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!

AMD64 Preview

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the progress dept.

AMD 290

Araxen writes "Over at Anandtech.com they have an interesting preview of AMD's 64 bit processor on a Nforce3 mobo. The results are very impressive with the Anthlon64 beating out Intel's P4 best processor soundly in their gaming benchmarks. This was only in 32-bit mode no less! I can't wait for 64-bit benchmarks come out!"

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

GNAA Reccomends AMD Processors for Gay Sex (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6888995)

GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [tux.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it.

Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.easynews.com as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here [nero-online.org] .

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

This post brought to you by Penisbird [nero-online.org] , a proud member of the GNAA

G_____________________________________naann_______ ________G
N_____________________________nnnaa__nanaaa_______ ________A
A____________________aanana__nannaa_nna_an________ ________Y
A_____________annna_nnnnnan_aan_aa__na__aa________ ________*
G____________nnaana_nnn__nn_aa__nn__na_anaann_MERI CA______N
N___________ana__nn_an___an_aa_anaaannnanaa_______ ________I
A___________aa__ana_nn___nn_nnnnaa___ana__________ ________G
A__________nna__an__na___nn__nnn___SSOCIATION_of__ ________G
G__________ana_naa__an___nnn______________________ ________E
N__________ananan___nn___aan_IGGER________________ ________R
A__________nnna____naa____________________________ ________S
A________nnaa_____anan____________________________ ________*
G________anaannana________________________________ ________A
N________ananaannn_AY_____________________________ ________S
A________ana____nn_________IRC-EFNET-#GNAA________ ________S
A_______nn_____na_________________________________ ________O
*_______aaaan_____________________________________ ________C
um, dolor. Nunc nec nisl. Phasellus blandit tempor augue. Donec arcu orci, adipiscing ac, interdum a, tempus nec, enim. Phasellus placerat iaculis orci. Crasa sit amet quam. Sed enim quam, porta quis, aliquet quis, hendrerit ut, sem. Etiam felis tellus, suscipit et, consequat quis, pharetra sit amet, nisl. Aenean arcu massa, lacinia in, dictum eu, pulvinar ac, orci. Mauris at diam tempor ante ullamcorper molestie. Ut dapibus eleifend ipsum. Nam dignissim.

Re:GNAA Reccomends AMD Processors for Gay Sex (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889047)

I remember shopping in a supermarket and running into a typical overweight black woman with a huge ass and spandex pants hovering over the meat section. She had two kids with her; one was around 10 and the other an infant, dressed in some dirty t-shirts and jeans. She was ringing the bell furiously to get the butcher. When he came out, she said, "Ah wants me some of the maple bacon that be on sale! You aint got no maple bacon here..." The butcher just looked at her and said, "I'm sorry maam, we must be all out of the maple bacon but you're welcome to buy some of the other Farmer John bacon that's on sale."

Her eyes got huge and she started bobbing her head back and forth and raised her voice, "What? Ah wants the muthafuckin maple bacon, the sign says all Farmer John bacon. I sure likes the maple bacon. Ah wants me some maple bacon!"

The butcher, not wanting to cause a scene told her to wait and he would look in the back and see what he could do.

As she waited, a business man came up to ring the butcher's bell but just before he was able to ring it, she stopped him by blocking his hand and asked him what he was doing.

"I have to pick up a platter that I ordered for an office party, do you mind?"

She was up in his face and really bobbing her head now, "Hell yes I do! He be in the back gettin me muh maple bacon! Now you just back your ass on up and wait a bit! Ah wants that muthafuckin maple bacon!"

Again, not wanting to cause a scene, the business man backed off and waited to the side.

She then proceeded to pace back and forth in her overly tight spandex pants and flip flops talking to her kids, "Yas sir, that muthafucka better bring me muh maple bacon. Sheet. Ah done told him dat ah wants muh maple bacon...." Over and over again. She was clearly getting more and more agitated as time went on.

I secretly hoped that the store didn't have any more maple bacon left just to see her go ballistic and wondered if anyone else watching the scene felt the same way.

Finally, the butcher returned and produced a pound of Farmer John maple bacon and gave it to her. Damn luck, I thought. He said, "Here maam, this is our last package of maple bacon."

"See? I told you that you be holding out that maple bacon in the back for youself! Sheet! Don't be trying no bullsheet on me!"

With that, she took it and left.

Upon checkout, she was only one aisle over and once again, the cause of another outburst.

