Slashdot Mirror
AMD Launches Athlon 64 FX-57
Kez writes "Today AMD release what could be the fastest x86 processor to date. The FX-57 is the first 90nm Athlon 64 FX from AMD, clocked to 2.8GHz, with 1MiB of L2 cache and support for SSE3. The memory controller has also been tweaked to support mismatched memory module sizes - something some enthusiasts have been crying out for. Hexus.net reviews the new processor, which, in gaming benchmarks, walks all over any of Intel's offerings." There's going to be plenty of reviews I'm sure - if you've found other links, please post them below.
Probably the best place to look for info:w s&file=article&sid=3165&mode=thread&order=0&thold= 0
http://amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Ne
No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
Toms Hardware Review
Coral Cache: http://www.hexus.net.nyud.net:8090/content/reviews /review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD0xMzE3
Why would I buy this instead of a dual core 4800+? Two is more than one! Even if the two cores are lower clock speeds.
http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review_print. php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD0xMzE3
This is filler. This is more filler. This is even more filler. This is a rant about the captcha.
-theGreater.
I know I can't wait to do spreadsheets in 2.8Ghz, 64-bit glory. >_> That aside, this is still a pretty awesome development.
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
I stopped caring about CPU advances when the Pentium II reached 233 MHz. I run Windows 98 on my machine wihtout a firewall and I have never had a problem with spyware or viruses. How about we focus research and development on somehting more important, like fuel cells to power my wireless mouse.
I've been looking to upgrade (just buying a new mb/cpu/ram combo), but which processor is which out of MANCHESTER, CLAWHAMMER, SAND DIEGO, VENICE, and WINCHESTER??
C:\>
Will a beowulf cluster of these run OSX?
(I honestly can't tell if I'm being +5 funny or -1 troll some days...)
What is 1 MiB of L2 cache? 1 Million Bytes?
For a definition of MiB see this wikipedia article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte
n 64/fx57/001.htm
And here is a random review that includes the actual cache numbers -- http://www.gdhardware.com/hardware/cpus/amd/athlo
I'm poor, yet I want to buy a new PC.
Therefore, if new CPUs come out, I can get an old one at a greatly reduced price.
I do hope I'll be able to afford a 64-bit CPU... otherwise my new computer will be even more outdated as soon as I buy it.
Ignore this signature. By order.
AMD only have about 15% of the market after beating Intel numerious of time tell you how smart the general public are.
"But what do I know...I still can't type faster than a 486."
I don't know. My 486 has never even seen Mavis Beacon. Probably can't type worth old stinky beans.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
http://www.dvhardware.net/article5557.html
A list of all FX-57 reviews, more will be added when I spot them.
It doesn't always go down. It only slows down until we tweak the max number of connections for the traffic that's coming in.
I'm not sure whether hexus.net aliases to somewhere else in your DNS or something, but our reviews are never 'pretty bad', even though I do say so myself. Maybe you're reading another site instead of ours?
Feel free to point out what you think we suck at though, incase we're missing something and you can help us fix it. Feedback is always welcome, even from Slashdotters.
- 'sup, G?
Did you see the power requirements? 104W for a single core? I really can't imagine Apple preferring this to a Pentium-M derivative.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This might depend on how fast Intel can deliver its dual-core Pentium M in 65 nm (Codename Yonah). If it is available in early 2006 as promised, Apple will have no reason to switch to AMD.
If it is, however, vaporware, you might be right.
C - the footgun of programming languages
I've got a Socket 939 motherboard. Will any AMD 939 CPU always work perfectly with my MB (after bios flash)?
Or will there come a time when it may be a 939 cpu but won't work with my MB?
The reason it costs so much is you just outfitted your rig with some seriously serious hardware. You went close to top of the line of your own volition. The top-shelf stuff will always cost you a premium - one that doesn't usually scale to the increase in performance - because you're going for best of the best.
Apple neeeds a new CPU for their laptop and Intel is curently spanking AMD soundly in low wattage CPUs. If Apple didn't need Intels laptop CPUs I wouldn't doubt they would have gone with AMD.
I wonder if it fixes the 2T memory timings when using 4 sticks of ram. I really want 2 gigs of ram without loosing my current 1 gig.
Well, that's what you get for not researching properly before buying things. :)
So, there are three socket types for AMD64 CPUs. The low-end stuff is Socket 754 - Sempron and Athlon64 and such. S754 is basically a dead end.
Socket 939 is a much more promising long-term socket for Athlon64 upgrades. Most new S939 boards these days are being made with PCIe, which dovetails nicely with the fact that the high-end graphics card vendors are all moving PCIe as well.
Socket 940 is for Opterons and Athlon64-FX chips. The FX chips are really expensive and really fast, but more expensive than fast when compared to their S939 brethren. Socket 940 boards come in both AGP and PCIe variants (since S940 is relatively old and predates PCIe, many AGP S940 boards exist).
As far as I know, there aren't any plans for dual-core chips on the S754 chipsets. However, the Athlon64-x2 chips are S939, and the dual-core Opterons are all S940. If you have an S939 board, it's probably smarter to forget the FX chips and go straight for an A64-x2 once they become a bit more affordable.
The extra pin doesn't make much of a difference. And I believe you read wrong; it used to be that the Athlon 64's were 754, the Athlon FX's were 940. Eventually they swapped everything over to the 939 (excepting the Opterons, which use the extra pin for the registered memory (I think)). Gamers won't benefit (and may lose out) by using an Opteron (just because of the registered memory), and I assume you're a gamer, with all the high-end hardware you just picked up. You're fine with 939.
Summary:
754: Old Athlon 64's
940: Opterons (and maybe the old FX's - the more I think about it, the fuzzier I get on this)
939: New Athlon 64's and FX's
The price of this thing is high... what else can you buy for $1031 (when bought by 1000 pcs)
Thanks. Still not sure why they had to make two chips one pin off though...
Marketing. S939 chips won't fit into S940 sockets and vice versa. S940 is for server products and S939 is for desktop products. That way they can keep their market segregated. You can do things that make the server stuff more expensive (more testing and verification, etc.) while not impacting your desktop prices as much.
It's basically the same thing as the Pentium4 vs. Xeon. Little difference between the two physically but one is for servers the other for desktops.
All the FX chips are Socket 939. The only chips that are socket 940 are Opterons. The Athlon-FX chips are basically Socket 939 Opterons.
Socket 939 is for the single CPU systems (including multiple cores).
Socket 940 is for multiple CPU systems (ie. Opteron).
The ratio of people to cake is too big
MB: Megabyte (1000*1000=10^6 bytes)
MiB: Mebibyte (1024*1024=2^20 bytes)
theefer
The memory controller has also been tweaked to support mismatched memory module sizes - something some enthusiasts have been crying out for
I wonder how AMD was able to translate fanboi-talk from
Wah Wah! Make it faster! Make it faster!
to
Please tweak your memory controller to support mismatched memory module sizes...
It boggles the mind!
So in the meantime, you have PPC Macs that are slower than x86s. Then they will transition to Intel PCs that are slower than AMD PCs. Wonderful.
Because you're willing to pay for it, even while complaining about it. Welcome to a market economy.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
" Well, that's what you get for not researching properly before buying things."
Speaking of proper research...
I hope to dear god nobody reads the +5 parent comment and buys a socket 940 mobo for their FX. They are a 939 part that is multiplier unlocked (no ceiling lock like other A64s) and despite what the parent says, they are currently the best desktop CPU money can buy for gaming.
- Toby
The only problem with it is it needs 1.21 gigawatts of electrical power to generate that kind of speed, and the only thing that can generate that much electricity... is...
A BOLT OF LIGHTNING!
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
It's the technology, stupid. Early K6's (I recall having a 3.3v one) were heat monsters. Later I had K6-2+ @500 and it could almost run without a cooler. Early Athlons (1.4GHz pre(?)-Thunderbirds) were ouch-hot. The versions before SocketA died were much-much more efficient. OTOH - PIV design is notable for doing way too much extra work (many loops running in advance etc... I don't fully understand modern CPUs but you may try to research it) and that extra work will still heat 'em up no matter what the process. Athlon64 is actually very power-efficient design.
PS: Before you point it out - I understand that P-M is not P-IV.
Couple of points.
