AMD Desktop PC PERFORMANCE PACKAGE
ABIT/Gigabyte/MSI AMD AM2 Motherboard
WD160GB, 7,200rpm SATA2 Hard Disk
Kingston 512MB DDR2 RAM,
Samsung 18XDVD-RW
Integrated NVIDIA® Graphic Media Accelerator
Integrated 10/100/1000Mbps LAN,Integrated audio
17” Branded CRT Monitor
Tower Casing with PSU
PS2 Mouse & PS2 Keyboard
Multimedia Speaker
PRICE:
AM2 Athlon 64 Bit 3500(2.2GHz) RM 1390*
AM2 Athlon 64 Bit 3600+ X2(1.9GHz) RM 1490*
AM2 Athlon 64 Bit 3800+ X2(2.0GHz) RM 1590*
AM2 Athlon 64 Bit 4800+ X2(2.5GHz) RM 1690*
Intel Desktop PC PERFORMANCE PACKAGE
INTEL 945G Motherboard socket L775 or compatible
WD160GB, 7,200rpm SATA2 Hard Disk
Kingston 512MB DDR2 RAM
Samsung 18XDVD-RW
Integrated INTEL® Graphic Media Accelerator
Integrated 10/100/1000Mbps LAN,Integrated audio
17” Branded CRT Monitor
Tower Casing with PSU
PS2 Mouse & PS2 Keyboard
Multimedia Speaker
PRICE:
Intel Pentium 4 3.0GHz RM 1490*
Intel Pentium D 3.0GHz RM 1590*
Intel Pentium D 3.4GHz RM 1650*
Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 RM 1700*
contact me 017-6141857@016-3607206
optional upgrade
17” SAMSUNG LCD 732N (5ms) +RM 400
1GB DDR2 RAM +RM 90
250GB Western Digital SATA2 HDD +RM 80
ATI RADEON PCI-E 16X X1050 +RM 210
Canon IP1880 Color inkjet Printer +RM 150
SONIC GEAR EVO 5 +RM 140
Other upgrade please contact…..
Saturday, September 22, 2007
low cost system...utk mat salleh jer....kat Msia mahal giler laa
Introduction
In our previous system builder marathon, we built a budget PC for about $500. It performed really well compared to higher-end systems when we factored in the amount of money invested, but unfortunately, our $500 low-cost system didn't have a lot of overclocking potential to go up against the big boys.
In our overclocker marathon, we configured a new budget PC with an overclockable e4300 CPU and Geforce 8800 GTX video card. The final price was under $1,200, but it had what it takes to overclock and perform in the same league as PCs twice its price.
This time, our low-end machine will have a price cap of $1,000 and our medium grade system will be capped around $1,500, so we can really see what that extra $500 can get you. These higher price points will also make our systems better suited to go head-to-head in an overclocking marathon at a later date.
Now that we've doubled our budget from our original $500, what hardware will our $1,000 buy us? Let's look at the components we chose and discuss our rationale for selecting them.
CPU: Retail Intel Core 2 E6750
At just over $200, the new E6750 is an extremely easy choice for a low-cost system.
It seems it was only a few months ago that the E6700 was one of the most powerful CPUs available - and that's because it was. The E6750 offers a much lower price, coupled with a higher front side bus speed than its older sibling. The only bad thing you could say about the E6750 is that it's still a dual core part at a time when quad cores are becoming more popular. As far as it impacts the user experience, though, dual core still has a long life of usefulness ahead of it.
Thomas Soderstrom has chosen the new quad core Q6600 for the midrange system that Shelton Romhanyi will be building and testing. Watching what happens when the E6750 goes toe to toe with the Q6600 later in the marathon, should make for a very interesting read.
The new E6750 has a higher front side bus than the older Core2 Duos, which requires a newer motherboard than the Asus P5B we used in our last budget overclocking system.
Even though it's relatively new, the P5K already has a good reputation for overclocking, which will come in handy later in the series when we push these systems past their stock speeds. But for now, the P5K is a solid board for our low-cost system, at a decent price.
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master HyperTX 2
Cooler Master's HyperTX 2 is a capable cooler for a very attractive price. At under $30 including an active fan, the HyperTX 2 is a great choice for a budget system, especially if you plan to overclock a bit on the cheap.
Memory: 2 GB Of Wintec AMPO PC2-6400
We've used 2 GB of Wintec AMPO in our budget overclocking marathon system, and we're happy to do it again. This RAM's overclocking reputation remains, but its price has come down, so picking up two gigabytes of the stuff is even easier on our pocketbook. We found two 1 GB sticks of it for just $81.
Hard Drive: 320 GB Seagate Barracuda SATA II 7200 RPM
Our last budget system had a 250 GB drive, but hard drive space is always something that gets cheaper over time. Our choice for the current low-cost build is a Seagate Barracuda 320 GB SATA II drive. This is a fine amount of space for a budget machine and is a fairly quick performer for the price, to boot.
PC Case: Raidmax Smilodon
We've spent a little time with the Smilodon since our last budget marathon, and we like it even more now. There aren't a lot of cases out there that allow you the option of folding out the motherboard tray for ease of setting up. Our only beef with the case is that when it's used in conjunction with a large CPU cooler - like the Cooler Master HyperTX 2 - there isn't enough clearance to open the motherboard tray. Regardless, the Smilodon is a great case with lots of airflow at a very reasonable budget price of $80.
Power Supply: Fortron Source AX450-PN
Fortron has established a reliable reputation for itself, and we're pleased to once again select its budget-priced AX450-PN power supply for use in our low-cost system. At a low cost of $58, this PSU supplies a total 36 A of 12 V power split between two 12 V rails rated at 18 A each. This is a good companion to the 8800 GTS we've selected for our build.
Optical Drive: Sony NEC Optiarc 7170 SATA
At $35, the Optiarc 7170 is a very speedy DVD-RW drive. Add to this the convenience of SATA cabling, and you have a real winner.
Video Card: EVGA Geforce 8800 GTS 320MB
There's really not much to say about the Geforce 8800 GTS 320MB except that it's incredibly powerful for the price.
Compared to its 8800 GTX and 8800 GTS 640MB brethren, the only notable performance difference appears at resolutions 1600x1200 and above. This does not mean that the 8800 GTS 320MB can't handle some 1920x1200 gaming mind you, the GTX will just be faster.
For $280, there's no better videocard you can put in your machine, period.
Test System & Benchmarks
System Builder Marathon: New Low-Cost PC Component Costs
CPU Intel Core 2 Duo e6750 $212
CPU Cooler Cooler Master HyperTX 2 $27
Motherboard Asus P5K $137
RAM Wintec Ampo DDR2 PC2-6400 - 2GB $81
Graphics GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB $280
Hard Drive Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATAII $80
Sound Onboard $0
Case Raidmax Smilodon $58
DVD-RW Sony NEC Optiarc 7170 SATA $35
Total Price $990
System Builder Marathon: Old Budget Overclocker PC Component Costs
CPU Intel Core 2 Duo e4300 $120
CPU Cooler Thermalright XP-90 & 120mm fan $55
Motherboard Asus P5B $115
RAM Wintec Ampo DDR2 PC2-64 00 - 2GB $81
Graphics GeForce 8800GTX $500
Hard Drive Western Digital Caviar 250GB $63
Sound Onboard $0
Case Raidmax Smilodon $80
Power Aerocool Zerodba 620w $125
DVD-RW Sony NEC Optiarc 7170 SATA $35
Total Price $1,174
We're going to compare our new low-cost system with the budget overclocker's system we created for our overclocking marathon. Our budget overclocking system is similarly priced to our new low-cost system: it cost $1,174, compared to the new low-cost system's $990 price tag.
The single item that raised the budget overclocker's system price above $1000 was the inclusion of a Geforce 8800 GTX. Had the old budget overclocker's build sported an 8800 GTS 320mb instead of the GTX, its price would have been almost identical to the new low-cost system: about $950. It's going to be interesting to see how the old e4300 CPU/8800 GTX combo will fare against the new e6750/8800 GTS 320MB combo in the gaming arena.
We won't be comparing the new system to the original budget system in the first system builder marathon. The original budget system was put together for $500 and is completely outclassed by our new $1000 budget champion.
