Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD = Confusion?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 25, 2002 12:46:06 PM

Is it me, or is AMD <i>trying</i> to confuse customers? Their latest buzz is that ClawHammer will be named Athlon. But Barton is also coming out, and it too will be named Athlon.

So AMD is releasing two completely different cores, both named Athlon. One is just like the Athlons that we have always known, except a smaller die with more cache. But it will run (supposedly) on all of the motherboards that we know, own, and/or love. It is a perfect extension to the Athlon family. (If not perhaps in need of a boost to its FSB.)

The other is a 32-bit/64-bit hybrid, completely capable of running both instruction sets natively <i>and</i> has an on-die single-channel DDR SDRAM memory controller. Even without consideration for the instruction differences, the differences in the way that this CPU interfaces with the motherboard <i>should</i> require a completely new chipset to function properly, if not a new socket as well. Yet it <i>also</i> named Athlon. Does anyone else see the problem here?

Does anyone else find this decision from AMD to be extremely stupid and hope that they change their minds before ClawHammer actually gets released? (Hopefully to rename the ClawHammer from Athlon to, well, <i>anything</i> else instead of just ripping everything out of the ClawHammer to the point where it is just a Barton with an x86-64 extension or releasing an 'Athlon' that is completely incompatible with all other previous Athlon motherboards, including its little brother, a true Athlon, released <i>at the same time</i>.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not bashing AMD's technical kewlness. They've got a neato-keen concept in SledgeHammer/Opteron at the very least. It just sounds to me like they are poised to confuse the hell out of their less educated customers with the Athlons. Smart-uns like us will no doubt 'get it', but does that make it alright?

<pre>Join PETT.(People for Equal Treatment of Trolls)
Trolls:Keeping bridges clean 'n safe.</pre><p>

More about : amd confusion

April 25, 2002 2:50:11 PM

I don't think it's that bad. AMD has established the Athlon name and wants to continue it in their desktop line of processors, much like Intel has kept the Pentium name. The Pentium 4 uses completely different chipsets and memory than a Pentium II or III and is a much different CPU architecturally than previous Pentiums, but it still has the Pentium name on it. I'm sure AMD will call the ClawHammer the "Athlon ____" to distinguish it from previous versions. For the technically illiterate people out there it probably won't matter since they'll probably buy complete systems anyway. The ones like us who build from scratch will know the deal.

<i>Money talks. Mine always likes to say "goodbye." :smile: </i>
a b à CPUs
April 25, 2002 3:03:29 PM

Athlon64 is the most likely candidate, which means it's too much like right for it to get through AMD marketing, who would rather confuse the matter with the <i>least</i> likely name.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Related resources
April 25, 2002 3:14:00 PM

lol
So true

Also, I think some people will be upset when they buy an "Athlon 64, the world's first home 64-bit processor" and then find out it's actually only running in 32-bit.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 25, 2002 3:15:29 PM

tlaughrey, you make some good points, especially in reference to Intel's veritable abuse of the name Pentium. I however completely stand behind the opinion that Intel has been causing confusion for years with this very same practice. It has been one of my reasons for liking AMD more than Intel.

With Intel, it is old news. For AMD though, this is a relatively new style which shows them becoming more and more like Intel every day. By now, we have come to expect this sort of 'screw the ignorant customer' behavior from Intel and we know to do the research before we buy the products. However, AMD users have run into this much less often. In fact AMD has been championing their 'universal' SocketA as they have previously believed that backwards compatability of the Athlon was essentially important. For AMD to suddenly do a 180 on this issue is, to me, a frightening sign of things to come<font color=green>*</font color=green>.

I believe the most impact that this decision will have though is not in the system builder, but in the system upgrader. AMD has in the past tried to convince the world how wonderful it is to put even a brand spanking new Athlon into an old SocketA motherboard and have it run. This has resulted in many AMD system owners who have upgraded their CPU while upgrading little else.

Now these owners will come up against a new wall that had been completely unexpected. A chip from AMD will carry the Athlon brand name that <i>won't</i> work in their old system when they go to upgrade. You have to wonder just how many people will purchase these ClawHammers under the Athlon product name, expecting them to work in their system, only to find out that they're screwed.

And all because AMD couldn't be bothered to give the ClawHammer it's own seperate product name.

