Slashdot Mirror

AMD is important from an idealogical standpoint. I have two Linux boxes at home that have zero Intel or Microsoft components in them. And I like that very much. Every time I use those machines, I'm reminded that I voted for choice with my dollars, and that keeps me voting (like the $3500 ballot I cast when I bought the parts for my K7/600 system a couple weeks ago).

I don't like serialized CPUs. I don't like strong-arm, quasi-legal, neo-soviet business tactics. I don't like to be told what I want. I don't like paying a mint for CPUs just so I can fund some mindless "Our CPU makes the Internet better" campaign.

You like giving Micros~1 the finger? Well Intel ain't much better than them. So give them the finger too and get AMD and Via and Linux all together. If you do, you're casting your vote for freedom, choice, quality, advancing technology and lower prices.

P.S. The "major motherboard manufacturer" the Ars article mentioned is Asus and the mobo in question is called the K7M. Gamer's Depot has a review, as do many other sites. See AMD Zone for more news about all things AMD. And slota.com has a complete list of all the Slot A motherboards. Which makes it an interesting comparision to AMD's list.

-B

-B

AMD i'm hoping you are still pushing to put out those mobile k6-3s.

There's a reference to K6-III-Ps at speeds of 350, 366, and 380 MHz in AMD's retail employee website (registration required), and there's this less-detailed information in their public website. I don't know how any of this translates to notebooks that you can actually buy that have this processor...K6-2-Ps are available at speeds up to 475 MHz, and people seem to be fixating on megahertz alone. (Not that the K6-2's bad...I have one myself and it runs like a champ, but the K6-III, from all I've seen, is substantially faster, especially at high clock speeds where the L2 cache speed difference gets totally out-of-control.)

SPECint95
K7 700 -- 31.7
PowerPC 7400(G4?) 450 -- 21.4
PIII 600 -- 24

SPECfp95
K7 700 -- 24.0
PowerPC 7400(G4?) 450 -- 20.4
PIII 600 -- 15.9

This info was grabbed from each of the manufacturers pages.

Motorola 7400
Pentium III specfp
PIII specint
K7 specfp
K7 specint

Of course this just gives a rough idea of the performance of each chipset.

SPECint95
K7 700 -- 31.7
PowerPC 7400(G4?) 450 -- 21.4
PIII 600 -- 24

SPECfp95
K7 700 -- 24.0
PowerPC 7400(G4?) 450 -- 20.4
PIII 600 -- 15.9

This info was grabbed from each of the manufacturers pages.

Motorola 7400
Pentium III specfp
PIII specint
K7 specfp
K7 specint

Of course this just gives a rough idea of the performance of each chipset.

I bet their "x86 64" is a 64-bit version of the "RISC-86" internal op-set that Athlon uses, or something similar.

And I bet it's a 64-bit version of the "CISC-86" external instruction set that Athlon and K6 and K5 and Pentium {, Pro, II, III} and 486 and 386 use, given what they said in their press release:

"AMD plans to extend the x86 instruction set to include a 64-bit mode, delivering a simple yet powerful solution that enables all of the performance benefits associated with 64-bit computing, while maintaining compatability and a leading-edge performance roadmap for the existing installed base of x86 32-bit software applications and operating systems," said Weber. "No other 64-bit solution has full native x86 32- and 64-bit compatibility."

Yes, I guess one could, if one really wanted to, read that as saying "extend" in the sense of "add a different instruction set that only a little bit like x86", but I see no reason to believe that's likely to be interpretation AMD had in mind.

I really hope they don't just tweak the old CISC x86 instruction set

That's precisely what the AMD press release says they're going to do:

"AMD plans to extend the x86 instruction set to include a 64-bit mode, delivering a simple yet powerful solution that enables all of the performance benefits associated with 64-bit computing, while maintaining compatability and a leading-edge performance roadmap for the existing installed base of x86 32-bit software applications and operating systems," said Weber. "No other 64-bit solution has full native x86 32- and 64-bit compatibility."

There's also this random quote in there, also indicating that they don't plan to introduce some Exciting New 64-bit RISC Architecture:

"By extending the x86 instruction set to 64-bits, AMD's x86-64 technology should give us very fast compiler retargetting and the easiest kernel port so far," said Alan Cox, Linux Kernel Developer.

(Yeah, I just about dropped my teeth when I saw a quote from Cox in there....)

... is here.

Hmm ... there's a box labelled 1394A in the diagram but it doesn't go into more detail. Anyone care to shed more light one it.

Athlon Chipset

For a list of available motherboards for AMD K7 Athlon CLICK HERE.

AMD has a list of reccomended motherboards for the K7 (sorry AMD, but I hate the name "Athlon"). The list includes models by FIC, Gigabye, and Microstar.

