Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

inq NOW reports A64 is ready and doing great

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 21, 2003 3:09:52 PM

<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11142" target="_new">Clickable link</A>
see also pricing details for A64 <A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11150" target="_new">click here</A>

This post is best viewed with common sense enabled<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by iiB on 08/21/03 06:28 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
August 21, 2003 3:22:13 PM

Well, it would seem that my common sense has been disabled... 'cause your link points to a certain "http:///" address and I can't view it at all! :smile:

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
August 21, 2003 3:31:36 PM

Fixed

This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
August 21, 2003 5:02:32 PM

I really hope that this is the truth that the A64 won't suck. WE NEED COMPETITION.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
August 21, 2003 5:21:57 PM

I believe it's coming out on time myself. Just a gut feeling.

Honey, what's that smell? Don't bother me now I'm working on my computer! OOPS!
August 21, 2003 7:35:23 PM

Those who still think it'll be delayed or believe any rumor of it, are big idiots.

I mean, let's look at the logic here. They reserved a place, they put adds of it, they claimed the 23rd on a date of the calendar, AND news everywhere has advertised this (including newspapers).
Where the flak does anyone expect AMD to suddenly cut this?

They will release it on time, it will happen, and for sure in fact.

A few things that are BAD:
Quote:
And its Athlon 64 FX, which is a 940 pin dual channel DDR chip, is expected to cost over $650,

-NOT GOOD! Dual Channel is NOT THAT MUCH MORE.
-Now a funny ironic thing:
Quote:
Meanwhile, the Athlon 64 FX with 939 pins will now launch at the end of the first quarter of next year, and we understand it won't now be compatible with the 940 pin version, meaning a motherboard change

And yet they bashed me in this forum for being angry at AMD with this ridiculous triple pin thing in less than a year. Just what will the 939 pin differ, and why next year?
This is stupid, big time. A big economical waste on their part, IMO.

--
<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.
August 21, 2003 7:49:14 PM

Those AXP's that will migrate to 754-pins are just K7's(cut down k8) with SEE2 and an integrated memory controller with hypertransport : No 64-bit! Strange but true...see xbitlabs//

---
If you go to work and your name is on the door, you're rich. If your name is on your desk, you're middle class. If your name is on your shirt, you're poor!
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by pirox on 08/21/03 03:53 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
August 21, 2003 8:01:05 PM

Nope, you are wrong. A64 (754-pin version) is the K8 processor, with the integrated single-channel memory controler and SSE2, x86-64 support. Do not mix things up (although they are mixed up but anyway :) . What you are saying there is that sometime in 2004, the current Athlon XPs as we know them will migrate to Socket 754, and will get SSE2 and integrated memory controler, but no x86-64 support. This is the 'Paris' core which again I repeat, won't support x86-64 so it has nothing to do with Athlon 64. This will replaced later on with 'Victoria' which will simply use 0.09m.
August 21, 2003 8:13:12 PM

Quote:
Just what will the 939 pin differ, and why next year?

First let me tell you that the difference between the 940 & 939pin versions, is that the first one will need registered ECC memory while the second will be able to accept normal DDR PC3200 memory. So the 939pin version will also have the advantage of using CAS 2 memory, getting this way more performance out of the processor.

Quote:
And its Athlon 64 FX, which is a 940 pin dual channel DDR chip, is expected to cost over $650

This price is for the 2.2GHz model, which will probably be called FX-51. If you take into account that as we've seen from AMDZone's review, this processor can beat Pentium 4 3.2c or be equal to it at the worst case, then the price is justified since that's how much the 3.2c costs. Moreover the A64 has the extra advantage of 64bit support.


Now about this mess with the sockets, here is how I see things. AMD originally designed A64 using the single-channel memory controler (this is known as the 754pin version). Suddenly in 2003, Intel gave the Pentium 4 dual-channel memory and 800MHz FSB, increasing its processor's performance a lot. AMD knew that their CPU would not be able to compete with this, so they understood that they had to make something faster. They started designing a dual-channel Athlon 64 which is not yet finished. They can't postpone the release of A64 though because this would be catastrophic for them so they are releasing the original A64 (754pin) and Opteron (which simply has Athlon 64 printed on its packaging .. if anyone else know any difference, let me know!). Then when the real dual-channel Athlon 64 will be ready, sometime in Q1 2004 as they say (and probably at the end of it), they will release it. Now this will be a trully desktop CPU, taking normal PC3200 DDR memory instead of registered ECC memory that only servers and workstations used to use until today.