<font color=green>*</font color=green> = Frightening Sign Of Things To Come: When Intel launched the P4 supporting <i>only</i> RDRAM, we all laughed. Some were even outraged that Intel would <i>force</i> consumers into a specific memory type instead of giving options. Intel claimed that it was for 'performance' reasons. Yet now AMD's Optium has an on-die memory controller which <i>forces</i> AMD owners to use DDR SDRAM. (And quite possibly even specific speeds of DDR SDRAM.) And AMD claims that it is for performance reasons. Where is the consumer's choice? Where is the laughter and outrage? Why was it bad for Intel but perfectly acceptable for AMD to do the very same thing? If this isn't a frightening sign of things to come, I don't know what is. The whole point of a marketplace is about choice, not about being forced into specific products.

<pre>Join PETT.(People for Equal Treatment of Trolls)
Trolls:Keeping bridges clean 'n safe.</pre><p>
April 25, 2002 3:24:22 PM

Another very good point FatBurger. Most people will never even take advantage of the processor running 64-bit code. Had AMD named the ClawHammer something like Kick-Arse-On (bad example, but I'm not in marketting) and left the 64-bit reference completely out of the name, then the average looser wouldn't be expecting 64-bit processing. So the only people left to actually give a darn about the 64-bit processing of the Kick-Arse-On would be the ones who actually took the time to read the product specs to find a chip that will run their new Win.NET-64 (or whatever).

Giving the ClawHammer the name of Athlon instead of just giving it a new name (Dare we even just suggest to name it ClawHammer?) is just asking for a world of consumer confusion, which always leads to trouble. And frankly, trouble isn't something that AMD needs. Intel can afford bad PR. AMD is on less solid ground though.

<pre>Join PETT.(People for Equal Treatment of Trolls)
Trolls:Keeping bridges clean 'n safe.</pre><p>
April 25, 2002 3:44:55 PM

Hmm, the 386 was the first 32-bit PC processor but we didn't get 32-bit OSs until WinNT and Win95.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
April 25, 2002 4:01:18 PM

Quote:
Hmm, the 386 was the first 32-bit PC processor but we didn't get 32-bit OSs until WinNT and Win95.

Please forgive me, as I'm feeling a little slow today, but your point would have to do with what exactly?

We already have various 64-bit CPUs running various 64-bit OSs in various professional markets. Microsoft even already supports the IA64 Itanic, and an x86-64 flavor of Linux is a given even if M$ doesn't support x86-64 in the end. The change to 64-bit is occuring very differently than the change to 32-bit, and has already been started.

<pre>Join PETT.(People for Equal Treatment of Trolls)
Trolls:Keeping bridges clean 'n safe.</pre><p>
April 25, 2002 4:22:40 PM

I think I replied to the wrong person. I meant to reply to FatBurger. I mean, everyone knew that MS-DOS is 16-bit but the 386 was 32-bit. Microsoft can easily release an extension to the OS with Win64 (x86-64) support as they did in Win3.1 with Win32s. So although it won't be much faster, you'll be able to run 64-bit apps on a 32-bit OS.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
April 25, 2002 4:23:56 PM

Hmm ... I think AMD has done a good job of presenting as few obstacles as possible to upgrading. The Athlon has only had two different interfaces since it first came out, right? Slot A and Socket A. Now they've got a new processor that needs a new socket, but they want to keep the brand recognition that they've already developed over the last three years. I guess I don't see it as such a sinister turn of events as you do. Technological advances are going to require some change and I think consumers realize that.

Quote:
Yet now AMD's Optium has an on-die memory controller which forces AMD owners to use DDR SDRAM.

As far as forcing people to use DDR RAM, I don't think that's the same thing as what Intel tried to do with RDRAM. DDR RAM has become the standard form of memory over the last year, especially with Intel now supporting it. Standard SDRAM is on the way out and RDRAM is still a niche form for high-performance P4 systems. Was AMD supposed to design two different CPUs with two different memory controllers just to provide more choice for consumers? I think they made the smart decision to support the most popular form of memory, which also helps to keep things simple. I'd rather not see three different versions of the Hammer for three different kinds of memory running around. The Athlon doesn't have RDRAM support now, so I don't think not having it in the future will be a big deal.

<i>Money talks. Mine always likes to say "goodbye." :smile: </i>
April 25, 2002 4:40:42 PM

Quote:
and RDRAM is still a niche form for high-performance P4 systems.


