AMD - Intel Ready for Dual-Core Battle

Intel and AMD have now both announced their dual-core offerings and while the former claims it is already selling gaming setups AMD says it has a surprise gaming chip up its sleeve but not yet.

Now that AMD has finalised its dual-core processor announcement, we are beginning to get the whole picture regarding availability and how the two major competitors are preparing for the multi-core age. The advantage of directly connecting two cores on a single die, along with memory, I/O and dedicated caches, lies in the improved overall system performance and efficiency and the elimination of the bottlenecks inherent in a front-side-bus architecture. For multi-tasking and multithreaded environments, two cores offer more physical resources, enabling operating systems to prioritize and manage tasks from multiple applications simultaneously and, therefore, maximize performance.

Although we now have had announcements from both Intel and AMD, the full processor range is not expected to become available until mid-to-late May and early June. It is expected that AMD will be in place and ready to support server, workstation, and desktop setups by late June of 2005. The plans suggest that Intel may gain a slight desktop advantage over its rival by being first to market with a dual-core product. Intel's first dual-core processor-based platform which includes the Extreme Edition 840 running at 3.2 GHz and the 955X Express Chipset is already available while AMD's Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core processor brand, will not surface until mid-to-late June.

AMD, on the other hand, will get a server advantage since it announced immediate availability of the Dual-Core AMD Opteron 800 Series processor for four- to eight-way servers. The 200 Series processors for two-way servers and workstations will be available in late May. Intel's Dempsey, the 65nm dual-core Xeon, may take as long as 6 months to become fully available. AMD claims that the new server models will deliver up to a 90 per cent performance improvement for application servers over single-core AMD Opterons.

The highest end dual-core offering from AMD will cost USD 1001, USD 2 more than its rival Intel product, the Pentium Extreme Edition 840 processor (USD 999). But AMD claims that even its current highest performing chip, the Athlon 64 X2 4800+, will not be targeting gamers. According to the company, gaming has nothing to gain from dual-core chips quite yet. AMD plans to introduce a dual-core version of the AMD Athlon 64 FX processor when multithreaded software games are available to take advantage of its benefits.

The full list of AMDs Dual-core chips and pricing per unit for 1,000 unit quantities

Add new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Comments

AMD - Intel Ready for Dual-Core Battle

A 64 3500+ is alot more expensive then a 64 3000+ where I live (Australia, QLD)64 3000+ is $21564 3500+ is $38464 3800+ is $535([url removed] just not sure if I should wait till the 3500 comes down to a reasonable price ($250) wich by the time I save up prob will have. Thanks for your input.

AMD - Intel Ready for Dual-Core Battle

Read the intial reviews onAMD's dual-core Opteron at Techreport.com[url removed] dual-core Opteron processors are extremely well executed on all fronts, based on what we've seen. AMD's dual-core design has a technical elegance that Intel's can't match, and that design brings superior performance..."Intel, plain and simple. You are getting your ass kicked here.

AMD - Intel Ready for Dual-Core Battle

CaT, I would get a 6800Gt instead of the 6600Gt. The 6800GT might cost more, however, one 6800GT will perform better then 2 6600GT's in SLI. And when prices drop for the 6800GT next year when you're going to buy your system, you can pick up another 6800gt....

AMD - Intel Ready for Dual-Core Battle

i got a P4 hyperthreaing chip, and i find overall its much better, although i'll admit if i only wanted a computer for gaming i would get the amd, i hope this dual core thing takes off, i find windows is much more responsive with hte hyper threading, and a dual core should improve on that i would of thought, but i like to see that nearly everyone who will post in the comments in this place is always biased for or against, people who open minded views never seem to post...or exisist anymore..

AMD - Intel Ready for Dual-Core Battle

Anonymousat 7:2 26/4/2005 you should see the intial results of dual Operton vs. Intels Dual chips in all applications. Intel needs to come up with something quick. P4 hyperthreading is not enough to keep them in this race. Especially in 64bit applications. Intel is behind the curve. They need to spend less money on advertising about how the P4 is so great on performance(compared to itself) and more on actual real world results against AMD! The tests even with single cpu's have AMD winning most of them except a few. And those tests are only lost by a few seconds or frame rates at best. Don't fall for Intels propaganda. They have billions to b.s. people, however, real world results tell the whole truth. And that truth shows Intel is behind.