1) This is a high-end CPU. Other CPUs in the same line have TDPs of ~50 watts. This is more than a P-M, and might be an issue on laptops, but is well within the power dissipation that can be quietly handled on a desktop.
2) AMD reports TDP_max, while Intel reports TDP_avg. A dual-core Prescott is rated at something like 130 watts TDP, but its TDP_max is over 180 watts. While the P-M uses much less power, its TDP_max is going to still be higher than the TDP_avg that Intel reports.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=Nzg3
Oy.
::grin::
:)
Shows me what I get for remembering things wrong after having done *my* research a couple months ago.
Thanks for the correction. Although I still think it's kinda silly to drop a grand on a CPU, but hey, whatever works.
Socket 940 is for Opterons, not Athlon64-FX chips. It allows additional HyperTransport links (IIRC 3 more than Socket 939) for connection to other CPUs. Thus, only the Socket 940 is suitable for multiprocessor machines. This comes at the expense of requiring a more expensive six-layer mainboard, while a four-layer mainboard will do for Socket 939.
Other differences are in supported memory. Socket 940 systems require registered RAM and will support ECC. Socket 939 systems use "normal" RAM and will not support ECC.
Bottom line:
Socket 940 systems are more expensive, but only Socket 940 will give you access to certain "high end" features.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Oh I agree with you... it's certainly out of my league.
;)
Maybe if I win the lottery some day.
- Toby
Also, the 940 boards have to be 6-layer (costs more), and they have to have ECC (IIRC), whereas 939 can be 4-layer, and use cheaper, faster non-ECC memory.
Actually, it's registered memory that the 940 boards have to use. Both the 939 and 940 can use non-ECC or ECC memory, but the memory from one will not work with the other.
It's a shame that some manufacturers will make high-performance registered ECC memory, but they all don't care about performance of unbuffered ECC, which is what I want for my next machine...
Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
Here's all of the current sockets that AMD uses:
462: Newer Classic Athlons, Athlon MPs (server chip), Athlon XPs, Duron, Old Semprons
754: Old Athlon 64s, Semprons, Turion 64s (mobile chip)
939: Newer Athlon 64s, most Athlon 64 FX's (53, 55, 57), and in the near future, newer Semprons and 1xx (single CPU only) Opterons
940: Opterons, Athlon 64 FX-51 and some FX-53s
Tech Report got it to 3GHz unstable (without FSB adjustments, the next step from 2.8 is 3.0, IIRC) on a Thermaltake cooler - they suggested trying it with a different cooler, though...
7 /index.x?pg=14
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-fx5
I'm not exactly an Apple Fan boi. I understand that they have their flaws etc but the move to x86 still doesn't fit right in my head and this news just crystalizes it for me.
In the past, we could all group around the fact that it was impossible to really tell if PPC was actually any good when compared to x86. We knew games sucked, but were confident in the fact that the desktop apps we owned 'felt snappier' and that we were more productive as a result. Now we're being told that actually x86 is probably about as good as PPC, and in the future it will be better. Thats fine. As long as I'm running on the best hardware for my Mac and I don't have to start waiting for the x86 version of my favourite apps to become available I don't care. But the problem is that we all know that Intel isn't the best at making x86 chips. So when I buy my 'Intel inside' Mac, I'm going to know that Joe 'AMD' Linux, with his fancy new 128bit, 1024 core, $15 AMD can, and will, actually toast my Mac, no questions asked, with verifiable benchmarks to prove it and I'm powerless to do anything about it without breaking the EULA. That sucks.
Bottom line: Apples hardware should be the best platform to run OS X. If that means using AMD, I want AMD in my Mac - and at the moment boy do I want one of those suckers in my Mac!
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
The original FXs were 940s, However, the newer ones have been 939 (they might also have a 940, but I don't believe so.)
Also, it's not just one pin removed, the actual layout is different between 939 and 940. (940 also supports smp, that being the main difference.)
The big difference between 754 and 939/940 is that 939/940 support dual-channel memory. This is important, because if they didn't, while the athlon 64 is relatively non-memory bandwidth hungry (as compared to the p4), performance would suffer with two cores on single channel memory.