PC800 and PC2100 are basically the same price now, so I don't think that's a factor.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
a b à CPUs
April 25, 2002 4:45:36 PM

Well, they didn't seem to mind comming up with the XP+ naming scheme, and most customers don't even know how fast their CPU is.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 25, 2002 5:01:26 PM

Quote:
Their latest buzz is that ClawHammer will be named Athlon. But Barton is also coming out, and it too will be named Athlon.

Barton will carry the AthlonXP name still. Hammer will be some kind of derivative(sp) of "Athlon," such as AthlonXP+ or Athlon_Kicks_Your_Ass...

<font color=black>Need Money!! Accepting Donations to help better my future. Thanks!</font color=black>
April 25, 2002 5:06:21 PM

Quote:
Microsoft can easily release an extension to the OS with Win64 (x86-64) support as they did in Win3.1 with Win32s. So although it won't be much faster, you'll be able to run 64-bit apps on a 32-bit OS.

So long as it is a 64-bit CPU under the hood at least. I have a feeling that this is about all that MS is going to do anyway. At least for a while. Look how long it took MS to actually write a natively 32-bit version of Win9x, and look at how bad that version (ME) actually runs.

<pre>Join PETT.(People for Equal Treatment of Trolls)
Trolls:Keeping bridges clean 'n safe.</pre><p>
April 25, 2002 5:22:16 PM

it all depends on what you consider "speed"

(bb || !bb) - Shakespeare
April 25, 2002 5:23:14 PM

Quote:
I guess I don't see it as such a sinister turn of events as you do. Technological advances are going to require some change and I think consumers realize that.

The average consumer doesn't even realize that AMD's PR rating does not equal MHz yet. You think that they'll catch on when a Barton and ClawHammer are being sold simultaniously under the name 'Athlon'? I'm not so optimistic. In fact, I'm downright cynical about the computer-literacy of the SOHO user.

Quote:
As far as forcing people to use DDR RAM, I don't think that's the same thing as what Intel tried to do with RDRAM.

You are right of course. In AMD's case, it is <i>worse</i>. When Intel forced RDRAM on people, the memory technology was just at the beginning stages of development and had a clear and long lifecycle ahead of it.

Single-Channel DDR SDRAM however is going the way of PC100/133 RAM. It just doesn't provide the bandwidth that dual-channel RAM can provide. On top of this, DDR SDRAM has nearly maxed out its speed by now. It is at the end of its life cycle.

So where Intel forced users into a memory standard that had a large potential to improve, AMD is forcing users into a memory standard that has almost reached its end.

Meanwhile, QDR, DDR II, higher-bit dual-channel RDRAM, and even other memory technologies that haven't emerged yet all await us in the future. And those who purchase a ClawHammer CPU now will <i>never</i> be able to use <i>any</i> of these with that CPU.

Quote:
Was AMD supposed to design two different CPUs with two different memory controllers just to provide more choice for consumers?

Of course not. They could have however put several small memory controller chips between the RAM and the CPUs on the motherboard. They could have even developed a dockable memory controller that litterally connects to the CPU and could be exchanged by a professional. They <i>could</i> have done any number of things to keep the memory controller seperate from the CPU core and still have gained virtually the same performance benefits. They however chose the method which would provide <i>them</i> with the most money, to put the memory controller on the die itself, forcing anyone to purchase a new CPU every time a new memory technology comes out.

Not only that, but they intentionally chose to give the ClawHammer only a single-channel memory controller so that it would not perform as well as a SledgeHammer. This would be about the same as Intel intentionally cutting out half of the cache to turn a perfectly good core into a 'budget' processor. I can't stand it when Intel pulls that kind of crap. Why should I stand it when AMD does?

And worse, why is AMD using Intel's tactics? So much for them being a company that is friendlier to its users. The days of AMD being preferable because of their idealism are long gone.

<i>THAT</i> scares me the most.

<pre>Join PETT.(People for Equal Treatment of Trolls)
Trolls:Keeping bridges clean 'n safe.</pre><p>
April 25, 2002 6:27:47 PM

Quote:
They however chose the method which would provide them with the most money, to put the memory controller on the die itself, forcing anyone to purchase a new CPU every time a new memory technology comes out.

Would you prefer it if they made less money and maybe go out of business?

Is it possible for the integrated memory controller to take advantage of more than one type of memory, or be modified to take advantage of currently unavailable memory like DDRII? Maybe this is only a temporary issue that might be addressed when the hammer is moved to the .09 micron process.
April 25, 2002 6:38:00 PM

Quote:
Is it possible for the integrated memory controller to take advantage of more than one type of memory, or be modified to take advantage of currently unavailable memory like DDRII?


Nope, for the same reason you can't have a motherboard that does RDRAM and DDR.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 25, 2002 6:44:45 PM

Quote:
Would you prefer it if they made less money and maybe go out of business?

AMD isn't going to go out of business. They could just keep to their Athlon core for another year at least and still make money in the CPU sector. Even if they somehow bombed out, they still have other business to fall back on than CPUs. They're not exactly threatened with extinction.

What they're trying to do is break into markets that were previously beyond their reach. No more, no less.

Quote:
Is it possible for the integrated memory controller to take advantage of more than one type of memory, or be modified to take advantage of currently unavailable memory like DDRII? Maybe this is only a temporary issue that might be addressed when the hammer is moved to the .09 micron process.

I'm sure that if they wanted to, they could design it to be able to run with both DDR and DDR II when they redesign the core. That still doesn't help the customers in the near future who will be locked into a dying platform, much as Willamette customers were. And it still doesn't help the customers who want anything that AMD doesn't bless. At least when Intel pushed RDRAM, there were still third-party chipset designers coming out with DDR SDRAM for the P4 because the memory controller wasn't on the die. Claw/SledgeHammer users though will have no such luck.

Well, I suppose that isn't entirely true. Someone might be able to design the equivalent of that memory-translation PoS that Intel designed... Not that this would be an enjoyable solution though.

<pre>Join PETT.(People for Equal Treatment of Trolls)
Trolls:Keeping bridges clean 'n safe.</pre><p>
a b à CPUs
April 25, 2002 6:59:42 PM

What I consider speed? I geniunely do not think an XP2000+ is 1/3 faster than an XP1500+

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 25, 2002 7:02:08 PM

WinME is nearly every bit as much 16-bit as Win95 is, it just hides the DOS underpinnings better than Win95 did. There's a hack available to "un-hide" the DOS startup in it. I use it so I can load a couple things I like in config.sys and autoexec.bat (like the very handy DOSKEY). You can even boot to DOS and start Windows by typing "win", just like the old Windows 3.1 days! I still do it occassionally when I'm messing with drivers and stuff. The main advantage Win Me has over Win95 and Win98 is slight improvements to stability (just disable System Restore) and the UI. Also, support for more devices. Otherwise, it's pretty much the same thing.

But Microsoft did castrate some of the DOS functionality of ME. They removed support for file control blocks, so really old games like Ultima 2 don't work anymore (unless you get the third party patches). They embedded the extended memory manager into IO.SYS, so now HIMEM doesn't load anymore. Even worse, EMM386 is incompatible with the embedded extended memory mananger, so no expanded memory in real mode DOS under ME! This screws quite a few DOS games over. Fortunately, ME still provides standard expanded memory support in a DOS window, so most old games that need it work fine.

Ritesh
April 25, 2002 7:20:50 PM

According to the articles that I've read, ME has no actual 16-bit code in it whatsoever. It is a purely 32-bit OS. However, MS wrote 16-bit emulation into the code to continue supporting old software. How nice of them.

MS knew that their emulation was unstable though, which is why they hide that functionality in ME.

Many drivers however were (and often still are) 16-bit code, and because of the emulation of 16-bit in ME, these drivers quite often become unstable. I've helped a number of people who have found ME to be entirely unstable by giving them the suggestion to revert back to 98SE (or purchase a new copy and install it over ME), and it has always made their systems stable again. (Note that they usually couldn't upgrade to 2K or XP because of the lack of driver support for their hardware.)

