Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AMD Athlon MP 1800+ Processor Review

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the zoom-zoom dept.

AMD 214

Lars Olsen writes: "Amdmb.com has posted a review of the new AMD Athlon MP 1800+ processor -- a big speed jump for the dual Athlon processor family with the new processor running at 1.53GHz. There are also 1600+ and 1500+ Athlon MPs available as well right away at stores around the World. Dual AMD Goodness is now running just as fast as its desktop counterpart ! Here's a quote: 'Those of you who want to jump into the dual processing Athlon world will finally be able to do so with the knowledge that your processors are the top speed that the Athlon family has to offer. And for anyone who already has a Tyan Thunder or Tiger MP board and a pair of Athlon MP processors, you may just want to pop a couple of these new Athlon MP 1800+ CPUs in your system to boost performance.'" Some of the comments following yesterday's "dream system" article addressed dual-Athlon complications, so make sure you read before you buy.Update: 10/15 15:14 GMT by T : Check below for LinuxHardware.org's take on this chip, and Athlon MP systems in general as well.

Augustus writes "LinuxHardware.org takes a look at the Athlon MP platform under Linux and the newly released Athlon MP 1800+ is included. Covered in this article is not only the technology and performance of the AMD-760 MP chipset and the Tyan Thunder K7 motherboard but we also look at why anyone would consider a multi-processor system."

cancel ×

214 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp! (-1)

puhtime2go (516969) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430563)

Time to say I love you to me!

Re:fp! (-1)

Dead Fart Warrior (525970) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430587)

I LOVE YOU!

Propz on FP you logged in bastard!

Re:fp! (-1)

TrollMan 5000 (454685) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430607)

Sam's Cola all around, brutha!

Re:fp! (-1)

Dead Fart Warrior (525970) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430710)

I'm gonna ask you a question, and be honest:
How many times have you been kicked out of walmart for masterbating near the Sam's Cola?

Re:fp! (-1)

Sunken Kursk (518450) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430751)

They kick you out for that?

Re:fp! (-1)

puhtime2go (516969) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430838)

I haven't been caught yet. And, it's not the cola I lust after, but the 300lb women in mu-mus riding those scooters around the store. You know what I mean. The ones that cause the benches placed throughtout the store to sag in the middle because of their crushing weight. Mmmmm... crushing weight...

Horrifying fact about X-Files actor (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2430841)

The actor David Duchovny, aka Fox Mulder of X-Files fame, has an unknown, very dark past. This photo [feldgrau.com] [feldgrau.com] proves that he was, during WWII, a member of the Croatian Waffen-SS legion 'Waffen-Gebrigs-Division der SS "Handschar"' (he is the second from the left). Probably it was fears that this dark fact would become known that prompted his dismissal from the TV-series.

Why do the suck so much (-1, Offtopic)

Deijpimp (512688) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430580)

Micro bytes suck ass more then Bin Laden

New AMD Processor (-1, Funny)

TrollMan 5000 (454685) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430590)

Now my boss has enough heat to warm up his big house in the winter!

fingers... (2, Funny)

apathy21 (468771) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430593)


Well at least I can still count on my fingers how many GHz we have achieved. I suppose when/if these quantum-based computers come about (on a large scale), I'll have to have an infinite number of fingers all representing the possible states of the processer :)

Re:fingers... (2, Funny)

Figaro (20471) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430813)

Dude....it's not worth it.

Please stop chopping off your fingers for the decimal points.

Thanks.

Re:fingers... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2431143)

You are probably better off reading from the site AMDMB copied, AMDZone. They have a review here [amdzone.com] with more benchmarks and less fluff.

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2430595)

FP

FUCK PAtience lower case!

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (2, Interesting)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430604)

I'm running at home on a PII 400Mhz and it runs everything I possibly need. My Mother and Father in Law are on a P166 and wondered if they should upgrade. I said no as it really doesn't need it, they just do basic database, spreadsheet and word.

All too often developers use the increased memory and processor speed to write worse implementations, or to create pointless bloatware. I know this will continue no matter what I say but at the end of the day who really needs this much power, QuakeIV players ? QuakeV ? QuakeIII runs fine with my upgraded graphics card, and top of the line sound card, the processor does bugger all.

Moore's law is great, it means computers can do more and more, but for the home market its just silly, 90% of people would be fine not changing their machine for 4 years, but they are forced to upgrade by market perception.

Faster this, faster that.... but never ever actually "better", "more reliable" or "stable".

Hardware is the excuse for bloatware, its not H/W engineers fault but it isn't an excuse to use....

(and yes this is partly a dig at the huge swap requirements on the 2.4 kernel)

Re:Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (5, Informative)

cfriesen (256918) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430639)

A few points:

Have you ever
a) done audio editing
b) done video editing
c) applied a filter to a 50MB+ image
d) compiled X
e) done any ray-tracing
etc, etc.

Any of these things can suck up vast amounts of horsepower and beg for more.

Also, 2.4 is getting somewhat more sane in recent releases.

Chris

Re:Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (1)

Rob.Mathers (527086) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430683)

Yes, those things do beg for this kind of horsepower, but the problem is that cpus like these (although not MP) are being marketed at the average user, how doesn't know better. Microsoft, in turn, is seeing this, and adds more and more useless, cycle-eating functions to Word, and perpetuates the cycle.

Re:Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (1)

Junks Jerzey (54586) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430700)

You forgot "solving systems of 50,000 equations." People always bring that one up, as unrealistic as it.

Shower Curtains (1)

hughk (248126) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430768)

Don't you need something like this to work out what shower curtains do [slashdot.org] ?