"What do you mean you won't take my muthafuckin WIC coupon for maple bacon! It says right here for food and this here bes food!"

The cashier rolled her eyes and said, "I'm sorry, maam. WIC coupons are only for food for your infant. Milk, cheese, bread......and not bacon." (WIC is a food-stamp type program in California for minority mothers so they can feed their infants rather than using the welfare money for drugs and alcohol on themselves. I doubt a baby would want to chew on maple bacon)

This time, she was really agitated and not only bobbing her head back and forth but was jiggling her whole massive black body up and down. "Sheet! You all just be bullsheeting me now....put my muthafuckin maple bacon on the muthafuckin coupons!"

By that time, the manager came over and went between them and settled the situation somehow. I'm not sure exactly what happened after that as I was hurriedly rushed through my lane and went out to my car. The manager must have just given it to her for free or something to get rid of her.

This supermarket, being in a black neighborhood, had a big problem with losing so many of their shopping carts so they installed an anti-theft device in the parking lot. For those unfamiliar with this, it's a device that attaches to one of the wheels of the cart that locks up and seizes the wheel of the cart in the event that it leaves the parking lot. I believe it works on some sort of magnet system, I'm not sure. There are bold yellow lines painted in the lot with warnings that the cart will lock up if taken beyond those lines.

As I was heading for the exit in my car, I saw her pushing her cart and heading for one of the yellow lines, trying to push the shopping cart all the way home, completely oblivious to all the warning signs around her. (Many of them even had the warnings posted as graphic cartoons for people who couldn't even read and she didn't even comprehend those!)

I decided to hang back and park with my lights off to watch her.

Sure enough, she approached the yellow line still bitching to her kids about the maple bacon incident when ZAP! The right front wheel of her shopping cart locked up on the yellow line and sent her big fat black body spilling over the front edge of the cart and knocking it and all the contents over the side. Her milk, eggs, bread, and yes...her precious maple bacon all were knocked over and spread out in the parking lot.

It was truly a sight to behold. She looked like a huge black blob encased in spandex lying in the middle of spilled groceries and a shopping cart with her two kids standing over her.

There was a slight moment of silence. An uneasy silence. The kind of silence you feel right before Old Faithful erupts or the Space Shuttle launches. The silence you experience when you know that all hell is about to break loose.

"MUTHAFUCKA!"

"What the hell kind of sheet is this? What the hell is this bullsheet?"

Just then, her 10 year old said, "Momma, all the stuff spilled!"

"NO SHEET, MUTHAFUCKA! GODDAMN DIS BULLSHEET!"

With that, she got up and started to walk back into the store. She didn't bother to pick up any of her groceries or even turn back to make sure that her kids were following her. All I saw was 210 pounds of black ass walking to the store saying, "I'm going to tell them muthafuckas a thing or two...sheet...dey aint heard the end of dis sheet..they better come out here and clean dis sheet up...."

I could just imagine the impending scene in the store.

I considered going back into the store to pretend I was shopping some more just to hear the scene she would make but I had a better idea.

I put my car into drive and slowly drove away from the parking lot, making sure that both my tires ran over her precious maple bacon.

Re:GNAA Reccomends AMD Processors for Gay Sex (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889182)

Why didn't you play the knight-in-a-shiny-armor, help her deal with the situation and maybe get some delicious black booty as a reward?

Re:GNAA Reccomends AMD Processors for Gay Sex (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889328)

"Delicious" 210 pound black booty?

Please get professional help.

Intel (0, Interesting)

Soporific (595477) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889006)

I wonder what Intel has on the way to counter this?

~S

Re:Intel's response (3, Informative)

Glasswire (302197) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889123)

Prescott with PNI new instructions, 1Mb L2 cache clocking up to 4GHz and beyond, 800MHz front side bus and increased software support for Hyperthreading. (eg. 2.6.x Linux kernels know how to do HT scheduling much more efficiently)

Watch the Xmas benchmarks, that's when it matters...

Re:Intel's response (4, Interesting)

mjuarez (12463) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889202)

Of course, you can buy a dual-Opteron or even a quad-Opteron TODAY if you want, or you can wait until late this year to buy a Prescott system, which is not 64-bits nor multi-processing.

By the way, did you know Prescott, along with its mobile version Dothan, was delayed because it was dissipating almost 103 watts? For the record, Opteron is dissipating about 60 watts.

Marcos

Re:Intel's response (1)

Eric Ass Raymond (662593) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889226)

quad-Opteron TODAY

Really? Link me to a quad-Opteron mobo...

Re:Intel's response (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889249)

Appro 4U Quad Opteron Server [rainbow-it.co.uk] . That ought to contain one, don't you think?

Re:Intel's response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889261)

http://www.newisys.com/products/4300.html
Might be a start...
/A Coward

Re:Intel's response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889271)

Well here's a Quad-Opteron System [polywell.com] from Polywell, its not a mobo, but the parent mentioned being able to buy a system not a mobo.

Re:Intel's response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889273)

http://www.tempestcomputers.com/amd/jetstream-q4uo -rs/product-details.htm
http://www.opteronics.com /quad-opteron-server.htm
http://www.amdboard.com/ hn08290202.html

Re:Intel's response (1)

Eric Ass Raymond (662593) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889292)

Ok, good try all of you.

Yet, none of these were mobos and as far as I could see the amdboard.com ad was not even a finalized product.

Re:Intel's response (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889348)

The parent of your original post talked about getting a quad-opteron system today in compairason to getting a prescott system which will not be available for a while. You attempt to shift the argument to the availablity of quad mobos is an attempt to change the subject to the availability of a niche product (most people buy quad systems not build them), i might as well ask you to prove that 8-way Xeons are available for purchase yet only accept proof in the form of a readily purchaseable 8-way Xeon mobo while disregarding any purchaseable OEM systems.

... will not be here tomorrow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889219)

All that, and in time for yule?! That's almost too good to be true.

Oh, wait.. it is too good to be true.

PS. "PNI new instructions" is redundant. Go play with your "CD compact discs"

Re:... will not be here tomorrow (1)

lightcycle (649999) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889297)

Maybe it's "PNI is New Instructions"?

Yes, mother, PNI=Prescott New Instructions (1)

Glasswire (302197) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889403)

If I wasn't redundant and just said, what fraction of /. do you think knows what PNI is?

Re:Intel (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889262)

Yamhill. From all the rumors it is still alive and should the Athlon64/Opteron really take off expect Intel to come out with Yamhill, its own x86-64 chip. This will all but signal the end of IA64, it will at that point probably only be used for HPaq's large servers.

Re:Intel (2, Insightful)

mjuarez (12463) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889299)

This will all but signal the end of IA64, it will at that point probably only be used for HPaq's large servers.

Yamhill was rumored since 2000. The rumors appear to be true, but Intel has been denying it ever since.

The problem is that they committed themselves to Itanium for 64-bits. And, in doing that, they also committed SGI, HP, IBM and a number of other vendors. These vendors will NOT be happy if Itanium is obsoleted later on. HP alone has probably invested more than $1 billion in porting their HP/UX and Tru64 software to Itanium architecture, and there are even some customers that have made the full switch. (I'm not talking small shops here, I'm talking huge corporations which replaced their main servers with Itanium hardware).

I believe that, eventually, Intel will release a Yamhill-type of chip, but not after they get battered to death by the press and technical community out there for not releasing an equivalent-to-Opteron processor. But that will probably not be at least until the end of 2004 or beginning of 2005. So AMD has at least a full year for itself to gather momentum. Which I believe it will.

Re:Intel (2, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889333)

Actually IBM doesn't care, they have sold WAY more Opteron systems than Itanium systems despite the fact that Itanium has been out for about 20% the length of time that Itanium has. Besides which their real 64bit chip is the POWER series. They are already performing initial work on the POWER6 and some research on stuff to include in the POWER7 even though the currently shipping generation is the POWER4. SGI is irrelevant these days so the only big player attaching their horse to Itanium is HPaq and they were doing it because they hoped it would pay off by reducing the cost of development of their chip used for their high end systems like the Superdome. In that sense Itanium has already reached its goals for HPaq, even if Intel never gets volume pricing on the chip Intel has already subsidized HPaq's development efforts =)

Re:Intel (1)

gmack (197796) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889304)

That had better be soon the Opteron has already outsold the Itanium during the last quarter. Mind you that says more about Itanium's popularity than it does the Opteron's.

Ass Cheeses are only one thing you get /w GNAA (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889018)

The Gay Nigger Association of America (GNAA) is the group that represents the world's Gay Nigger population as well as those non gay, non nigger patrons that support it. Its mission is to foster a gay and free-loving climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the gay niggers that comprise the most vibrant national gay nigger conglomerate in the world. GNAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate pro-homosexual propaganda and blue, rubber dicks produced and sold in the United States.

