Lets get First POST Cr*P out of the way

Reply

This is not an Apples to Apples compairison, This article should have compaired a 90nm Venice 2.2GHz 512k to a Dual Core 512k x2 2.2Ghz. Why was the 4000+ used as the compairison for overclockability aricle?

Reply

Correction:

This is not an Apples to Apples compairison, This article should have compaired a 90nm Venice 2.2GHz 512k to a Manchester Dual Core 512k 2.2Ghz. Why was the 4000+ used as the compairison in an overclockability aricle? It does not even come from the same die.

Reply

I meant Toledo not Manchester

Reply

With the 7800GTX review out and the card seeming to be CPU bound on some of the highest ends, I think it would be interesting to test out this processor in tandem with the 7800GTX.

Reply

This also shows the headroom for a 5000+ and 5200+ model running at 2600 is within reach if 2700 is already being hit on air overclocking.

Reply

The 4000+ was the highest "Performance Rated" single-core CPU, which is why it was chosen for comparison. It has also been our standard CPU for motherboard testing for the past several months. Third, it just a little below the 4200+ in cost. So comparing the fastest "rated" single-core to the similarly priced and faster rated Dual-Core made some sense to us.

Anand examined DC performance in the launch review, and this article is about overclocking the 4200+. The 4000+ is included just for reference, and there are a multitude of 4000+ benchmarks in motherboard reviews for comparison.

If the performance ratings used by AMD mean anything at all, then the 4200+ should be faster. The 4200+ is faster in some applications than the 4000+ and a bit slower in others. Overall the performance rating seems fair in balance.



Reply

The performance statistics are nice and all, but I would assume the main questions resting on most people's minds at the moment are...

1. When is supply not going to be an issue?
2. When will the consumer be able to purchase these chips at the prices AMD has specified?

Looking at the few retailers offering these chips for preorder, there is absolutely no shortage of price gouging. The average mark up from AMD's price is between $20-$100 on retail or oem offerings. =/

Reply

This is all well and good and all, but I'm still surprised (and a little irratated) that no one (that I can find on the net anyway) has bothered to answer the questions that it would seem to be quite important:

for those of us who have near-recent dual processor systems (that is, dual single core), how do these new dual cores stack up?

I'd bet there are lots of folks out there like me (currently on dual 2.66 prestonias) who look at the new dual cores and think "that might be a cheap (comparitively speaking) upgrade"

is the 4800+ stronger or weaker than a comparable 2x250 system? in what areas? how about the 3.2 pentium D vs a dual 3.2 nocona? comparison of power consumption? heat? decent 939 or 775 workstation boards?

it would seem these chips are a possible boon to budget/mid range workstation buyers. But nobody's bothered to look at it from that perspective, aside from running specviewperf vs the single core, single socket chips (which doesn't really help much of anything)

Grumpy dubb

Reply

Once again, Anandtech has let its members down - offering a review that did not address the most basic comparison that a competent review would have included - how does the dual core AMD 4200 CPU stack up against dual Chinese Abacus manipulators, both working while high on methamphetamine, and not.

Wesly, you are a Fink!

Reply