Re:Shower Curtains (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2430852)

That's totally unnecessary. Geeks don't take showers.

Re:Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (1)

snarkh (118018) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431058)


You forgot "solving systems of 50,000 equations." People always bring that one up, as unrealistic as it.


What is so unrealistic about it? Have you ever tried solving an eigenvalue problem for 10000x10000 matrix in MATLAB? It takes about an hour on a dual PIII, 800mhz with 1Gig RAM.

Things like that come up a lot more often that one would expect.

Re:Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (2)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430864)

a) Yup... the soundcard does large parts of this, the disk is fast

b) see a) lots of this after snowboarding holidays. Mostly done directly from the video camera over the firewire connection

c) Yup... now that is slow, but I've got lots of memory so not that bad... in fact given that I've got 3/4Gb of RAM its probably as fast as memory limited machines with a fast CPU...

d) Yup... hell done that on _much_ slower machines.

e) Yup...

The basic one here is that I don't work 100% of the time on a single task. Waiting for renders is fine (I've always tended to do them as overnight jobs anyway).

All of the above are very very possible on a PII400Mhz, just ensure its got a good soundcard, a good graphics card, fast disk, and lots of memory.

Most of those things suck up memory rather than CPU and its the huge amounts of swapping that cause them to slow down.

Re:Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2431054)

That doesn't change the facts, though. If you do have enough memory, you will benefit from a faster CPU. And I don't know what type of video/audio editing you've done, maybe it's just assembling clips. But when you do much more than that, the processor needs to render new output froms from the inputs for stuff like transitions, color adjustments, and overlays and combinations. Ideally, you would want to be able to do this in faster than real-time, and be able to have the full power of digital computerized video editing for use on-the-air at reasonable costs. Similarly, the sound card doesn't do much other than just playing back the digitally encoded streams you have. If you want to change their contents, it's again a CPU job.

I don't see why people disparage using faster processors for legitimate applications. I've done video editing, and no matter what CPU I do it on, I wish I had more. And no, it wasn't disk I/O bound, because I had no trouble playing the input and output videos at full-speed.

Re:Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (3, Insightful)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430644)

I missed the part in this article that said everyone should have one in their home.

High-speed CPUs are very useful to our clients who run large database implementations with voice-recognition data-entry systems, FYI.

Re:Why bother ? FOR THE GAMES, SILLY (2, Insightful)

Andorion (526481) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430647)

Computer games are the ONLY applications that tax a home-users cutting-edge machine... At the moment, systems are a little ahead of gaming technology, but in a few months that won't be the case. Just because your parents don't play Dark Age of Camelot or AquaNox, don't assume Joe User doesn't want to.

-Berj

Re:Why bother ? FOR THE GAMES, SILLY (3, Insightful)

Junks Jerzey (54586) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430734)

Computer games are the ONLY applications that tax a home-users cutting-edge machine... At the moment, systems are a little ahead of gaming technology, but in a few months that won't be the case. Just because your parents don't play Dark Age of Camelot or AquaNox, don't assume Joe User doesn't want to.

But the kicker is that these games really don't need such horsepower. I'm willing to bet that if there were any pressure to get any of these games running on a more resource constrained system, like a game console, then lots of unnecessary internal fat would be trimmed right away. But there's no pressure to do so otherwise. And even if a game that could run just fine on a PII 400 requires a 1GHz processor, certain people seem to _like_ the justification for upgrading.

Re:Why bother ? FOR THE GAMES, SILLY (5, Insightful)

Edward Kmett (123105) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430855)

<RANT>A console is a very different environment. You can tune exactly for the hardware because there will be no variances. A PC game has to allow for 30 different graphic cards using APIs that supposedly make the different cards look the same to you but fail miserably. By the time you get done tweaking for the current morass of cards, a new generation of them is present with their own damn bugs. In the console world you deal with 2-3 environments IF you are allowed/it is practical to port given the current state of exclusive games. Also, if you've ever developed for a console, its very different, with a PC you have a lot of freedom to build how you want and what you want, in the console world you pretty much have to build around the hardware. This means you are constrained to build the same kind of engine for most every game you build on that console. If you don't you are just looking for different ways to cull the scene down to fit into the same miniscule space.

The two environments are very different, and most of that fat can't be trimmed by wishing it away or blaming on programmers .</RANT&gt

As for bloatware, start modelling cloth, hair, IK, bump maps, and the hardware gets used again. The reason the games aren't doing it now is because they want the comfortable sales window.

Honestly pushing ultra-high-end features that cut your market to 4% of what it could be isn't a big selling point - good luck convincing your publisher to bring the game to market - and trying to build an engine to scale between low and high-end aggravates the bloat of PC vs. console problem even worse.

Re:Why bother ? FOR THE GAMES, SILLY (3, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430998)

But the kicker is that these games really don't need such horsepower.

You're right, they could cut their polygon count down to a quarter of what it is now, precache almost everything (quadrupling the amount of hard disk space used) and probably use 50% of the CPU they use now. Game developers really are into severely optimizing their code, especially those programmers dealing with graphics; They're usually trying to find ways to optimize every single action.

On the other hand, as others have pointed out, the only way to really optimize the hell out of something is to write it in assembler. That makes any large codebase pretty much unusable.

The biggest thing game developers could do right now to improve game performance is to use really excellent multi-res in a game. Multi-res is a process where, when used to its fullest, lets you start with very high polygon models for everything, and the game engine will reduce the polygon count one vertex at a time, in some cases all the way down to a single polygon. When done right this will let you draw amazingly complex scenes without slowdown; The computer can tell more or less what you're looking at and decide what needs lots of polys.