I think this sums it up. Let me know what you think :) 
August 21, 2003 8:51:19 PM

Quote:
First let me tell you that the difference between the 940 & 939pin versions, is that the first one will need registered ECC memory while the second will be able to accept normal DDR PC3200 memory. So the 939pin version will also have the advantage of using CAS 2 memory, getting this way more performance out of the processor.

I was pretty aware of it, I just asked it that way since it just is ridiculous.
Look, tests lately on memory, have revealed CAS 2 no longer gives you much benefits due to the high memory clock speeds.
Furthermore ECC can't give back more than 5% ideally.

In an ideal situation, the FX and the 939-pin one are pretty much neck and neck. The max I expect the 939 version to yeild back is 5%. The 940-pin has Dual-Channel but apparently is stripped from cache. That puts it roughly the same as some 754-pin, perhaps slightly better.
Recent tests on the Opteron with and without dual-channel have revealed minor differences. Proving indeed AMD need not focus on bandwidth like P4s do. Last I checked, they don't fetch as much cacheline strides as the P4, so the bandwidth request is actually lower but still as efficient.

Quote:
This price is for the 2.2GHz model, which will probably be called FX-51. If you take into account that as we've seen from AMDZone's review, this processor can beat Pentium 4 3.2c or be equal to it at the worst case, then the price is justified since that's how much the 3.2c costs. Moreover the A64 has the extra advantage of 64bit support.

I really don't trust AMDZone THAT much, given that the test used a lot of Scientific benches where AMD was a clear winner. It probably will compete, just that, it won't make the 3.2 climb up a tree while the A64 barks at it! So I still see the price as just marketting pricing. I bet the 754-pin one will overclock better and have better value. It's sad to see the 3400+ delayed till October. This proves too, that the 2GHZ 3200+ is a lie once more, and will likely lose to the 3.2, given that it's a much too low clock speed and we've seen some results already.
I think the PR A64s are a mess, and follow on AMD's dishonest PR tradition. The FX is an interesting product, but I wish its price will go down. (very likely as stores often go lower than the MSRP with AMDs)

So, as you can see, Dual-Channel is just NOT that much. I am sure of it. It's not asking for big cache requests, and there is no Dual-CPU in there to even want to use that much. Plus, since the K8 resembles K7, it's safe to guess how effective dual-channel is really.

Oh and I almost forgot:
Quote:
Let me know what you think :) 

I have a sudden urge to kill you.

--
<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.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 08/21/03 04:52 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
August 21, 2003 9:31:04 PM

Methinks AMD is playing with too many platforms here. I mean, 754, then 940, then 939?
And one singlechannel and one dualchannel processor? Just painful. But I still think it has the chance to challenge Prescott

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
August 21, 2003 9:45:42 PM

Which Platform will have the longest support for future CPU upgrades. I feel really sorry for those poor fellows that purchased SLOT Pentium3s and Athlons. Once Socket Athlons came out the folks with SlotA motherboards could only take a 1 GHz Processor. Even Athlon boards with the old SD-RAM chipsets can take Athlon XPs, while those with a SLOT A board are rather gipped and forced to buy a new CPU motherboard and RAM if they wanted to upgrade.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
August 21, 2003 9:55:45 PM

This is an issue with the triple socket thing. Inquirer added "Must change motherboard" at the end of a quote I quoted. THAT is a bad sign of Intellism. AMD losing their good advantage of fairly good upgradability, now that advantage is more of a myth.