System Hardware
Processor Intel Core Duo e6750, 2.67 GHz, 1333 FSB, 4MB Cache
Motherboard ASUS P5K, BIOS: 0507
RAM Wintec Ampo PC2-6400, 2x 1024 MB, CAS 5.0-5-5-16
Hard Drive Seagate Barracuda ST3320620AS 320 GB, 7200 RPM, 16 MB Cache, SATA 300
Networking PCIe Gb LAN controller featuring AI NET2
Graphics Cards EVGA GeForce 8800 GTS, 320MB RAM
Power Supply Fortron AX-450PN
System Software & Drivers
OS Microsoft Windows XP Pro 5.1.2600
DirectX Version 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
Graphics Driver nVIDIA ForceWare 162.18
Benchmarks and Settings
3D-Games
F.E.A.R Version: 1.0 Retail Video Mode: 1024x768 Computer: Maximum Graphics: Maximum-Custom-No Softshadows Test Path: Options/Performance/Test Settings
Doom 3 Version: 1.3 Video Mode: 1024x768 Graphics: High Test: Time Demo 1
Oblivion Version: 1.0 Retail Video Mode: 1024x768 Graphics: High, 4xAA Test: Inside & Outside save files
Audio
Lame MP3 Version 3.97 Beta 2 (12-22-2005) Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min wave to mp3 160 kbps
OGG Version 1.1.2 (Intel P4 MOD) Version 1.1.2 (Intel AMD MOD) Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min wave to ogg Quality: 5
Video
TMPEG 3.0 Express Version: 3.0.4.24 (no Audio) fist 5 Minutes DVD Terminator 2 SE (704x576) 16:9 Multithreading by rendering
DivX 6.1 Version: 6.1 Profile: High Definition Profile 1-pass, 3000 kbit/s Encoding mode: Insane Quality Enhanced multithreading no Audio
XviD 1.1.0 Version: 1.1.0 Beta 2 Target qantizer: 1.00
Applications
Autodesk 3D Studio Max Version: 8.0 Characters "Dragon_Charater_rig" rendering HTDV 1920x1080 & 1280x720
Synthetics
SPECviewperf 9 Version: 9.0.3
PCMark05 Pro Version: 1.1.0 System, CPU and Memory Tests Windows Media Player 10.00.00.3646 Windows Media Encoder 9.00.00.2980
3DMark05 Version: 1.2 System Test Only
SiSoftware Sandra 2005 Version 2005.7.10.60 CPU Test = Arithmetic, Multimedia Benchmarks Memory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark
3D Games
When we benchmarked the old budget overclocker's system, we were forced to cap our testing resolution at 1600x1200, because at the time there wasn't a high-end monitor available in that particular lab.
This situation has been remedied for the new system tests, so we will show you results up to 1920x1200 in our final comparison articles between the new low-end, midrange, and high-end systems. For this budget article, however, we will only use 1600x1200 and lower
We see that Doom3 is bottlenecked by the e4300 processor at about 110 fps across the board in the old system. The new e6750 unleashes a lot more performance at lower resolutions.
At 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF, however, the 8800 GTX in the e4300 system stretches its muscles a bit, and we see it take a small lead from the e6750/8800 GTS 320MB combo. At higher resolutions, this trend would likely have continued and the gap would have widened.
F.E.A.R. shows a very similar story to what we saw with Doom3, with slightly more exaggerated results. With 4xAA and 8xAF enabled, the e4300/8800 GTX combo takes a small lead at 1280x1024, and a large lead at 1600x1200.
resolutions minimize the CPU impact, and maximize the graphics card impact on game performance.
Once again we see that high-resolution gaming can usually be done quite acceptably with a slightly slower CPU paired with a fast video card. Our conclusion article later this week will probably show an even larger spread between the 8800 GTS 320MB and the 8800 GTX at 1920x1200.
Audio
Unlike the gaming benchmarks, we see here the true difference between the e4300 and e6750 CPUs, with no graphics card influence. The e6750 in the new low-cost machine pummels the e4300 with about 150% of the latter's speed
Once again, we see an incredible 50% speed increase from the e6750.
Let's see if these results hold up in the video arena.
Video
It looks like it doesn't matter whether you're encoding audio or video - the e6750 will be about 50% faster than the e4300.
Different codec, but the same story. The percentage performance difference between DivX and Xvid encoding is negligible.
It's beginning to sound like a broken record, but the magic 150% number keeps showing up. It's no surprise that the e6750 truly looks impressive compared to the e4300
Application
Our first synthetic benchmark is 3dMark05, and once again we see what happens when the e4300 is combined with the powerful 8800 GTX. The e4300 bottlenecks the 8800 GTX's graphics performance so consistently that the results hardly change regardless of the resolution or image quality enhancements.
On the other hand, the e6750 allows the 8800 GTS to work to its full potential. At low resolutions, the e6750/8800 GTS 320MB combo easily outpaces the e4300/8800 GTX combo. Just like our game benchmarks showed, though, at higher resolutions the GTX flexes its muscles and doesn't budge, while the 8800 GTS 320MB starts to show its limitations.
Specviewperf is an interesting benchmark, because it stresses both the CPU and video card. You can really see which benchmarks are CPU dependent (where the new system has a large lead) and which benchmarks are graphics card dependant (where the old system is tied or has a slight lead). On average, the new system wins by a notable margin.
Applications, Continued
We experienced some difficulty getting PCMark05 to complete the graphics benchmarks, so we couldn't get a total system score to compare. The WMV encoding test apparently has some problems on certain systems, but we'll see if we can get things running for our conclusion article.
The system and memory tests show results close to the 150% speed increase we've seen before. The hard drive test shows a 133% increase, which is certainly noteworthy.
Once again, pretty much every CPU benchmark shows the same 50% performance increase. Memory speed is even higher - around 160% of the previous system's performance - which might be due to the higher bus speed, and memory optimizations on the Asus P5K board.
Performance Summary
When we look at the game performance difference, we have to keep in mind that this chart represents an average of game performance at 1600x1200 and below.
It looks like the new e6750/8800 GTS 320MB combo enjoys an advantage over the e4300/8800 GTX combo, but this isn't really true: at 1600x1200 and above, the 8800 GTX will perform better, even when paired with a slower CPU. This will become more apparent in our summary article, when our e6750/8800 GTS 320MB goes up against the midrange system, which sports an 8800 GTX.
There's no special interpretation to be made here: the e6750 CPU performs software applications at about one-and-a-half times the speed of the e4300. This is an incredible speed difference, one that really matters in real-world applications.
The synthetic benchmark summary is a little fudged, because we don't have proper results for PcMark 2005 - as we stated, we couldn't get a total system score due to a benchmark glitch. We brought down the new system's average score by assigning it an arbitrary 100% compared to the old system, even though its actual score would likely have been much higher. Even with this artificial handicap, though, the PcMark results were on average 133% faster than the old system.
3dMark 2005 is a synthetic graphics benchmark, and tells pretty much the same story as actual gaming benchmarks did. Looking to Specviewperf and Sisoft Sandra, we see the same 150% performance numbers from the new system that we saw in the application benchmarks.
When we average everything out for a figure to represent the overall performance of the new system vs. the old system, we get a figure of 136%. The interesting part is that the new system costs less than the old one! This will make for an interesting value analysis indeed.
With a lower total cost and higher performance at lower resolutions, the new budget system's overall gaming value is much higher than just the performance delta would suggest. We see a number of 140% representing its gaming value compared the old budget overclocker's system.
Once again, we need to take these figures with a grain of salt, as the performance of the slower CPU with faster video card would have shone at higher resolutions we weren't able to test in this review, specifically above 1600x1200.
The total system value looks very impressive. When the new budget system's lower cost is factored in along with its superior performance, it looks to be an incredible value: about 160% of the value of the old budget overclocker's system overall.
Conclusion
The conclusion is obvious: $1,000 buys a very formidable PC in today's market, thanks in no small part to Intel's new e6750 CPU. While it is true that many parts of the budget PC have upgraded in speed since our last marathon, it's the e6750 that looks to have the most performance increase for the buck.
This might be a 'budget' machine, but there's nothing this low-cost PC couldn't eat up and spit out. I don't think the $1,000 price point has ever seen such fine performing hardware.
The real question is: how will this $1,000 dual-core system compare to a $1,500 quad-core system when we calculate value per dollar? Stay tuned this week to see the results!
Editor's Opinion
The results I'm personally looking forward to the most will be the comparison between this budget e6750 machine and the midrange q6600 machine brought to life by Shelton Romhanyi and Thomas Soderstrom. With a $500 price difference, will the extra two cores in the Q6600 CPU allow the midrange system to surge ahead in applications? Or are the applications we use in our test suite not yet sufficiently able to take advantage of quad core optimizations? We'll have to see.
In our previous system builder marathon, we built a budget PC for about $500. It performed really well compared to higher-end systems when we factored in the amount of money invested, but unfortunately, our $500 low-cost system didn't have a lot of overclocking potential to go up against the big boys.
In our overclocker marathon, we configured a new budget PC with an overclockable e4300 CPU and Geforce 8800 GTX video card. The final price was under $1,200, but it had what it takes to overclock and perform in the same league as PCs twice its price.
This time, our low-end machine will have a price cap of $1,000 and our medium grade system will be capped around $1,500, so we can really see what that extra $500 can get you. These higher price points will also make our systems better suited to go head-to-head in an overclocking marathon at a later date.
Now that we've doubled our budget from our original $500, what hardware will our $1,000 buy us? Let's look at the components we chose and discuss our rationale for selecting them.
CPU: Retail Intel Core 2 E6750
At just over $200, the new E6750 is an extremely easy choice for a low-cost system.
It seems it was only a few months ago that the E6700 was one of the most powerful CPUs available - and that's because it was. The E6750 offers a much lower price, coupled with a higher front side bus speed than its older sibling. The only bad thing you could say about the E6750 is that it's still a dual core part at a time when quad cores are becoming more popular. As far as it impacts the user experience, though, dual core still has a long life of usefulness ahead of it.
Thomas Soderstrom has chosen the new quad core Q6600 for the midrange system that Shelton Romhanyi will be building and testing. Watching what happens when the E6750 goes toe to toe with the Q6600 later in the marathon, should make for a very interesting read.
The new E6750 has a higher front side bus than the older Core2 Duos, which requires a newer motherboard than the Asus P5B we used in our last budget overclocking system.
Even though it's relatively new, the P5K already has a good reputation for overclocking, which will come in handy later in the series when we push these systems past their stock speeds. But for now, the P5K is a solid board for our low-cost system, at a decent price.
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master HyperTX 2
Cooler Master's HyperTX 2 is a capable cooler for a very attractive price. At under $30 including an active fan, the HyperTX 2 is a great choice for a budget system, especially if you plan to overclock a bit on the cheap.
Memory: 2 GB Of Wintec AMPO PC2-6400
We've used 2 GB of Wintec AMPO in our budget overclocking marathon system, and we're happy to do it again. This RAM's overclocking reputation remains, but its price has come down, so picking up two gigabytes of the stuff is even easier on our pocketbook. We found two 1 GB sticks of it for just $81.
Hard Drive: 320 GB Seagate Barracuda SATA II 7200 RPM
Our last budget system had a 250 GB drive, but hard drive space is always something that gets cheaper over time. Our choice for the current low-cost build is a Seagate Barracuda 320 GB SATA II drive. This is a fine amount of space for a budget machine and is a fairly quick performer for the price, to boot.
PC Case: Raidmax Smilodon
We've spent a little time with the Smilodon since our last budget marathon, and we like it even more now. There aren't a lot of cases out there that allow you the option of folding out the motherboard tray for ease of setting up. Our only beef with the case is that when it's used in conjunction with a large CPU cooler - like the Cooler Master HyperTX 2 - there isn't enough clearance to open the motherboard tray. Regardless, the Smilodon is a great case with lots of airflow at a very reasonable budget price of $80.
Power Supply: Fortron Source AX450-PN
Fortron has established a reliable reputation for itself, and we're pleased to once again select its budget-priced AX450-PN power supply for use in our low-cost system. At a low cost of $58, this PSU supplies a total 36 A of 12 V power split between two 12 V rails rated at 18 A each. This is a good companion to the 8800 GTS we've selected for our build.
Optical Drive: Sony NEC Optiarc 7170 SATA
At $35, the Optiarc 7170 is a very speedy DVD-RW drive. Add to this the convenience of SATA cabling, and you have a real winner.
Video Card: EVGA Geforce 8800 GTS 320MB
There's really not much to say about the Geforce 8800 GTS 320MB except that it's incredibly powerful for the price.
Compared to its 8800 GTX and 8800 GTS 640MB brethren, the only notable performance difference appears at resolutions 1600x1200 and above. This does not mean that the 8800 GTS 320MB can't handle some 1920x1200 gaming mind you, the GTX will just be faster.
For $280, there's no better videocard you can put in your machine, period.
Test System & Benchmarks
System Builder Marathon: New Low-Cost PC Component Costs
CPU Intel Core 2 Duo e6750 $212
CPU Cooler Cooler Master HyperTX 2 $27
Motherboard Asus P5K $137
RAM Wintec Ampo DDR2 PC2-6400 - 2GB $81
Graphics GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB $280
Hard Drive Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATAII $80
Sound Onboard $0
Case Raidmax Smilodon $58
DVD-RW Sony NEC Optiarc 7170 SATA $35
Total Price $990
System Builder Marathon: Old Budget Overclocker PC Component Costs
CPU Intel Core 2 Duo e4300 $120
CPU Cooler Thermalright XP-90 & 120mm fan $55
Motherboard Asus P5B $115
RAM Wintec Ampo DDR2 PC2-64 00 - 2GB $81
Graphics GeForce 8800GTX $500
Hard Drive Western Digital Caviar 250GB $63
Sound Onboard $0
Case Raidmax Smilodon $80
Power Aerocool Zerodba 620w $125
DVD-RW Sony NEC Optiarc 7170 SATA $35
Total Price $1,174
We're going to compare our new low-cost system with the budget overclocker's system we created for our overclocking marathon. Our budget overclocking system is similarly priced to our new low-cost system: it cost $1,174, compared to the new low-cost system's $990 price tag.
The single item that raised the budget overclocker's system price above $1000 was the inclusion of a Geforce 8800 GTX. Had the old budget overclocker's build sported an 8800 GTS 320mb instead of the GTX, its price would have been almost identical to the new low-cost system: about $950. It's going to be interesting to see how the old e4300 CPU/8800 GTX combo will fare against the new e6750/8800 GTS 320MB combo in the gaming arena.
We won't be comparing the new system to the original budget system in the first system builder marathon. The original budget system was put together for $500 and is completely outclassed by our new $1000 budget champion.
System Hardware
Processor Intel Core Duo e6750, 2.67 GHz, 1333 FSB, 4MB Cache
Motherboard ASUS P5K, BIOS: 0507
RAM Wintec Ampo PC2-6400, 2x 1024 MB, CAS 5.0-5-5-16
Hard Drive Seagate Barracuda ST3320620AS 320 GB, 7200 RPM, 16 MB Cache, SATA 300
Networking PCIe Gb LAN controller featuring AI NET2
Graphics Cards EVGA GeForce 8800 GTS, 320MB RAM
Power Supply Fortron AX-450PN
System Software & Drivers
OS Microsoft Windows XP Pro 5.1.2600
DirectX Version 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
Graphics Driver nVIDIA ForceWare 162.18
Benchmarks and Settings
3D-Games
F.E.A.R Version: 1.0 Retail Video Mode: 1024x768 Computer: Maximum Graphics: Maximum-Custom-No Softshadows Test Path: Options/Performance/Test Settings
Doom 3 Version: 1.3 Video Mode: 1024x768 Graphics: High Test: Time Demo 1
Oblivion Version: 1.0 Retail Video Mode: 1024x768 Graphics: High, 4xAA Test: Inside & Outside save files
Audio
Lame MP3 Version 3.97 Beta 2 (12-22-2005) Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min wave to mp3 160 kbps
OGG Version 1.1.2 (Intel P4 MOD) Version 1.1.2 (Intel AMD MOD) Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min wave to ogg Quality: 5
Video
TMPEG 3.0 Express Version: 3.0.4.24 (no Audio) fist 5 Minutes DVD Terminator 2 SE (704x576) 16:9 Multithreading by rendering
DivX 6.1 Version: 6.1 Profile: High Definition Profile 1-pass, 3000 kbit/s Encoding mode: Insane Quality Enhanced multithreading no Audio
XviD 1.1.0 Version: 1.1.0 Beta 2 Target qantizer: 1.00
Applications
Autodesk 3D Studio Max Version: 8.0 Characters "Dragon_Charater_rig" rendering HTDV 1920x1080 & 1280x720
Synthetics
SPECviewperf 9 Version: 9.0.3
PCMark05 Pro Version: 1.1.0 System, CPU and Memory Tests Windows Media Player 10.00.00.3646 Windows Media Encoder 9.00.00.2980
3DMark05 Version: 1.2 System Test Only
SiSoftware Sandra 2005 Version 2005.7.10.60 CPU Test = Arithmetic, Multimedia Benchmarks Memory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark
3D Games
When we benchmarked the old budget overclocker's system, we were forced to cap our testing resolution at 1600x1200, because at the time there wasn't a high-end monitor available in that particular lab.
This situation has been remedied for the new system tests, so we will show you results up to 1920x1200 in our final comparison articles between the new low-end, midrange, and high-end systems. For this budget article, however, we will only use 1600x1200 and lower
We see that Doom3 is bottlenecked by the e4300 processor at about 110 fps across the board in the old system. The new e6750 unleashes a lot more performance at lower resolutions.
At 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF, however, the 8800 GTX in the e4300 system stretches its muscles a bit, and we see it take a small lead from the e6750/8800 GTS 320MB combo. At higher resolutions, this trend would likely have continued and the gap would have widened.
F.E.A.R. shows a very similar story to what we saw with Doom3, with slightly more exaggerated results. With 4xAA and 8xAF enabled, the e4300/8800 GTX combo takes a small lead at 1280x1024, and a large lead at 1600x1200.
resolutions minimize the CPU impact, and maximize the graphics card impact on game performance.
Once again we see that high-resolution gaming can usually be done quite acceptably with a slightly slower CPU paired with a fast video card. Our conclusion article later this week will probably show an even larger spread between the 8800 GTS 320MB and the 8800 GTX at 1920x1200.