The only thing certain about Apple's use of a Pentium M derivative is that it will show up in lower-end desktops (Mac Mini) and laptops (iBook, PowerBook). For premium desktop systems, they'll use whatever the market demands for performance. Considering that a lot of bread-and-butter users of PowerMac hardware are Photoshop and digital video users, I don't think a Pentium M is in the cards for Apple's top-of-the-line desktop systems.
Doesn't usually?!? So in what cases have you seen a 3.2 GHz processor going for $320 and a 3.8 GHz processor going for $380? It has always been the case that companies know that people who want the best will pay pretty close to anything for it, and that is where the big profit margins are. Intel makes much more selling 300 LB 20 year olds P4EEs than it does selling Dell 2.4 GHz Celerons.
How is this modded "informative"? It's pure uninformed drivel. If you read any review with a power consumption test, you'd see their entire test benches use just over 190W under full load. Most other Athlon 64's are around 150.
AMD Fab 36 is expected to be in volume production in 2006. The new facility is expected to require approximately 1,000 employees, most of them highly skilled engineers and technicians.
Source: http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_10023,00.html
That might mean something if Intel actually had a Banias or Dothan(Pentium M)-derived processor available for the desktop segment. Currently, they do not, and they may not until 2007(Conroe). For now, their entire desktop and workstation CPU line chews up power much, much faster than anything AMD offers.
Last I heard, Yonah was aimed at the laptop/mobile market, not the desktop market. It won't launch at speeds competative with any desktop AMD offering. Conroe will be the desktop Pentium-M-alike processor, and it won't be out until later. 2007 I think?
Well, here's another review:
:-))
tweakers.net
It's in Dutch but it has some nice benchmarkresults which should be clear to anybody, benchmarked next to an AMD dual-core 4200+ and a AMD 3800+ (and I know for a fact those results are correct cause it's all been benchmarked on my own desk
Check it out. Anandtech has a review as well.
939 pin is for their desktop chipset, 940 is for their server chipset
AMD has limited production facilities. These "fabs" produce all of their semiconductor products. The FX57 is currently the fastest chip they produce, and typically yields on faster processors are lower than slower chips. AMD already has commitments to clients to supply certain quantities of slower chips as well. Additionally AMD doesn't want to devalue their slower processors by flooding the market with the fastest chips. These factors all boil down to the single fact that AMD can only produce a limited number of FX57 processors.
The basic laws of supply and demand dictate that there is an inverse relationship between price and demand. If we assume that AMD has a fixed supply then their goal is to set a price that will match demand to supply as closely as possible. If the price is too high then some of their chips will go unsold, and AMD will either have to stockpile or cut the price. If the price is too low then AMD will lose profit and have a backlog of buyers.
It looks like Apple will be switching the low-end line of computers to Intel first - which suggests that perhaps there is something suitable for the high-end on Intel's roadmap in a year or two that might not be accurately represented by their current models.
Even ignoring this, when Apple committed to this deal, I'm certain that Intel's future offerings have been a more significant factor than their current ones. If this isn't the case, Apple has been surprisingly short-sighted. Realistically, they've probably had Intel commit to an agreed (non-public) roadmap with sanctions if they don't deliver.
It's likely that Apple has agreed to prefer Intel over AMD as long as Intel delivers on their promises. The primary reasons for choosing Intel over AMD have probably not been technological, but their ability to deliver - even when AMD has been ahead in technology, they have occasionally suffered from an inability to deliver in volume. This is probably the main reason why high-volume manufactures (like Dell and now Apple) haven't gone with AMD.
Some manufacturers with smaller volumes for whom the technology has been important have gone the AMD way (e.g. Sun has been delivering Opteron-based machines for quite some time). The real difference between Intel and AMD today is that Intel still is better "guaranteed to deliver". The end result is that Intel is a better deal for high-volume system integrators. AMD is a better deal for (some) individuals and low-volume high-end vendors.
Most of my PCs (three out of four) are AMD because they were the most powerful for the price at the time, and I have a couple of Macs, which I desired for the user interface and specific software only available for the Mac.
I'm the kind of user who'll always choose the best tool for the job, depending on my needs, and who can build his own systems with no trouble.
Oh, and I don't run MSWin on any of my machines. It's FreeBSD, Linux and MacOS X all the way - there's no MSWin software that I need or want, and MSWin isn't the easiest way to run any of the multi-platform software that I use.