We strongly urge you to join the GNAA and support our cause. Gay Niggers everywhere need your help!

BE NIGGER!

BE GAY!

JOIN THE GNAA!!

Join #GNAA on the EFNet IRC Network today! (irc.secsup.org, irc.easynews.com, irc.servercentral.net)

________________________________________________
| ______________________________________._a,____ |
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ |
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ |
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ |
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ |
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ |
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ |
| ____a,___jk_ GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_|
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ |
| ______-"!^____________________________________ |
` _______________________________________________'
-posted by GNAA member Penisbird

Abu Mazen has resigned!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889020)

Here's to a long and bloody war, hopefully leaving plenty of innocent Israelis dead.

Interesting (-1, Troll)

Magic Thread (692357) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889021)

I just wonder if it can compete with the Intel x86-64 line of processors.

Huh? (1)

eddy (18759) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889027)

Huh? As far as is publically known, there is no such line of processors.

Re:Interesting (1)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889054)

umm....are you daft!!!

AMD is the company that has the x86-64 line.

Re:Interesting (1)

Slack3r78 (596506) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889124)

AMD is the company that has the x86-64 line.
But due to cross licensing agreements, Intel could build an x86-64 chip if they decided to, and in fact, there are rumors of a "Yamhill" project at Intel that is just that. Intel's still betting a lot on IA-64, but they're not quite crazy enough to bet the farm yet.

Compilers (1)

Eric Ass Raymond (662593) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889160)

And at least Intel would provide us with a native compiler.

The lack of a bit-banging AMD compiler has kept me away from AMD CPUs all the time.

Re:Interesting (3, Informative)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889060)

I just wonder if it can compete with the Intel x86-64 line of processors.

Huh? There's no such thing as an "Intel x86-64" processor. x86-64 is AMD's solely implementation.

Re:Interesting (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889134)

Then it obviously can't be any good, can it?

Aren't the TRUE marks of quality on computers the 'Intel Inside' and 'Designed for Windows' labels?

For those who can't detect humor without emoticons, I took the 'Intel Inside' sticker from my company-issued laptop and put it on the company-issued wastebasket. The 'Designed for Windows 2000' sticker went on the urinal at the nearest restroom.

Not to truly disparage either product, but IMHO the marketing campaigns and especially pricing practices behind both stickers are counter-competitive and should be BANNED in both cases.

Semantics, maybe, but... (3, Informative)

Murdock037 (469526) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889108)

Intel doesn't have an x86-64 line of processors. They have an IA64 line of processors.

The two apparently aren't interchangable. There's a coming battle in which software companies have to choose between the two, or support both, which would be tough on both them and consumers.

Apparently, AMD's x86-64 set is easier to deal with, and more of a natural progression from where the processors are now. (It also apparently runs 32-bit code at rates comparable to 32-bit chips at the same clock speed.) Intel's IA-64 is a total reworking, and a bitch to work with, from what I've read.

In the end, it seems like the smart choice would be for everybody to toss their hat in with x86-64 (which means Intel would have to, as well, and essentially concede defeat and lose face); it probably won't happen, though, because Intel is Intel.

Check out this article at the Inquirer [theinquirer.net] , which I've basically just paraphrased, but it does go into some interesting Windows 64 dealings.

Re:Semantics, maybe, but... (1)

Magic Thread (692357) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889231)

Yeah, I meant to say IA64. Apparently the mods didn't realise it was an innocent mistake... Oh well. I have plenty of karma to burn.

64-benchmarks wont be good (-1, Informative)

mnmn (145599) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889029)

Intel's IA-64 emulates 32-bit unlike AMD's 64-bit chips which have 32-bit hardware. So we can expect AMD to beat Intel easily in 32-bit stuff.

64-bit would be Intels own turf and we can expect Intel to be quite competitive against AMD there. I think the benchmark results would be quite close.

Re:64-benchmarks wont be good (4, Informative)

Slack3r78 (596506) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889078)

I actually read this this morning, and there are a couple of important things to note - the chip being 'previewed' isn't actually an Athlon64 - it's a 1.8GHz Opteron overclocked to 2.0GHz, which is the expected clock rate of the first A64, prorated at 3200+. It'll give us an idea of what to expect, but nothing too specific.