Audio
Unlike the gaming benchmarks, we see here the true difference between the e4300 and e6750 CPUs, with no graphics card influence. The e6750 in the new low-cost machine pummels the e4300 with about 150% of the latter's speed
Once again, we see an incredible 50% speed increase from the e6750.
Let's see if these results hold up in the video arena.
Video
It looks like it doesn't matter whether you're encoding audio or video - the e6750 will be about 50% faster than the e4300.
Different codec, but the same story. The percentage performance difference between DivX and Xvid encoding is negligible.
It's beginning to sound like a broken record, but the magic 150% number keeps showing up. It's no surprise that the e6750 truly looks impressive compared to the e4300
Application
Our first synthetic benchmark is 3dMark05, and once again we see what happens when the e4300 is combined with the powerful 8800 GTX. The e4300 bottlenecks the 8800 GTX's graphics performance so consistently that the results hardly change regardless of the resolution or image quality enhancements.
On the other hand, the e6750 allows the 8800 GTS to work to its full potential. At low resolutions, the e6750/8800 GTS 320MB combo easily outpaces the e4300/8800 GTX combo. Just like our game benchmarks showed, though, at higher resolutions the GTX flexes its muscles and doesn't budge, while the 8800 GTS 320MB starts to show its limitations.
Specviewperf is an interesting benchmark, because it stresses both the CPU and video card. You can really see which benchmarks are CPU dependent (where the new system has a large lead) and which benchmarks are graphics card dependant (where the old system is tied or has a slight lead). On average, the new system wins by a notable margin.
Applications, Continued
We experienced some difficulty getting PCMark05 to complete the graphics benchmarks, so we couldn't get a total system score to compare. The WMV encoding test apparently has some problems on certain systems, but we'll see if we can get things running for our conclusion article.
The system and memory tests show results close to the 150% speed increase we've seen before. The hard drive test shows a 133% increase, which is certainly noteworthy.
Once again, pretty much every CPU benchmark shows the same 50% performance increase. Memory speed is even higher - around 160% of the previous system's performance - which might be due to the higher bus speed, and memory optimizations on the Asus P5K board.
Performance Summary
When we look at the game performance difference, we have to keep in mind that this chart represents an average of game performance at 1600x1200 and below.
It looks like the new e6750/8800 GTS 320MB combo enjoys an advantage over the e4300/8800 GTX combo, but this isn't really true: at 1600x1200 and above, the 8800 GTX will perform better, even when paired with a slower CPU. This will become more apparent in our summary article, when our e6750/8800 GTS 320MB goes up against the midrange system, which sports an 8800 GTX.
There's no special interpretation to be made here: the e6750 CPU performs software applications at about one-and-a-half times the speed of the e4300. This is an incredible speed difference, one that really matters in real-world applications.
The synthetic benchmark summary is a little fudged, because we don't have proper results for PcMark 2005 - as we stated, we couldn't get a total system score due to a benchmark glitch. We brought down the new system's average score by assigning it an arbitrary 100% compared to the old system, even though its actual score would likely have been much higher. Even with this artificial handicap, though, the PcMark results were on average 133% faster than the old system.
3dMark 2005 is a synthetic graphics benchmark, and tells pretty much the same story as actual gaming benchmarks did. Looking to Specviewperf and Sisoft Sandra, we see the same 150% performance numbers from the new system that we saw in the application benchmarks.
When we average everything out for a figure to represent the overall performance of the new system vs. the old system, we get a figure of 136%. The interesting part is that the new system costs less than the old one! This will make for an interesting value analysis indeed.
With a lower total cost and higher performance at lower resolutions, the new budget system's overall gaming value is much higher than just the performance delta would suggest. We see a number of 140% representing its gaming value compared the old budget overclocker's system.
Once again, we need to take these figures with a grain of salt, as the performance of the slower CPU with faster video card would have shone at higher resolutions we weren't able to test in this review, specifically above 1600x1200.
The total system value looks very impressive. When the new budget system's lower cost is factored in along with its superior performance, it looks to be an incredible value: about 160% of the value of the old budget overclocker's system overall.
Conclusion
The conclusion is obvious: $1,000 buys a very formidable PC in today's market, thanks in no small part to Intel's new e6750 CPU. While it is true that many parts of the budget PC have upgraded in speed since our last marathon, it's the e6750 that looks to have the most performance increase for the buck.
This might be a 'budget' machine, but there's nothing this low-cost PC couldn't eat up and spit out. I don't think the $1,000 price point has ever seen such fine performing hardware.
The real question is: how will this $1,000 dual-core system compare to a $1,500 quad-core system when we calculate value per dollar? Stay tuned this week to see the results!
Editor's Opinion
The results I'm personally looking forward to the most will be the comparison between this budget e6750 machine and the midrange q6600 machine brought to life by Shelton Romhanyi and Thomas Soderstrom. With a $500 price difference, will the extra two cores in the Q6600 CPU allow the midrange system to surge ahead in applications? Or are the applications we use in our test suite not yet sufficiently able to take advantage of quad core optimizations? We'll have to see.
untuk seseorang....maafkan diriku...
dewi aku mohon beri kesempatantuk bisa
menebus dosaku kepada mu
maafkanlah aku yg menyakitimu
aku tidak pernah menyangka bisa begini
dewi, kaulah hidupku
aku cinta padamu sampai mati
dewi, belahlah dadaku
agar kau tahu, agar kau mengerti
semua terjadi begitu saja
tak ada yg serius antara kamu dan aku
hanya karena aku lelaki dan kamu wanita
oh dewi, dengarkanlah
menebus dosaku kepada mu
maafkanlah aku yg menyakitimu
aku tidak pernah menyangka bisa begini
dewi, kaulah hidupku
aku cinta padamu sampai mati
dewi, belahlah dadaku
agar kau tahu, agar kau mengerti
semua terjadi begitu saja
tak ada yg serius antara kamu dan aku
hanya karena aku lelaki dan kamu wanita
oh dewi, dengarkanlah
AMD X2 product brief by AMD
AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 and AMD Athlon™ X2 Dual-Core Processor Product BriefTake multi-tasking to a whole new level with the AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core ProcessorAMD Athlon Dual-Core processors put the power of dual-core technology on the desktop. Dual-core processors contain two processing cores, residing on one chip, that perform calculations on two streams of data to increase efficiency and speed while running multiple programs and the new generation of multi-threaded software. For end-users this means a significant increase in response and performance when running multiple applications simultaneously.
Better Multi-Tasking Means Increased Office Productivity Productivity in today’s workplace requires smooth, efficient and seamless multi-tasking. AMD Athlon Dual-Core processors deliver TRUE multi-tasking, allowing users to switch from one program to another without always pausing for the computer to catch up and reducing annoying processing pauses.
Setting the Pace in Digital Media Digital media software demands simultaneous processing of data streams, the perfect use for the incredible multi-tasking power of AMD64 dual-core technology. Dual-core technology is like having two processors working together, each one taking care of different applications, so power-users can actually experience greater performance when multiple applications are running. Digital media enthusiasts can usher in the next generation of digital media software for amazing high-definition video and photo editing, content creation, and audio mixing. With an AMD Athlon™ Dual-Core processor, your PC can perform up to 80% faster than a single-core AMD Athlon™ 64 4000+ processor on the latest power-hungry digital media software applications.
Get more Power using less Power Energy-efficient AMD processors with Cool‘n’Quiet™ technology enable smaller, sleeker, more energy-efficient PC’s. In March 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded Cool‘n’Quiet technology special recognition for the advancement of energy-efficient computer technologies. AMD expects that systems built using energy-efficient AMD desktop processors can meet, and in many instances, exceed the new system requirements from the EPA’s ENERGY STAR Version 4 computer specification, effective July 20, 2007.
All the Proven Benefits of AMD64 Technology Enhanced Virus Protection with Windows® XP Service Pack 2 and VistaTM Enhanced Virus Protection is a feature enabled by AMD64 technology. Enhanced Virus Protection in conjunction with modern operating systems can help prevent the spread of certain viruses, like MSBlaster and Slammer to significantly reduce the cost and down-time associated with similar viruses and improve the protection of computers and personal information against certain PC viruses1.
AMD Athlon 64 Processor Architecture PerformanceHyperTransport™ technology can increase overall system performance by reducing I/O bottlenecks, increasing system bandwidth, and reducing system latency. A fully integrated memory controller helps speed access to memory by giving the processor a direct connection to the main memory. As a result, end users can enjoy quicker application loading and extraordinary application performance.
Ready for the 64-bit future Like all the processors in the AMD64 family, AMD Athlon Dual-Core processors are designed for people who want to stay at the forefront of technology and for those who depend on their PCs to keep them connected, informed, and entertained. Systems based on AMD64 processors can deliver leading-edge performance for demanding productivity and entertainment software today and in the future.
