Slashdot Mirror
AMD Bumps Up Socket AM2 Launch Date
Thrill-Ki1l writes "According to DailyTech AMD has moved up the launch date for their new socket AM2 processors. The manufacturers of the new AM2 chipsets and motherboards have their hardware ready to ship early so AMD decided to launch the chips 2 weeks early. The new launch date is May 23rd."
to everyone who just dropped a ton of cash building a brand new athlon x2 socket 939 systems...my condolences. at least this will bring the price of the higher-end athlon x2s down for the rest of us...yay!
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
what should also be on the summary is that it was bumped up to coincide with Intel's paper launch.
What else can we say?
Wow it's nice to see a launch date come forward for a change. Props to AMD. Those guys must really have a hand on their engineering. PS. I don't work for AMD.
Is it really worth it to be an AMD processor with a DDR2 memory controller? Sure this meant a lot for the intel architecture but from what I understood the AMD architecture will not gain a lot from this memory speed increase. Also, the latency on the memory will likely also increase which might cancel all gains made from the increased speed. Therefore, I'm waiting and seeing before I get me one of those.
There should be a "-1:Groupthink"
Although I find AMD to be better chips, I still stay with intel because their chips are all on one socket.
AMD at the moment offers no upgrade path because their Semprons & Athlons are different sockets, you can't turn a budget AMD box into something more powerfull without replacing the motherboard.
Intel allow people to start with a Celeron and easily upgrade to a P4 or Pentium D if more CPU power is required, I find the upgrade option far better value.
I remember reading that "Socket 939 will be around for a long time, its planned for it to last longer than Socket A." So I built a S939 rig and thought I was being cleverly future-proof. And now they're phasing it out? Not to mention, I got my current motherboard just before PCI-Express came out. I had a helluva time upgrading my video card while being forced to stick with AGP.
You can't win when it comes to computer hardware. Hopefully, in a few months, I'll still be able to stick an older (much lower-priced) dual-core in my S939 motherboard and have a bit more power. However, so much for a box that was more upgradeable than not.
Here's good info on the AM2.
The story is fake. Nothing in our industry is released early.
I think I'm going to have to agree with that. From my first experiences with the Pentium M, even though I generally go with AMD for my systems, I really had to give them some large amount of credit for the Pentium M. So far its the last intel CPU I've used in anything that wasn't acquired by me for free. So I actually am almost excited about a wide-scale transition to that architecture for desktops. As much as they've shown they can compete very very well, AMD might be a little behind on this one.
and 939 was suppose to be "future proof."
i mean with the initial benchmarks out for their new architecture, i think amd maybe trying to reduce the advantage of intel by releasing some products early. :)
:)
i hope to get a processor wars soon (and hopefully, motherboard, chipset, memory, etc.) so everything will go faster and better while price drops.
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
I think you should save condolences for intel fanboys :>
The last month has been unbearable with them conroe this and conroe that. And what did I say back when they were all waiting for their chips? I said intel you will have your ass handed to you on a platter before conroe is released.
And thank you AMD this is exactly what you have done. All the intel hype was hoping conroe could beat AMD's old generation S939 chips and that's what they did, but that was a chip intel will release in 6 months beating a design more than a year old! of course that will happen.
Now let's see if intel have the guts to compare conroe to socket AM2 so cavialerly? I doubt it I doubt it very much. You have too test current models against current models or you are just hyping thin air.
Try better next time intel
I'm sure that announcements like this make Steve Jobs really happy that he went with AMD. 64-bit dual core? Hey, if intel can make it on time maybe Apple can launch those new desktops in August.
Changing launch dates for a major product? They must be copying Microsoft's marketing strategy for Vista!
Oh, wait...
Just because it can't be explained doesn't mean it isn't true. Science fits into reality... not the other way around.
Its not trolling. Its true. Intel proved this at IDF. Furthermore, AM2 really is all promise without delivery http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2741
I am not talking about superficial retail madeup price. By past pricing scheme with early release claim, the tendency normally bend toward higher price otherwise cheaper with later release.
I was looking forward to get it when it came out, but if higher price tag came along with it because of earlier release date, I would just wait.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
Now there is something that doesn't often.
I thought the AM2 boards were being intentionally held back anyway. They'd delayed the release to wait for DDR2 modules to get cheaper, but I guess they decided they've waited long enough. The AM2 certainly won't be future proof, but when they bring out their first 65nm chips it'll be for the AM2 as well, so the boards aren't just for the DDR2, they oughta be current (at least for processors) for 18 to 24 months. If I sound like I know what I'm talking about in any of this, please disregard, it's all from stuff I'd read online in the last while since I'm thinking about building a new computer.
I have an idea, pick the processor you actually want and don't worry about upgrades! In my experience if it's time for a new processor, it's time for a new machine. Mem/hd/gpu make good upgrades but who wants to put a new hotness AMD X4 FX-80 into a slow-ass mobo.
Hastening the launch date by a couple of weeks isn't too significant, but AMD certainly deserves to be congratulated for (apparently) leaving DRM out of their AM2 microprocessors. In contrast, Intel has succumbed to RIAA/MPAA pressure and betrayed their customers by stuffing Treacherous Computing down their throats.
I'm also happy to see that AMD has not put DRM into its AMD Live! technology, which competes with Intel's DRM-ridden Viiv. I'm sure AMD is taking a lot of heat from the entertainment cartel for not handcuffing users, and I hope they'll continue to keep their products DRM-free.
And let's not forget that AMD has been supportive of LinuxBIOS by actively ensuring that their motherboards can run it.
Get computers and accessories from Linux-friendly manufacturers
I've heard power consumption cited as one advantage of DDR-2 over DDR. On laptops that idle around a dozen watts, even a few hundred milliwatts in the memory subsystem can be a signficant change.
Fine, and I can show you an article that says the 65nm Athlons will clock 40% faster, and the conroe is actually slower if you don't fit in the 4Meg L1 cache. (anyone can add cache)
Why don't we wait 6 months and then start trash talking, when we have actual products.
One of two things has happened
1. AMD has become complacent and has no strategy of really updating a now old product this year. In this scenario they were lulled asleep.
2. Intel has stunk so bad that AMD has been holding some cards close to the chest because it did not need to play them.
No staged demo by either AMD or Intel will give us the answer, but we will know in 6-8 months.
You would hope anyone building a system would have done their research and would have known that new chips were coming.
Putting aside that new chips are always coming up, why would this matter?
Only reason I can think of is that you're suggesting that you might want to put a faster cpu in later on. Is that it? If so...is that a really common thing to do? Because it seems kinda....well, dumb to me. You unplug your existing cpu and stick it in a box. Then buy another one that's only a few percent faster. Then unplug that 3 months later...and stick it in a box. Seems like a waste of money to me.
Every time I've done an upgrade, it's been a whole system upgrade. And then, I only do it every 5 years or so. Is there really a need to stay on the bleeding edge all the time that I'm missing?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
...this is Earthday weekend. A little introspection and reflection is in order.
Perhaps it is time to look at this utterly ridiculous SUV model of computing. Because that is what it is for the most part. Building chips and mobos and computers takes WAY more energy and natural resources than it costs to run them. People look at CPU per watt, but that is a tiny part of the story, the true energy hog nature of these gadgets goes into the unrelentless manufacture of billions of them. Is it *really* necessary to upgrade constantly? Or is this putting the pressure on "the other guy" to do their bit and sort of ignoring our bits...? Perhaps a smidgen of "well, MY reason is so important and blah blah blah I am exempt, I simply MUST have the latest every six months because..."
I call hypocritical BS on any such claims.
It takes tons of pollution-TONS-to produce a new computer, and no telling how much energy if you follow it all the way back to mining and manufacture and shipping, etc. Beaucoup lots.. then disposal time, where it gets worse....
Maybe we should just kick back and force the manufacturers to release less often and spend their time designing better, designs good for longer than a few months by NOT paying for the latest and greatest until such a time as at least a few years are past? Just maybe?
