Athlon 64 Pushed Back to September

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Athlon 64 Pushed Back to September

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Friday January 31, 2003 @05:30AM from the hold-your-breath dept.

Orion writes "AMD confirmed today that their new Athlon 64 will indeed be pushed back to September. Originally planned to be released in April or May, AMD has decided to put all of its brainpower into the launch of the 64-bit Opteron, which is still scheduled to be released on April 22. This article explains that AMD is still going to try to get a few more Athlon XP processors out before the Athlon 64 hits stores. The 3000+ has a planned February 10 release date, and the 3200+ should be out by the middle of the year according to the article."

26 of 340 comments (clear)

So? by Salden · 2003-01-31 05:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

The server market needs the 64bit cpus before consumers do anyway. I am looking forward to the barton cores with their better cache performance. It's still impressive to see what their doing with a look less cycles than Intel. I hope they get a good share in the server market with the Opteron as it will build confidence in AMD across the board.
Duke Nukem! by Deflagro · 2003-01-31 05:39 · Score: 4, Funny

Man i can't wait to play Duke Nukem Forever on my new Opteron system. I'm saving a penny a day and by the time i have enough money, i should be able to buy all i need.

WOOT!@#

--
Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
1. Re:Duke Nukem! by Wolfier · 2003-01-31 06:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Price of an average game: $60
  Price of an expensive system: $4000
  
  Total: $4060
  
  That is, 406000 pennies. Assume every year is leap, 406000 / 366 = 1112.
  
  i.e. 1112 years from now you have saved enough money.
  
  However, price deflates. By that time these stuffs probably go for free.
  
  My best bet is, spend all your pennies now and wait for 20 years. Then get them both for free.
2. Re:Duke Nukem! by Anonvmous+Coward · 2003-01-31 07:49 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  "i.e. 1112 years from now you have saved enough money."
  
  Good job deciphering his joke. Now I know why engineering joke books always come with scratch paper.
Tactically wise by l33t-gu3lph1t3 · 2003-01-31 05:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

AMD's decision to delay it's Athlon64 CPU series release date until September (possibly timed to the release of a 64bit version of Windows) is pretty smart, actually. By delaying, AMD loses in the highend desktop arena, but is now able to spend those resources on the potentially far more lucrative Opteron systems. Why release a fast, inexpensive processor for the desktop market when you can release a slightly slower one, for a different market, for much, much more? By concentrating on the big iron of Opteron, AMD might be able to halt their financial bloodletting, and get back in the black in time for Athlon64...

--
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
Re:Another... by Dastardly · 2003-01-31 05:41 · Score: 5, Informative

Also that AMD will not release until M$ is ready. The should release for Linux, but want to keep us hanging on as Intel's grip on the market tightens.

Did you even read the article?? Opteron is still scheduled for April 22. It is the release for Linux.
AMD is waiting for Microsoft by dtjohnson · 2003-01-31 05:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

A story in the inquirer
says AMD is "waiting for the introduction of a suitable 64-bit operating
system. This, The INQUIRER believes, is the Windows 64 bit version specifically
for the Athlon64."

How many companies have died while waiting for Microsoft
to do something? (Note to AMD: Microsoft is *not* your friend.)
1. Re:AMD is waiting for Microsoft by SN74S181 · 2003-01-31 07:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You're forgetting how people sucked up the early Intel 32-bit processors like gummi bears at the movie theatre, all the while running a 16 bit OS from Microsoft.
  
