Re: Q_mp_1900_vs_athlon_64_x2_=3F?= Q=3F?=

From: Mogens V. (NOSPAMmogensv_at_vip.cybercity.dk)
Date: 11/07/05 

Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:46:33 +0100

Chris wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>
>> serge wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder what would perform better
>>> relatively old 2 x (dual) athlon MP 1900 vs modern athlon 64 X2
>>> any ideas?
>>
>> the Athlon64 X2 by a lot,
>> the X2 has tighter coupling between the cores than
>> the MP would. The X2 as a Athlon64 has more registers
>> since it's using X86-64 and the MP is plain X86.
>> The X2 has a builtin memory controller and on and on.
>> The X2 supports more floating point standards.
>> Mark
>>
>>
> plus the X2s have larger L1 and L2 caches, the FSB is 200Mhz instead of
> 133Mhz (DDR), and the cpus run at faster core speeds.
> There really isn't any comparison.

XP mobiles easily does 200Mhz FSB. However, most dual XP mobos won't go
any further than about 150Mhz, a few 166Mhz.
It's a different story for unicpu boards.
My lowpower setup is a Biostar M7NCG400 v.1.4 (only use 1.4 or 7.2),
featuring nForce 2 Ultra 400 and an XPm 2600 at 205Mhz FSB.
Since it's a lowpower setup, I underclock (about 1.5Ghz @1.3volt), but I
could just as easily OC the cpu, which I may do at a later stage, while
using cpufreq to control when to underclocked and when to OC.

And, as Ray put it, dual cpu's won't help if the apps doesn't have the
need, or aren't multithreaded. Same story for 64bit...

Of cause the XP64 has onchip memctrl, which is worth a lot.
it all depends upon indended use. YMMV :) 

-- 
Kind regards,
Mogens Valentin