From the amount of research/impulse buying you seem to have done, it seems that these parts aren't really that 'expensive' to you. Others might have to be more selective and shop at a different price point, or would have been forced to return items if they discovered it needed more hardware. The industry counts on folks like you to cover early costs of bringing a product to market.
Thanks for doing your part! I'm gonna spend half the cash and get 80% of the performance in a few months. :-) I'll probably get bitten by some stupid hardware thing I didn't see coming, too. It does seem to be changing faster and faster.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Apple's transition will start the LAPTOPS, where Intel is strongest. Centrino/Pentium-M is generally equal to AMD's stuff and has lower power consumption.
On the desktop, G5 will stick around until 2007. Let's wait and see what Intel has to offer at that point before you get so stressed about it.
Stupid me... I thought "supports Athlon 64" on the new board meant, you know, actually supporting Athlon 64. I don't keep up with AMD to know that they switched pin numbers on the same chip.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
A Pentium M does perform quite nicely, even when compared to desktop processors. Consider http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/.
While the results at Tom's Hardware were achieved with overclocking to 2.5 GHz, that clock speed seems not unreasonable for a 65nm version. Now imagine a dual-core version, and Yonah might indeed be impressingly fast.
That is, if Intel will deliver it on time. If there is a year of delay or so, AMD might cook up something even better in the meantime.
C - the footgun of programming languages
This is great flamebait congrats.
First off it's for both cores, Dual cores run significantly cooler than two single cores.
Second that is equivalent to a low end pentium of the current generation, ouch. Third that's maximum output.
These things are actually remarkably cool, maybe 5%-10% hotter than the XPs were.
Then the competetion will be tight again.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
That's a totally ridiculous assumtion. If AMD thought for a moment that all you have to do is increase capacity to create marketshare they would have done it long ago.
No, the parent poster was closer to the truth. People buy Intel due to ignorance of processors and slick marketing by Intel and OEMs. Also, bear in mind for light weight laptops Intel actually have a superior product.
It does, you know, actually support Athlon 64. However, it doesn't support a chip that you can't actually plug into the board, for obvious reasons. Checking for socket compatibility is pretty much the first thing you have to do, and that's been true for at least ten years.
I wish I didn't just blow all my mod points into that Zombie dog article.
I thought Hexus got bought by some graphics card company? If that's not an unbiased source, then I don't know what is!
HJ
939: Newer Athlon 64s, most Athlon 64 FX's (53, 55, 57), and in the near future, newer Semprons and 1xx (single CPU only) Opterons
I thought Opterons were only on 940... even the 1xx series.
Most have managed to get this to overclock stably to 3GHz, which opens up the possibility of an FX-59 later on.
I'd really like to see the following come out for AMD:
FX-59
FX2-59
FX2 would be the dual-core equivalent of the FX, hopefully giving as big a boost to multimedia, as to single-threaded applications. And I'd like to see both offer 2MB of L2 Cache per core... and if they can add another 2MB of L3 Cache (shared on the Dual-core chip), that'd be kick-ass.
~The TwoTailedFox posts again....
Having read 3 franch-language tests this morning I can tell you the results are mixed... Indeed!
Read the post again ;-)
I said in the near future, there'll be some Semprons and Opteron 1xx's...
So right now, most users only have 1 processor intensive application running, so two symetric cores are not overly useful.
I wonder if the motherboard companies can make MBs that have 2 sockets, one for the current generation of processors and one for the last generation. That way, when you upgrade PCs, you can move your old processor and ram into the computer to act as a background slave.
This Apple is small is a bit excessive. It is 2%-3% of new computer sales worldwide. That's the eighth largest computer manufacturer. In other-words, there are only 7 accounts larger than Apple to fight over.
AMD supplies what, 20%-30% of the CPU market? Meaning grabbing Apple's share would be a 10% increase in market-share. Given the high fixed-cost, low variable costs of chip manufacturing, that could be HUGE for AMD.
In the OS Market, Microsoft TROUNCES Apple. In the hardware market, only real Dell and HP TROUNCE Apple, making them a viable customer.
Alex
Oops.