Unfortunately, even those games which are using multires are using a low-rent version where they pre-reduce the vertex count, so you still "pop" from model to model. It's getting better, though.

The best thing about multires of course is that you don't have to precompute things, like BSP-based schemes, and that it will make the best use of your graphics hardware, while still running well and looking good on lower-end hardware. On the other hand, your graphics card had better handle lighting pretty damned well. Since you can get a GEForce MX400 card for less than $100 (Or a GF2 for about $150) that's really not much of an issue these days.

Re:Why bother ? FOR THE GAMES, SILLY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2431048)

Completely off topic, but do you have websites/books of the multires technique?

Re:Why bother ? FOR THE GAMES, SILLY (2)

jmauro (32523) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430885)

Except that the high-end game curve has not been keeping up with the processor speed curve. Back in the day, the top of the line processor was need to run the game. You needed a 386/25 or a 386/33 to run games that came out within a month or so of the shipping date of the processor. Now the specs require a PII 233 or a PII 400 or equivelent. I've yet to see a game that on the box requires a PIII/1G. Have you? They do require some sort of 3d graphics card, but technology wise, the games try to aim for the greatest penetration of market share, which is about at the 300MHZ-600MHz. That is unlikely to change, since most of these people won't even think about upgrading any time soon, even if the newer computers make the internet "go faster!"

Word is an excellent example... (1)

Rob.Mathers (527086) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430662)

Take a look at MS Word from 4 or 5 years ago. It ran perfectly well with all the formatting options, spell checker, inline clip art -- all on a P100 or even less. Now what do we have? Everything above, but with bloat like the Paperclip, menus that go 5 layers deep for commands that nobody wants or needs, functions that are duplicated in 3 different places, and a GUI that gobbles up as much RAM as my system throws at it, and doesn't let go.

Re:Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (5, Insightful)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430691)

Wow, your right.
New, faster technology is being brought out just to make programmers dumber. Its an evil conspiracy against us all!

Seriously, though, what is your definition of "bloatware"? Lets say I'm writing Quake4. I want to use C++ and lotsa nice OOD that's easier to write, easier to read, easier to expand, easier to debug, and easier to maintain.
Is that "bloatware"?
Sure, I coulda used assembly on the whole thing and it woulda been efficent and fast! You wouldn't need the super hardware!

Hope you don't want to mod it, or me to fix any bugs, though.

Maybe us developers like faster systems so we can implement software with better techniques to make technology grow? Sure it requires a little more hardware, but I wouldn't call it some evil conspiracy.

It doesn't matter what technology is out there, there will always be crap (bloatware).

BTW - You might want to buy this shirt [thinkgeek.com] .

Re:Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (3, Insightful)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430814)


Things like SOAP are a classic example. CORBA is a perfect way to get computers communicating, it uses IDL to describe the services, it works on any platform and works using a binary protocol which can be tunneled via HTTP if required.

SOAP is an ASCII based RPC mechanism, when was that a good idea ? So you can _read_ computer to computer transactions ? This is possible because we have cycles to burn and so doing two sets (or more) of textual conversion isn't seen as a bad thing(tm).

Outlook, Netscape 6, .Net all manage to turn computers that previously did useful work into slow chugging behemoths. As another example consider this....

XEmacs used to be considered the worlds largest piece of bloatware... its 4.2meg, its got email, news, web-browser, editor, mayan calendar and the kitchen sink in there....

Mozilla appears to be 16Meg at least (IE was 100Meg when I installed everything!) Is it 4 times as functional, 4 times as reliable... nope.

Re:Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430876)

Assembly was a perfectly good way to program, why did anyone need C??

C was fast and efficient, why did anyone need C++?

They just burn extra clock cycles!

Ugh, under your rules, innovation would be in a standstill.

Re:Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (2)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430902)


These steps are nothing to do with _now_ yes we needed to have machines that went from 1Hz to 400Mhz or so, otherwise it was a pain in the arse, but the last 3 years has seen insanely powerful machines, and not seen the sort of increases in quality that could be expected.

And no-one EVER needed C++, its a HORRIBLE language :)

LISP, Smalltalk now you're talking :)

Re:Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430938)

I think we're seeing each others points, so I'm not butting heads anymore.

I, personally, have an Athlon 800, I'm a big gamer, and I'm perfectly happy with the machine, not upgrading it for at least a year...

But I'm also a developer that believes in good design and good design and good desi.... etc... and good coding techniques. Even if it sacrifices memory and horsepower.

And C++ has its ups and downs, as does any other language ;-P

Re:Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (2)

garcia (6573) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430940)

This is just IMHO.

If Quake4 is released w/any bugs, runs slow on decent hardware (I consider a 400mhz computer decent), and is fucking HUGE (minimum req is ridiculously high) then I will be sorely disappointed.

If you need to assemble the god damn thing to make it run fast, do it. I am sick and tired of "great" games being released that are frickin' huge and slow and require a dual athlon to run.

I don't care if I can mod it, I don't care if you can debug it (there shouldn't be that many in the first place for how much it costs), and I certainly don't care if you think it should be easy for you to program.

Freeware is one thing. A seriously high-end game should run fast and not need a dual athlon.

