Slashdot Mirror
AMD's Socket 939, Athlon 64 FX-54 amd 64 3800+
BudKnight writes "It looks like AMD is launching four new desktop processors, a new core, and
a new socket infrastructure today.
HotHardware has tested AMD's two new
flagship processors, the Athlon 64 FX-53 and the Athlon 64 3800+. The new
FX-53 no longer needs registered memory to function and the 3800+ has only 512K
of cache, but it gets an upgraded 128-bit memory controller. The usual
suspects also have reviews posted as well -
TechReport,
Hard|OCP,
Beyond3D - more
are sure to follow."
Due to lack of commericial 64 bit code they run 32 bit code cause thats what evryone runs in the real world and it still kicks ass. AMD is not joking around anymore and comming out with good stuff like this.This is the first time I seen something "backwards compatible" thise good.
That is true, however the average consumer WILL NOT be running 64-bit until Windows does get its 64-bit edition running perfectly and shipping with it. Although I do think they should have at least benchmarked it with some type of *nix for 64-bit...
Since just about anything else avilable today (at least to general consumers) are running at 32 bit (disregarding the fact that it's still possible to get hold of 16 bit and 8 bit chips off course) it make damn good sence to compare the new AMD64 to other chips while running it in 32 bit mode. Otherwise, you would be comparing apples and oranges... since no other CPU runs in 64 bit mode.
Could be interesting to benchmark a AMD64 in 32 bit mode against a AMD64 in 64 bit mode thought... that would say a lot about how much there is to gain in going to 64 bit mode in the first place...
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
The average consumer don't even know how many bits its CPU has.
The AMD64 platform design was released several years late and amd had to honor obligation with manufacturers that had already invested time and effort in the r&d based on the specs it issued before the delays. Once most of these "proto-type" boards (or whatever you will call them) were reasonably sold out, they could go ahead with thier advancments they discovered along the line.
It sounds like the consumer got the raw end, but in reality it allowed the motherboard and chipset manufacturers to have a sence of confidence and time to develope working designs for the newer socket. It is a win-win type situation except for those that bought with the intention of upgrading. But then again most people in that situation (like me) would have been reading about the new socket when researching whether or not to get one and made a decision to live with it. Others would be just getting it for a system that would last a while bfore buying another.
You underclocked your Athlon 1800+?! ;-)
Turn in your National Geek Association membership card at the door as you leave, sir!
Blah.. Underclocking is completely acceptable for geeks. Most overclockers on the other hand, are the rice boy equivalent for the computer world. Overclocking is hardly even considered geeky. Most geeks, especially professionals, will look down upon overclocking.
#!/
Otherwise, you would be comparing apples and oranges... since no other CPU runs in 64 bit mode.
By that logic, when a processor comes out with a new multimedia extension, or an increased L1 cache size, or a deeper pipeline, or a more efficient instruction scheduler, we should do comparisons with the new feature turned off, because no other CPU has it.
The real reason these chips were tested in 32 bit mode is because the testers ran WinXP on them for the tests. This is reasonable in that it's what most potential purchasers of the processors would be running, not because it's a more valid comparison against other 32-bit chips. If the most common software were available in 64-bit versions, it would be unreasonable not to use that and let the AMD64 chips show their full capability. (Assuming the software would run faster in 64-bit mode, which isn't necessarily true).
Users of more flexible software would find it interesting to see how their favorite tools run in 64 bit mode, of course, but that's a smaller audience, so those tests will come later.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
IBM/everyone did the same when they went from 30 pin to 72 pin SIMMS, then to DIMMS, then to DDR DIMMS.
The switch from 30-pin to 72-pin SIMMS, and then on to DIMMS, occured as a result of the memory bus width increasing.
When the normal width for a memory bank reached 64 bits, they went from 30-pin to 72-pin. (It was easier to insert one 72-pin SIMM than four 30-pin SIMMs.)
When the normal width for a memory bank reached 128 bits, they switched from SIMMs to DIMMS. (Again, it is easier to insert one DIMM than two 72-pin SIMMs. Imagine what would happen if every RAM upgrade meant you had to insert eight 30-pin SIMMs.)
However, the switch from SDRAM DIMMs to DDR SDRAM DIMMs was strictly for bandwidth, not for making memory insertion cheaper/easier. ("Cheaper" because one DIMM socket takes up much less board space than eight 30-pin SIMM sockets.)
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
> after all that "Slot A", Socket 7xx/9xx nonsens you cant just buy a board
Erm, what "Slot A nonsens"? Yeah, years ago AMD switched from Slot A to Socket A for very good reasons and has stuck with Socket A up until now. In fact my CPU (Barton 3200+) recently died and I threw in a Duron 1ghz to keep my board running until I got a replacement. Again, PCI->AGP made a hell of a lot of sense and was again years ago, as does the current PCI -> PCI-E. Now the only "nonesens" has been the 754>939 change for single to dual channel, but AMD has publicly stated this will happen the whole time, plus they'll still produce at least one more round for 754 and 940 sockets.
So yeah, things change and your old stuff won't work any more, stop wining. At least it's not as bad as Intel (how many sockets have they had in the past few years anyway?).
what about the people building thier own computer and selected a smaller processor because it wass afordable and then plan on buying a better one when availible. I did this witha system i built for less then $300 The processor i wanted at the time cost almost that much. so i took an extra year or so to get one. With the socket A, i was able to get even a newer/faster processor then i originally wanted to.
...probably about 3 people have them.
We have an 8 way SGI Altix 350 down the hall. I didn't know I would be in such refined company.
And they can't run 32 bit code natively, it must be done in emulation.
Intel's original purpose was to put these chips in servers and high end workstations, places where 32-bit compatibility was not its main purpose.
For CFD on the codes that I run (full Navier-Stokes equations with LES), an Itanium2 at 1.5 Ghz is twice as fast as a 3.0Ghz P4. (According to SGI these are $10k/chip, the lowly 1.4 Ghz are $3k/chip)
The 386 did not run at a slower slock speed and kick the 286's ass.the p4 is is 1 GHZ faster in the clock department and still can't beat the AMD64 that's what make's this more impresive.
However, unlike ricing a car, overclocking actually does make your computer faster... assuming you can stand the heat, and the increase in power usage, and quite possibly the instability (if it isn't done properly).
Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous