Slashdot Mirror
AMD Opteron Due In April
updog writes "Here's an article from Infoworld claiming that the new 64-bit AMD Opteron is ready to launch on April 22. Some of the notable features of the new chip are an address space capable of addressing up to 1 Terabyte of memory, the ability to link up to 8 processors without any external chips, and backwards compatibility with existing 32-bit applications ..." PapaFSmurf, meanwhile, links to a disclaimer-heavy article posted at amdboard.com which says that 64-bit Athlons may arrive in June rather than September as previously expected.
The only thing the article references is that Newisys is leading the charge, but I don't see anything I would consider a source. Racksaver is claiming that evaluation units are available now, but mostly there's just a lot of Opteron Server Evaluation signups. Does anyone have any real information? Cost? Non-evaluation release? Anything?
Other rumours (see the Inquirer) suggest that it may be _later_ than Sept - _maybe_ arriving in time for the xmas season, though maybe not.
When betting on Clawhammer release dates, you'd be best advised to always count on the later date, rather than the earlier.
I'm actually more excited about PPC 970, thus finally allowing Apple to have a decent amount of hardware horsepower.
But were you seriously ready to plunk down the money for a Opteron? Since you didn't even buy a Barton 3000 it doesn't sound like your even close to being able to afford an Opteron. So why the regrets? You obviously wounldn't have bought one.
I think a lot of AMD users are misguided if they think 64bit chips are going to be what most users would call "afforardable" in the next year. Corporations might get ahold of these but only the most hardcore of hardcore will spend what's necessary to go 64bit x86 for a while.
And how many apps for 64 bit exist in the market?
And how many 32-bit OSses and apps were there back in 1985, when the 80386 was released? At the time it was released, it was treated by most users as an even faster 8086. It took ten years before a semi-32bit OS was accepted mainstream, and on top of that another 7 years before every sold PC had a full 32-bits OS. The success of the 386 was in its backward compatibility, and so will the success of x86-64 and the failure of the Itanium as mainstream-cpu be.
There are previous posts repeating this, but there's one problem with the theory: That taking advantage of the 64-bit architecture from the get-go will actually give a speed benefit. It also assumes that all of the source code is '64-bit clean', although that is likely not going to be much of a problem.
The problem is that, sure, everything is compiled into 64-bit mode. Fine. But can the compiler optimize the 64-bit code as well as it can optimize the older 32-bit code? Will the compiler make good use of the extra registers? I'm willing to bet that, for the first while, 64-bit AMD compilers will generate slower code than their 32-bit counterpart. (For 99% of all applications -- those which do NOT need more than 2 GB of memory).
And, of course, there is my major question: What kind of context switch and/or process latency can we expect from the Athlon64 & Opteron? I realize nearly all hard real-time apps don't need anything this powerful-- most good engineers will just put a microcontroller in to handle the hard real-time, and buffer things enough so that it doesn't matter that the workstation isn't hard real-time; but it does have a serious impact on other aspects of system responsiveness, as well as overall system performance for a microkernel architecture (such as HURD, Darwin, or QNX).
For that matter-- how will the Opteron's context switch time compare to other 'server' processors, like the UltraSparc, POWER4, Itanium, and, for good measure, PowerPC? Most of the arguments I've seen about modern x86 having a horrible context switch time don't seem to hold up to benchmarks I've seen-- where identically-clocked PowerPC and Pentiums take nearly the same time (and hence nearly the same number of clock cycles) to context switch...
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Makes sense to me. The -on suffix has a nice ring to it, sort of techy in a Greek kind of way. Plus it's an English word in its own right with generally positive connotations, turning you on to the product.
The prefixes are just common sense, conveying to the potential buyer what the company would like you to believe about their product. Athlons are Athletic. Durons are Durable. Opterons are Optimized for Optimum performance, suggesting that it's the best of the best. The Latin optimus, from which the prefix is ultimately derived, simply means "best".
Course, they had to throw an "er" into that last one, 'cause otherwise it would have sounded like some sort of legion of boxy doom robots in a low budget SF invasion flick: Oh my God, the Optons are coming! Run . . . RUN!
But even then that extra joining syllable was carefully chosen. They could have picked an i, making the product Option. That would pick up on the Opti- prefix of optimum and optimize, but it would also make the word an English word that merely means "one possible choice", clearly not the best message to send to a potential buyer looking for the best.
-er- works much better. Not only does it call to mind the English comparative adjectival ending ("It's not only opt, it's opter!), it also rhymes with the middle syllable of their highly successful Duron line, suggesting by extension that these new chips will carry on that tradition of excellent value for the money.
Over-analysis, you say? That which we call a CPU would perform its function by any other name? Certainly the silicon would work the same; but the perception of the chip would be different, perhaps worse for AMD, and for that reason the name matters. Names are words, and words are how we define reality. You might ask me "What's a figgin?" And I would say "A figgin is a type of pasty, with chicken inside and raisins on top." Prior to that you probably had no notion what a figgin was, and I have now created in your mind the idea that it's a chicken pasty with raisins on top, and I may also have conveyed the idea to you that it is tasty and filling. And I have done it using words. This is exactly what the AMD marketing people are trying to do: they are using words to create a reality in which people believe that AMD's products are superior (Ha! there's the next one: the Superion), and buy from AMD rather than its competitors as a result.
Typical attention spans are short, moreso now than before we got so saturated with advertising, so they have to pack as much meaning into as few words as possible. Figgin is a rotten product name. It has no linguistic history; it could just as easily be a bodily organ, often removed in unpleasant ways by sadistic tyrants. Athlon, Duron, Opteron are much better: they are made from phonemes that have positive connotations to English speakers, and in several other languages as well, notably the Romance tongues.
Sensible buyers will not make purchasing decisions based solely on this, of course, but the initial impression remains and is reinforced every time you see, hear, or think the name. That counts . . . it may not be logical, but humans are not always logical. (Seldom, in fact.)
Basically, I think AMD's marketing team has done an outstanding job picking these names. Even you, oh parent poster, must have picked up on the positive connotations, even if you then realized how silly the whole thing is and mocked them for it. AMD's going to need every advantage they can get to win serious market share from Intel, but if their naming team is anything to judge by, then they've made a good start.
Its going to be really sad how quad motherboards are still going to cost at least $800, even though they've got to be downright trivial to make compared to modern quad system. No central switching logic, just interconnect buses between processors! PCB and sockets aint that expensive, there's really no excuse. But its going to happen anyways.
Speak nothing of the many-thousand dollar eight processor boards.
Damn cushy profit margins.
The Abit BP6 was my introduction to low cost SMP. Now I've got a craving for more, but I dont think its going to happen. Even thought it could.
Maybe someone will get smart and make a enthusiast board. I seriously doubt it though. Not when there's bigger fish to fry. How long is it going to take for someone to realize that although less profitable, there will be untapped demand for non-server class quad systems.
Myren
I know you're making a joke, but when was the last time you saw an AMD ad on TV or heard one on the radio?
AMD needs good products but they also need a marketing campaign. The phrase "so good it'll sell itself" is untrue no matter how good a product is.
"But Engineers are the only people in the near future who need 64-bit processors on their desktops."
To add to the list of this siblings' posts, most newer video games from the top manufacturers are also going to need 64 bit. Unreal will soon require 64 bit for their mod development tools, I'm sure id software is also going to have no problem improving performance on 64 bit platforms.
Did anybody really need 32 bit CPU's when intel went from 286 -> 386? Maybe not, maybe so. But that is what happened, and now everyone uses 32 bit, and needs AT LEAST that. It's only evolution that we move to 64bit cpu's, more general purpose registers, and shed the excess bloat that AMD is doing.
Sure, you might not find a use for it yourself, and if you haven't, you should keep buying 32 bit cpu's. But for me, and many more gamers and game developoers/modders (who are the ones that have pushing the desktop performance barrier higher and higher over the years) are going to use them, and NEED them. I plan on running the latest video games on my 64bit athlons when they arrive.
"But there already are affordable 64-bit servers for the masses, cheap SPARCs, PPCs and so on."
If you consider cheap SPARCs, PPC,s and so on to be cheap, high performance, and usefull on the desktop, you have another thing coming. For one, there are no, and never will be, drivers for commodity hardware for these platforms. Secondly the chips that offer reasonable performance aren't "cheap" as you call it. They are very very expensive, and their platform is also very very expensive (relative to x86-64, and x86-32). And there is only a small handfull of software packages(that the mainstream doesn't use, gamers can't use, etc..) that run on them compared to what AMD is offering.
"The one and only edge that x86 has is backwards compatibility and the use of very cheap commodity components."
though this is not the only edge x86 has (ie, look at its high competition market, which drives performance up way faster than the platforms you mentioned previously) you have hit this nail right on the head. One of the biggest advantages x86 has is its compatibility with commodity components. Untill those SPARC, 64bit PPC, and Alpha machines run my webcam, my USB Scanner, my USB printer, my IDE hard drives for a reasonable price without having to buy proprietary and expensive compatibility components, your argument stands mute.
Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
In the article, it said "...AMD links memory directly to each CPU", which right off the bat makes me think NUMA (Non Uniform Memory Access). NUMA machines are made up of nodes, which have a processor or two, and a bank of local memory. But one CPU can access any memory in the system, it just takes longer if it isn't local - hence the name NUMA. Did anyone else get that impression?
Gotta get me one of these!
I don't think this is true. The Opteron will be replacing AMD's current Multi-processor offering (Which is the Athlon MP) and the Athlon will replace the uni-processor offerings (Athlon XP.)
There will probably be some "High End" Opteron chips with large cache, but overall the chips will most likely be priced for market share.
I do agree with the part about the main competitor being Itanium, but not price-wise. Ultimately I believe that Itanium will offer better performance, but at the price of compatibility and cost.
I can't wait to have a 64-bit workstation!
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Ohh, very cool. I was still under the impression that Athlon64's would be single-processor systems. In that case, I can't wait for a Dual Processor, 64-bit workstation!
As for price, they will have to be cheap to stay competitive with Intel's 32-bit offerings. The new 64-bit core of the Opteron/Athlon64 will replace the entire line of AMD's processors, so there will be cheap Athlon64's in time.
I just hope that the AMD chips aren't used solely as "Fast 32-bit" processors; I would hope that Microsoft and other software developers keep to the promise to have 64-bit versions of windows and other packages. Once again Microsoft will be developing Windows for multiple platforms; it used to be x84, MIPS, PPC, and Alpha. Now it will be x86, x86-64, Itanium.
Of course, Linux already has x86-64 support, but for mainstream acceptance we need everything to support it, even Windows. (ie- let's not turn this into a Linux vs Windows fight.)
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
The so-called "very low end server" market makes up 90% of all x86 servers sold. Most x86 based data centers, albiet Linux or Windows, use single or dual-processor servers in load-balanced clusters. Most of these servers run Pentium 3 processors.
These servers handle most of the workload, while a small few "high end x86" servers can handle database things. Sometimes, the database sits on non-x86 platforms.
The AthlonMP is a higher-performance alternative to the dual-Pentium 3 server/workstation, and can even perform well against a dual-xeon box.
It's hard to know where AMD is trying to position this processor, but it seems to me that the new processor core is positioned to compete with Intel on all fronts. Perhaps the processor will perform so well and be so much cheaper then the Itanium that it will bring very-high performance computing to places that could normally not afford it. We don't know; we'll have to wait and see.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
I've always upgraded by the rule of "order of four". This gives me what I need at minimal expense.
// here, availability is the issue
I generally hold off upgrading until I see at least 4x performance improvement, barring special needs. My recent upgrade from a 450 Mhz PII >> 1800 Athlon is no exception. I probably won't upgrade again until at least 4 Ghz unless there is a real need for it.
Also, I never buy the "top end". If you look at prices, you'll find that prices start kinda cheap, rise slowly for a while, and then suddenly climb, as you go from low to high end.
The last item before that spike is the one I buy.
Notice: hard drives. (pricewatch.com =)
$49 = 20 GB
$58 = 30 GB
$59 = 40 GB (who'd get a 30?)
$67 = 60 GB
$77 = 80 GB
$100 = 100 GB (small spike = 80'd be ok)
$106 = 120 GB (don't bother with the 100)
$151 = 160 (Big spike. Go with an 80 or a 120)
Or, perhaps, AMD CPUs?
$50 1500 Mhz
$49 1600 Mhz
$50 1700 Mhz
$58 1800 Mhz
$63 1900 Mhz
$71 2000 Mhz
$83 2100 Mhz
$95 2200 Mhz
$122 2400 Mhz
$170 2500 Mhz (Big spike, get a 2200 or 2400)
This is true in almost every part of the computer industry. At this point, a 2400 Mhz AMD is considered "commodity" while the 2500 is not. Same with 160 GB HDs vs. 120s.
With this, I'm almost happy with my equipment, and still have money to spend on my 5 (yes, FIVE) children.
-Ben
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
They really shouldn't have double the memory foot-print. Code size increases only slightly (from an average of 3.4 bytes per instruction to 3.8 bytes per instruction). Integer size remains the same. Only long integers and pointers double in size. You'd probably get more of a noticible growth by compiling with GCC with inlining enabled.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...