Was just reading some about the Opteron and how the FSB will supposidly be the same speed as the CPU since what used to be done by the North bridge is now part of its cpu. This seems to be a great thing that should boost performance a lot.
So my question is this, What is the difference between the Opteron Clawhammer and the Athlon Clawhammer? They seem to be the same except for the Opteron supports multi CPU systems. Will the Athlon Clawhammer use the new Sockets and have the same system for incorperating the North Bridge? I just want to know so I can better judge what components I will buy in my system I build next month.
FYI I was mainly looking on AMD websight and the roadmap is where I find the two lables for the Clawhammer.
The north bridge it in the CPU package running at the same speed or sync.
After adresse to the ram at 166 mghz DDR 64 bit for the athlon (hammer) 128 bit for the opteron.
2.7GBS athlon ultra or super,turbo are any thing that american think is a great name.
5.4GBS opteron even worse name.How do you want to compete with a name like that.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by juin on 07/09/02 07:22 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Opteron uses a different socket from the Athlon Claw.
Opteron has several hypertransport links. Athlon Claw has 1. This is a big difference as the multiple HT links will allow multiplying of memory bandwidth through multiple processors (Each processor can essentially (in simple terms) aggregate the memory from the other processors and also add that bandwidth to itself.
<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
yeah, that is all the difference, but personally I just want an Opteron sledgehammer, 8 processors. The Opteron systems actually have a the ability to have many PCI slots, upto 8 I believe. :-P and each processor has it's own memory bank if you use it properly, so each processor stores the instructions it is currently working on in it's own memory.
The Athlon Clawhammer single processor, Opteron Clawhammer multiprocessor upto 2, Opteron Sledgehammer 2-8 Processor.
Opteron if you read the THG article is derived from optimum, as athlon was derived from the latin for something else. It is the way AMD works and I like the name, but what is in a name?
But if I only plan to use 1 chip then the Athlon Clawhammer will perform the same as the Opteron? That is what I meant to ask. I mean does the Athlon Clawhammer have the same features associated with the North Bridge? I ask because this is a big part in what I buy right now for the system I am building.
The 'ClawHammer DP' and the 'SledgeHammer' cores are both called "Opertron" From what I've read i think the two cores will be using different pin structure therefore different mobos and might well have different features included. i'm not 100% on this though
The Clawhammer core chips will have the same performance, eg 1 Athlon Clawhammer will perform just as 1 Opteron Clawhammer, if that is what you are asking. I also believe they will have the same pin structure too. It is like the difference between the Athlon XP and Athlon MP.
The Atlhlon MP is stable when used in DP mode. Where as there is no guarantee the XP is stable in dual processing mode.
There is also a chance that the opteron Clawhammer will have a slightly increased cache size. That is all I believe is different.
In answer to the sledgehammer,clawhammer debate. The sledgehammer core is dofferent to the clawhammer, due to the fact I think if you look at the technical doc's you can have more Expansion ports(i.e PCI slots) and you could interface upto 8 Processors. Unlike the sockets we know today the sledgehammer socket will not have the hole in the centre, it is covered with pins. Many more pins.
Personally I am saving now for a 8 processor Opteron Sledgehammer w/3GB ram and Windows XP 64 bit.
Of great importance/concern to me is the fact that the opteron will have 2 64bit DDR channels as opposed to just 1 on the Athlon Clawhammer.
AMD has already fallen way behind Intel and i think that memory bandwidth is the single biggest reason why. Even if the Athlon XP had a higher fsb & memory bandwidth it would be significantly faster. The Nforce isn't any faster (despite dual channel architecture) because the FSB has not changed so what use is all this bandwidth if the cpu can't make use of it (FSB)? Intel is already working on a dual channel DDR chipset so I think it might be very possible that the Athlon Clawhammer could be DOA if they don't do something like add a second DDR channel. Besides, the market that the Athlon CH is after are the ones that need the most bandwidth, workstations and the like.
My message to AMD (although likely much too late) is make all K8's dual channel DDR, leave the Athlon Clawhammer with 1 HT link & the Opteron with 2 HT links. I really like AMD and what they are accomplishing but I can tell you that I most likely will not purchase any K8 cpu with only 1 DDR channel. If the Opterons are the only ones that have it and if they cost too much $$$, then I have no problems using Intel & the dual channel sulution they will have to offer.
AMD is in a position where they must now leapfrog the competition as they will have been behind for too long once hammer comes out, instead of just one-upping them (Intel). They will get destroyed if they don't produce something much more advanced than Intel, not just x86-64 which will take time & good support (AMD could take a lesson from Intel), but that's a whole other issue. A lot is riding on this release (for AMD) and they must have a powerful solution if they want to make x86-64 a standard which others will follow. I wish them luck.