Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: j3pflynn who wrote (193914)	4/15/2006 11:43:18 AM
From: eracer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: eracer - Looks like it'll take higher clocks to fully utilize DDR2, but at least things have passed parity with 939. Wonder how high they'll go on clocks and how soon. Considering 3-3-3 DDR2-833 barely outperformed 3-3-3 DDR-500 at 2.5GHz (10x250) in the gaming tests, it is pretty safe to say that DDR2 isn't going to do much to improve performance scaling at higher CPU clock frequencies with this sample. The review mentions that the sample was able to overclock 40% beyond stock speeds. Wesley also mentions in the comments that the stock speed wasn't 1.8GHz. Assuming the sample wasn't 1.6GHz that leaves an overclock to 2.8GHz if stock is 2GHz or near 3.1GHz if stock was 2.2GHz. Looks like there is little chance of L3 cache on the FX-62. In the previous AM2 review Anand said that every FX-62 he had seen had no more cache than the 2x1MB L2 listed in the AM2 spec table. Wesley comments here are that he had two samples to test, one a "top-line AM2", which likely means FX-62. The "top-line AM2" when underclock to the standard AM2 part performed the same. He also mentions that they have tested four different revisions since January. Here are the complete comments: The AM2 processor was NOT a 1.8GHz x2. I stated the CPU could overclock 40% at stock speeds, but the 10x250 is not that 40% overclcok. We chose that ratio because it is a clock speed our DDR2 memory could handle and it was also a speed doable on 939 for a reasonable comparison. We actually had two AM2 processors this round, a top-line AM2 and a more mainstream processor. We looked at performance from both, and it was the same at the same processor speed. The DDR2 memory controller reports as Rev. F. As for the question about manufacture date, we are providing as little information about these pre-release processors and motherboards as possible to protect our sources. We have several sources who work with us to bring you the latest news before anyone else, and we don't want to compromise those relationships. Therefore we are not providing any information that might make it easier for AMD and others to trace our sources. We can assure you these are the latest Rev. AM2 shipped to AMD partners in early April as we have evaluated 4 versions since mid-January. This is also the first rev. to fully support DDR2-800.

To: j3pflynn who wrote (193914)	4/15/2006 7:52:26 PM
From: colin1497	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Anybody think AMD may be sandbagging with the AM2 parts that are being reviewed in all these preliminary reviews? I think it's unlikely, but the flip side is, why has Anand published multiple preview evaluations of AM2 machines. If the performance isn't there, there's no reason for AMD to let the cat out of the bag. I have this feeling that the production rev parts are going to have better memory performance than these previews are showing. [edit] Yes, I contradicted myself. Is it unlikely they're sandbagging or do I think the performance will be better? Obviously I can't decide, but I hadn't yet read the comments about Anand getting the parts from a partner, which clears up some things. I guess no on the sandbagging, but performance could still improve noticably.