The other important thing to note is that the comparisons were mostly against P4s and an Athlon XP, with a Dual 3.06GHz Xeon thrown in for good measure, all 32 bit chips. And the 'Athlon64' owned most of the competitions, showing that its 32 bit mode is just as good as rumored. There were no Itaniums in the competition since, so only 32 bit modes can be compared here. However, if the A64 turns out to be as good in its native 64 bit mode as the 32 bit number might lead you to believe, the Athlon 64 looks like it very well could be a force to be dealt with.

Re:64-benchmarks wont be good (2)

robbyjo (315601) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889103)

If you read the article, the comparison is against Dual P4 Xeon. Some of the tests didn't enable any hyper-threading stuff (and thus it didn't take any advantage of the dualies. Opteron beat P4 by very high margin. Except for content creation & general usage stuff where the P4 wins. But take that with a grain of salt.

64-bit tests won't be fair to either side. It's like comparing apples to oranges. For me, I'm looking forward to see vis-a-vis comparison on programs that is optimized on either platform. For example: A program that is optimized on Itanium and Opteron and see how they fare.

Re:64-benchmarks wont be good (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889284)

some of the tests didn't enable any hyper-threading stuff (and thus it didn't take any advantage of the dualies.

Actually depending on the competence of the authors that may have been very intentional and may have actually boosted the numbers for the XEON's. There are situations where HT will decrease scored because the context switches will be more expensive than any gains reached at the silicon level.

"Programs" such as FreeBSD, Linux, and WIN2003? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889313)


I'm looking forward to see vis-a-vis comparison on programs that is optimized on either platform. For example: A program that is optimized on Itanium and Opteron and see how they fare.

"Programs" such as FreeBSD [x86-64.org] , Linux [x86-64.org] , or Windows 2003 [theinquirer.net] ?

Re:64-benchmarks wont be good (4, Informative)

parkanoid (573952) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889366)

Sorry, but Hyper-Threading [intel.com] isn't really used to "take any advantage of the dualies". From the intel page: "Hyper-Threading Technology is a form of simultaneous multi-threading technology (SMT) where multiple threads of software applications can be run simultaneously on one processor" (emphasis mine)

Re:64-benchmarks wont be good (1)

xSauronx (608805) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889115)

wish they would have included benchies for the athlon64 at stock speeds.

Re:64-benchmarks wont be good (2, Informative)

kenneth_martens (320269) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889118)

Intel's IA-64 emulates 32-bit unlike AMD's 64-bit chips which have 32-bit hardware. So we can expect AMD to beat Intel easily in 32-bit stuff.

If you had RTFA, you would know that the benchmarks compared the Athlon64 against Pentium 4s and Xeons, not against IA64. What the benchmarks show is that the 32-bit performance of the Athlon64 is on par or better than the best Pentium 4 processors, and is better than the current Xeons. IA64 is not benchmarked in the article.

The 64-bit performance of the Athlon64 is not being benchmarked in the article; it is the 32-bit performance relative to leading 32-bit processors that is the issue.

Re:64-benchmarks wont be good (1)

Rasta Prefect (250915) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889146)

Intel's IA-64 emulates 32-bit unlike AMD's 64-bit chips which have 32-bit hardware. So we can expect AMD to beat Intel easily in 32-bit stuff.

Except that they're benchmarking against P4's, not Itaniums. P4's most definitely have 32 bit hardware. :)

Re:64-benchmarks wont be good (5, Informative)

Distinguished Hero (618385) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889180)

How the frell did this get modded up? Please RTFA before commenting/modding.

The benchmark was against a P4 (as well as a dual Xeon), which runs IA-32 natively, not the Italium.

The A64 is a consumer chip, designed to be purchased and used by consumers. The Itanium processor costs more than a whole top of the line consumer computer. The A64 and the Italium are not targeted at the same market segment and neither is the Opteron, which is supposed to go up against the Xeon.

The reason everyone is looking forward to a benchmark of an A64 running a native 64-bit application on a 64-bit OS is that not only is X86-64 considerably cleaner than IA-32, but the A64 also has two times as many SSE2 and General Purpose registers, which should yield significantly better results than the A64 running in 32-bit mode (which is already outperforming the P4 in a lot of benchmarks).

By the way, before someone points out that the benchmarked processor is an overclocked Opteron and not an A64, AMD is currently planning on releasing a version of the A64 which is just a rebranded Opteron 1xx along with the single-channel version of the A64.