;)
You heard of selective hearing? Well, that's selective reading
Having Opteron 1xx on 939 is weird though. Having a Opteron 1xx line in general seems weird to me. I figure smaller workstations would be for 1xx... however, the speeds of the FX line would be the suited here (or even X2). Whenever I consider putting together Operton servers for clients, I always go for 2xx series at the very least.
Doing your research is vital, as they say, a fool and his money...
There are two major reasons for this pricing, as you suggest they are economical and technological reasons.
Technically, it takes a while to get a new chip production line singing. I'm no lithographer, but the process is extremely complex. Initially, on any wafer, many CPU's will be faulty or fail testing. So the yield from any batch of processors can be quite low at the start. This means they spend a lot of money making very few CPU's (or GPU's or any other kind of device).
Taking that into account, let's look at the economy of it all. We have a high initial cost per unit of production, you feel that right away. Until the process is kinked out, the new parts will cost more to produce so you will pay more to own them. Secondly, there aren't many of them out there, and people like yourself with low budget constraints and high demand will happily pay a premium for these parts. Demand and supply, at the seller-happy end of the equation.
Now, for the rest of us without $1350 to blow every time a new GPU shows up, the trick is to state your budget, research all the components you can afford to buy at that budget, and most importantly, read the benchmarks! Understand the technology you are investing in. It will help you to understand how the components plug together, what you'll need to buy, how quickly the next part will arrive to make your new gear obselete and so on.
Also (sigh) if the parent had done his research instead of buy first and ask questions later, AMD's socket 940 is the *first* Opteron socket available. The extra pin is used for handling registered RAM (from my understanding), hence the early Opterons and Athlon FX's on socket 940 required more expensive memory. AMD have always aimed at the server space first (they want that market!) but their yields are great so they've been able to push CPU's at the desktop market as well. There's no move to socket 940 in future, it's a move away from that.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Hmmm "2.8GHz on a 90nm chip, SSE3 enabled" for... $1031!! My Venice 3000+ runs at 2.8GHz on a 90nm chip, SSE3 enabled for....$147. You do the math. Thanks AMD! :)
On stock retail cooling too, absolutely beautiful..
Parent should get one more Informative for actually mentioning that the difference is the dual-channel memory support.
Going with that 939 boards support almost all the chips that need dual channel support such as the higher end AMD 64s, AMD 64 X2 (dual core) and the FX and Opteron chips.
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
the PM is out in full force. its doing quite well. although, i still think the turion (25W/35W) is better. remember that turion integrates the memory controller into the core, so that adds extra power to the core. intel still has a memory controller but its in the chipset, so they get away without using its power in their wattage calculations. to be fair, you should compare the wattage of a turion to teh wattage of the PM and its memory controller on the chipest. the turion also has some other features, blocks buffer overflow viruses, and 64 bit. the pentium D sucks bad compared to AMD's dual core chip. AMD's dual core lead is much bigger than its single core lead. i hesitate to even call teh PD dual core, its two cores, but all they do is share a socket and packaging. amd has real dual core, all in one piece of silicon. much more elegant solution.
Did you see the power requirements? 104W for a single core? I really can't imagine Apple preferring this to a Pentium-M derivative.
Have you seen the power requirements for the G5?
I don't see why Apple can't go both ways. Pentium M/Celeron M for the laptops/Mini, AMD64 for the high end towers, and who knows for the iMac/eMac.
Multimedia editing.
With the proliferation of cheap digital still cameras and MiniDV/MicroDV camcorders, people are now increasingly editing their still pictures and home movies on a desktop computer. Problem is, both of these require substantial increases in computing power with lots of RAM available, so getting a faster computer is a MUST.
Programs like Corel's Paint Shop Pro and Adobe Premiere take advantage of the multimedia extensions provided by today's latest CPU's, so using the latest CPU's means less time spending waiting for the computer to do your image/movie edits.
Intel is still competitive on the desktop even if they currently don't have the "fastest" CPU today. Apple won't be in any worse situation than Dell on hardware and Apple has an OS to differentiate itself from all the other computer manufacturers.
AMD seems to think Apple was bullied into accepting Intel's offer. I know Intel has some very sketchy discount mechanisms... If this lawsuit is succesful maybe we will see AMD in Apple and Dell desktops.
The 'k' in "kilo" is still not capitalized!
FRA: STFU GTFO