Still, even 95 castrated DOS by removing several of the DOS interupts. This causes any games which used these assembler interupts to just plain crash in 95 and up. There are extensions of course, but they can be pricey. I've found that there just is no replacement for the original, which is why I keep an old Pentium 133 alive with DOS 6.22 and my SB AWE32. I still enjoy a lot of the old DOS games. :) 

<pre>Join PETT.(People for Equal Treatment of Trolls)
Trolls:Keeping bridges clean 'n safe.</pre><p>
April 25, 2002 7:58:53 PM

Hi slvr_phoenix,

I liked your "* = Frightening Sign Of Things To Come:". The reason no one is making a big fuss about this is because everyone loved AMD and if you try to say anything bad about them then you are called troll, and all the other names out there. The fact that there is an integrated memory controller on the Processor is going to limit people to upgrade all the time. When user want to upgrade the PC they would like to make sure they have compatible Memory controller on the CPU. If not they would also have to upgrade the memory. And the board for the same reason. Hammer will totally limit users to upgrade one piece at a time. User will never be able to use their current processor if they want to use newer memory type.

This also causes problem for AMD since they will be forced to release multiple version of processors depending on what memory types are available at that time. When DDRII releases people will not start using this memory as soon as it's available but AMD will need to support that as well as DDR memory. So there will be multiple version of same processor with different memory controller.

I am just waiting for AMD to figure this one out.

KG



<b>"Hey! It compiles! Ship it!"</b>
April 25, 2002 8:12:39 PM

Quote:
This also causes problem for AMD since they will be forced to release multiple version of processors depending on what memory types are available at that time. When DDRII releases people will not start using this memory as soon as it's available but AMD will need to support that as well as DDR memory. So there will be multiple version of same processor with different memory controller.

I am just waiting for AMD to figure this one out.

This one worries me too. I'm hoping that AMD thinks about this one enough to design a memory controller that is able to run both DDR and DDR II when they shrink to 0.09micron etching. Otherwise, they really will have one heck of a mess on their hands.

<font color=red>Bob knew he was screwed when he saw the label actually read 'Tactile Nuclear Device'.</font color=red>
April 25, 2002 8:16:10 PM

Quote:
What they're trying to do is break into markets that were previously beyond their reach. No more, no less.

Was that supposed to be a bad thing? I'm not sure I see what's wrong with that at all.
Quote:
I'm sure that if they wanted to, they could design it to be able to run with both DDR and DDR II when they redesign the core.

what's the comparative roadmap for the barton, clawhammer, and DDRII? Can DDRII be supported on the same board as DDR? If not, then why would AMD support memory that isn't available yet? Further, if they DID support DDRII, and that excluded DDR, then wouldn't THAT be "forcing" consumers the way Intel did? Then they'd have to go through the horrors of upgrading more than a processor that you described before, except they'd have to do it the FIRST time, rather than later. And don't start talking about how it's worse to buy a processor for one type of memory then have to go out and buy another for ANOTHER type of memory later. How many people will upgrade to kt333 motherboards? EVERYONE who'd be into these chips who would CARE about such things knows that when you buy 1st gen, you're making a treacherous investment, and later you'll get the better version at extra cost. Really, isn't it all just a matter of timing? AMD has changed memory compatibility for their processors before, as has Intel. Right now they're going with what people have, and not what doesn't exist yet. Sure, they might have to change a processor when DDRII comes out, but I think it bears remembering that new memory doesn't immediately take hold without a hitch when it first comes out, and giving people other options is probably a good idea. The people who won't understand that the processor uses DDR instead of DDRII won't know there's a difference when the different Clawhammer comes out. The people who DO understand will have made their purchase aware of this, and if they didn't then no one here would feel any sympathy because you shouldn't buy something unless you fully understand it.
You make it sound as if AMD sold their souls to the devil and we're all paying for it. What's ACTUALLY happened is that a: AMD made a bad marketing move (no! it can't be!) and b: they've included support for the memory everyone has and will use for a while longer, at least long enough until AMD would be upgrading the supported memory on the processor ANYWAY. Hell, even when Intel made people get RDRAM, it was STUPID, but not evil. RDRAM DOES let people get the full basically QDR performance from the p4. it wasn't because they were trying to [-peep-] people over so much as they were trying to make sure people got the performance Intel promised. Nobody wanted to pay RDRAM prices. Oh well, they made a mistake. But it was hardly evil.
Bad marketing and support for the logical memory that people have and will use seems to me to be the way AMD has always run. It's not doomsday, and it's CERTAINLY nothing to be scared about.