AMD - Intel Ready for Dual-Core Battle

THE THING THAT YOU LOOK AT IN BUYING AMD 64 IS THE REV MODEL AS THE NEW E VERSON HAS SSE3, .09 CORE AND USES LOT LESS POWER (3000+(1.8GHZ) =47W) SO OVERCLOCK HEAT HEADROOM IS GREATER. FOR COOLING COOLMASTERS HYPER 48 IS GREAT AND IS 18 DS YOU SHOULD CHECK IT OUT UMART HAS IT THATS WHERE I GOT MY ONEAS FOR INTELS AT 3.2 IT PRODUCES 115W THAT ALOT OF HEAT IT DOESNT GIVE YOU HEADROOM WITH AIRCOOLING

AMD - Intel Ready for Dual-Core Battle

cant belive this row is still going on ! wtf do u need more cpu power for ????? i got a p4 3.4EE with a gf5600, my brother has a xp2800 with a 6800 , his is better for games !!!! get a grip FFS u dont need anything faster than a 2 gig cpu !!! dont belive the hype

AMD - Intel Ready for Dual-Core Battle

and for those of u that go out and get a new cpu every 6 monthsHahahahhhahahhaaahahahaahahahahhau been had !I got my p4 extreme for £240 off ebay, i wouldnt have upgraded but i blew my board. it doent do anything any faster or slower than any other cpu i have used, and as for benchmarks.....get real they are not real world and dont let bullshit websites tell u otherwizei read the other day that a fx55 was 29% faster at unzipping a 100mb file! wow 1.22 seconds, well worth the £500+ price u think !

AMD - Intel Ready for Dual-Core Battle

"i read the other day that a fx55 was 29% faster at unzipping a 100mb file! wow 1.22 seconds, well worth the £500+ price u think !"Yup 29% for files. You should see the results for gaming. And this is where it really counts. At least for us at this forum. The results are alot higher. Across the board. If you have the cash, and you're a gamer. Buying a Intel chip is pointless.And the most expensive P4 extreme chip costs more then the most expensive AMD chip. No brainer for me.

AMD - Intel Ready for Dual-Core Battle

Lets not forget either that AMD seem to be having no problems getting thier FX series chips out when scheduled either. 53, and 55 came out not probs on time and I bet the 57 is sitting waiting in some warehouse somewhere. Least can be said about intel. Where are the 4GHZ chips!!?

AMD - Intel Ready for Dual-Core Battle

Forget about Intel VS AMD fighting for the crown with the Extreme Edition vs the FX55. I agree I have seen a lot of benchmarks but since I can’t afford any of them and the performance you may get from a 2 CPU solution could be better for Digital Content Creation of multimedia programs I am more in the side of the Opterons. I have right now an Opteron 242 = 1.6 GHz it runs just perfect to me with 1GB 333DDR. I have played a lot of games with a Radeon 9200SE which is at the lowest level for the gaming world but if fine for me. My brother has a 9800PRO with 128MB in a similar system same motherboard. CPU, RAM and brand of Hard Disk since mine is 200GB and his HD is 160GB. His PC rocks. I agree that for gaming anything above 2GHz is fine but it all depends on the video card you may have. Mine is not meant for high settings.Talking now about dual cores when I upgraded my old 2.4GHz to this Opteron 1.6HHz, (yes it sounds weird but I found it better on everything with less GHz) it convinced me that my brother told me that the socket 940 was designed from the ground to support Dual Cores CPU. I have a Tyan Tiger s2875 Mother Board and from the article that I just red from the firs person that posted and URL it said that any motherboard supporting the new Opteron 252 made in the 90nm process can be used with Dual Core CPU after a BIOS update. Well I just checked at Tyan’s website and found an update to the BIOS that can make it compatible to that Opteron CPU. But I think being compatible with that CPU is not enough since it doesn’t state support for Dual Core.QUESTION: If I put two dual core CPUs in a dual Opteron mother board I may get a total count of 4 CPUs? If that is the case It will be great, but if I can use only one socket it will be better to buy 2 separately I think. But there are a lot of Ups and Downs that must be taken apart.I bet there will be future support for gaming with multicore CPUs since the next generations consoles will be implementing mul

AMD - Intel Ready for Dual-Core Battle

Read Platemoon's post first continautionwill be implementing multicore CPUs developed by IBM. It does mean that to take full advantage of the consoles processing power the game makes may need to create engines that can take multithread. I bet next year it will be interesting.

AMD - Intel Ready for Dual-Core Battle

the AMD Athlon XP processor 3200+ operates at a frequency of 2.2GHz yet can outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 3.0GHz with an 800 FSB and HyperThreading on a broad array of real-world applications for office productivity, digital media and 3-D gaming.

Add new comment