Dont use over 1Gb of memory on a with a P4!

<A HREF="http://firingsquad.com/hardware/building_gaming_opteron_2003_Part2/page14.asp" target="_new"> See benches... </A>

--------------

(Unknown MAge)<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by trolly on 10/21/03 06:39 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

Right. It says don't use more than 2 chips if you want full performance... duh? Not to mention the same applies to the a64.

Shadus

my personnal guess is that dont happen to opteron.

I dont like french test

As demand increases price for registered memory will come down. And it is still my position that memory requirements will go up sooner than you would like to have us beleive.

Relative. is a $450.00 video card ridiculously pricey?

One of the selling points ( one of, not the only, or not even the most important) of the 64 bit architecture is to be able to address large amounts of memory ( comparitively speaking to 32 bit). What you are starting to see is exactly how pointless this would be without the use of registered memory.

The same people bashing the FX for its need to use registered memory would bashing it for performance penalities when it did if it used non-registered memory.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!

Exactly what is your point? If the registered memory is too expensive for you than the CPU must also be too expensive for you in which case <font color=red> Why do you even care</font color=red>?

Don't speculate....research. It will make your posts much more relevant. Do you know just exactly what is involved in adding a register to a SDRAM? Basically in its simplest terms its the addition of one very small IC, smaller than one of the Dimms themselves and a few additional traces.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!

Read this from Anandtech
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.html?i=1839&p=4" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.html?i=1839&p=4</A>
It says to me that 4 X 256 is the best possible configuration for speeds higher than ddr 400.
They don't seem to mention 4 x 512 though.

<<But if AMD will have us believe that we actually need or would greatly benefit from more than 1GB memory (very little users actually need more!), then maybe someone will have to deal with this price issue>>>

Play Planetside and u will eat those words

1 gig is barely enuff

AMD needs to be able to produce a FX chipset that uses bog standard PC3200 ram in a dual channel format if they want the FX to be more popular.

<b>I am not a AMD fanboy.
I am not a Via fanboy.
I am not a ATI fanboy.
I AM a performance fanboy.
And a low price fanboy.
Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>

Actually, I have several 'off the shelf' pc's from 99, they all have either 64mb (most) or 128mb (a couple-- may have been upgraded) in them. They were pretty middle line business pc's when they were purchased, not top of the line or out of the ordinary by any means (about 1800$ pc's counting monitor... but in 99 that was a pretty good price.)

I had 256 in 99-00 and 1g in 01-present. I do video editing, programming, gaming, etc... and I really don't yet feel a need to go beyond 1g, when I check the pf usage I'm generally under 384mb and have almost half a gig of pm free. I do expect ram usage ammounts to increase, but I don't expect even 1g to become the standard for a couple years yet... late 2005 to early 2006 would be my guess at the earliest. Hell just now pulling up hp, dell, and gateway's site, most of them come defaultly configed with 256mb ram. So that's what most people are going to get. Pretty much at this point the only thing pushing memory usage is brand new games and graphics editing programs... users generally have more problems with their choice of video card than they do with quantity of memory.

Shadus

they can get over this probleme but SIS via philosohie hit hard there.You dont take this measure unless you are sure to be the fastest any extra feature or restriction will lead to slower MCH 2 you need market segmentation like Optyeron 8xx series cost more that 2xx series even if they are the same core as you disable feature that are useful for server activate them at a price for server range.

I dont like french test

Nor do I expect the FX to be marketed as a "standard" Processor. That is what the A64 is for....get it?

Your just not going to see many (if any) HP, compaqs, emachine's, etc, etc use the Fx. That is what the A64 is for. This renders all these comments about "standard" rather pointless.

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!

People have been commenting on what they think to be the standard amount of memory now and in the near future. Based on your comments to this argument I drew the conclusion that you were in agreement with the common misconception that the Fx's requirement of using registered memory was a bad thing. If I am wrong here forgive me. Following below is my rant to this misconception. Now let me get my crayons out and I will draw them a picture.

<font color=blue>The A64 fx processor is not a <font color=red> standard processor</font color=red> it is not intented for standard desktop machines. It is intended for high end machines. These same High end machines will most likely have larger than <font color=red> standard</font color=red> memory requirements. So, for the love of Pete, quite trying to tie a high end processor and what you consider standard memory amounts toghether.</font color=blue>




It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ncogneto on 10/23/03 01:06 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

True, but one of the supposed benefits of Socket939 is the ability to safely use 4-layer PCB without an engineering miracle. Socket940 boards typically require at least 6-layer PCB.

Socket939 clearly does <i>something</i> WRT signaling stability, I just don't quite know what. Actually split the memory bus from 1x128bit to 2x64bit? Move the MCH bus pins to the periphery of the socket? I'm guessing all of the above.

That sort of rearrangement is probably a rather big deal when you don't have an off-die MCH sitting between the CPU and the memory.

<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11789" target="_new">- Click -</A>
<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11935" target="_new">- Click -</A>
<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11893" target="_new">- Click -</A>

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>

My reply was simply a comment on what BB wrote about how memory usage has grown and my belief that it doesn't grow quite as fast as he was stating.

Somehow from that you pulled an assumption out of yer ass that said I was talking about registered memory vs non-registered memory because someone else in the thread was when my post had NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT AND IT WAS NEVER MENTIONED IN MY POST.

Let me draw you a simple real picture with words (short ones so you dont get confused.) First, remove your head from your rectum and actually READ what people write instead of making assanine assumptions. Second, since you seem obsessed with getting a comment on the fx's use of registered memory-- I'll make one. Yes high end machines do generally have larger ammounts of memory, however, in this case it's a stopgap measure not the standard of what the fx line will be. Future fx chips will NOT require registered memory so this issue is highly illrelevent unless you absolutely have to have a fx right now and don't mind getting a socket that will go down the hole in about a year (since the socket remaining the same is a big amd selling point--upgradeability and all) and pay out the nose for memory that the next version of the chip probally won't require.

Shadus