This was against a P4 (1)

Sterling Christensen (694675) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889222)

This was Athlon64 vs Pentium4... A Pentium 4 doesn't emulate 32 bit mode either.

Re:This was against a P4 (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889289)

To be specific, it was an Opteron (1-way - same as Athlon FX, but not Athlon 64 - Opteron is for servers, FX is for enthusiasts/gamers, 64 is for home users) overclocked to 2.0 GHz (from 1.8 GHz), a dual P4 (3.06 GHz), a single P4 (3.06 GHz), an Athlon XP (forget the speed).

Re:This was against a P4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889340)

Opteron is for servers, FX is for enthusiasts/gamers, 64 is for home users

Ah, the joys of market segmenting and advertising.

Opteron = a fully validated version
FX = works pretty well
64 = a dog

Well I'm hopefull. (0, Troll)

Harp3328 (695332) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889038)

I hope this means AMD will be able to compete on the high-end again. If I had a choice I won't buy intel.

Re:Well I'm hopefull. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889150)

I hope that AMD actually starts getting some mainboard manufacturers that make server class boards. I don't have a problem putting an AMD processor into a server, I do have a problem with all the boards that the AMD attaches to.

Opteron Benchmarks, not Athlon 64 (5, Informative)

ultor (216766) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889042)

The benchmarks are from a 2ghz Opteron, not an Athlon 64. It is intended to give an example of the performance from the new chip. Unfortunately, upon introduction, only the Athlon FX, running on ECC memory will be capable of using dual-channel memory. And from what I've heard, this cpu will cost in the vicinity of $600+. The first non-ECC dual-channel platform will be introduced in 2004.

But is it representative? (2, Interesting)

eddy (18759) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889195)

While true, isn't the whole point of this "preview" to demonstrate the true Athlon64 performance without breaking the NDA by actually publishing Athlon64 benchmarks?

I'm guessing they have access to Athlon64 hardware, and simply "tweaked" the Opteron until ut produced similar enough results to be published as a "preview" -- Since those can be published. It's almost a little like what AMD did with their PR rating, which is officially based on the Thunderbird line, but everyone compare it to the P4 core freq. instead.

But yes, we have no idea of knowing how accurate these results reflect the final Athlon64 3200+ or whatever model they're previewing (am I the only person who got several pages without content in the preview?)

(everything above is pure conjecture)

Not an Athlon64, but an Opteron (4, Informative)

doormat (63648) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889058)

Anandtech is only comparing single processor Opteron performance against everything else, no infact, Athlon64 performance. The primary difference is that the Opteron has a dual channel memory subsystem, whereas the Athlon64 has a single channel system. This difference will have an affect on performance.

Re:Not an Athlon64, but an Opteron (4, Informative)

heli0 (659560) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889161)

There will actually be two lines at launch. The 940-pin Athlon64FX(1-way Opteron) will have dual channel DDR while the cheaper 754-pin Athlon64 will have single channel DDR.

[hardocp.com]
Athlon64 Showing Up
Pricing for Athlon 64 leaks: 939 pin chip won't be compatible with 940 CPU [theinquirer.net]

Re:Not an Athlon64, but an Opteron (1)

sundling (92926) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889343)

What you're not considering is that there is an
Athlon 64 that IS dual channel and that's the FX one. So expect it to be a bit better performance than Opteron because it will likely not require ECC memory.

Re:Not an Athlon64, but an Opteron (5, Informative)

MBCook (132727) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889428)

Your comment is somewhat missleading. There are TWO Athlon 64s being launched (or as Overclockers.com called them the "Opteron that's not an opteron but is an opteron" and the "operton that's really not an opteron" or something like that). Annandtech compared the equivelent of an Athlon64 FX, not an Athlon64. Here is the skinny:

Athlon64 FX
This is a 1xx opteron. It's still dual channel, and it uses ECC memmory (for now?). This is the "performance" part, the high end one. If we're trying to find who has the fastest CPU, this is the one to test. Their tests are quite valid for this, IMHO.

Athlon64
This is the "budget" Athlon64. It only has once memory channel, I don't know if it has ECC or not. Yes, this will be slower, but it will also be cheaper and the motherboards for it could be cheaper too (since it doesn't have that second memory channel).

