Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:35:42 -1000 (HST) From: Vincent Poy <vince@oahu.WURLDLINK.NET> To: Charles Burns <burnscharlesn@hotmail.com> Cc: <jgowdy@home.com>, <seanp@loudcloud.com>, <lplist@closedsrc.org>, <kris@obsecurity.org>, <mwlist@lanfear.com>, <freebsd@sysmach.com?>, <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: the AMD factor in FreeBSD Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.31.0104192129080.2730-100000@oahu.WURLDLINK.NET> In-Reply-To: <F936u1Wy9eabpAprqFp000049ce@hotmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Charles Burns wrote: > This is all getting highly offtopic, but it is very interesting. Atleast no one is being biased ;-) > > > > and are available with up to a 200MHZ bus. > > > > > > They both have a 200mhz bus. Not up to, but 200mhz. > > > > Wouldn't that factor alone make it smoke the Intels? > > NO. No one factor EVER determines a winner in a processor war. There are so > depressingly many factors that determine system performance, every one of > them very important for certain types of software and unimportant for others > and varying between the two at uneven levels for every other type of > software. True but I thought one of the original hype of the Athlon was that it was a 200FSB instead of Intel's 100FSB. > Three things seem to be widely believe to be either all that matters or all > that is really important. CPU clockspeed, FSB clockspeed, memory clockspeed. > Even if these THREE things all have very high numbers, there are just too > damn many other factors. > > Intel's marketing/engineering team has built for us the perfect example. > > The Pentium 4 runs at 1.7GHz recently, has a 400MHz bus, and has 800MHz > memory, yet it is the slowest modern architecture of the big three that you > can buy. Here are some of the many, many reasons why: > > CPU@1700MHz: Does very little per clock (very low IPC), has very little > cache memory > > FSB@400 MHZ (actually 100QDR--whatever). Umm, the FSB is fast and I can;t > think of any disadvantages, but it doesn't make up for other weaknesses. > > RAM@800MHz. (Yes, I know it's actually 200QDR--whatever). That's all find > and dandy until you use a 16-bit bus instead of a 64-bit bus, and increase > memory latency with every RDRAM module that you add on top of an already > high latency. They fixed the wrong problem and broke the right one. > Bandwidth VS. Latency. It's all marketing. Hmmm, isn't there one more thing about the P4 that it uses the PII's FPU and is less advanced than the PIII's? > The Athlon is overall faster but the much faster FSB is only one factor. > Take away any one advantage that the Athlon has and remove maybe 1%-3% of > its performance. Its when all of those little touches are combined that the > whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. (Actually they end up > exactly equal, but that sounded better ;-) Okay, I guess the reason I asked earlier about using PC133 SDRAM versus DDR is that I have 768MB (3 256MB) PC133 modules already on my Intel platform and it seems like the DDR has 184 pins versus 168 pins so I have to make a new investment so that's why I was asking if the performance hit will be big if I got one of the VIA KT133A chipset motherboards and ran a AMD 1.33Ghz DDR CPU on it or would that be a big no? > The P3 tried to get the edge on performance by taking a single factor--the > L2 cache bandwidth--and going for extreme values on that. Now the P3 has the > fastest L2 cache in the world, but because most or all of the many factors > have to compliment each-other, it's potential performance improvement was > killed by many other bottlenecks, like the ancient core, the GTL+ bus, the > slower and lower number of PUs, the shallower pipelining of the FPUs, etc. True... I guess what Intel needs is to work on newer stuff in secret and then all of the sudden just release it rather than having the entire world expecting some announcement on so and so date.. heh. > > Atleast it sounds better at AMD than it does at Intel. A Celeron > >II is a Pentium III with 1/2 the cache, higher latency cache and 4way > >cache instead of 8 ways. > > Setting cache to be more associative doesn't necessarily make it faster. > 2-way set associative cache has a lesser miss penalty than 4-way or 8-way. > It just so happens that in most cases the cache is slower because of the > setting and the way that it is used. > The Celeron 2 somewhat irritates me because it shows Intel's gross profit > margins. It is the exact same core as the P3, so the P3 can clearly be sold > for much cheaper. Good thing for AMD to shave their margins down. > At least AMD is decent enough to make the Duron a separate core. Maybe the Celeron 2 is really just P3's that don't past certain tests and instead of putting it in the trash or as problem chips, the marketing department thinks of selling it as a lower end CPU. Cheers, Vince - vince@WURLDLINK.NET - Vice President ________ __ ____ Unix Networking Operations - FreeBSD-Real Unix for Free / / / / | / |[__ ] WurldLink Corporation / / / / | / | __] ] San Francisco - Honolulu - Hong Kong / / / / / |/ / | __] ] HongKong Stars/Gravis UltraSound Mailing Lists Admin /_/_/_/_/|___/|_|[____] Almighty1@IRC - oahu.DAL.NET Hawaii's DALnet IRC Network Server Admin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.31.0104192129080.2730-100000>