--
<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.
August 21, 2003 10:00:49 PM

Agree

"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad."
- Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
August 21, 2003 11:43:18 PM

Quote:
is that the first one will need registered ECC memory

INQ had an article that said 940's could only take one non-ECC per channel, and 2 ECC per channel, while 939 can take 2 non-ECC per channel. Is that no longer true?
August 21, 2003 11:51:31 PM

Which pin-cout platform will be the one of choice, us enthusiasts would choose for a long lasting platform? In otherwords which 2 of the 3 Athlon64 platforms are going to phase out first? I would think that the 940 pin one would last the longest since there is extra room to add more functions with future CPU core chages that will make use of the extra pins.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
August 21, 2003 11:55:05 PM

Right now it sounds like Prescott will have the longest upgrade path, A64 will have 3 socket changes coming real soon, S754, S940, S939.

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
August 22, 2003 2:40:06 AM

Notice the price of top line A64 more money than Scotty.
August 22, 2003 8:07:32 AM

Altough I already posted my opinion in the other thread I will repeat it again here. How can you say that? Doesn't the top-of-the-line processor of Intel right now cost $650? (Pentium 4 3.2c) So what's the problem if AMD asks the same money for their top-of-the-line processor? Especially if it is supposed to be <b>at least</b> equal to the Pentium 4 3.2c, but with 64bit support as well.
August 22, 2003 8:13:02 AM

Here, you are deffinetely wrong. The 940pin one will be replaced sometime in Q1 2004 by the 939pin one. Also, the 940pin mobos won't be compatible with the 939pin CPUs and we all already know that the 754pin mobos will only accept 754pin CPUs. So the way I see it is that even if I go for an A64, I will wait until the 939pin version is released because I don't have the luxury of upgrading all the components of my system every couple of months.

So, just to make things clear, after Q1 2004 AMD will have 754pin A64s (low-end) & 939pin A64s (high-end). And they will continue developing the A64 from there, so as an answer to "Which pin-cout platform will be the one of choice, us enthusiasts would choose for a long lasting platform?", I believe it's the 939pin version.
August 22, 2003 4:33:23 PM

Thanks Pitsi. I guess I will either get the 939 pin A64 after the chipsets have matured a little in 2004 or 2005 or go for the scottys. I was wondering Why a CPU with 939 pins can be more advanced than a CPU with 940 pins unless neither one of those CPUS makes actual use of all the pins on the cpu? How many of the 940 pins are used anyway and why doesn't AMD just stick with the one with the Higher Pin-count just incase they need the extra pin in the future?

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
August 22, 2003 5:57:48 PM

Quote:
I was wondering Why a CPU with 939 pins can be more advanced than a CPU with 940 pins unless neither one of those CPUS makes actual use of all the pins on the cpu? How many of the 940 pins are used anyway and why doesn't AMD just stick with the one with the Higher Pin-count just incase they need the extra pin in the future?

The S940 is basically just an Opteron in Athlon64's clothing. It uses ECC RAM, which is good for servers in that it prevents errors, but which is bad for enthusiast desktops because it is also slower than non-ECC. Servers are more concerned with 100% stability even under the most extreme conditions, so even though ECC makes it run a little slower, it is ideal for servers.

The S939 <i>doesn't</i> support ECC (that's what the one pin is for appearantly) and so it can be paired with faster RAM. This makes it worse for server use, but then that's what the Opteron is meant to be for anyway. :) 

So the S939 is technically less 'advanced' because it uses RAM which doesn't have built in advanced error checking. B it is this error checking which slows it down, so the less 'advanced' version actually has higher performance. Make sense?

<font color=blue>If you look <font color=purple>The Devil</font color=purple><font color=red>®</font color=red> straight in the eye and only see yourself then you must be standing in front of a mirror.</font color=blue>
August 22, 2003 6:27:06 PM

Yes that makes great since. What doesn't make since is that since the pin count of the 939 and 940 is similar why can't they make a versitile platform that can support bot ECC RAM and Non-ECC RAM. I haven't looked at any pictures of Hammer mobos in a while. but I would imagine that Soceket 939 and Socket 940 will closesly resemble each other in pin-layout if not identical with the exception of the socket having one more pin for ECC RAM capabilities.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
August 22, 2003 6:28:11 PM