With AMD64 technology, AMD Athlon Dual-Core processors are fully compatible with existing software, while enabling a seamless transition to 64-bit applications. Both 32- and 64-bit applications can run simultaneously and transparently on the same platform. AMD64 technology enables new, cinematic computing experiences and capabilities, in addition to increased performance. AMD64 technology allows end users to take advantage of new innovations such as real-time encryption, more life-like games, accurate speech interfaces, cinema-quality graphic effects, and easy-to-use video and audio editing.
Purchase with Confidence Founded in 1969, AMD has shipped more than 240 million PC processors worldwide. Customers can depend on AMD64 processors and AMD for compatibility and reliability. AMD processors undergo extensive testing to help ensure compatibility with Microsoft Windows XP, Vista, Windows NT®, Windows 2000, as well as Linux and other PC operating systems. AMD works collaboratively with Microsoft and other ecosystem partners to achieve compatibility of AMD processors and to expand the capability of software and hardware products leveraging AMD64 technology. AMD conducts rigorous research, development, and validation to help ensure the continued integrity and performance of its products.
1 Enhanced Virus Protection (EVP) is only enabled by certain operating systems including the current versions of Microsoft® Windows®, Linux, Solaris and BSD Unix. After properly installing the appropriate operating system release, users must enable the protection of their applications and associated files from buffer overrun attacks. Consult your OS documentation for information on enabling EVP. Contact your application software vendor for information regarding use of the application in conjunction with EVP. AMD and its partners strongly recommend that users continue to use third party anti-virus software as part of their security strategy.
Better Multi-Tasking Means Increased Office Productivity Productivity in today’s workplace requires smooth, efficient and seamless multi-tasking. AMD Athlon Dual-Core processors deliver TRUE multi-tasking, allowing users to switch from one program to another without always pausing for the computer to catch up and reducing annoying processing pauses.
Setting the Pace in Digital Media Digital media software demands simultaneous processing of data streams, the perfect use for the incredible multi-tasking power of AMD64 dual-core technology. Dual-core technology is like having two processors working together, each one taking care of different applications, so power-users can actually experience greater performance when multiple applications are running. Digital media enthusiasts can usher in the next generation of digital media software for amazing high-definition video and photo editing, content creation, and audio mixing. With an AMD Athlon™ Dual-Core processor, your PC can perform up to 80% faster than a single-core AMD Athlon™ 64 4000+ processor on the latest power-hungry digital media software applications.
Get more Power using less Power Energy-efficient AMD processors with Cool‘n’Quiet™ technology enable smaller, sleeker, more energy-efficient PC’s. In March 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded Cool‘n’Quiet technology special recognition for the advancement of energy-efficient computer technologies. AMD expects that systems built using energy-efficient AMD desktop processors can meet, and in many instances, exceed the new system requirements from the EPA’s ENERGY STAR Version 4 computer specification, effective July 20, 2007.
All the Proven Benefits of AMD64 Technology Enhanced Virus Protection with Windows® XP Service Pack 2 and VistaTM Enhanced Virus Protection is a feature enabled by AMD64 technology. Enhanced Virus Protection in conjunction with modern operating systems can help prevent the spread of certain viruses, like MSBlaster and Slammer to significantly reduce the cost and down-time associated with similar viruses and improve the protection of computers and personal information against certain PC viruses1.
AMD Athlon 64 Processor Architecture PerformanceHyperTransport™ technology can increase overall system performance by reducing I/O bottlenecks, increasing system bandwidth, and reducing system latency. A fully integrated memory controller helps speed access to memory by giving the processor a direct connection to the main memory. As a result, end users can enjoy quicker application loading and extraordinary application performance.
Ready for the 64-bit future Like all the processors in the AMD64 family, AMD Athlon Dual-Core processors are designed for people who want to stay at the forefront of technology and for those who depend on their PCs to keep them connected, informed, and entertained. Systems based on AMD64 processors can deliver leading-edge performance for demanding productivity and entertainment software today and in the future.
With AMD64 technology, AMD Athlon Dual-Core processors are fully compatible with existing software, while enabling a seamless transition to 64-bit applications. Both 32- and 64-bit applications can run simultaneously and transparently on the same platform. AMD64 technology enables new, cinematic computing experiences and capabilities, in addition to increased performance. AMD64 technology allows end users to take advantage of new innovations such as real-time encryption, more life-like games, accurate speech interfaces, cinema-quality graphic effects, and easy-to-use video and audio editing.
Purchase with Confidence Founded in 1969, AMD has shipped more than 240 million PC processors worldwide. Customers can depend on AMD64 processors and AMD for compatibility and reliability. AMD processors undergo extensive testing to help ensure compatibility with Microsoft Windows XP, Vista, Windows NT®, Windows 2000, as well as Linux and other PC operating systems. AMD works collaboratively with Microsoft and other ecosystem partners to achieve compatibility of AMD processors and to expand the capability of software and hardware products leveraging AMD64 technology. AMD conducts rigorous research, development, and validation to help ensure the continued integrity and performance of its products.
1 Enhanced Virus Protection (EVP) is only enabled by certain operating systems including the current versions of Microsoft® Windows®, Linux, Solaris and BSD Unix. After properly installing the appropriate operating system release, users must enable the protection of their applications and associated files from buffer overrun attacks. Consult your OS documentation for information on enabling EVP. Contact your application software vendor for information regarding use of the application in conjunction with EVP. AMD and its partners strongly recommend that users continue to use third party anti-virus software as part of their security strategy.
The AMD Phenom™ Processor
— AMD makes first public demonstration of all-AMD enthusiast platform codenamed “FASN8” —
— Industry’s only true x86 quad-core architecture paired with the ATI Radeon™ HD 2000 series to offer a phenomenal computing experience —
SUNNYVALE, Calif. -- May 14, 2007 --Delivering a four-core foreshadowing of innovations to come for PC enthusiasts worldwide, AMD (NYSE: AMD) today unveiled the upcoming AMD Phenom™ processor family name and publicly demonstrated the first all-AMD enthusiast platform, codenamed “FASN8.” The industry’s only true quad-core client processors are expected to deliver the ultimate visual experience, especially when paired with AMD’s new DirectX 10 ATI Radeon™ HD 2000 series, which began shipping today (see related press release: “AMD Introduces the ATI Radeon™ HD 2000 Series, Delivering The Ultimate Visual Experience™ for Desktop and Mobile Platforms”). AMD expects true quad-core and dual-core AMD Phenom-based desktop systems will ship in the second half of 2007.
In a demonstration in San Francisco, AMD previewed an eight-core platform, codenamed “FASN8,” pronounced “fascinate,” to show the first AMD silicon-based next-generation eight-core platform. The demonstration platform includes two true quad-core AMD Phenom processors, the new DirectX 10 ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT, as well as an upcoming AMD next-generation, high-performance chipset, due in the second half of 2007. This platform illustrates AMD’s leadership in developing a single solution with increased levels of integration to boost real-world performance.
“AMD has always enjoyed a great bond with the enthusiast community, and the introduction of the AMD Phenom processor family will take our relationship to new heights,” said Bob Brewer, corporate vice president and general manager of AMD's desktop division. “We continue to focus on listening to and addressing users’ evolving needs. AMD is confident the performance enhancements enabled by true quad-core client technology in computing-intensive environments will allow them to realize new possibilities and find new inspiration.”
Only AMD Delivers True Quad-Core AMD Phenom processors will be uniquely designed to facilitate intelligent uses of energy and system resources that are reliable, virtualization-ready and energy efficient, driving optimum performance-per-watt. All AMD Phenom processors will feature resources like an integrated DDR2 memory controller, HyperTransport™ technology links, and 128-bit Floating Point Units, for improved speed and performance in floating point calculations.
With the true quad-core design offered by the upcoming AMD Phenom processors, cores communicate on the die rather than through a front side bus external to the processor – a bottleneck inherent in other products that are packaging two dual-core chips to form quad-core processors. Additionally, AMD’s Direct Connect Architecture on-chip ensures that all four cores have optimum access to the integrated memory controller and integrated HyperTransport links, so that performance scales well with the number of cores. This design is also highlighted by a unique shared L3 cache for quicker data access and Socket AM2 and Socket AM2+ infrastructure compatibility to enable a seamless upgrade path.
“AMD’s quad-core processor rollout will put more computing horsepower at PC users' fingertips,” observed Nathan Brookwood, research fellow at Insight 64. “Quad-core innovations come at a time when many users are finding that the combination of Microsoft Vista™, multi-threaded applications and DirectX 10 no longer delivers the crisp performance they experienced on last year’s fastest systems running last year’s software. The AMD Phenom processor’s ability to deliver significantly more performance within the same power and thermal envelopes as its dual-core antecedents should make this quad-core processor a fitting follow-on to earlier AMD dual-core processor offerings.”
