AMD is stupid with their dx2 prices

W

wurmy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
383
To settle the question, Windows XP Professional ***IS*** HThreading-aware, so it will know that you only have two physical processors, and thus will use all 4 virtual processors. This means that a dual-core 820 will look like 4 virtual processors and XP Pro will utilize them.

And HThreading is not junk. On my dual-xenon rig @2GHz, with equal protiens, 2 instances will take 12 minutes each step (10 steps per hour total) where 4 will take only 3 min more per step (16 steps per hour total). Right about that 30% sweet spot that Intel brags about.

If anyone has something good to say about AMD dual-core for folding, let me know - !!!!!!z not included of course.
 
Well Wurmy, Let's start with the fact that the only dual-core Intel product with Hyperthreading is the Pentium 840 Extreme Edition and it is $1,059 at Newegg. The flagship AMD X2 4800+ is $1,065.

If you do any gaming and want a dual core system the X2 trounces the EE.

Hyperthreading doesn't gain you as much (30% versus 100%) when running four folding instance versus 2, not to mention you should go to 2GB of memory if you want to fold 4 instances with Big Packets on.

For folding, the X2 uses much less electricity, so is cheaper to run. Also, if you already have a S939 motherboard you don't have to buy a new mobo to go dual core with AMD......

By the way, why the flame bait thread?


 
I have had the pleasure of using both Intel HT and AMD chips on my borgs. AMD is a lot better than Intel on almost all the proteins. Tinkers, the AMDs are faster but only be few seconds so it is too close to tell that. They wipe Intel on the Gromacs. The only thing Intel has going right now is the QMD proteins which can only be utilised effectively with boxen = or > than 1 gig.

Also take into account the low power consumption for the AMD. They are also S939 and can be run with a small 400W good PSU. Intel does not have that flexibility.

edit: Looks like Mr. Bahadur types faster than me. :p
 
Hey wurmy, not sure what this post is all about, but I think your gonna need the suit...

LetFlameBegin.jpg


Now, I have to agree with Hito on this one, the AMD is a much cheaper setup to run. That fact alone makes it a winner. With these machines running 24/7/365, cheaper overhead is what it's all about.
 
Big Moose, are you locking this thread or you gonna sit back with hot dogs and beer? :D
 
magnusvir said:
Big Moose, are you locking this thread or you gonna sit back with hot dogs and beer? :D
Click to expand...
Haven't seen anything that needs locking yet...as long as tempers stay down, we'll be ok...

Translation: Hot dogs and beer. :D
 
AtomicMoose said:
Haven't seen anything that needs locking yet...as long as tempers stay down, we'll be ok...

Translation: Hot dogs and beer. :D
Click to expand...

Good times, too bad I am a veggie boy. Care for some soy dogs? :D
 
Hito Bahadur said:
Also, if you already have a S939 motherboard you don't have to buy a new mobo to go dual core with AMD......

Click to expand...
Wait, what do you mean? Are you saying that X2 are possible with only one slot CPU mobos? I'm kind of confused, so you don't need a dual-proc mobo or am i missing a point?
 
ekorazn said:
Wait, what do you mean? Are you saying that X2 are possible with only one slot CPU mobos? I'm kind of confused, so you don't need a dual-proc mobo or am i missing a point?
Click to expand...

The X2's have two cores on a single s939 die. Which essentially means two processors fit in the one cpu socket, and for most vendors, it has been stated these chips will work on current-gen s939 boards with a bios update.

 
yummmy...

flame.jpg


either way $1000 for a CPU? for that i buy two real opterons and then get to use NUMA :D
 
Wurmy, I agree with you. AMD is stupid with their prices. Intel is also stupid with their prices. That's why we buy the cheaper versions and overclock them up to megabucks speed! I don't really follow you with the other stuff, but someone else is going to have to man the flame thrower. :p
 
and people (weird IT freaks) say that AMD is the cheaper brand...

then there is the whole debate of how the chips are made and the argument that the x2's work better (the cores) in conjunction then the intels as they are more just slapped together, not bridged as well etc.
 
AtomicMoose said:
nah..... <insert vomit smiley here> :D
Click to expand...

they are not too bad, until I read about a new study this week that a protein in them slowly is taking out "little magnusvir", have not touched any form of soya since. :eek:
 
ekorazn said:
Wait, what do you mean? Are you saying that X2 are possible with only one slot CPU mobos? I'm kind of confused, so you don't need a dual-proc mobo or am i missing a point?
Click to expand...