If Quake4 is released it better play like Q1, or there will be yet another version that I won't play ;)

Just my worthless .02

Re:Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (1)

reflective recursion (462464) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431089)

Isn't this _always_ the case though? I remember trying out Doom on a 386 or so. Forget this! Then I used a Pentium 75. A world of difference. I thought "how could software ever need more than this?" Then Quake came out. I could only play at 320x200 with my slow P75 and ATI Mach64 card. Once I got a K6-300 Quake ran awesome (even if a tad outdated). I missed the boat on Q2, but once I got Quake3 it happened again. I had purchased an nVidia TNT card which was too slow for Q3. Now I have a GeForce GTS 2 which is great (plus a AMD Athlon 650). All I can say is w/ Quake4, Doom3 and Return to Castle Wolfenstein coming out.. be prepared (not to mention whatever Valve software or Epic Games comes out with).

Re:Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (1)

Rift (3915) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431120)

but do you care when you get it? If they can use OOD tools to release the game in a year instead of in 10 (write it all in assembly, tune it for all possible hardware it may run on), then I'd rather they do that, and I'll upgrade my machine to run it.

"But quake ran fine on my PII!" - then run Quake.

"They should make this new game run fast on my 4 year old computer." No, you should buy (or write) games that run fast on your 4 year old computer (try 4 year old games). I want games that are released in my lifetime with lots of features and visual effects - so I get hardware that can run them.

And if Quake4 played like Quake1, why would they make Quake4? Especially if it ran the same on the same hardware? I think you're a sales demographic ID can afford to lose.

Re:Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (2, Interesting)

rabidcow (209019) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431153)

I want to use C++ and lotsa nice OOD that's easier to write, easier to read, easier to expand, easier to debug, and easier to maintain.

In theory, you should be able to write such classes so you can define one flag and the debug stuff will compile away to nothing. (or just a few extra pointers)

So the developers need good machines, everyone else doesn't.

Except some companies are shipping debug builds as their final product. I'm not sure why. (Black & White, for example, includes the debug mfc & msvcrt dlls.)

Re:Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (1)

hughk (248126) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430798)

This lets traders value financial products faster so they can decide whether to act or not on a price.

OTOH, if the traders bothered to get their option pricing models written in a decent computer language rather than VBA, then yes, maybe they could run on a 256MHz P2.

Unfortunately, the banks are firing a lot of their IT staff [bbc.co.uk] because, frankly, throwing hardware at the problem is cheaper than writing the stuff properly.

Re:Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (1)

shut_up_man (450725) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430888)

Well, a pair of spanky new Athlon MP 1800+s might help www.amdmb.com when it gets slashdotted, right?

shut up man

Re:Why bother ? its an excuse to write bad code (1)

CropCircles (527619) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430941)

Hardware is the excuse for bloatware, its not H/W engineers fault but it isn't an excuse to use....

No. Good hardware is never an "excuse" for writing bloatware. Most times you refer to programs as bloatware, it's not the programmers who intentionally write "bad code" but the development enviorment and it's assosciated overheads that cause bloatware. Besides, most bloatwares have lots of features that you may not need, but others do.

All said and done, I don't think we are doing too badly as far as bloat is concerned...and any bloat that exists is more a reflection on programming methodologies being used and their limitation as we scale.

Bad Post! but a good link... (1)

CropCircles (527619) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430994)

Sigh! That post is sort-of redundantish considering most people have already echoed their thoughts an hour ago!

Anyway, here [editthispage.com] is a rather illuminating article on "bloatware". Cheers.

So what is good code? (4, Insightful)

Carnage4Life (106069) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430974)

I am constantly amazed by people who claim that faster hardware leads to bad code as if we've been living in the Golden Age of quality code for the past few decades.

With current hardware, people are still writing code a lot of code in C and C++ for performance reasons which has lead to buffer overflows, segfaults, core dumps, general protection faults, and blue screens becoming generally accepted aspects of computer programming. Now that the hardware is finally becoming fast enough, maybe we can wean ourselves from C & C++ and move over to writing apps in Java or even C# instead of still dealing with the same issues that were solvable problems 20 years ago. Programmers have shown that it is practically impossible to deliver significantly problem free C/C++ code in a decent timeframe while programming environments like Java have shown the opposite. Once hardware creeps up enough we can rid ourselves of the problems of C & C++ once the performance gains are not worth the amount of bugs one has to deal with, which is already happening in lots of server applications.

Also once, hardware creeps up enough maybe some of the stuff that has been in research labs for the past 20 years can finally see some use. For instance microkernel are generally seen as a superior way to design an OS but have had difficulty taking hold due to performance reasons (although Windows NT is based on a -kernel architecure and MacOS X is also built on the Mach -kernel) which wil change once hardware advances make it possible for the performance difference to become acceptable.

A.I. being built into applications as well as the OS is another place where hardware performance and memory availability would play a big part in helping come to fruition.

How about voice recognition and face recognition being built into the applications you use?

How about bringing virtual reality to masses?

Or do you think that a 1 GHz CPU and 128 MBs of RAM is all the power a computer user will ever need?

This matters, How? (-1, Offtopic)

Brew Bird (59050) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430618)

Look in the Mirror [ibiblio.org]

Ok, ok, so these clowns think they can make diffrence... does it really matter, while we watch all the start up telcos in the US start to go belly up, taking a lot of the infrastructure support companies with them? I mean REALLY! who cares !

Truth in labeling (-1, Flamebait)

Bud Dwyer (527622) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430623)

I refuse to buy AMD products as long as they use this gimmicky, false labeling. If you think the MHz is no longer a good measure of performance, stop using MHz in the product name. Don't tack on an inflated "Model Number" the most consumers will mistake for a MHz rating.


With AMD's new naming process, they just bought Intel one new customer for the indefinite future.