<b>Studies have shown that most people prefer the taste of AMD to the taste of Intel</b>
April 25, 2002 8:27:42 PM

Quote:
The fact that there is an integrated memory controller on the Processor is going to limit people to upgrade all the time. When user want to upgrade the PC they would like to make sure they have compatible Memory controller on the CPU. If not they would also have to upgrade the memory. And the board for the same reason.

Why would they have to upgrade the board? Wouldn't integrated memory controller on the chip basically mean that the board could stay and the chip and memory would get upgraded? Pardon me if I'm a little ignorant of chip and chipset architecture. To my mind, though, (if the board doesn't need to get upgraded) this isn't that big of a deal AMD chips are priced around the same place (maybe a LITTLE more) as their mainboards. So switching one or the other price wise isn't that big a deal. It's an easier upgrade, physically, too.
Quote:
This also causes problem for AMD since they will be forced to release multiple version of processors depending on what memory types are available at that time. When DDRII releases people will not start using this memory as soon as it's available but AMD will need to support that as well as DDR memory. So there will be multiple version of same processor with different memory controller.

I am just waiting for AMD to figure this one out.

Something tells me they've known for some time, and have decided that it's ok. I don't know if the people who'd actually care about the different memory support would get confused enough to buy the wrong processor. They're generally studious enough to do the modicum of research required to make sure they get the right one. I think right now must be a hard spot for ALL chip makers to be in, with different memory just around the corner, but not here YET, and no one's QUITE sure which one will take hold of the new crop, so... what do you do? Intel threw all their eggs into the RDRAM basket at first. Oops. So, play it safe for now.

<b>Studies have shown that most people prefer the taste of AMD to the taste of Intel</b>
April 25, 2002 8:31:42 PM

actually, could someone post a link to an article about DDRII, so that I might understand it more completely? I mean, by the time it comes out, if Fatburger's right about RDRAM prices, wouldn't RDRAM be the more logical choice for RAM? or does DDRII outperform RDRAM? (I'm assuming that DDRII is some misnamed form of qdr. This is why I'd like that link, so I can find out exactly WHAT it is, rather than assume.)

<b>Studies have shown that most people prefer the taste of AMD to the taste of Intel</b>
April 25, 2002 8:33:14 PM

I disagree with you here.
First of all, Hammer's way of communicating is different. It does it all fast. It does NOT need hyper speed RAM to boost itself, heck it no longer needs DDR400 or so. Part of it comes from the fact that despite it being 12-staged, they compensated with a heavy concession by using the on-die controller which heavily negates the extra 2 stage penalty. With that, they really don't require much new RAM speeds. Personally, like Itanium using PC100, I think they could stick to DDR333 for as long as they deem with no performance dragging. Hell the Hammer bus is different, it's not a standard 266MHZ FSB. It's all made to be done fast in little cycles. Like the K7 with its cache which does not need more to boost a lot because it does it all in less cycles, the Hammer does not need more RAM speed to boost itself. Rather it's again, in the components inside. That is when 0.09m comes in. What, you think that 0.13m is Hammer's best friend? I mean Athlons use that now, and they barely have more space on it! Right now they're cramming it all, but I think when 0.09m comes, they can really swing the Hammer's power upwards. Besides, who cares if we have to buy a new CPU if they do! Almost everyone changes CPUs with the mobos after 1-2 years, which is how if at all, AMD would do if they switched mem controllers. So no, your worries are much pessimistic than any beneficial.
Schmeggegie is also right, although I won't write more for nothing, his post says it all.

I do agree on your fear of AMD's sidetracking. But the worst has yet to come, so please wait before fearing more. Once Hammer is out, we'll see. Personally I expect the CH to change names later on.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 25, 2002 9:12:54 PM

Quote:
First of all, Hammer's way of communicating is different. It does it all fast.


Can you be a little more technical?

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 25, 2002 9:44:34 PM

It does it all faster with Hyper Transport, now doesn't it?

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 25, 2002 9:51:39 PM

And how exactly does Hypertransport help the CPU go faster, when in a Hammer platform it's merely used to link to the AGP and everything about the Southbridge?

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 25, 2002 9:56:36 PM

Huh? A bottleneck's a bottleneck, and if memory bandwidth is the bottleneck for a particular application, it hardly matters if the controller is thirty million times faster.

Ritesh
April 25, 2002 10:00:38 PM

My point is that it will be less bottlenecked than the Athlon's since it does it all in less cycles.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 25, 2002 10:11:33 PM

Would you provide links to these articles? When I boot up into real mode DOS under Windows ME, it's a true 16-bit environment. There is no emulation there. Maybe you're referring to the GUI portion, which is partly 32-bit. But even the GUI still has major 16-bit underpinnings, as you can easily prove by loading some drivers in config.sys and autoexec.bat and watching those same programs show up in ME's DOS prompts. And if you load the right drivers in your config.sys, you can even force ME into "compatibility mode" on some drives because it's unable to use the 32-bit drivers for disk access. This is exactly like Win95 behaves, by the way.

As far as I can tell, it's just Win95 with some dressing poured on it and a somewhat more limited real-mode core. Which is not necessarily a bad thing: I've got a bunch of old games and this is the last OS that can pretty much play them all. My next computer will have XP on it but I'll need to keep this one around to play the older stuff.

What games have you been unable to play in Win95? I had DOS 6.22 and a bunch of old games, and they all worked under Win95 (if not in the GUI then in real mode for sure). Win ME would have pretty much been the same if MS hadn't made the dumb decision of not supporting EMM386 anymore, so I keep a Win98 boot disk around for that.

Come to think of it, there are two old games I got recently that I was unable to play even in real mode (either ME or Win98 boot disk): Starflight and Starflight 2. I tried everything. They just lock the machine up. It's probably because I can't slow my P3 down enough, but I eventually had to resort to downloading the Amiga versions and the WinUAE emulator. :) 

Ritesh
April 25, 2002 10:30:31 PM

your about the only person that i know of that will keep a computer to play old games, thats why thay are called old games, its coz there are new one's..better..faster and stuff..

and btw winME is -crap-.

<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>
April 25, 2002 10:41:51 PM

I disagree. There are too many games that are all graphics and aren't actually a good game. Max Payne is a good example. It was a cool game and I enjoyed it, but I'll never play it again.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 25, 2002 10:49:20 PM

ok, so in a year you might want to play it again, but then why would you if there are 50 more new games that are better newer and similar to the game you want to play?
this does sound odd, but if you are running a new OS then that would require an older version for running that game i dont see the point of keeping a computer around JUST for that.

<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>
April 25, 2002 11:17:10 PM

What the hell are you talking about? Do you even have a knowledge of how memory interface with the processor. Just because there is a integrated memory controller which can scale with the CPU doesn't mean you can keep using your PC100 memory on it. Dude to clear up this misunderstanding I have just one word for you "Bandwidth". PC100 has the bandwith like 1.2Gbs. Just like that RDRam 800 4.2Gbs bandwith. I may be wrong about this number but I think I am in the ballpark. So are you trying to say that Hammer will preform exatly the same on both of these memory type. I don't think so.

Please get it to your head, if hammer has Single Channel DDR Controller integrated then you will never be using that hammer other then using it with DDR memory. If DDRII becomes popular, you will have to buy new memory, Board and the processor. So you will never be able to use you old processor for newer memory type.

I think you are confusing Memory bandwith with FSB Speed. FSB wouldn't make much difference on Hammer.

KG

<b>"Hey! It compiles! Ship it!"</b>
April 25, 2002 11:35:01 PM

Quote:

PC100 has the bandwith like 1.2Gbs.

Actually, it has 800MB/s bandwidth.

Quote:

Just like that RDRam 800 4.2Gbs bandwith

PC800 RDRAM has 1.6GB/s bandwidth per channel.

Quote:


Please get it to your head, if hammer has Single Channel DDR Controller integrated then you will never be using that hammer other then using it with DDR memory. If DDRII becomes popular, you will have to buy new memory, Board and the processor. So you will never be able to use you old processor for newer memory type.

What exactly will be the differences between DDR RAM and DDRII? I have a feeling that they will both be supported by the integrated controller if the differences between the two DDR RAM types are minimal.


:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
April 25, 2002 11:42:19 PM

dual channel PC2700 yum...
weather the cpu's can handle new ram. definately hmmm. could be a problem, specially upgrade wise.

despite though the integrated mem controler hand hyper thinggy i get the impression the core shares much similarity with the old athlon. true?

