Corsair has doubts on A64 Performance

every one is entitled to their opinion, it is a little wierd to hear from a company known for ram about a proccessor.

wpdclan.com cs game server - 69.12.5.119:27015

Also remember that this <i>is</i> 'the inquirer'.

They <i>claim</i> that this information is the official opinion of Corsair that was given at a press briefing.

The reality was probably more like nothing of worth was said <i>at</i> the press briefing. (If any press briefing even existed.) Sometime late at night though, and after a few pints at a pub, <i>one</i> of Corsair's employees was inebriated and giving his own personal opinion. And the next day someone at 'the inquirer' transcribes a few slurred notes from a bar napkin into one of their typical articles.

Note the <i>lack</i> of information. No names of any of the supposed Corsair reps officially stating their company's opinion. No date, time, or location of the supposed press briefing. Not even a mention of anyone who was invited to this supposed press briefing. Heck, not even so much as a name for the author of the article.

One would almost think the whole thing was made up <sarcasm><i>if it wasn't for the fact that it came from such a reputable source as 'the inquirer'.</i></sarcasm>

<pre><b><font color=red>*** BattleTech - The Crescent Hawks Inception ***</b>
Pilot twenty-ton behemoth robots to save your planet from a
Kuritian invasion force. Now available on the C=64!</font color=red></pre><p>

This is EXACTLY what I was thinking. For the first time I hear a company comment on an unreleased product of another company (and they don't even produce CPUs!). I really can't understand the reason behind this move. Very weird stuff! The only thing I can think of (of course this is just an assumption), is that Intel might be behind this. You never know what a few dollars can do and nothing else can make sense for me.

I'm not too sure, but does both upcoming versions of the A64 require ECC memory? Or just the one with 940 pins? If the vanilla version doesn't require ECC memory, will it perform better? Sorry for being an idiot about this seemingly simple question.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=24106" target="_new">My System Rig</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=535386" target="_new">3DMark03</A>

The 940-pin Athlon 64 definetly requires registered memory w/ ECC. Not sure about 939-pin Athlon 64.

<b><font color=blue>Oh, I can shed light on that ...</font color=blue></b>

What about the 754 pin version? Will it require registered memory?

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=24106" target="_new">My System Rig</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=535386" target="_new">3DMark03</A>

Definitely not.

ECC is bad for desktops.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=green><b>A sexual experience like never before seen</font color=green></b></A>
Site has now even more sexy members, for your pleasure.

The 939-pin will not require registered memory. It will take regular DDR PC3200 instead. I've read that somewhere 1-2 weeks ago, but I'm too bored to find the links right now. That's also why more performance should be expected from A64 when the 939-pin version is released, sometime in Q1 2004, because it will get CAS2 memory then.

Anyone know why the hell the A64 isn't going dual channel with its memory?

dont listen to people who have no clue

the 939 pin version of the ATHLON 64 will use a dual mem controller

the ATHLON 64 FX is the 754 pin version or HAMMER LITE that will be single channel

How much would ECC memory hurt desktop performance?

My system: Intel Pentium 4 3.0, 800FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / MSI 875P Neo / Sapphire Radeon 9800Pro / Antec TruePower 550W / 2x Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
SamsungDVD / Lite-On CDRW

Well, it hurts, and it's unneeded lost performance for desktops, but it's usually around 2-5%.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=green><b>A sexual experience like never before seen</font color=green></b></A>
Site has now even more sexy members, for your pleasure.

Why is that, does ECC bring some extra latency with it because of the checking, or what is the cause of the lost performance?

My system: Intel Pentium 4 3.0, 800FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / MSI 875P Neo / Sapphire Radeon 9800Pro / Antec TruePower 550W / 2x Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
SamsungDVD / Lite-On CDRW

Well that makes it me and Corsair who doubt the 64. If it can`t even beat the current P4`s what will happen when Intel get the *Itanium up and running? IMO AMD need to get their memory bandwidth problem sorted out and bring their processors up to real time speeds to give Intel the kick they deserve. <A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64.h..." target="_new"> X-Bit Review with Benchmarks </A>

I like to see the underdog win, guess it`s in my nature but if they are`nt going to get their sh!t together then...if you can`t beat them, join them and my next processor will be an Intel.

*Edit : Itanium or Prescott


"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad."
- Salvador Dali (1904-1989)<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by andyddr on 08/21/03 11:37 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

Yeah, pretty much. By checking an extra bit for error correction, you add some latency. Instead of 64-bit memory, it's 72-bit (extra bit per byte/8-bits).

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=green><b>A sexual experience like never before seen</font color=green></b></A>
Site has now even more sexy members, for your pleasure.

Ok, got it  

My system: Intel Pentium 4 3.0, 800FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / MSI 875P Neo / Sapphire Radeon 9800Pro / Antec TruePower 550W / 2x Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
SamsungDVD / Lite-On CDRW