Re:Truth in labeling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2430695)

The DID stop using Mhz in the product name. If the processor runs better than the competition, why care what it's called? I'd happily buy the "Omega-Ultra-MegaEnhanced 10Bil GigaDorks" processor if it ran my codes faster than something called, simply, "Pentium 4 2.0 Ghz"

Re:Truth in labeling (2, Funny)

iforgotmyfirstlogon (468382) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430943)

Even if it was the Athlon "Bill Gates Special Edition?"

- Freed

Re:Truth in labeling (1)

perlyking (198166) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430701)

Spite yourself if you want, buy a slower Intel chip and play the same game that you are complaining about.
Intel are making faster (Mhz) chips rather than faster (actual processing) chips.

The simple fact is that the 1800+ is FASTER than a p4 at 1800mhz would be, rather than being a gimmick they are erring on the side of caution.

You are right, most customers would mistake it for a mhz rating, just as if they called it an athlon 1533 no retarded customer would buy it because it has less "Mhz". It works both ways and AMD have to deal with the customers.

Re:Truth in labeling (5, Informative)

baptiste (256004) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430706)

I refuse to buy AMD products as long as they use this gimmicky, false labeling. If you think the MHz is no longer a good measure of performance, stop using MHz in the product name. Don't tack on an inflated "Model Number" the most consumers will mistake for a MHz rating.

From your tone I'd expect you woudln't buy AMD anyway. However, if you did any research, you'd find the AMD's new numbering plan is actually conservative. Independant benchmark reviews have shown that the AMD 1800+ is actually more of an equivalent to the Pent 4 2GHz chip. But AMD chose a conservative threshold. Granted, the new Intel cores will boost performance a bit, but even then the AMD numbering plan is expected to be on target. Honestly - who cares what they call the chip - anyone with half a brain can find out the MHz value. But to what end? Me? I want to buy teh system which gives me the most performance for the least $$$ and right now that is an AMD chip hands down when you account for other CPU specific system costs and impacts (chipset, memory type needed, etc)

I honestly think AMD did what it HAD to do - their chips are faster at slower clock speeds and Intel managed to get folks thinking MHz was king. Now AMD has ot try and chance that thinking.

Re:Truth in labeling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2431144)

This "equivalent" argument is pure crap. A Suzuki motorcycle has about 115 horsepower, while a Porsche 911 Turbo has 300 more. And yet the Suzuki could easily beat the 911 off the line, so therefore Suzuki should market its motorcycles as "GT 415HP" because it has the equivalent acceleration of a 911, right?

Re:Truth in labeling (-1)

Sunken Kursk (518450) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430761)

Dude, how can you be talking so much when you blew out your hard/soft palatte with a .357 magnum. Last I saw you there was a steady stream of blood pouring down your forehead.

Other than that, how was the press conference?

Re:Truth in labeling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2430948)

Ha! Thanks for the memories. My favorite part of that whole suicide / press conference was the voice in the background shouting "Someone call an ambulance!" after he gave himself the lead lobotomy.

Sad part is he really was innocent--and there was exonerable proof!

Re:Truth in labeling (-1)

Sunken Kursk (518450) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430969)

Yeah, that was great, "Alright, nobody panic. Somebody call an ambulance and the police."

I didn't know he was innocent. That definitely makes it Must See TV (TM)

Re:Truth in labeling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2430899)

If you think the MHz is no longer a good measure of performance, stop using MHz in the product name.

That's what they did.

Firingsquad reviews dual durons vs thunderbird (2)

[amorphis] (45762) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430627)

Firingsquad has an excellent review [gamers.com] comparing dual Durons to dual Thunderbirds using both Palamino and non- versions of both chips. They conclude that the Palamino Duron is the best bang for the buck.

Yes! (-1)

motherfuckin_spork (446610) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430628)

I've been waiting for this my whole life! My life has been incomplete without dual-proc AMD! Oh, yeah! Life in the fast lane!

Now I'll be able to have so much excessive computing power that it'll be even more of a complete and total waste than my current system!

Yeah!

w00t!

Wow (-1, Troll)

Andorion (526481) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430630)

A 1.5 GHz athlon based on old 0.18 micon technology.... That thing must REALLY cook.

Just don't let the heatsink get loose, we know [tomshardware.com] what happens then...

-Berj

Ouch, Looks Like We Broke Their Website (-1, Offtopic)

Kletus Cassidy (230405) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430631)

Warning: Too many connections in /home/amdmb/www/templates/mysql_header.inc on line 19

Warning: MySQL Connection Failed: Too many connections in /home/amdmb/www/templates/mysql_header.inc on line 19

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /home/amdmb/www/templates/mysql_header.inc on line 20

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /home/amdmb/www/article-display.php on line 17

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/amdmb/www/article-display.php on line 19

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/amdmb/www/article-display.php on line 20

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/amdmb/www/article-display.php on line 21

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/amdmb/www/article-display.php on line 22

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/amdmb/www/article-display.php on line 23

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/amdmb/www/article-display.php on line 24

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/amdmb/www/article-display.php on line 25

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/amdmb/www/article-display.php on line 26

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/amdmb/www/article-display.php on line 27

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/amdmb/www/article-display.php on line 28

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/amdmb/www/article-display.php on line 29

Re:Ouch, Looks Like We Broke Their Website (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2430655)

No, MySQL broke their website.

You get what you pay for.

Re:Ouch, Looks Like We Broke Their Website (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2430721)

hrm.. and they paid nothing for mysql... so let's see...

Assume they have gotten some value out of it (even a little bit), and they paid $0. value/$ comes out to (a little)/0 = infinity... hrmm.. imagine that

Re:Ouch, Looks Like We Broke Their Website (2)

Edward Kmett (123105) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430810)

That is assuming of course that their time has no value.