Ekorazn,

As stated, yes, X2 are a 1-slot solution, 2 cores on 1 physical chip. You would have to go to an Opteron (AMD Version of Xeon) for any multi-CPU multi-core action. I don't believe Intel has a multi-CPU multi-core option until next year. I don't consider HT Xeon's as an equivalent since there is a significant difference in performance between 1-CPU Hyper-threading and dual Core CPUs.


 
FLECOM said:
either way $1000 for a CPU? for that i buy two real opterons and then get to use NUMA :D
Click to expand...

I'm interested to see how this will pan out FLECOM. I have 2x246's coming in July thanks to the AMD Tech Tour and my next purchase will be an X2. We'll see the performance figures, although if I were to buy an X2 today I would get the 4400+ as they seem the best price point, have the 1MB cache per core, and seem to be overclocking pretty well.

As far as the system being cheaper because you can use your same setup and just upgrade the CPU, that doesn't apply to me since I just seem to add computers and not get rid of systems, however, DDR and S939 mobos seem to be cheaper, on whole than their Dual Core Intel counterparts.

Disclaimer:

I do prefer AMD and Nvidia so I am biased, but I do own multiple ATI products (video cards) and have 3 intel computers so I have some sympathy for the other sides.
 
Hito Bahadur said:
Disclaimer:

I do prefer AMD and Nvidia so I am biased, but I do own multiple ATI products (video cards) and have 3 intel computers so I have some sympathy for the other sides.
Click to expand...
is that in an "I feel your pain" way?

hehe... i prefer amd/ati myself... cause that's what i have. i do think my next system will be on the ati chipset, with an amd processor, unless i do dual opterons on nf4... (nf5 by the time i can afford it :()

when i saw this thread, i thought "wait - why is AMD still selling 486 cpus?" you mean X2, not dx2. dx2 (and dx, and sx, and dx4, and dx3 (maybe)) were 486 chips. made primarily by intel, but amd also built the socket 3 chips. i have one around here somewhere. it wasn't until the pentium that amd and intel started making incompatible chips.

/history lesson

all their prices suck. why can't we go back to the days of $50 chips that could OC to be faster than the $500 chips?


right right right... the companies need to make money. i keep forgetting.
 
wurmy said:
... This means that a dual-core 820 will look like 4 virtual processors and XP Pro will utilize them.
Click to expand...

Intel have disabled HT for all dual core processors except the 840 XE. The 820 will look like what it is, 2 processors.
 
Rogue_jedi,

I think we are losing some perspective on price. I come from an time when I expected to pay $2,000 to $3,000 for a decent almost state-of-the-art Desktop.

Now-adays, for $3k I can get bleeding edge. For around $800 I can get very solid performance and I don't expect to pay much for a good upgrade to a current system.

I think Kyle is right in that the market has broadened as it has matured and the high end has a high-high end as the low has a low-low end that didn't exist 10-15 years ago, but the cost for almost top notch gear has gone down considerably.
 
i realize this quite well. however, the companies shouldn't have spoiled us for a few years if they didn't want us complaining :p

still, was 1/3 of the machine cost the processor (ONLY the processor) then? and video cards have been going up, not down... nowadays they don't replace the old model at its pricepoint, they just add a new one above it. :( computers are getting expensive again, no doubt about that. it's what we get for wanting faster stuff all the time.

the problem i have is that they (amd/intel) have said (from what i've heard, so take this with a grain of salt/your flavoring of choice) that they will not be selling sub-$100 chips anymore. that's what bothers me... they're raising the price on the low end. high end will always be expensive.

bah, ranting is way too easy. once you get started, you can't stop.

[H]ard|Forum - Bet you can't rant just once.©
[H]ard|Forum - Once you rant, you can't stop!©



* copyrights do not, in fact, exist. at least not on those sayings.
 
When you consider that a single AMD XP at 2.2 gigs kills my Intel 3.2 gig with HT turned on that is a sad thing indeed, same protein of course. A dual socket “A” machine is still a very viable way to produce a lot of points.

If you go back to “the old” days and think about pricing for a pair of real AMD MP’s and mobo the new 939 dual core units don’t look all that bad especially since they outperform the XP chips by a pretty good margin these days.

And yes, to be repetitive the new dual core chips (939) will be seen by your OS (XP-Pro) as a true dually or SMP machine. Two instances of folding at 100%, not a bad thing at all.

Once Stanford gets the license straightened out for it’s QMD software AMD will have a clear advantage over Intel, again, in all areas of Folding.


