Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Opteron=your next gaming machine?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 15, 2003 12:38:58 AM

<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8927" target="_new">Yet another Inquirer article</A>. This could be interesting for everyone. This also seems to hint at them having no trouble with yields. With Intel's delay, it'd almost be the perfect time to step in with a new product that overperform's Intel's newest.

<font color=red>The all new GeForce FX-</font color=red>
<font color=blue>The only factory-overclocked vacuum cleaner, complete with upholstery attachment!!!</font color=blue>

More about : opteron gaming machine

April 15, 2003 2:43:37 AM

It is scary to think, but somehow, a down-sized Opteron could maybe end up as AMD's desktop CPU if Athlon 64 just doesn't cut it. Think about it, it'd be an interesting turn of events.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
April 15, 2003 2:59:04 AM

This has me curious: weren't all the Opteron boards supposedly lacking AGP slots? How can it manage to perform so well with a Radeon 9700 Pro w/o an AGP slot? Maybe I'm remembering wrong...

<font color=red>The all new GeForce FX-</font color=red>
<font color=blue>The only factory-overclocked vacuum cleaner, complete with upholstery attachment!!!</font color=blue>
Related resources
April 15, 2003 3:25:26 AM

From what I understand, it's not an Opteron that was benched, it's an Athlon64. Athlon64 boards will most definitely have AGP slots...

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
April 15, 2003 5:07:00 AM

That makes more sense. I see how this would definitely make a more interesting scenario. Doesn't Opteron support another HT channel compared to Athlon 64? Or does that only help with dual-proc systems (and up to 8-way, of course)?

<font color=red>The all new GeForce FX-</font color=red>
<font color=blue>The only factory-overclocked vacuum cleaner, complete with upholstery attachment!!!</font color=blue>
April 15, 2003 6:31:19 AM

Opteron sports extra hypertransport links, but AFAIK only for the purpose of SMP scaling.

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
April 15, 2003 2:49:18 PM

Quote:
Hard ocp reported that the Opteron platforms were lacking an AGP slot and their forums bombarded them with pic's of Opteron mobo's with AGP. So I asume that it's gunna be a reality.

I've already pointed out in other threads that [H]ard|OPC is run by a bunch of halfwit lazy monkeys that are ready to jump on any rumor. Look <A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/..." target="_new">here</A> at the publicly available information on AMD's 8000 series chipset with AGP 8X and be in awe on just how easy it was to get this information for <i>anybody</i> who could surf to <A HREF="http://www.amd.com" target="_new">AMD's website</A>, click on "<font color=green>Product Information</font color=green>", click on "<font color=green>Future Products</font color=green>", click on "<font color=green>AMD-8000 Series Chipset</font color=green>" and finally click on "<font color=green>AMD-8151™ HyperTransport™ AGP3.0 Graphics Tunnel</font color=green>".

<font color=blue><pre>I'm proud to be an American,
who served my country in the US Air Force,
to protect the rights of my fellow Americans,
to hold protests against others like me.</pre><p></font color=blue>
April 15, 2003 3:00:57 PM

Quote:
This also seems to hint at them having no trouble with yields.

I'd like to know what line in that link you think comes even close to hinting at that.

<font color=blue><pre>I'm proud to be an American,
who served my country in the US Air Force,
to protect the rights of my fellow Americans,
to hold protests against others like me.</pre><p></font color=blue>
April 15, 2003 3:16:02 PM

It is just speculation, but combined with a few of the articles where they were talking about ramping to 2.5ghz fairly quickly (from another Inquirer article), I made an educated guess that things seem to be going better for them on their SOI process. In order for them to think about making them gaming systems, they must have some fairly good yields, or it wouldn't be worth it as they'd be selling at lower prices. Is there some flaw in that logic that I am missing?

Edit: Sorry for the wording. I didn't mean no trouble, I should have said less trouble. Either way, they seem to be doing better for SOI.

<font color=red>The all new GeForce FX-</font color=red>
<font color=blue>The only factory-overclocked vacuum cleaner, complete with upholstery attachment!!!</font color=blue><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by mac404 on 04/15/03 11:17 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 15, 2003 4:08:03 PM

i'm sticking with intel cos it works. unless they manage to impress me. But, with Intels ICH5, setting up RAID without any data loss is pretty damn impressive to me. Can AMD do the same? Not to mention hyperthreading is a pretty neat technology. AMD is gonna have one hell of a time keeping up with prescott.



Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
April 15, 2003 4:14:59 PM

I wouldn't count it out yet. The RAID option is very nice for Intel users, and so is hyperthreading. But so is hypertransport if people choose Opteron/Athlon 64 if you ask me. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

<font color=red>The all new GeForce FX-</font color=red>
<font color=blue>The only factory-overclocked vacuum cleaner, complete with upholstery attachment!!!</font color=blue>
April 15, 2003 4:22:05 PM

Quote:
It is just speculation

Exactly my point. There is absolutely nothing in that article that even hints at it. It's just you guessing and not any wording in the article.

Quote:
but combined with a few of the articles where they were talking about ramping to 2.5ghz fairly quickly (from another Inquirer article), I made an educated guess that things seem to be going better for them on their SOI process.

So far I still don't see anything that is proof of that. As I've pointed out in other threads, AMD can afford to just hand-pick processors to run at higher MHz for Opterons because Opterons cost a lot more for us to buy and so AMD isn't losing money to hand-pick good processors from a bad yield process. In fact, they can easily ramp to a higher speed just by testing the processors at an even higher clock and 'downbinning' all that don't make it.

What would indicate better yields is not what speeds they can offer from their high-end high-cost chips, but what <i>price</i> they can offer their chips at. If they can finally start selling Athlon64's (which should be significantly cheaper), then <i>that</i> is a sign that their yields are better.

Quote:
In order for them to think about making them gaming systems, they must have some fairly good yields, or it wouldn't be worth it as they'd be selling at lower prices.

Who ever said that they'd be selling the gaming systems at lower prices? Throw together a single (or dual) CPU system and offer it as a workstation. It'll cost an arm and a leg, but then people are willing to pay bewtween two and five grand for a workstation. (And sometimes more.)

Who cares if you market that workstation as a workstation, an entry-level 64-bit server, or a gaming platform? The hardware and price will be the same either way.

Quote:
Is there some flaw in that logic that I am missing?

One big one: No one ever said that their 'gaming system' prices would be (or even are likely to be) lower than their workstation prices. That's purely your assumption.

<font color=blue><pre>I'm proud to be an American,
who served my country in the US Air Force,
to protect the rights of my fellow Americans,
to hold protests against others like me.</pre><p></font color=blue>
April 15, 2003 4:29:24 PM

Quote:
i'm sticking with intel cos it works.

Which is why Intel is delaying their 800MHz FSB CPU launch now.

Quote:
But, with Intels ICH5, setting up RAID without any data loss is pretty damn impressive to me. Can AMD do the same?

Anyone with any archiving software can. The only people who lose data are those who don't protect it in the first place.

Quote:
Not to mention hyperthreading is a pretty neat technology.

So is x86-64.

Quote:
AMD is gonna have one hell of a time keeping up with prescott.

Intel is going to have one hell of a time keeping up with AMD's entry-level 64-bit servers.

As mac404 said "Whatever floats your boat, I guess." It's simply all about what best fits your need. No one product is universally superior, and that's <i>especially</i> true right now.

<font color=blue><pre>I'm proud to be an American,
who served my country in the US Air Force,
to protect the rights of my fellow Americans,
to hold protests against others like me.</pre><p></font color=blue>
April 15, 2003 4:44:14 PM

"Which is why Intel is delaying their 800MHz FSB CPU launch now."

*Blinks* - which is why their stuff works. They see a problem or potential problem and they fix it no matter how big or small it is.

"Anyone with any archiving software can. The only people who lose data are those who don't protect it in the first place."

The point of the technology was you can install the OS and have all your data, add a second drive and form RAID without having to reformat and lose al lthe data on the drive and you don't need archive software. thats the point of this technology which is pretty impressive in theory.

"So is x86-64."
If you want go general with technology, so is the talking elmo. lol!


"Intel is going to have one hell of a time keeping up with AMD's entry-level 64-bit servers."
Ummm thats a big "if" we still have to see how this brand new design will perform. The prescott is built ontop of the P4 so you can guess and say this is going to be faster then before. While with AMD it's a brand new design from scratch. You can't even guess how it's going to perform. But, assuming - key word here - it will perform as expected then yes AMD will be able to compete in the server market. Which is good.


"As mac404 said "Whatever floats your boat, I guess." It's simply all about what best fits your need. No one product is universally superior, and that's especially true right now."

absolutly.

good day



Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
April 15, 2003 5:04:44 PM

Quote:
The point of the technology was you can install the OS and have all your data, add a second drive and form RAID without having to reformat and lose al lthe data on the drive and you don't need archive software. thats the point of this technology which is pretty impressive in theory.