Re:Ouch, Looks Like We Broke Their Website (-1)

Sunken Kursk (518450) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430839)

I thought time, like information, wants to be free

Re:Ouch, Looks Like We Broke Their Website (-1)

Dead Fart Warrior (525970) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431021)

If not, I'd like to buy 1 day of my life back, please.

Can you imagine... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2430633)

... a Beowulf cluster of these?

Thank you.

--Patrick Bateman, Esq.

Damn! Slashdotted! (4, Interesting)

Arethan (223197) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430651)

Note to web programmers, MySQL doesn't like it when it runs out of connections. Try increasing the connection pool size. Also, instead of having the page try to open the connection just once, and fall all over itself if the connection fails, try putting the connection request in a timed loop with a timeout of around 5 minutes, and a sleep(5) in the middle to help throttle a little. Your MySQL server will thank you, and your web page viewers will thank you.

Twice the burned-out CPUs? (1, Troll)

Kozz (7764) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430659)

If you read Tom's Hardware [tomshardware.com] , you may have seen this fantastic article [tomshardware.com] and brilliant video [tomshardware.com] , which shockingly demonstrates how AMD vs Pentium chips cope with heat emergencies. Considering the disastrous results with so many of the AMD chips, I'd be hesitant to buy anything OTHER than a Pentium until AMD can conclusively show that their chips are "smart" when faced with heat emergencies (heatsink fan stops, heatsink falls off?)

Re:Twice the burned-out CPUs? (2)

pointym5 (128908) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430694)

Losing the fan but not the heatsink is not going to cause flame-out. And losing the heatsink is really only an issue for people in earthquake zones and LAN partiers.

If you're really really scared, get one of the heatsinks that bolts onto the motherboard instead of clipping onto the socket.

Re:Twice the burned-out CPUs? (3, Informative)

isdnip (49656) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430722)

While it's true that AMD CPUs are, uh, sensitive to cooling, I don't see that as a show-stopper. When you buy the parts to build your own Athlon system, as I did recently, you get plenty of warning to NOT TURN THIS ON WITHOUT A HEATSINK (yes, they shout, as they should).

Other CPUs are also very sensitive. What's rather surprising is how well Intel's P4 thermal shutdown works. I suspect AMD will get around to doing something similar. But in the meantime, I've attached a nice quiet (3800 RPM, not the 7200 RPM version) ThermoEngine to my Thunderbird, and it cruises at around 100 degrees F. Some newer/bigger heatsinks bolt to the motherboard, rather than clip on to the socket, which I suppose helps if you're really paranoid about its falling off. I use Motherboard Monitor to keep track of the temp via the Win98 system tray, and wish Linux distros would include similar capability out of the box (yeah, I know there's a way to build it in yourself...).

But then I do admit to using a 1 GHz Tbird rather than a faster one because I don't want that excess heat or power consumption.

Re:Twice the burned-out CPUs? (2)

baptiste (256004) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430731)

The new Palimino chips (which these are) have the thermal diodes in them. I'm not 100% sure if the CPUs will auto shut down based on teh diodes reading or if it requires a BIOS intervention, but I doubt it would matter.

Yes AMDs will incinerate themselves if the heatsink alls off - but funny, you don't see many people saying this has happened - yes it has to a few, but honestly - I'd rather get the higher performance for my dollar and risk having to replace the CPU if the heatsink fell off - something very unlikely. But if it did, the replacement CPU would be pretty cheap given how prices on processors fall over just a few months! And total cost would STILL probably be chaeper than an equivalent Pent 4 system (not CPU, system) Hell my 1GHz Athlon has been chugging along for months and the heatsink is still on solid!

Re:Twice the burned-out CPUs? (4, Insightful)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431011)

As a side note - an Intel motherboard will short out of you let the floppy drive slide onto the board whith the power on. Pouring coffee into a laptop makes interesting smells. Putting a CD-ROM in the microwave for 10 seconds if you want a real show.

Seriously here, you are missing out if this kind of thing actually sways you away. The biggest flaw, IMHO, is the AMD cores chips way too easy. I would really like a coating of nickel or copper like the Intel chips have. As an early adopter of the Chrome Orb (rev 1), the hard part was safely getting the heat sink on.

I've found that an AMD CPU will give you warning signs like lockups, kernel panics, and other goofy things when you loose a fan. My mainboard will shut down 5 sec after the post if the CPU fan is not spinning fast enough! Since they are good up to ~100C, using a motherboard monitor prog will go a long way to making sure it runs safely and shuts down before it gets into deep weeds. A copper heat sink goes a long way to passive heat removal as well in an emgerency situation.

This is like buying a car based on how well it runs without oil in the engine. I suspect my BMW would make for a fantastic video if I tried that too. DON'T DO THAT! I would not pay extra for an engine that would - like using synthetic oil to give an extra two minutes of use.

Buying a CPU that throttles back and paying extra for it -- that might be insurance, but I stopped buying retail boxed CPU's with the three year warr.... It would cost me more to ship an old 400mHz CPU back to Intel than to just replace it these days. I paid $99USD for a 1.4G CPU a couple weeks ago. At that price, these things are practically disposable.

Interesting, this. (2, Interesting)

dave-fu (86011) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430671)

I like how the little guys are going to benchmarks to indicate how their product actually performs while the big boys (Oracle, I'm looking at you) are recusing themselves from it.
Too bad that IT managers go with what they know (everyone else is using) and what's worked for them in the past.
It may be confusing for Jane Consumer, but it's nice to see that AMD's finally gotten a marketroid with a clue as to what works. Now if only their stock would start working, too...