AMD Phenom Processor Family Enthusiasts, digital content creators and mainstream users alike are seeking more immersive, visual computing experiences – developing and navigating rich 3D worlds, finding new ways to create and share digital media and memories, and pushing the limits of productivity with intense multitasking. AMD Phenom processors are designed for the exceptional performance and capabilities customers want, employing state-of-the-art platforms and a next-generation processor architecture.
“Quad-core technology like the AMD Phenom processor family will enable Dell customers to enjoy their personal computers in entirely new ways,” said Neil Hand, vice president marketing, Dell's Consumer Product Group. “With a quad-core CPU, the desktop PC can now truly act simultaneously as a server for home digital media devices, while keeping customers secure and productive in their mainstream use.”
“As we demonstrated with AMD in San Francisco, Nero is pleased to be on the leading edge, delivering applications that are optimized to take advantage of quad-core processors,” said John Tafoya, GM of Global Alliance at Nero. “The increased performance of AMD’s latest processors, coupled with Nero’s quad-core optimized applications is helping bring about Nero’s vision of a true ‘Liquid Media Revolution.’”
For enthusiasts who demand cutting-edge performance on their system, AMD Phenom FX processors are designed for systems that offer extreme megatasking capabilities. True quad-core platforms and octa-core platforms with the Dual Socket Direct Connect (DSDC) Architecture can provide enthusiast-class features and performance, to enable our customers to deliver professional-grade results. Moreover, AMD’s quad-core processors and unique eight core solutions, with four processing cores on one die, coupled with the latest platform technologies, including the new ATI Radeon HD 2000 series, can deliver the ultimate enthusiast PC platform. AMD Phenom X2 and X4 processors will offer true quad- and dual-core advanced technologies for seamless multitasking and optimum energy efficiency.
“The quad-core architecture behind the AMD Phenom processor family correlates nicely with Alienware’s relentless push to provide customers with the most powerful, immersive experience possible,” said Frank Azor, senior vice president of Alienware’s Worldwide Product Group. “Quad-core performance helps optimize the productivity level of Alienware users while further heightening their gaming enjoyment.”
“Falcon Northwest understands what enthusiasts want and continually strives to deliver the ultimate gaming experience,” said Kelt Reeves, president, Falcon Northwest. “The advent of AMD’s quad-core processor technology represents an industry-defining change for multi-threaded gaming that spells immediate benefits in terms of absolute performance. By combining Falcon Northwest’s gaming prowess together with AMD’s commitment to performance and future platform offerings, including AMD Phenom processors and the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT, we are excited to help drive the future of multi-core computing.”
AMD’s open platform approach allows for AMD Phenom processors and platforms that are compatible with a wide range of solutions, including motherboard and chipset partners ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI and NVIDIA.
Software developers express support for AMD true quad-core With true quad-core processors, AMD expects to see performance enhancements in multitasking, computing-intensive environments, and multi-threaded applications, as well as gaming.
“Like AMD, we too envision quad-core technology as an enabler of a more immersive experience,” said Phil Taylor, senior program manager of Aces Studio at Microsoft Game Studios. “Multi-core technology is already opening up a new world of significant possibilities with the Service Pack1 release for Microsoft Flight Simulator X. SP1 contains multi-threaded code for terrain loading and in-flight generation of terrain textures; as well as for the batching of Autogen vegetation and buildings. This code is written to allow SP1 to use all available cores. We are excited about AMD’s upcoming quad-core technology, which we believe will further enable our mutual customers to dial up the visual details when using SP1 and see more of the highly detailed world contained in FSX.”
“AMD’s new quad-core technology should provide a great performance boost for today’s high-end PC games,” said Tim Sweeney, founder of Epic Games Inc. “Our Unreal Engine 3 game technology can take advantage of four and even eight processor cores, improving performance by accelerating physics and AI calculations, and increasing the realism of the game environments our artists can build. Upcoming games like Unreal Tournament 3 will truly fly on these new CPUs.”
“Havok envisages quad-core technology as an enabler of more immersive technology,” said David Coghlan, VP of Development for Havok. “Havok’s product suite of Physics, Animation and Behavior has been designed to take full advantage of multi-threaded architectures to deliver more intense and realistic gaming experiences. We are excited by the possibilities for unprecedented performance levels in gaming offered by AMD’s upcoming quad-core technology.”
“Lionhead is excited with the possibilities that multi-core will bring to gaming and believe that AMD’s quad-core technology is another step in delivering the power we are looking for,” said Tim Rance, CTO of Lionhead. “We are eager to push the detail in our simulations ever deeper, make our physics more fine grained, our AI more emotional and our lighting more dynamic. All of this will enable us to deliver the mass-market experiences that our customers are looking for.”
“We are really excited about the upcoming introduction of AMD's native quad-core solution,” said Markus Mäki, Development Director, Remedy Entertainment. “The technology behind Alan Wake is built to take advantage of multiple CPU cores and gamers with quad-core systems will have an even better experience. AMD Phenom processors should be a welcome addition for all gamers.”
About AMD Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD) is a leading global provider of innovative processing solutions in the computing, graphics and consumer electronics markets. AMD is dedicated to driving open innovation, choice and industry growth by delivering superior customer-centric solutions that empower consumers and businesses worldwide. For more information, visit www.amd.com.
— Industry’s only true x86 quad-core architecture paired with the ATI Radeon™ HD 2000 series to offer a phenomenal computing experience —
SUNNYVALE, Calif. -- May 14, 2007 --Delivering a four-core foreshadowing of innovations to come for PC enthusiasts worldwide, AMD (NYSE: AMD) today unveiled the upcoming AMD Phenom™ processor family name and publicly demonstrated the first all-AMD enthusiast platform, codenamed “FASN8.” The industry’s only true quad-core client processors are expected to deliver the ultimate visual experience, especially when paired with AMD’s new DirectX 10 ATI Radeon™ HD 2000 series, which began shipping today (see related press release: “AMD Introduces the ATI Radeon™ HD 2000 Series, Delivering The Ultimate Visual Experience™ for Desktop and Mobile Platforms”). AMD expects true quad-core and dual-core AMD Phenom-based desktop systems will ship in the second half of 2007.
In a demonstration in San Francisco, AMD previewed an eight-core platform, codenamed “FASN8,” pronounced “fascinate,” to show the first AMD silicon-based next-generation eight-core platform. The demonstration platform includes two true quad-core AMD Phenom processors, the new DirectX 10 ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT, as well as an upcoming AMD next-generation, high-performance chipset, due in the second half of 2007. This platform illustrates AMD’s leadership in developing a single solution with increased levels of integration to boost real-world performance.
“AMD has always enjoyed a great bond with the enthusiast community, and the introduction of the AMD Phenom processor family will take our relationship to new heights,” said Bob Brewer, corporate vice president and general manager of AMD's desktop division. “We continue to focus on listening to and addressing users’ evolving needs. AMD is confident the performance enhancements enabled by true quad-core client technology in computing-intensive environments will allow them to realize new possibilities and find new inspiration.”
Only AMD Delivers True Quad-Core AMD Phenom processors will be uniquely designed to facilitate intelligent uses of energy and system resources that are reliable, virtualization-ready and energy efficient, driving optimum performance-per-watt. All AMD Phenom processors will feature resources like an integrated DDR2 memory controller, HyperTransport™ technology links, and 128-bit Floating Point Units, for improved speed and performance in floating point calculations.
With the true quad-core design offered by the upcoming AMD Phenom processors, cores communicate on the die rather than through a front side bus external to the processor – a bottleneck inherent in other products that are packaging two dual-core chips to form quad-core processors. Additionally, AMD’s Direct Connect Architecture on-chip ensures that all four cores have optimum access to the integrated memory controller and integrated HyperTransport links, so that performance scales well with the number of cores. This design is also highlighted by a unique shared L3 cache for quicker data access and Socket AM2 and Socket AM2+ infrastructure compatibility to enable a seamless upgrade path.
“AMD’s quad-core processor rollout will put more computing horsepower at PC users' fingertips,” observed Nathan Brookwood, research fellow at Insight 64. “Quad-core innovations come at a time when many users are finding that the combination of Microsoft Vista™, multi-threaded applications and DirectX 10 no longer delivers the crisp performance they experienced on last year’s fastest systems running last year’s software. The AMD Phenom processor’s ability to deliver significantly more performance within the same power and thermal envelopes as its dual-core antecedents should make this quad-core processor a fitting follow-on to earlier AMD dual-core processor offerings.”
AMD Phenom Processor Family Enthusiasts, digital content creators and mainstream users alike are seeking more immersive, visual computing experiences – developing and navigating rich 3D worlds, finding new ways to create and share digital media and memories, and pushing the limits of productivity with intense multitasking. AMD Phenom processors are designed for the exceptional performance and capabilities customers want, employing state-of-the-art platforms and a next-generation processor architecture.