Despite appearances im not Phsysic. I may need your system specifications to solve your problem!
April 25, 2002 11:59:45 PM

Quote:
So AMD is releasing two completely different cores, both named Athlon. One is just like the Athlons that we have always known, except a smaller die with more cache. But it will run (supposedly) on all of the motherboards that we know, own, and/or love. It is a perfect extension to the Athlon family. (If not perhaps in need of a boost to its FSB.)


Like the p4 northwood?
Or the future P4 celeron?


The incompatability thing makes a little sense, but the conversion to clawhammer is much like the PENTIUM 4 versus 3, than the athlon>axp, if you get my meaning.


It will be the Athlon CLAWHAMMER, which like the PENTIUM 4 is a whole different chip/mobo/etc.


:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
April 26, 2002 12:00:28 AM

Quote:
Also, I think some people will be upset when they buy an "Athlon 64, the world's first home 64-bit processor" and then find out it's actually only running in 32-bit.


Only if they are morons.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
April 26, 2002 12:03:32 AM

Quote:
Single-Channel DDR SDRAM however is going the way of PC100/133 RAM. It just doesn't provide the bandwidth that dual-channel RAM can provide. On top of this, DDR SDRAM has nearly maxed out its speed by now. It is at the end of its life cycle.

So where Intel forced users into a memory standard that had a large potential to improve, AMD is forcing users into a memory standard that has almost reached its end.


DDR is not near its end.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
April 26, 2002 12:05:18 AM

ahhh but everyone should know what the two most common elements in the galaxy are, Hydrogen and stupidity.


Despite appearances im not Phsysic. I may need your system specifications to solve your problem!
April 26, 2002 12:06:57 AM

Quote:
liked your "* = Frightening Sign Of Things To Come:". The reason no one is making a big fuss about this is because everyone loved AMD and if you try to say anything bad about them then you are called troll, and all the other names out there. The fact that there is an integrated memory controller on the Processor is going to limit people to upgrade all the time. When user want to upgrade the PC they would like to make sure they have compatible



A not everyone is called a troll for simply making statements, if you are like fugger/meltdown/kennyshin etc you will be.

B: the on board controler will offer more performance than ANY offboard controler, the having to upgrade the cpu is the ONLY way to gain that performance.

So you can have a cpu with a poor performing motherboard based controler, but you can later use the SAME cpu to upgrade to a NEW motherboard in the future whos on board controler will be better.

or you can have an on die controler which will out perform even the upgraded motherboard.

Simple choice and logical IMO.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
April 26, 2002 12:16:05 AM

Quote:
DDR is not near its end


Okay, you've convinced me. Boy, I wish I could just make a one sentence statement and get people to believe it. =P

<font color=blue> There's no such thing as hell, but you can make it if you try.</font color=blue>
April 26, 2002 1:31:01 AM

Mat's words are strong dude!

It's like Raystonn when he says things from Intel's news side.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 26, 2002 1:36:03 AM

Ok ok ok a lot of people here have misunderstood me on this one.
1) I did not say PC100 is the memory to be used. I only used it as an example of how Itanium can use that as main memory (Raystonn's claim), because it isn't bandwidth hungry, I guess.
2)I did not say Hammer will perform the same on both. I said that possibly because it does so much per cycle, it won't need so much bandwidth like a P4, or even the Athlon's. It's like moving from 266MHZ to 333MHZ DDR, notice the little 2-4% differences only? It's cuz Athlons don't need that much, and that is what I am going at with my claim for Hammer's memory need. If AMD decided to stick with DDR333, obviously they had in plan and know that it wouldn't benefit from higher more expensive speeds.
Look I'm only 15 man, I'm trying to learn, so please if I make mistakes, teach me instead of yelling! Yes AMD_Man's knowledge is much more extended than me, but that doesn't mean he gets the "extended" treatment from you guys more than I am trying to!

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 26, 2002 2:07:42 AM

Heh, it was so obvious I didnt feel I needed to justify it, but I will tonight when I have more time.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
April 26, 2002 3:30:23 AM

Quote:
Only if they are morons.


You're right, and only morons bought socket 423, so Intel is justified.

Poobah is right, though I think stupidity far outweighs hydrogen.


I think a big difference in all of this is whether the motherboard will have to be upgraded along with the CPU and RAM. To go from DDR to RDRAM (just as an example), then obviously we would. But what about DDRII? Different socket? Both sockets on the board? I don't think anyone but AMD knows right now, it'll be interesting to see.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
!