Slashdot Premium Service? (-1, Offtopic)

mshiltonj (220311) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430677)

Damn. I'm trying to read the article just ten minutes after it's posted on /., and the target site is already not responding. #$@#!

Idea for Slashdot Premium Service: Sell access to an "advance-edition" of the home page. Stories posted to slashdot go to the advance edition first, then surface on the home page an hour later. People who subscribe to the advance edition get email alerts. These subsribers could read the article while site is still responding, and have a better chance at getting the first post (and modded down).

Of course, this wouldn't work if all 250k /. readers signed up, but you get the idea.

Man, and I just built a dual 1.2ghz.... (3, Informative)

MadCow42 (243108) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430693)

It always happens... you jump in and build your dream system, and immediately it's out of date. Oh well, a duallie 1.2ghzMP isn't anything to laugh at! Glad to hear that the TigerMP supports the new chip speeds out of the box, anyone know how high it will go?

A few notes on the TigerMP though: VERY picky on RAM, very picky on how it's seated (read: install memory before board is in your case, so you can wedge it in on a flat surface!), but since getting past that, it's been ROCK solid! Beautiful system I must say!

MadCow... always 500mhz behind the curve.

Re:Man, and I just built a dual 1.2ghz.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2430769)

Don't worry about it, dude. Just enjoy your new machine. It's not like it's "slow" or something.

Re:Man, and I just built a dual 1.2ghz.... (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431097)

I, too, am building a dual 1.2G system. If these 1800's run at 1.53 GHz, then each CPU is only 27.5% faster, so it's not like you're really missing out.

Thanks for the tip on the Tiger MP. I bought high-quality memory, so it should work (when it arrives).

Roadmap (3, Informative)

nilstar (412094) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430703)

Why don't you take a look at the AMD Processor Roadmap to see more on their processors.... http://www.threecom.de/artikel/amdround1/ ... though the site is in german.... translate it with babelfish: http://babelfish.altavista.com

About the naming (2, Interesting)

TheMMaster (527904) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430718)

I've been an AMD fan ever since, erm well always actually even my 486 was an AMD ;-)
I really think AMD will have te expect some problems with this. Back in the good old days (r) of the pentium and the cyrix 6x86 I worked in a computer store and we also sold cyrix computers to customers that didn't want too spend too much money (so sue me)
Very often people came back because they saw that their Cyrix PR200+ wasn't actually running on 200Mhz and demanded a refund (which they didn't get ofcourse) we had to explain the whole thing and it costed us a lot of time
That's why we stopped selling them back then
Another thing is that the semi-geeks (the dudes that THINK they are geek but basically know nothing) won't buy them because "they are already overclocked"

Expensive heat death? (1, Troll)

hughk (248126) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430732)

A couple of the 1800's would be real nice here on a Tyan Thunder board, however, doesn't AMD have a record of potential heat death vulnerability [tomshardware.com] ? I believe that article was even mentioned here, but I can't dig out the link.

Tom's Hardware [tomshardware.com] notes that the AMDs can cook really fast and beyond the ability of the motherboard sensor to flag. I guess these have on-die sensors but these were noted as being fairly ropey as well.

Intel's P4 seemed to do quite well out of the test as the clock slows automatically as the die temperature increases (in effect the processor ignores the clocks until the temperature goes reasonable). This means that it will even run without a heatsink (but very slowly).

I just get very nervous about having high-end silicon that is vulnerable to a SPOF. It a heatsink detaches or the processor fan fails - blam. If the chassis fan fails, at least there is some chance of a shutdown, but those processor heatsinks make me uncomfortable. Yes, I know I can buy quality, but MTBF is just that, a fan can still fail early.

So I wait for AMD to get a bit more serious about thermal protection and stick with using cheaper processors as thermal fuses.

Re:Expensive heat death? (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430952)

If you're seriously worried about a heatsink falling off, you could always try positioning your case so that your motherboard is horizontal.

Frankly I think people are being just a little too paranoid about this whole issue. It's like monitor implosion. Possible != likely.

Re:Expensive heat death? (5, Funny)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430957)

Why do you kiddies keep beating this particular drum. Your heat sink should never fall off! Why is it falling off? Because you don't know how to properly build a computer? Than buy a Dell and don't sweat it.

For your convenience, here is a list of other things you should avoid buying because they have "fatal flaws":

  • Internal combustion engines (can seize if their oil pan suddnely falls off)
  • Airplanes (can crash if their engines suddenly fall off)
  • Nuclear power plants (may malfunction if all coolant pumps fail)

Re:Expensive heat death? (1)

JerryKnight (465510) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431037)

This probably is not comparable to the new athlons, but my duron ran for a while (perhaps an hour or so) without the heatsink fan, and it's fine. Of course the heatsink was scalding, and I let it cool for a long time, but it's still running strong.

At nearly twice the clock speed, those athlons could still run quite a bit hotter than my lowly duron, I suppose. I would still expect that a hardware monitor set for fan RPMs or processor temp would catch a failure in time. Don't set it on 149 deg. F. If it's above 125, something is wrong.

BTW, exactly what do you do to your computer that could detach the heatsink? Most heatsinks (unless you buy quality) can be a pain in the butt to detach even when you want to detach them.

Processor Idea (4, Funny)

LazyDawg (519783) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430741)

Hey all you /. people with a fab, here's a fun idea to piss off intel and AMD. Make the clock/speed irrelationship totally obvious.