It's a minor convenience at best. I'd hardly call it 'pretty impressive'.

Don't get me wrong, it's not bad, but it's certainly not giving any new opportunities that weren't available before. All that it does is speed up the processes and remove the need to buy additional hardware and/or software.

But to make it available for RAID0 holds such a low meaning because of the narrow market for such a convenience. Since RAID0 is a threat to data integrity, anyone who isn't backing up a RAID0 setup is either a fool or doens't really care about their data in the first place. So for the vast majority of RAID0 users they should either have a backup system already or a reformat is perfectly acceptable to them. So there's really no big need for such a solution. It's just a convenience.

Frankly the ethernet having its own bus is a lot more interesting. It at least offers a solution to a theoretical bottleneck. It's a technical improvement that means something to a lot more people.

Yet still, with the IP-Over-SCSI concept becoming more commonplace one would think that Intel could have taken things one step further to introduce an onboard IP-Over-SATA solution. It would have been ten times more meaningful than just adding a bus specifically for the ethernet. I hope that either Intel (or <i>someone</i>) plans to implement this in the future.

<font color=blue><pre>I'm proud to be an American,
who served my country in the US Air Force,
to protect the rights of my fellow Americans,
to hold protests against others like me.</pre><p></font color=blue>
April 15, 2003 10:00:21 PM

Although I think some of your logic is also noth much more than speculation (as mine is ;) ), I'll try to go through and address those points, to show you what led to my conclusion (again, not that it's right).
First:
Quote:
So far I still don't see anything that is proof of that. As I've pointed out in other threads, AMD can afford to just hand-pick processors to run at higher MHz for Opterons because Opterons cost a lot more for us to buy and so AMD isn't losing money to hand-pick good processors from a bad yield process. In fact, they can easily ramp to a higher speed just by testing the processors at an even higher clock and 'downbinning' all that don't make it.

What would indicate better yields is not what speeds they can offer from their high-end high-cost chips, but what price they can offer their chips at. If they can finally start selling Athlon64's (which should be significantly cheaper), then that is a sign that their yields are better.

If they did so much hand-picking, then wouldn't it be harder for them to ramp up in clockspeed? 2.5ghz is quite a big difference than 1.8, which would have to account for more than just hand-picking. That's probably confusing, but basically, if they are already hand-picking to get these speeds, then how can they just hand-pick to get a speed almost 1ghz higher? That's assuming yields were abysmal at best (which I'm sure they were in the beginning). In fact, those abysmal yields was almost surely the cause of the Athlon 64 delay. However, that says nothing about current yields.
Quote:
Who ever said that they'd be selling the gaming systems at lower prices? Throw together a single (or dual) CPU system and offer it as a workstation. It'll cost an arm and a leg, but then people are willing to pay bewtween two and five grand for a workstation. (And sometimes more.)

Who cares if you market that workstation as a workstation, an entry-level 64-bit server, or a gaming platform? The hardware and price will be the same either way.

This seems a little odd to me, as it isn't a great explanation, but I'll still explain further. The prices for a workstation can be the same as a top-end gaming rig, however the money is spent on completely different things. Workstations are concerned about the quality with the CPU, motherboard, and stability of those together. Therefore, those prices are quite a bit higher than normal computers. Gamers, however, are not only worried about the CPU, and motherboard, but also Graphics, fast RAM, sound (including nice speakers), and the like there. I guess I could see it still being priced the same, but how can you justify to DIY'ers (which most gamers are) that it's worth the extra money to buy? Maybe that's part of the deabate against making it a gaming machine, but something still doesn't add up. There would still be more of a demand (or at least they'd think there would be) then for workstations, which again leads us to the need for more of them, and therefore a presumption of at least somewhat higher yields.
And lastly,
Quote:

One big one: No one ever said that their 'gaming system' prices would be (or even are likely to be) lower than their workstation prices. That's purely your assumption.

I already kind of went over this. You very well could be right, but, again, it doesn't make sense to market them as good gaming processors and then charge more than a gamer is willing to spend on a processor. Yes, it is my assumption, but it's based on some common sense and business strategies.

I was just speculating, to get some opinions on the subject. I don't want to start a flame, or a fight, or anything. How about we just leave it at that?

<font color=red>The all new GeForce FX-</font color=red>
<font color=blue>The only factory-overclocked vacuum cleaner, complete with upholstery attachment!!!</font color=blue><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by mac404 on 04/15/03 06:01 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
!