 
I've been sitting on the fence (mostly to keep my hand from getting the credit card :D ), but after looking at an old invoice from 1996, the price of the 4400+ no longer scared me.

From ESC in N. California, I'd purchased a K6-200 and the ass-kickin' Abit HX-chipset board that supported it, so I could finally get to overclocking done right. Total cost, including shipping, was more than what I dropped at Mwave for the new CPU. :eek: I'm pretty sure I can't get the cost of an idle stare for that K6- .

Up 'til a year ago, the K6-Abit combo was still running as my Smoothwall boxen, so it's not like I wasted the money... :)
 
Codegen said:
I thought you were talking about 486s for a second.
Click to expand...

I've got one I can fire up in about 15 minutes.

Wonder how long a 486DX4/133 would take to do a 600-point Gromac? :D The drive would slag out from the swapfile, so watercooling would be mandatory...
 
Strikemaster said:
I've been sitting on the fence (mostly to keep my hand from getting the credit card :D ), but after looking at an old invoice from 1996, the price of the 4400+ no longer scared me.

From ESC in N. California, I'd purchased a K6-200 and the ass-kickin' Abit HX-chipset board that supported it, so I could finally get to overclocking done right. Total cost, including shipping, was more than what I dropped at Mwave for the new CPU. :eek: I'm pretty sure I can't get the cost of an idle stare for that K6- .

Up 'til a year ago, the K6-Abit combo was still running as my Smoothwall boxen, so it's not like I wasted the money... :)
Click to expand...

I did much the same thing, looking at old invoices. Scary how much we paid for things back then. Amazing how much things have improved ;)
 
I agree. 2800$ back in 1996 for a ... quantex P2 300mhz computer with CRAP graphic card....

I just built a new system last week for 2800$, and its a lot more "high end" then that computer ever was.

I also agree on the processor and video cards just keep going up. Each generation of graphic cards just keeps going up... and people pay it.

Although, the AMD64 X2 4200+ seems like a reasonable price(now'a'days). dual 2.2ghz 90nm ..... plus a warrenty for 585$.
The dual core opteron 275 2.2ghz 90nm is going for 1350$....
And buying two opteron 248 2.2ghz 130nm processors will run about 954$ (477$ each).
 
my dad showed me a recipt a couple of years ago from back when he was in the computer business from a customer that bought 8 megs of ram 4 2 meg chips remember this was in the mid 80's when he sold this but it was like almost 4000 dollars. i don't remember the exact amount but it was huge
 
Hito Bahadur said:
Well Wurmy, Let's start with the fact that the only dual-core Intel product with Hyperthreading is the Pentium 840 Extreme Edition and it is $1,059 at Newegg. The flagship AMD X2 4800+ is $1,065.

By the way, why the flame bait thread?
Click to expand...

Someone should let Intel know that their bottom of the line dual-core doesn't really support HT: http://indigo.intel.com/mbsg/results.aspx?orgid=0&aryattrid=134

The Egg has the 820 for $259.99, while a A64 4200 Manchester for $579.00.

Also, it's not a flame-bait thread. I am actually looking to buy and am trying to get hear a good word on AMD - yes, they lead if all things are equal, but the pricing makes them lose in my book. I'll buy what works for me, and AMD is pricing themselves out of what works for me, which is Stupid.
 
wurmy said:
Someone should let Intel know that their bottom of the line dual-core doesn't really support HT: http://indigo.intel.com/mbsg/results.aspx?orgid=0&aryattrid=134

The Egg has the 820 for $259.99, while a A64 4200 Manchester for $579.00.

Also, it's not a flame-bait thread. I am actually looking to buy and am trying to get hear a good word on AMD - yes, they lead if all things are equal, but the pricing makes them lose in my book. I'll buy what works for me, and AMD is pricing themselves out of what works for me, which is Stupid.
Click to expand...

Let the price take a backseat to the tech; in this case, AMD wins.

64-bit processor and supporting hardware *designed from the start* to support multiple cores. The Intel is a second core grafted into the first, and the motherboard has to sort it out. You need a new motherboard for the Intel, while the S939 crowd has to flash the BIOS (quelle horror!) before installing the X2 on their current hardware.

Let's not discuss the heating issue of X2 vs. the Intel dual. Flame bait, indeed... :D
 
Strikemaster said:
Let's not discuss the heating issue of X2 vs. the Intel dual. Flame bait, indeed... :D
Click to expand...
Actually, let's. The Intel dual cores have 2x the thermal load, the AMDs have single core load + 10w. That settles which to buy in my book; I want a quiet computer.
 
wurmy said:
Someone should let Intel know that their bottom of the line dual-core doesn't really support HT: http://indigo.intel.com/mbsg/results.aspx?orgid=0&aryattrid=134
Click to expand...