“Quad-core technology like the AMD Phenom processor family will enable Dell customers to enjoy their personal computers in entirely new ways,” said Neil Hand, vice president marketing, Dell's Consumer Product Group. “With a quad-core CPU, the desktop PC can now truly act simultaneously as a server for home digital media devices, while keeping customers secure and productive in their mainstream use.”
“As we demonstrated with AMD in San Francisco, Nero is pleased to be on the leading edge, delivering applications that are optimized to take advantage of quad-core processors,” said John Tafoya, GM of Global Alliance at Nero. “The increased performance of AMD’s latest processors, coupled with Nero’s quad-core optimized applications is helping bring about Nero’s vision of a true ‘Liquid Media Revolution.’”
For enthusiasts who demand cutting-edge performance on their system, AMD Phenom FX processors are designed for systems that offer extreme megatasking capabilities. True quad-core platforms and octa-core platforms with the Dual Socket Direct Connect (DSDC) Architecture can provide enthusiast-class features and performance, to enable our customers to deliver professional-grade results. Moreover, AMD’s quad-core processors and unique eight core solutions, with four processing cores on one die, coupled with the latest platform technologies, including the new ATI Radeon HD 2000 series, can deliver the ultimate enthusiast PC platform. AMD Phenom X2 and X4 processors will offer true quad- and dual-core advanced technologies for seamless multitasking and optimum energy efficiency.
“The quad-core architecture behind the AMD Phenom processor family correlates nicely with Alienware’s relentless push to provide customers with the most powerful, immersive experience possible,” said Frank Azor, senior vice president of Alienware’s Worldwide Product Group. “Quad-core performance helps optimize the productivity level of Alienware users while further heightening their gaming enjoyment.”
“Falcon Northwest understands what enthusiasts want and continually strives to deliver the ultimate gaming experience,” said Kelt Reeves, president, Falcon Northwest. “The advent of AMD’s quad-core processor technology represents an industry-defining change for multi-threaded gaming that spells immediate benefits in terms of absolute performance. By combining Falcon Northwest’s gaming prowess together with AMD’s commitment to performance and future platform offerings, including AMD Phenom processors and the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT, we are excited to help drive the future of multi-core computing.”
AMD’s open platform approach allows for AMD Phenom processors and platforms that are compatible with a wide range of solutions, including motherboard and chipset partners ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI and NVIDIA.
Software developers express support for AMD true quad-core With true quad-core processors, AMD expects to see performance enhancements in multitasking, computing-intensive environments, and multi-threaded applications, as well as gaming.
“Like AMD, we too envision quad-core technology as an enabler of a more immersive experience,” said Phil Taylor, senior program manager of Aces Studio at Microsoft Game Studios. “Multi-core technology is already opening up a new world of significant possibilities with the Service Pack1 release for Microsoft Flight Simulator X. SP1 contains multi-threaded code for terrain loading and in-flight generation of terrain textures; as well as for the batching of Autogen vegetation and buildings. This code is written to allow SP1 to use all available cores. We are excited about AMD’s upcoming quad-core technology, which we believe will further enable our mutual customers to dial up the visual details when using SP1 and see more of the highly detailed world contained in FSX.”
“AMD’s new quad-core technology should provide a great performance boost for today’s high-end PC games,” said Tim Sweeney, founder of Epic Games Inc. “Our Unreal Engine 3 game technology can take advantage of four and even eight processor cores, improving performance by accelerating physics and AI calculations, and increasing the realism of the game environments our artists can build. Upcoming games like Unreal Tournament 3 will truly fly on these new CPUs.”
“Havok envisages quad-core technology as an enabler of more immersive technology,” said David Coghlan, VP of Development for Havok. “Havok’s product suite of Physics, Animation and Behavior has been designed to take full advantage of multi-threaded architectures to deliver more intense and realistic gaming experiences. We are excited by the possibilities for unprecedented performance levels in gaming offered by AMD’s upcoming quad-core technology.”
“Lionhead is excited with the possibilities that multi-core will bring to gaming and believe that AMD’s quad-core technology is another step in delivering the power we are looking for,” said Tim Rance, CTO of Lionhead. “We are eager to push the detail in our simulations ever deeper, make our physics more fine grained, our AI more emotional and our lighting more dynamic. All of this will enable us to deliver the mass-market experiences that our customers are looking for.”
“We are really excited about the upcoming introduction of AMD's native quad-core solution,” said Markus Mäki, Development Director, Remedy Entertainment. “The technology behind Alan Wake is built to take advantage of multiple CPU cores and gamers with quad-core systems will have an even better experience. AMD Phenom processors should be a welcome addition for all gamers.”
About AMD Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD) is a leading global provider of innovative processing solutions in the computing, graphics and consumer electronics markets. AMD is dedicated to driving open innovation, choice and industry growth by delivering superior customer-centric solutions that empower consumers and businesses worldwide. For more information, visit www.amd.com.
Literature Review of Blood pressure measurement History
The ancient Greek physician Galen first proposed the existence of blood in the human body. Building on ideas conceived by Hippocrates, the body was comprised of three systems. The brain and nerves were responsible for sensation and thought. The blood and arteries filled the body with life-giving energy. He also believed that the liver and veins provided the body with nourishment and growth.
It was not until 1616 when William Harvey announced that Galen was wrong in his assertion that the heart constantly produced blood. Instead he proposed that there was a finite amount of blood that circulated the body in one direction only. But Harvey's views were initially met with a lot of resistance and scepticism. The idea that blood was not constantly produced in the body raised doubts about the benefit of bloodletting, a popular medical practice at the time.
Harvey was neither the only nor the first to question Galen's ideas. The Egyptians knew that blood flowed through the body and used leeches to unblock what they thought were passages of blood. The first recorded instance of the measurement of blood pressure was in 1733 by the Reverend Stephen Hales. A British veterinarian, Hales spent many years recording the blood pressures of animals. Fifteen years beforehand, he took a horse and inserted a brass pipe into an artery. This brass pipe was connected to a glass tube. Hales observed the blood in the pipe rising and concluded that this must be due to a pressure in the blood. At this time the technique was invasive and highly inappropriate for clinical use.
It was not until 1847 that human blood pressure was recorded. The method used Carl Ludwig's kymograph with catheters inserted directly into the artery. Ludwig's kymograph consisted of a U-shaped manometer tube connected to a brass pipe cannula into the artery. The manometer tube had an ivory float onto which a rod with a quill was attached. This quill would sketch onto a rotating drum hence the name 'kymograph', 'wave writer' in Greek. However blood pressure could still only be measured by invasive means. The lack of a non-invasive method of determining this new idea of blood pressure leads to many physicians working in this field. Once such man, Karl Vierordt, found in 1855 that with enough pressure, the arterial pulse could be obliterated. Vierordt used an inflatable cuff around the arm to constrict the artery.
Etienne Jules Mary, a French physician/cinematographer, developed this idea further in 1860. His sphygmograph could accurately measure the pulse rate, but was very unreliable in determining the blood pressure. Yet this design was the first that could be used clinically was a small degree of success. In 1881, Samuel Siegfried Karl Ritter von Basch invented the sphygmomanometer. His device consisted of a water-filled bag connected to a manometer. The manometer was used to determine the pressure required
to obliterate the arterial pulse. Direct measurement of blood pressure by catheterisation confirmed that von Basch's design would allow a non-invasive method to measure blood pressure. Feeling for the pulse on the skin above the artery, was used to determine when the arterial pulse disappeared.
However von Bacsh's design never won a keen following, many physicians of the time being sceptical of new technology, claiming that it sought to replace traditional ideas of diagnosis. In addition, many questioned the medial usefulness of information about the blood pressure. This did not stop some from attempting to produce a more useful device. A spring-based sphygmomanometer won some support, but they were difficult to calibrate and were very unreliable when dealing with acutely ill patients.
Scipione Riva-Rocci developed the mercury sphygmomanometer in 1896. This design was the prototype of the modern mercury sphygmomanometer. An inflatable cuff was placed over the upper arm to constrict the brachial artery. This cuff was connected to a glass manometer filled with mercury to measure the pressure exerted onto the arm. Riva-Rocci's sphygmomanometer was spotted by the American neurosurgeon Harvey Cushing while he was travelling through Italy. Seeing the potential benefit he returned to the US with the design in 1901. After the design was modified for more clinical use, the sphygmomanometer became commonplace. Cushing and George Crile were major advocates of the benefits.
This sphygmomanometer could only be used to determine the systolic blood pressure. Observing the pulse disappearance via palpitation would only allow the measuring physician to observe the point when the artery was fully constricted. Nikolai Korotkoff was the first to observe the sounds made by the constriction of the artery in 1905. Korotkoff found that there were characteristic sounds at certain points in the inflation and deflation of the cuff. These Korotkoff sounds were caused by the abnormal passage of blood through the artery, corresponding to the systolic and diastolic blood pressures.