I may buy/build a workstation soon that will need the capability of holding a large amount of RAM (say 32GB - calculations requiring a lot of memory but not a huge amount of CPU) at some point down the road (I can probably put off fully populating the memory for a while). I came across this post, which seems to say that motherboards for DDR2 will allow more DIMMs (16 2GB sticks is a lot cheaper than 8 4GB sticks right now, at least for DDR). It is talking about DDR2 with Opterons. Is there a launch date for DDR2 on Opteron? Is the capacity actually greater with DDR2? Is DDR likely to become scarce down the road, causing DDR2 to be a cheaper option for future expansion? Any opinions are appreciated (I haven't had an excuse to buy hardware in a long time, so I haven't kept up on such things).
Sidenote: Yes, I am aware of the iWill DK88 (16 DIMMs DDR) - anybody have any experience with it (especially with Linux)?
Conroe
The point of AM2 is to ensure smooth transition to dual and quad-core CPU's. Having four cores struggling for the bandwidth 128bit DDR400 provides is.... not nice. Each of those cores would have half as much bandwidth as the original S754 A64's did! Having them struggle over 128bit 800Mhz DDR2 is a lot more feasible. Add to that some L3-cache (on future moidels) to mask the higher latency, and you are all set.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Ok Who modded parent up as "Interesting".
This should be modded down as "I am talking out my a55".
Ever since the P2 days Intel has been KING of the incompatible sockets. AMD was steller up until the Athlon 64, but even now has not quite kept up with the frequent INTC changes.
All this is very much true. However, it hardly seems worth it for AMD to be so competitive with the product's release date. Currently I'm using the dreaded 939, and frankly, I drag my feet at the thought of upgrading like that. Either way, it will be interesting to see where future architectures do go with respect to L3 Cache. It requires a bit of tinkering, as increased L3 introduces significant latency (a vexing issue in the Itanium architecture).
I always end up buying a new mobo regardless of socket too, because the old mobo can't support the speed of the new cpu I want when I'm ready to buy anyway.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
DDR2 ram works at lower voltage, I wonder would that save some energy, even if it's by a small amount?
It sure looks like AMD is socking it to Intel with the lawsuit and now this release.
It doesn't help either that HP/Intel's Itaniums aren't taking off and the AMD Opterons are doing well. Plus, as others have mentioned, AMD seems to backing Linux pretty tough. And I was looking @ alot of embedded devices and I see more AMD based ones than Intel.
It's interesting how far AMD has come in the last 10+ years.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31096
Old news. Old old new.
-Charlie
Its 'new breakthrough' time in the hardware industry again and time for a new 'upgrade chain horror' episode. I have a wonderfully performing amd 2500 + barton 333, asus nvidia nforce 2 motherboard, 512 kingston 400 ddr ram, asus fx 5200 magic (! it performs quite well with this setup) a seagate ide 7200 barracuda 60 gig hd, a sb live (6 years old and performs very well) machine running as a game machine. I was able to play most of the recent power-demanding game titles quite easy, lowering the settings in a few only - like star wars galaxies, x2 the threat etc. However now the situation is that, if i want to upgrade ANY of the components in this box, im going to have to do a full upgrade. see : If i want to change the graphics card, the pci-e thing is up, to hold for a few years i have to buy a pci-e supporting mobo. And that means a new cpu too, and vice versa - if i want to change the cpu, i have to get a new mobo, and will have to get a pci-e graphics card to fit in it. As the way things are going most mobos ship with serial ata support, so i have to change the hard disk too, if i do not choose to pick a 'supports both formats' mobo. And even in that case there is no guarantee that it will hold for 1-2 years, as the cpu market is moving to double core cpus now, 64 bit thing is already up and so on and such. Its the geek's ultimate horror - total upgrade time !
Read radical news here
.. there is only one solution ... Sun to the rescue....
There is a cost benefit for AMD by going with DDR2. As Intel has been on DDR2 for some time and will be so for quite some time it will benefit by reducing system costs.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Complete, 100% Bullshit. "Insert Forkazoo's post here"
Unequivocally WRONG. Entirely ignorant Intel fanboyism.
There are socket 754 Sempron 64s, Athlon 64s, Mobile Athlon 64s, and Turion 64s.
Besides, with Socket 939 CPUs starting at $300 or so, the motherboard is only 1/3rd the cost, so NOBODY is going to be upgrading their CPU... Everyone will be buying a new motherboard for a few bucks, and have two high-end systems, instead of one.