I currently have an Athlon XP 1800+ @ 2GHz. So the way I see it is that I'll wait until Q3 or Q4 2004, and then upgrade to either a Prescott (if newer revisions solve its heat issues) or to an A64 939pin. I really see no point in buying the 940pin version since it has no future (no upgrade path) or in buying the 745pin version since then I'll be stuck with a mobo that will only accept the low-end A64s. Also the same goes for the first revisions of Prescott since I don't intend going on watercooling and from what we know so far, it's gonna need a <b>loud</b> fan to cool that beast down. Also although the new Pentium 4 (800MHz FSB) are great processors, their mobos (865/875) don't have any upgrade path either and since I can't afford buying new mobos & CPUs every couple of months, I think I will simply be patient and see what happens in 2004 before making my decision.
August 23, 2003 3:00:17 AM

Because Amd is supposed to sell cheaper than Intel not more.
August 23, 2003 5:22:15 AM

Admittedly, AMD is becoming INTEL. More and more.

Is it a bad thing? Me thinks not. They are doing the only thing that can get them again in this capitalistic world. Higher prices, constant need to make customers change hardware, etc.
First the socket confusion thing and switch, then the higher prices, and there's more that I forget. Oh, the add! :wink:

Let's hope it doesn't crash n' burn though hehe. After all they DO have monkey marketting folks.

--
<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.
August 23, 2003 6:12:23 AM

Quote:
Because Amd is supposed to sell cheaper than Intel not more.

This is bullshit! If they are selling equal quality (and performance) products, then they have the right to ask for the same money as Intel. And don't jump in anyone saying that the Athlon 64 won't perform on par with whatever because that's not our point here. He (HardwareBoss) made a statement which I find absolutely ridiculous, and that's what I am commenting on.
August 23, 2003 7:44:38 AM

It's ok for me for amd to raise prices for their premium products. Sooner it will drop. (YES, it's all marketing and competition).

<font color=blue>
<i>COMPUTERS</i> need <b>UPGRADES</b>; <i>UPGRADES</i> need <b>MONEY</b>,
"but" <b>MONEY</b> - heck, <i>it's no easy task. :eek:  </i>
</font color=blue>
August 23, 2003 7:46:21 AM

We've seen already Opteron's performance, it's very good, And aMD is confident in their pricing scheme for A64.

<font color=blue>
<i>COMPUTERS</i> need <b>UPGRADES</b>; <i>UPGRADES</i> need <b>MONEY</b>,
"but" <b>MONEY</b> - heck, <i>it's no easy task. :eek:  </i>
</font color=blue>
August 23, 2003 9:05:23 PM

Most consumers-enthusiasts have a stigma left by AMD that they have low prices anytime.

It IS of surprise when the 3200+ was BS priced with no value. However, lest we forget, AMD is dying thanks to idiot-fanboys out there who want them to have prices like 50$ for a CPU, so THEY can win, but AMD can't. Fact is, they NEED to raise prices to Intel level, all the while offering the right competitive performance. Otherwise, expect AMD to die, like Omid said, thanks to fanboys.

--
<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.
August 23, 2003 9:18:46 PM

Quote:
This is bullshit! If they are selling equal quality (and performance) products, then they have the right to ask for the same money as Intel.

Except that Intel has brand recognition that AMD will probably never have. Assuming equal performance and price, if someone sees a computer with an Intel chip that they know and trust, or an AMD chip that they have never heard of, which will they buy?
August 23, 2003 10:36:40 PM

This is no reason for pricing their products lower than Intel. If someone doesn't know [-peep-] about computers then yes, he will probably choose Intel over AMD. But if it's someone who understands, then he will make the right choice for himself based on the product and not on the label that product carries. This whole situation is becoming a little ridiculous for me! You want AMD to compete, you want AMD to make better products than Intel, and you also want AMD to ask less money than Intel, even if they sell the same thing. Why not simply shutting down AMD and get over with this? I think it would be much easier this way.
August 24, 2003 3:07:39 AM

So that's what you call their PR staff Lol.
August 24, 2003 3:09:41 AM

It's time to bring back Cyrix's chips again. We need cheaper chips to eat. Intel and Amd to expensive for my liking.
August 24, 2003 8:17:23 AM

The fact is that about 90% of the desktop market "doesn't know [-peep-] about computers."

How many people want more game perfornce and go buy shiny new Dell's, with high P4's and a GF4 MX? Most of the market is these kind of people, and they will go for the brand name that they saw on TV unless the other is cheaper.
!