A crucial difference in Korotkoff's technique was the use of a stethoscope to listen for the sounds of blood flowing through the artery. This auscultatory method proved to be more reliable than the previous palpitation techniques and thus became the standard practice. Modern developments have led to more accurate auscultatory sphygmomanometers, and newer oscilliometric models. These sphygmomanometers measure the pressure imparted onto the cuff by the turbulent blood squirting through the constricted artery over a range of cuff pressures. This data is used to estimate the systolic and diastolic blood pressures.
The development of the stethoscope owed much to the work of Leopold Auenbragger. Auenbragger believed that the sounds heard from tapping on the patient's chest would reveal any irregularities. This technique, 'thoratic percussion' was published in 1761, but was largely ignored until the early 19th Century. Next came Nicolas Corvisart. He was a supporter of Auenbragger's thoratic percussion and was vigorous in his promotion of 'auscultation', listening to the sounds body cavities made when tapped firmly. One follower of Corvisart was René Laennec. Laennec took a particular interest in the auscultation of the thorax.
The standard auscultatory technique for the physician would be to press their head against the patient's chest in order to listen to the resonations. However this left Laennec in an awkward situation, if the following anecdote is to be believed. During his days as a young doctor, in 1816, he was presented with a young buxom lady who was showing all the signs of heart disease. Wanting to ascultate the chest for confirmation of his diagnosis, the tenderness of Laennec's years left him too inhibited to act. Rather than cause himself undue embarrassment, he rolled a piece of paper into a tube, and used that rather than plant his head into her chest. To his astonishment, he could hear the heart just as well as if he had been diagnosing a man instead.
After careful experimenting, Laennec decided upon a hollow tube 3.5cm in diameter, and 25cm long. He investigated the sounds made by the heart and lungs with his new stethoscope and published the results in 1819. He found that his diagnosis was backed up with the observations in the autopsies. Using Laennec's stethoscope was no more accurate than placing the head to the chest. Thus the benefit of the stethoscope was more social than clinical. It allowed the doctor some dignity during diagnosis and later became a 'badge of office' for the physician.
There were many alterations to Laennec's original idea such as one developed by N.P. Commins in 1828. He added a hinge and connected the two halves with tubing. This design allowed more flexibility to observe parts of the body hard to reach with the rigid design. There were many attachments available to the physician. One such was an extension that could be screwed in. This was of great benefit to the timid physician, or the doctor whose next patient had a particularly unique aroma.
The binaural stethoscope was developed in the 1890s complete with the recognisable rubber tubes. The onset of radiography has rendered the stethoscope obsolete in hospitals. However it is still a useful diagnosis tool for a GP or a cardiologist, so the humble stethoscope will remain a doctor's trusted friend for a little while longer.
It was not until 1616 when William Harvey announced that Galen was wrong in his assertion that the heart constantly produced blood. Instead he proposed that there was a finite amount of blood that circulated the body in one direction only. But Harvey's views were initially met with a lot of resistance and scepticism. The idea that blood was not constantly produced in the body raised doubts about the benefit of bloodletting, a popular medical practice at the time.
Harvey was neither the only nor the first to question Galen's ideas. The Egyptians knew that blood flowed through the body and used leeches to unblock what they thought were passages of blood. The first recorded instance of the measurement of blood pressure was in 1733 by the Reverend Stephen Hales. A British veterinarian, Hales spent many years recording the blood pressures of animals. Fifteen years beforehand, he took a horse and inserted a brass pipe into an artery. This brass pipe was connected to a glass tube. Hales observed the blood in the pipe rising and concluded that this must be due to a pressure in the blood. At this time the technique was invasive and highly inappropriate for clinical use.
It was not until 1847 that human blood pressure was recorded. The method used Carl Ludwig's kymograph with catheters inserted directly into the artery. Ludwig's kymograph consisted of a U-shaped manometer tube connected to a brass pipe cannula into the artery. The manometer tube had an ivory float onto which a rod with a quill was attached. This quill would sketch onto a rotating drum hence the name 'kymograph', 'wave writer' in Greek. However blood pressure could still only be measured by invasive means. The lack of a non-invasive method of determining this new idea of blood pressure leads to many physicians working in this field. Once such man, Karl Vierordt, found in 1855 that with enough pressure, the arterial pulse could be obliterated. Vierordt used an inflatable cuff around the arm to constrict the artery.
Etienne Jules Mary, a French physician/cinematographer, developed this idea further in 1860. His sphygmograph could accurately measure the pulse rate, but was very unreliable in determining the blood pressure. Yet this design was the first that could be used clinically was a small degree of success. In 1881, Samuel Siegfried Karl Ritter von Basch invented the sphygmomanometer. His device consisted of a water-filled bag connected to a manometer. The manometer was used to determine the pressure required
to obliterate the arterial pulse. Direct measurement of blood pressure by catheterisation confirmed that von Basch's design would allow a non-invasive method to measure blood pressure. Feeling for the pulse on the skin above the artery, was used to determine when the arterial pulse disappeared.
However von Bacsh's design never won a keen following, many physicians of the time being sceptical of new technology, claiming that it sought to replace traditional ideas of diagnosis. In addition, many questioned the medial usefulness of information about the blood pressure. This did not stop some from attempting to produce a more useful device. A spring-based sphygmomanometer won some support, but they were difficult to calibrate and were very unreliable when dealing with acutely ill patients.
Scipione Riva-Rocci developed the mercury sphygmomanometer in 1896. This design was the prototype of the modern mercury sphygmomanometer. An inflatable cuff was placed over the upper arm to constrict the brachial artery. This cuff was connected to a glass manometer filled with mercury to measure the pressure exerted onto the arm. Riva-Rocci's sphygmomanometer was spotted by the American neurosurgeon Harvey Cushing while he was travelling through Italy. Seeing the potential benefit he returned to the US with the design in 1901. After the design was modified for more clinical use, the sphygmomanometer became commonplace. Cushing and George Crile were major advocates of the benefits.
This sphygmomanometer could only be used to determine the systolic blood pressure. Observing the pulse disappearance via palpitation would only allow the measuring physician to observe the point when the artery was fully constricted. Nikolai Korotkoff was the first to observe the sounds made by the constriction of the artery in 1905. Korotkoff found that there were characteristic sounds at certain points in the inflation and deflation of the cuff. These Korotkoff sounds were caused by the abnormal passage of blood through the artery, corresponding to the systolic and diastolic blood pressures.
A crucial difference in Korotkoff's technique was the use of a stethoscope to listen for the sounds of blood flowing through the artery. This auscultatory method proved to be more reliable than the previous palpitation techniques and thus became the standard practice. Modern developments have led to more accurate auscultatory sphygmomanometers, and newer oscilliometric models. These sphygmomanometers measure the pressure imparted onto the cuff by the turbulent blood squirting through the constricted artery over a range of cuff pressures. This data is used to estimate the systolic and diastolic blood pressures.
The development of the stethoscope owed much to the work of Leopold Auenbragger. Auenbragger believed that the sounds heard from tapping on the patient's chest would reveal any irregularities. This technique, 'thoratic percussion' was published in 1761, but was largely ignored until the early 19th Century. Next came Nicolas Corvisart. He was a supporter of Auenbragger's thoratic percussion and was vigorous in his promotion of 'auscultation', listening to the sounds body cavities made when tapped firmly. One follower of Corvisart was René Laennec. Laennec took a particular interest in the auscultation of the thorax.
The standard auscultatory technique for the physician would be to press their head against the patient's chest in order to listen to the resonations. However this left Laennec in an awkward situation, if the following anecdote is to be believed. During his days as a young doctor, in 1816, he was presented with a young buxom lady who was showing all the signs of heart disease. Wanting to ascultate the chest for confirmation of his diagnosis, the tenderness of Laennec's years left him too inhibited to act. Rather than cause himself undue embarrassment, he rolled a piece of paper into a tube, and used that rather than plant his head into her chest. To his astonishment, he could hear the heart just as well as if he had been diagnosing a man instead.
After careful experimenting, Laennec decided upon a hollow tube 3.5cm in diameter, and 25cm long. He investigated the sounds made by the heart and lungs with his new stethoscope and published the results in 1819. He found that his diagnosis was backed up with the observations in the autopsies. Using Laennec's stethoscope was no more accurate than placing the head to the chest. Thus the benefit of the stethoscope was more social than clinical. It allowed the doctor some dignity during diagnosis and later became a 'badge of office' for the physician.
There were many alterations to Laennec's original idea such as one developed by N.P. Commins in 1828. He added a hinge and connected the two halves with tubing. This design allowed more flexibility to observe parts of the body hard to reach with the rigid design. There were many attachments available to the physician. One such was an extension that could be screwed in. This was of great benefit to the timid physician, or the doctor whose next patient had a particularly unique aroma.
The binaural stethoscope was developed in the 1890s complete with the recognisable rubber tubes. The onset of radiography has rendered the stethoscope obsolete in hospitals. However it is still a useful diagnosis tool for a GP or a cardiologist, so the humble stethoscope will remain a doctor's trusted friend for a little while longer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)