as best as you can.

That's true.

Which would be ?????????? [how/what, according to you should be demo'ed]

64 bit power!
Cool n' Quiet technology!
2Ghz Hypertransport!
3DNow! Professional Technology!

Its hard to impress someone of average computer intelligence with something as technical as a CPU without using "buzzwords" like these. Not that there's anything wrong with it. Can you say Centrino? NetBurst?

The buyer is utimately going to make a decision based on the pros and cons of each product. Right now its tough to overcome Intel's agressive marketing campaigns when trying to convince Joe Sixpack that AMD chips have advantages in certain areas.

It would be helpful to know if your friend is going to do a live demonstration of AMD vs Intel. Then I could probably pick out some benchmarks/apps/games where AMD will mop the floor. Combine this with the buzzwords and you may have a winning combination.

actually, imho, 3DNow isn't exploited as SSE/SSE2 or even at least against HyperThreading so i guess i wouldn't call it an advantage for AMD.

Thanx for the input. Yeah, u r right - buzzwords are the catch-words.

Yup! We'd be doing that (maybe a bit unfairly, though - but not bad compared to the mis-information campaign by Intel).
Comparing an:
Athlon64 3000+, KT800 MoBo, 512 MB DDR400 RAM, 40GB 7200 rpm, FX5700 LE gfx
---to a---
Pentium 4C 2.8 GHz, i865G, rest is same as above.

Now, the above test configurations are finalised and cannot be changed - so no debate on that count. We also know which one of the above beats the pants off the other (on price as well as performance) - but how do you put it such that it is obvious even to the non-IT guy?

The first thing I would do is show him the differance in Boot Time.
Even Joe Nobody hates to wait for the computer to Boot Up.

Then maybe open a large picture with Photoshop and show haw much faster it opens.

Boot times would probably impress Joe but who is to say that an A64 is significantly faster in the boot process? I also wouldn't go so far as to say that the 3000+ beats the pants off of the Pentium.

Joe doesn't use Photoshop so anything you do in there probably won't impress him.

UT2003/2004 LOVES the A64 architecture so run some botmatches on both machines and graph the results. A64 will win by a significant amount. Use 3Dmark2001 SE as well. You'll want to stay away from media encoding tasks, Divx, Windows Media, Premiere, Maya, etc. The Pentium will usually win in this scenario. Many office productivity suites favor the Athlon's cache so you could run some lengthy macros in Word and time them.

I love all this info coming in, do keep at it pals....
You do come up with things which I have over-looked. Some more?

The Athlon 64 is a very good architecture. It performs a lot of instructions per clockcycle, and the built-in memory controller is excellent as well. The fact that it is a 64bit processor is only important to make people believe it is "one hell of a lot faster" than a 32bit Intel processor. Personally I think it's a marketing move to sell processors and Intel has to follow.

But 64bit processors have twice the transistor count of comparable 32bit processors and also have a much larger die size. This makes a 64bit processor just as expensive to manufacture as... a dual core 32bit processor. Still the Athlon 64 processor is a good architecture. Don't look for buzzwords, they usually amount to nothing.

1) Athlon has a very large L1 cache, which can function in the same way a traditional L2 cache. Pentium has a small dedicated L1 cache which isn't very useful. Keep in mind that L1 cache is about twice as fast as L2 (3cycle latency vs 7cycle latency I believe)

EDIT: those are 2-4Ghz processor cycles btw, not the 133-266Mhz memory cycles, in case you are thinking your RAM is better than that. So AMD has 128K L1 + 512K L2, against 16K L1 + 512K L2 for Northwood. This makes for a huge difference.

2) Athlon runs at a lower clock frequency, but the memory is the same speed for all platforms. This means an Athlon will have it easier to fetch instructions or data from memory, translating into a short pipeline. The Pentium, at a higher clockspeed, would run out of instructions sooner, so it needs a longer pipeline. Performance penalty is larger when a longer pipeline is filled with a mispredicted branch. This makes Athlon faster at the same clockspeed.

3) Somehow related to the longer pipeline, a Pentium's execution units are idle for longer periods of time. Something Intel solved by passing two threads through the processor simultaneously. The second thread making use of execution units that were idle by the first thread. AMD does not have (so many or so long) idle execution units, which makes the processor again faster at the same clock speed, but unable to implement some form of hyperthreading.

4) AMD has a better manufacturing process Silicon On Insulator, while Intel is stuck with strained silicon, I read something about Intel NOT being allowed to use the patent from IBM... either way, that's largely why AMD runs much cooler. Cool & Quiet, sorry to say it, is just marketing talk, essentially the same as Intel Speedstep.

5) Integrated memory controller removes any latencies incurred when the processor has to ask the chipset for a memory access. Too bad the regular Athlon64 only has a single channel memory controller.

6) Hypertransport really isnt 2.0Ghz wow! It's actually 1.0Ghz with two transfers per clock on a 16bit path. DDR400 memory is 200Mhz with two transfers per clock on a 64bit path. It's just a bus with the same bandwidth as the memory. The difference with intel is that it is a bus with a protocol, which makes it easier for two processors to be on the same bus I guess. I think it's something the Opteron really needed, and the Athlon64 just has it thrown in for buzz.

7) Lance Armstrong and Michael Schumacher both sport AMD logo's.

I hope this is of use to you, and not too late, I have been on a holiday. One last piece of advice though: I you want to get the message accross: CHEAT!

Put a 10000rpm Raptor in the Athlon machine and grandma's drive in whatever you are comparing it with. Highend mobo for the Athlon, midrange for the Pentium. If it's a benchmark you know AMD could loose, make like it doesn't exist. Call it a 2Ghz processor compared to a 3.2Ghz processor when it does lose a benchmark, call it a 3000+ compared to a 3.2Ghz when it wins. Just keeps things in the wrong perspective. It's how Intel and AMD compare their products themselves...

EDIT: And Intel rulez all

hi,

the power consumption of the A64 is not so dramatically high as the new P4-prescot.
From the applicatiuon side this isn't easy to say, because it highly depends on the apps you use. You need to test your favorite apps to see if it runs faster. And ofcourse A64-Systems are cheaper than a P4-system with the same performance.

hope this helps a bit

cya

Killer Bee

For who is this demonstration supposed to be actually? Is it the salesman that needs to make the sale? A fanboy that needs to convince his boss to get him an AMD box? Someone that just wants to prove he is right?

Both Intel and AMD have strong points and benchmarks to prove it. you want your demonstration truly objective, I would explain, for each of AMD's strong points, how Intel understates the importance of it, and how AMD covers up their weaknesses.

- AMD has Cool & Quiet: Intel says that's notebook only technology and that the reduced noise and power consumption are irrelevant in a 400W+ desktop.
- AMD is 64bit: Intel says you don't need 4GB+ in a desktop (yet), but they can help you out in the server/workstation department.
-AMD has an integrated memory controller: Intel has a dual channel memory controller in their chipsets. Athlon64FX has both so Intel has to start selling server chips to gamers as well Pentium4XE.
-AMD mobo's are cheaper: Intel says cause the processor is more expensive (because of the memory controller, not talking price/performance here)
- AMD Hypertransport is a 4GB/s bus, against 3.2GB/s for Intel Netburst: Intel says there is no PC4000 DDR-500 to make use of it. Actually there is but it's not certified. Intel is betting the farm on the more recent DDR2-533.
- Intel chooses DDR2 for the future, AMD simply can't do that, because that would require them to redesign the entire processor, not just a chipset. It's a good thing AMD can come up with a benchmark to prove DDR faster than DDR2.
- AMD has 3D Now, Intel has SSE3. Neither is widely used.
- AMD has NoExecute bit, Intel says Windows doesnt support it (yet), unless you want to play around with betas. The same goes for the entire 64bit-ness as well.
- AMD says 64bit is the future. Intel agrees, but you may need to upgrade your AMD as well, before the future is here.
- Intel has HyperThreading, AMD doesn't need it, couldn't benefit from it.
- Intel pushes PCI Express, DDR2, BTX, while AMD finds all these things irrelevant for now.

Each should make up there own mind, based on their specific needs. Convincing someone with a demonstration full of buzzwords is just going to create more fanboys.

The average consumer looking to buy a mid-range desktop (first-timer or otherwise).



LOL, that would be fine by me.

Well I'm gonna update my hardware in these days.
And I want to move to athlon 64.
Is it worth buing it now or wait for athlon64fx.In case amd is gonna change again the socket?

No need to 'wait' for an AthlonFX, but you mean the new socket right? The FX-51 and FX-53 were socket 940, but FX-53 will have a socket 939 replacement soon (EDIT: if not already available). Future FX-55 and higher will be socket 939 only.

I think socket 939 is a safe bet. AMD has got 4 dekstop sockets right now (462, 754, 939 and 940) and that's way too much. Socket 939 is the only one that isn't being phased out. Socket 940 desktops will be dead, and the other two will just receive new Sempron processors.

940 Dead? Opterons are 940 only, so I don't think we'll see the demise of the 940 anytime soon.

Opterons are for servers/workstations, but gamers and enthusiasts will move to socket 939 Athlon FX, with unregistered memory and without PCI-X slots...