  People love the idea that they're buying something expandable. It's what sells expensive cameras. Slap a 'Coming Soon! 64 bit Windows!' sticker on the side of the carton and they'll blow out the door. You think once the whiff of Win64 is in the air that anybody is going to want to buy another 32 bit box?? And look like their neighbor with the Celeron? No way!
2. Re:AMD is waiting for Microsoft by Vlad_the_Inhaler · 2003-01-31 07:31 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  C't, the German technical magazine, got hold of a 1.2GHz Hammer recently. They ran various 32-bit benchmarks on it against a 1.2GHz Athlon XP and a 2.2GHz P4s.
  The Hammer blew the Athlon out of the water and was only slightly slower that the P4 on most tests. For example, the Linux 2.4 kernel compile times were: 161s (Hammer) 222s (Athlon) and 166s (P4) [yup, I know the Hammer won that one].
  Two weeks later, they posted more benchmarks with software optimised for the P4. The Hammer benefitted more from the optimisations than the P4 did.
  Bottom line is, everything benefits with this processor. 64-Bit applications benefit even more. I bought shares in that company this week on the back of those results and wish they would release that baby as soon as possible to anyone who wants it.
  
  --
  Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
What's in a name? by Some+Bitch · 2003-01-31 05:45 · Score: 3, Funny

The current MS desktop is XP, the current AMD desktop ship series is the XP. The next big MS release keeps getting put back. The next big AMD release just got put back. There is, however, no link between these facts and you'd be a fool and a communist to think so ;)
Why rush for a 64 bit processor? by clevelandguru · 2003-01-31 05:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Other than for encryption, there are not many common desktop application that needs a 64 bit processor. Why this rush for 64 bit processor?
1. Re:Why rush for a 64 bit processor? by binaryDigit · 2003-01-31 05:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  For AMD it's simple, product differentation and market prestige. AMD is in a position that they always look like they are feeding off of Intels table scraps. This is an opportunity for them to establish themselves as a tech. leader and not simply a me-too company.
  
  That and the fact that the margins on the new processors will be significantly higher than existing chips, a much needed boost in revenues.
2. Re:Why rush for a 64 bit processor? by SWPadnos · 2003-01-31 06:06 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Actually, there are several applications, albeit specialized ones:
  
  1) Databases - a lot of databases are too big for a pointer offset to fit into 32 bits. Ever notice that the 120Gig hard drive you just bought has more than 2^32 bytes on it? (yes - I know that the hard drive is split into 512-byte sectors, and that you won't overflow 32 bits until you get drives larger than 2 TB, but how long will that take :)
  
  2) Video (editing, encoding, etc) - a single layer of a single side of a DVD is more than can be addressed by a 32-bit pointer. The amount of source data used to create the highly compressed DVD data is mind-boggling. (A high quality transfer from film is about 100M per frame. A 2-hour film has 172800 frames [assuming it's not IMax - that's higer resolution and more frames per second] - that's 17 terabytes of raw data!)
  
  3) High dynamic range images (including photographs and extrme high color video games) - the data types being used by the GeForce FX (similar to the EXR format released by ILM) have 16 bits of data per channel - this totals 64 bits for each RGBA pixel.
  
  I'm sure there are more - these few just jumped into mind quickly.
  
  Of course, for those who use Windows, you'll need 64-bit CPU's to be able to load those Word XP-2004.Net documents :)
  
  --
  - The Sigless Wonder
3. Re:Why rush for a 64 bit processor? by Zathrus · 2003-01-31 07:38 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  So, in other words, right now a 64 bit CPU is not needed for this. Why did you list it?
  
  Uh... sure it is. Right now you can't easily address a file >2 GB on a 32-bit CPU. Doing so requires a file pointer larger than 32 bits in size (most vendors go to a 64-bit unsigned int, but implementations do vary) and that causes a pretty dramatic slow down on a 32-bit CPU. A 2 GB DB may have been large once upon a time, but it's trivial nowadays. Medium sized databases are in the hundreds of gigs, large in the terabyte range, and some of the biggest are pushing a petabyte.
  
  Moving a database (or any other large file I/O heavy operation) to a 64-bit CPU can dramatically improve performance for this reason alone.
  
  I believe the original poster said common applications
  
  I believe watching a DVD on a PC is becoming increasingly common. HDTV on PCs isn't too uncommon, and HDTV dumps make DVDs look puny - even when compressed. Video editing is becoming more common as well, which utilizes both large files and can take advantage of the larger operations on a 64-bit CPU.
  
  probably done on a unix system with a 64 bit cpu already
  
  Yes, as are all of the applications... and it only costs 100x as much for a slower CPU. The point is that x86-64 will bring 64-bit computing to an entirely new price point - you'll be able to build a fast 64-bit PC for less than the price of a single 64-bit chip from Sun, IBM, Intel, or HP. That's pretty significant.
  
  Honestly, there isn't much need for a 64-bit desktop CPU. But there isn't much need for a 2 GHz desktop CPU either. For those that can take advantage of the higher bit width, or speed, or both, the improvements are indeed massive.
Cool by mao+che+minh · 2003-01-31 05:51 · Score: 3, Funny

Should be out just in time for World Of Warcraft. This must be why Blizzard is dragging their feet, they're gonna wow us with a 64 bit MMORPG!
Q3 by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · 2003-01-31 05:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Amd said that the clawhammers would be released in q3 2003 some time ago. Last time I checked September was Q3...

--
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
Re:Not entirely clear.... by BeBoxer · 2003-01-31 05:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

he press release *seemed* to indicate that only the Athlon64 (single-processer desktop version) would be delayed, and perhaps not the Opteron (multi-CPU server version). However, it wasn't entirely clear.

So when the posted article said in the second paragraph:

Opteron, in keeping with the company's original launch date, is set to officially debut on April 22 in New York City.

That wasn't clear enough for you? Only the desktop and mobile versions are being delayed. Which makes sense. The market for a 64-bit laptop right now is pretty slim. But I think AMD will probably make the April release date. Opteron servers are actually shipping now in limited quantities to beta evaluators. And I actually touched a Linux-running, working, Opteron server at a conference last November. These things are a long way from being vapor. I'm betting that AMD just wants to be super careful since the server market is not very tolerant of crappy hardware.
Re:It's a good thing by ckaminski · 2003-01-31 06:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually, to make systems respond better, increasing processors isn't going to help. Increasing cache hits and reducing time for disk reads is really the only reason to make systems snappier. As an example, in my poor laptop with 256K of cache, if I'm using a boatload of apps (MSDev, Explorer, Outlook, vi, etc) I'm going to be replacing pages in my poor cache nearly every second. I get a maybe 25% cache hit rate on my machine (from performance testing). With slow disk drives, that drives my performance down even more. When it comes to compiling, I can pin the CPU. But when it comes to working with Word and or Excel, CPU is hardly the problem for me anymore. Then it becomes the software going out and loading up wizards, and attempting to do things for me that I don't necessarily want it to do (MSdev with auto-indent, etc.).

I've LONG been a fan of software with two flags. New [l]user mode.
Super [l]user mode.

So if I set Super luser mode, the software doesn't do SQUAT. No clippy, no autocomplete, no nothing. I hate it very much when my typing stream gets interrupted because Word or MSDev or Excel goes off and tries to autocomplete something (so I spend several hours every time I get a new machine turning said features off, and every new release turns them back on.. <sigh>). :-)
Happy weekend, all.
-Chris
Re:AMD by Zathrus · 2003-01-31 06:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's very nice. But know what? AMD really couldn't care less about you and your one system.

Release dates are very important to businesses, however, and anyone that is planning to make a large purchase of high-end workstations or servers (although servers are more interested in Opteron) is interested in release dates. As are system integrators and OEMs (who usually have better, albeit unofficial, info anyway, as well as access to samples if they're large enough).

There's quite a few companies that are waiting for a low priced 64-bit chip to be released. Generally these companies are using high-priced Sun/HP/IBM/whatever systems that either use their own CPU or a Itanium. The cost savings to move from one of these platforms to an Opteron or Athlon64 would be substantial, presuming you don't also need the higher I/O provided by such a system.