Dysprosium

I don't agree... You can't always judge a processor by its megahertz. The Athlon can do 3 instructions at a time, and I believe the P3 can as well with its new SIMD. So I don't see why the Elbrus with its explicitly parallel architecture could not theoretically do the same. Although, I still have my doubts that this monkey from chat.ru is legit.

JOhn

the K7 does not use socket 7. It uses the socket A architecture. Try going here: Athlon FAQ.

I would presume that AMD, having a lower budget than Intel, is hoping that the intelligent community would see the benefits in its technology and download the specs to use them. AMD has all of its optimization information (VERY good information) available for its chips. http://www.amd.com/K6/k6docs/ for example.

Just in case some of you don't read c't ;-)

- here are the benchmarks for Athlon
(It's always in percent of the Pentium III):

SPECfp95

SPECint95

3D-Winbench

The numbers are taken from AMD with some values recalculated and added from Intel and Spec sources (published in c't 14/99)

From AMD's Athlon FAQ:

http://www.amd.com/products/cpg/athlon/faq

Question:

Will the AMD Athlon[tm] processor support multiprocessing?

Answer:

Yes. The AMD Athlon[tm] processor bus architecture is designed to support scalable multiprocessing. As the AMD Athlon evolves into a family of processors, multiprocessor systems (workstations and servers) based on forthcoming AMD Athlon platforms are planned to become available. The number of AMD Athlon processors in a multiprocessor system is a function of chipset implementation, and not the AMD Athlon design. Forthcoming optimized chipsets are planned to enable multiprocessor system designs based on 2,4,8 or more AMD Athlon processors.
Every 45 seconds, another arrest for Linux. 695000 last year. It's time for a change.

BTW: Looks like Athlon will just have the standard 3DNow! instruction set. No "Athlon New Instructions" ;) So check out the 3DNow! manual while you're waiting for the Athlon docs.
--

BTW: Looks like Athlon will just have the standard 3DNow! instruction set. No "Athlon New Instructions" ;) So check out the 3DNow! manual while you're waiting for the Athlon docs.
--

RTFF

Actually if you have a look at their reply dedicated to their pricing strategy you will note:


The strategy is not based on any specific percentage relationship with Intel products.


Obviously they do NOT want a price war, because they really need to charge premium to invest into K8 etc. However, Intel obviously doesn't want it, so in theory the price war will start. However, there is chance, that there will be no war, unless Intel has something better to offer. AMD may have finally achieved their desired goal to offer superior product and get some decent money. Let's not see what Intel has to reply. I would not bet on AMD too much, as Intel has no problems with capasity, and will manufacture .18 chips very good in volume.

As others have noted, the FAQ tells of the prices per 1000 (note the price for the 500 Mhz one). So I wondered over to PriceWatch to check on the K6-III/500.

Of course the retailers will mark up the price a bit from the one in the FAQ. I'd say it would start at $399-425. But to have it cheaper, or damn close to the price of the K6-III? Damn sweet for us, but what is AMD thinking? :)

Check out the prices, they aren't half bad.

600mhz - $699
550mhz - $479
500mhz - $324

Also, from browsing the AMD website, I came across this K7 FAQ. It's actually pretty interesting and gives some new information.

Look at their FAQ, they love this word so much, that even TMed it in every other line! Well, not really every, it seems they had no specific pattern in mind, or there were few people making the FAQ, one of which was way too font of this idea, and the other was probably about to get redundant.

Just a thought.

/.'ed pretty quick.

The Register, which I'de call the European equiv to /. also ran the story so im guessing that poor server's been crunching bandwidth for a while. I too am an intel hater. Originally a Mac lover and just plain anti-PC, it wasn't until I really found out what a horrible company intel was. Plus, when I went shoppin this last summer to build my own machine, I was impressed with how small, fast, and inexpensive the K6-2s are/were. I've always figured that having a big ass chip that heats up a house is poor design: I could put a jet engine on a pinto and speed by a porsche, but i'de still have a piece of shit car.

Your link is good, but few people can afford it. I would suggest another link - www.amd.com.

Something not well known by worshipers of the ZD benchmarks is that the AMD main "flaw" - low FPU is meaningless for a Unix system. Actually, when running at the same MHz AMD is even faster then Intel under Linux if the hard disk subsystem is supported by the kernel.

Personally I prefer Alpha as well, but I cannot afford it ;-). So I use AMD (I did not have an Intel CPU on any of my personal machines for the last 2 years).

• 400/139 = 2.877 Mhz per $1 for AMD
• 400/303 = 1.320 Mhz per $1 for intel

This is just another ploy by Intel to get people to stop using their processors altogether and switch to AMD. What more reasons do we need?

K7 = Faster + Better - CPUIDS
K6 = Almost as Fast + lots cheaper - CPUIDS

INTEL = Intel Knows Totally, Everyones Lives

Go AMD!

I hear that most of the top CPU manufacturers are supporting it.