Imagine an x86 compatible processor that runs at a clock speed of 50ghz? That's right, fifty BILLION hertz! Now, that clock only ever hits a counter that lets the 8086-compatible processor cycle once every half to full second. You could get a whopping 1-2 IPS :)

You'd be able to make millions selling 8086's that use the first 640k of a bunch of 128 meg chips, and the first 40 megs of a 400 gig hard drive. Think of the possibilities!

this one is slashdotted (-1)

trollin4jesus (142136) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430805)

AMDZone [amdzone.com] also reviewed it here [amdzone.com]

Why NOT to use amd.. (-1, Redundant)

api backslash (527588) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430816)

Heres some interesting video of a heat test between intel chips and AMD chips. The amd chip failed. My Advice: Don't use amd. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q3/010917/heatvi deo-05.html Somone once told me, "AMD chips: They melt in your socket, not in your hand."

Re:Why NOT to use amd.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2430929)

Did you ever stop to think that if you're not sure you can attach a heatsink properly to a CPU, that maybe you shouldn't be allowed into the case in the first place?

I have some advice for you the next time you need a new machine: 1 800 DELL 4 ME

Re:Why NOT to use amd.. (1)

BitwizeGHC (145393) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431019)



I have some advice for you the next time you need a new machine: 1 800 DELL 4 ME

Duuuude, it's got an Intel Pentium IV processor (which is soooo nice!).

Re:Why NOT to use amd.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2431026)

I manage a LARGE number of AMD boxes for AT&T and have NEVER - EVER - experienced an Athlon melt down. I haven't heard of any serious problems - anywhere - reporting melt downs! Why not? Try answering that - Tom surely didn't!

Since Tom (of Tom's HArdware) has started accepting bucks from Intel, his reviews have certainly taken on a pro-Intel flavor!

Re:Why NOT to use amd.. (1)

andy_from_nc (472347) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431057)

I've had more problems with intel chips burning up. I've had wonderful experiences with AMD chips. AMD chips are typically faster and for the money simply can't be beat.

Keep it cool (0, Troll)

manon (112081) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430833)

I hope they ship the processors with water cooling AND a backup cooler.
Don't want this baby to get without any fresh air... not if I don't want it to be a smoke generator ;)

to MP or not to MP? (1)

captaineo (87164) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430909)

I've heard lots of reports from reputable sources that cheaper Athlon XP's do work in multi-CPU systems. (Even the original Thunderbird supposedly works, although not at top speed due to some cache interactions). I've heard that the Athlon XP uses the same Palomino core as the Athlon MP, so there is really no difference at the hardware level.

Can anyone confirm this? Is this new, higher-priced series of Athlon MP's simply a marketing gimmick, a la NVIDIA's Quadro cards? (which are the same as a Geforce hardware-wise - save one tiny resistor that tells the driver to un-cripple certain optimizations - but cost 2-3 times as much a Geforce)

Re:to MP or not to MP? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2430960)

The only difference between Athlon XP and Athlon MP is that the MP is tested to be sure it works in a multiprocessor system. There is no physical difference between the chips.

The chance of a dual XP or dual Duron setup not working is infinitesimally small.

Re:to MP or not to MP? (2, Informative)

whovian (107062) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430976)

The gist according to firingsquad.gamers.com is that there was a initial batch of XP's that were
SMP-enabled and mistakenly shipped. AMD supposedly will be disabling SMP in the XPs very soon.

Re:to MP or not to MP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2431127)

How is this possible? AMD chips use the EV6 bus which inherently allows SMP.

Imagine this! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2430912)

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Another preview on Tech Report (2, Informative)

shut_up_man (450725) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430917)

http://www.tech-report.com/onearticle.x/2994

They only compare against the 1.2Ghz Athlon MP though... although they intend to do an expanded article soon.

shut up man

Athlon MP restricted by AMD760 mobo (3, Insightful)

shut_up_man (450725) | more than 12 years ago | (#2430988)

Before AMDMB went splat, I read enough to see that in some tests (most notably memory), the Athlon XP (yes, SINGLE) beat the dual Athlon MP setup soundly. This is because the XP tested in a VIA KT266A motherboard, which has the edge in performance over the standard AMD760MP.

I think the Athlon MPs are awesome, but having a much cheaper, single-processor setup beat out a dually in some tests throws a bit of cold water on my upgrade lust.

shut up man

What Quantaspeed is really about: (0)

pacc (163090) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431005)

Noone seem to have noticed AMD's real incentive behind the new numbering scheme:

While they always kept ahead in speed somehow they had to sell the next fastest processor too cheap while moving from 1.1 GHz to 1.2 GHz and from there to 1.33 GHz. Noone wants to pay as much for the next best.

Enter Quantaspeed: Instead of moving from 1.4 GHz to 1.5 GHz AMD can now move from 1.43 GHz to 1.47 GHz and from there to 1.53 GHz, but instead of one step up from the budget choice there are now two steps and AMD can put the higher price at a higher level.

66 MHz isn't much and considering that 100 MHz at 1.5 GHz is 50% less than the 100 MHz speed step we saw at 1 GHz its plain lousy.

Were you drooling over 210 MHz when you only had 200 MHz in your box?

AMD (1, Redundant)

andy_from_nc (472347) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431122)

I have to say, I'm quite pleased with AMD's processors. For the price to performance ratio, you usually get about 10-20% more performance for about 1/2 the cost of a comparable Intel processor.

I do think they should provide a more accurate "instructions per second" rating rather than relying on Intel as the benchmark for their rating.

P4 2ghz runs at 4ghz (1)

mrm677 (456727) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431125)

Gee, the ALU of a 2GHz Intel PIV is double-pumped meaning it runs at 4Ghz!! They should call it the Pentium 4000!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>