But, really, AMD doesn't care about your single system. Honestly.
Why change? by avandesande · 2003-01-31 06:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why pull the rug out from under the Barton Athlons when they are still making money and relatively competitive with Intel's cpu? Technology releas dates have as much to do with marketing as engineering...

--
love is just extroverted narcissism
Athlon64 != Opteron by asv108 · 2003-01-31 06:25 · Score: 4, Informative

Judging by the current posts, there seems to be a lot of confusion. The Athlon64 is AMD's 64 bit desktop offering, which will now be coming out in the early fall instead late spring.
The Opteron's debut is set for April 22nd .
AMD says... by Chris+Pimlott · 2003-01-31 06:29 · Score: 4, Informative

According to AMD:

Q:What are the differences between the AMD Athlon 64 and AMD Opteron processors?

A:The upcoming AMD Opteron and AMD Athlon 64 processors are designed for different markets. For the server/workstation market, the AMD Opteron processor will undergo more stringent validation and reliability testing. Another difference will be in the number of HyperTransport links embedded on the chip. The AMD Athlon 64 processor will contain one HyperTransport link offering 6.4 GB/s data transfer while the AMD Opteron processor will offer three links. The processors will also contain different amounts of cache.
Dude it goes to 64! by Atomizer · 2003-01-31 06:32 · Score: 4, Funny

When we need that extra little processing kick, we just turn it up to 64.

Why don't you just get a faster 32 bit processor?

Uhh...but ours goes to 64.
Please don't rip on release dates by diablobynight · 2003-01-31 06:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

You know I would prefer them to wait and release a product when it works right as apposed to when Intel released the first P4s and they were slower than the P3s on the market. Plus these processors originally named sledgehammer and clawhammer will be a great addition to the multiple cpu community because they contain there own memory processors, so the woes of redundant work in multiple CPU systems will be reduced by not having to recache the memory constantly, like modern Xeon servers do. Plus don't you like the idea of your memory bandwidth actually increasing with each processor you install

--
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
Re:It's a good thing by ackthpt · 2003-01-31 07:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

Actually, to make systems respond better, increasing processors isn't going to help. Increasing cache hits and reducing time for disk reads is really the only reason to make systems snappier.
Which is why, cache aside, simply adding system memory often improves performance far more than dropping $$$ on a new CPU. Particularly the case with MS apps, only they can explain why my XP 2600+/333 smokes the computer at work in everything but loading MS applications. More than twice the clockspeed and a fat lot of memory doesn't seem to make a hoot of a difference, meanwhile Persistence of Vision renders much, much faster (almost dislocated my jaw the first time I saw it render a 1024x768 anti aliased image in a fraction of the time the 933 PIII did at work.) Probably the same old bottlenecks all versions of windows suffer, load tons of crap in memory and everything waits on disk i/o.
If MS were required to put a meter on the screen: [Microsoft Visual Studio] *click*
Now loading 128MB of DLL's you probably will only need 2% of.
So if I set Super luser mode, the software doesn't do SQUAT. No clippy, no autocomplete, no nothing. I hate it very much when my typing stream gets interrupted because Word or MSDev or Excel goes off and tries to autocomplete something (so I spend several hours every time I get a new machine turning said features off, and every new release turns them back on.. ). :-)
Always top of my list of complaints about MS apps, getting them to shup up so I can get something done. I know exactly what you are talking about, because I've been there enough myself. Now if only I could stop crap from popping up while I'm typing (Not web pop-ups) and removing focus. That is some seriously irritating sh!t, espeically if it includes a default action set on a button and I was just hitting ENTER (RETURN for those of use who remember the past :-) and I begin yelling obsenities. Warnings should be passive and off to the side. Yeah, I'll see them, but let me finish what I'm doing, as I'm the master not the damned slave.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:AMD by Anonvmous+Coward · 2003-01-31 07:42 · Score: 3, Funny

"At least now Apple has a better chance of releasing the first 64 consumer desktops."

Really? What color? I just got a new pair of shoes.