You are just misinterpreting this chart. It is about motherboards. Yes some of the boards support Hyperthreading and dual-core chips. They have to to support the EE. You can't, correctly, infer that the lower level Pentium D's have hyperthreading.

No one has flamed yet.... (Right Moose?)
 
Heat is pretty important for two reasons in this forum:

1. Many people are concerned about electric bills and higher heat usually equates to higher electricity bills. Last time I checked heat is waste electricity. And it means extra cooling of the room the processor is in.

2. Quite a few freaks on this forum have multiple computers in 1 room. This leads to having to shut down computers in the summer because of the heat the systems give off.

So heat is actually more of an issue in this forum than most.


note: This freak has 2 sets of 5 computers in two different rooms in his house and pays around $100 in electricity a month to keep them running 24/7.
 
I have 12 computers running in one room :D

Hopefully I can bring some more online soon as well...

Thank GOD i dont have to pay the electric bill :D
 
Hito Bahadur said:
You are just misinterpreting this chart. It is about motherboards. Yes some of the boards support Hyperthreading and dual-core chips. They have to to support the EE. You can't, correctly, infer that the lower level Pentium D's have hyperthreading.

No one has flamed yet.... (Right Moose?)
Click to expand...

I am not mis-interpreting the chart. The 820 processor itself supports HThreading, and yes, you need the right mobo.

Also, XP Pro supports all 4 virtual HThreading processors.

Before I post, I try to get as much factual information as possible, and when I'm wrong w/factual info, then you let me know.
 
On a quieter note:

I'm thinking that a P4D w/4 HThreading virtual procs will out perform 2 physical procs (DX2), although the P4D solution will be hotter and draw maybe a few more watts - this will be offset by HThreading production.

The nice thing about running w/HThreading is that while each instance takes longer to finish a step, it doesn't take that much longer, and you're less vulnerable to a 4-12 hour cable outage interrupting your production.

Also, the difference between the cores isn't the only thing that affects both heat and total wattage consumption. PSU/mobo efficiency, and the other crap we throw into boxen all affect this. My wattage consumption goes from 65 watts (Shuttle 1GHz Celery) to 190 (Dual 2GHz Xenon), so I am also concerned about production/power used. I only OC when it's easy and I get something nice like a %33 stable result w/air cooling.

As of now, I don't have Socket 939, but I have a OEM LGA 775. My purchase decision will need to include the CPU/Mobo/RAM, so the existing mobo support is zero for me.

I suppose that I could just buy both, but I'm just gardening and not a super-dedicated folder. I'm here to fold, learn, and share.

If I was trying to start a flame-war, I'd attack BOTH AMD and Intel!

p.s. I was going to call-out Hito for a short-term race, but then I saw his points (gasp!) LOL
 
wurmy said:
Before I post, I try to get as much factual information as possible, and when I'm wrong w/factual info, then you let me know.
Click to expand...

i'm doing this now. few things.

1) the pentium D processors do NOT have hyperthreading. that is the incentive to buy the EE dual core chips. -source: "The difference between the “D” and the Extreme Edition Smithfields, other than model numbers and core speeds, is the fact that the Intel Pentium Processor Extreme Edition processors have HyperThreading activated."

2) it is an amd X2, not amd dx2. the dx2 was a 486. the X2 is the new dual core athlon64.

3) for performance, i'll reference this page of the athlon 64 X2 preview. the 840 wins outright in only one test (i.e. not necessarily margin of error), which consists of running a DivX encode and CS:S. it scores 96 fps to the X2's 90. they say that that is a situation which will not be seen in the real world.

4) although you are right that the CPU is not the only thing outputting heat, it is the biggest factor. the intel single core chips put out more heat than the single core AMD chips, at comparable performance levels. heat output on intel chips (prescotts) exceeds 100W (there's a reason they are called presshots) that is by far the hottest component in the system. according to this, the 840 is rated at 130W TDP. the opteron 275 (dual core, etc. etc. - equivalent to 2.2ghz X2 chips) is rumored to be rated between 68W TDP and 95W TDP. according to their testing, they say that the 68W TDP is closer to the truth. 2 dual core opterons consume only 10W more than 2 single core opterons at the same speed. that means that they consume only ~5W more each. that is a negligible heat increase. intel does not have that advantage.

that's all.
<- add about 6k to that, the numbers are off
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top