I really hope the AM2s push prices down across-the-board. I'd really love to see dual-channel, ECC systems becoming reasonably-priced for home PCs.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
We have about 7 of those sitting in a cabinet here. They are pretty nice machines as basic web surfers, but at the same time useless. They have 64mb of ram and 1.5 ghz cpu's. We tried to find out how much ram upgrades for them would be. Most places don't sell it, and the few that still do... well... be prepared to pay more for your ram than a new computer costs.
I remember the whole rambus debacle. Intel pushed it as the next big thing in memory. That is when I built my first AMD based system. I saw no future in rambus and its price was outrageous. It was a HUGE deal when they finally bit the bullet and started producing ddr based machines.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
AMD's 64-bit x86 product is essentially a superior CPU design manufactured on mediocre silicon. Intel's 64-bit x86 product is essentially a mediocre CPU design manufactured on superior silicon. The good news is that both companies have significant room to improve.
Yeah, but Apple uses Intel so Intel rules and AMD drools.
I know its possible, but I've never heard of anyone actually doing this. Sure being able to swap out the chip for a newer one once the prices drop is a great feature. I actually got an Athlon64 board with X2 support in case I ever felt the urge to upgrade. Frankly I'm very happy with my Athlon 64 3000+. The amount of power I have with my system is more than enough. Short of the CPU dying without the mobo going as well (highly unlikely). I don't really see myself ponying up the cash for an X2 chip without building an entirely new system. Why would I let a perfectly good Athlon 64 3000+ chip go to waste? The mobo its on only supports the low end X2's anyway. Its a compelling illusion and a good marketing ploy that the average uber-geek will upgrade the CPU, without getting a new mobo. But for an extra $50 when I get that new X2, I can also get a new mobo with faster buses, the true bottleneck, and unlock the full potential of whatever new CPU I buy.
You can take this with a grain of salt since I saw no reason to upgrade from a P3 450 until last year, mostly because the RAM is starting to die on that 7 yr old system.
It's called 15krpm. Standart in most server-class SCSI disc. Twice the speed of regular 7.2k rpm SATA/IDE discs (except a few 10k rpm).
That and a shorter seek time.
Also Tagged Command Queuing is widely available since almost ten years, where only latest SATA have the slightly less advanced Natural Command Queueing.
(Note: that I have more experience running linux than windows. So maybe if Windows is way more crappy than I think, the following reasoning is wrong)
No. Usually not take all of it. Normally when you have 2 same-priority application competing for ressources, both of them should share the ressource in same part, so in theory both should get 50% of bandwith.
Practically both will get less than 50% because the disc will loose some time jumping between the two regions from which it is reading.
SCSI being designed with servers in mind is likely to response better to concurrent disc usage because of the reasons cited abovve (TCQ and lower seek time).
There *is some* reason for the higher price tag you pay for SCSI discs.
(Now add a decent OS like some Unix with a good read-ahead strategy and that can efficiently use most of the GIGs of ram as cache, and the whole thing flies.)
And also note that initially, the first poster gave it as an exemple of processor speed : there's still plenty of free CPU cycles to both run a game, and scan data for viruses at wichever rate it comes out of the disk. Even with scanner maxing out disc bandwith left from the burning process, the CPU is fast enough to play a game on to of that.
(Also, aren't on-demand scan in Windows supposed to run at a lower priority than regular apps ?)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Most of the motherboards i've looked at support both pata and sata drives.
Hmmm... Pie...
It's actually fast approaching the time to buy chips...
Due to Intel losing market share to AMD in the most recent announcements, the prevailing market opinion is that Intel is going to engage in a price war with AMD in the upcoming months. That means lower prices across the board.
Couple that with the fact that Intel's newer generation chips are beating the pants off AMD...methinks I'll be picking up a new Intel chip shortly.
Oh, the other thing to note is that Intel's inventory totals are climbing...that means they're going to be offloading the older chips at a substantial discount to clear out the building inventory. So it's win-win for the consumer, whether you want a bargain chip or a new chip. I highly suggest buying Intel chips at the current stage in the market.
Whoa! That's the last day of school for me!
-Glitch "We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." - Linus Torvalds
Ah-ha. Flint arrowhead. I'll have a patent on that real soon now. Step 1. Profit.