So, I think that this is a very important article. Look how fast an Opteron/Athlon64 FX is compared to a P4. A 2 Ghz Opteron/Athlon64 FX is beating a 3 Ghz P4. This is all on a 32 bit os and software. When you run 64 bit software that knows about all the extra registers and can do 64 bit math nativly should it need to, the computer will be fast. Tim Sweeny (spelling?) said that native versions of UT2003 (or something) was running up to 20% faster on x86-64 without optimisations; just from going to 64 bit mode. And for most of us the fact that it can manage over 4GB of mem easily for now is only iceing on the cake.

AMD has a great processor. I can't wait to see more info on these things. The fact that it does so well in 32 bit mode is important since you currently can't get Windows for the processor (there is no x86-64 version of Windows out yet). If it was a great processor, but you were forced to get terrible performance if you bought one for 6+ months (becuase it wasn't good with 32 bit software like windows and what you run), would anyone buy it? This thing is faster today, and should only get faster when you run native software. I'm saving my pennies (and yes, I know it will take a lot of pennies ;).

Idiots... (-1, Troll)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889072)

I thought they were finally dropping that Performance Rating garbage...

Anyway, beware the AMD64 line. They have announced physical packaging changes scheduled about every 4 months until 2005. Read: buy a new motherboard to upgrade because there is no upgrade for the chips you'll be buying soon.

AMD is really screwing over the customer by not intoducing the chips in the packaging they know they will be using 2 packages from now.

Re:Idiots... (2, Interesting)

Slack3r78 (596506) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889101)

They have announced physical packaging changes scheduled about every 4 months until 2005.
Do you have a source on this? Everything I've read on the Athlon64s for months on end now has mentioned nothing but Socket 768. I have a sneaking suspicion that you're a troll, after all, I seem to recall Intel changing the P4 socket midway through the game. But I take it that's different because they're Intel?

Re:Idiots... No they're not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889164)

Duncan3 is another Intel troller. AMD has not announced any of these speculated pin griddings so far. They're just pulling this stuff out of the hat to discredit a system that isn't even out yet.

Let's just leave the speculation and stick to the facts when the CPU comes out.

Re:Idiots... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889229)

I take it that's different because they're Intel?

No, Intel changes their socket details all of the time, and it doesn't affect their sales in any significant way.

Reason is that very few CPUs are purchsed as "upgrades". In most cases, memory subsystems are improved so quickly that you hardly want a new CPU on an old board. Plus, OEMs like Dell have very low inventory and can transition to new mainboards/CPUs very quickly.

If AMD changes their packaging, that's neither here nor there.

Re:Idiots... (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889189)

Hmmm...
At the rate I upgrade, that's not likely to be a concern...

XT->486->K6/2->Athlon

Processors of Mass Inflation (-1, Troll)

Txiasaeia (581598) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889082)

"...The results are very impressive with the Anthlon64 beating out Intel's P4 best processor..."

That's what happens when you combine Weapons of Mass Destruction with electronics.

Re:Processors of Mass Inflation (1)

Hekzen (688327) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889158)

I just want to know how much it cost (the processor)...

Re:Processors of Mass Inflation (1)

Ewan (5533) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889446)

About 500US Dollars I believe at launch (sept 23rd), I guess it'll come down nearer christmas as it moves into mass production.

Will it be secure? (4, Interesting)

samjam (256347) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889104)

When are some of these newer processors going to implement the executable permissions bit in the MMU so that the STACK can be NON-EXECUTABLE (ok I know some trampoline stuff needs executable stacks, well they can ask for it where needed by setting the executable bit for a small region)

And when are some of these new processors going to be fully virtualizable? I'm talking about PUSHF and POPF generating exceptions like directly setting the interrupt flag does.

Think how easy plex86 would be to run on a processor that did this properly?

Code-morphing Transmeta (come one!), AMD (maybe?) Intel (no chance?)

Sam

Re:Will it be secure? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889205)

Stop making crap up. I have a master's degree in microprocessor design and everything you just said is completely fabricated nonsense.

Re:Will it be secure? (4, Funny)

Amoeba (55277) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889214)

The sad thing is I understood everything you just said.

My God, I *am* a geek.

Will it be secure?-GF & Children. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889360)

"The sad thing is I understood everything you just said.

My God, I *am* a geek."

No! The sad thing is you will not be able to pass that on.

Re:Will it be secure? (0, Offtopic)

cptgrudge (177113) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889516)

My God, I *am* a geek.

We wouldn't have it any other way, Amoeba.

Re:Will it be secure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889375)

You want every single instruction to carry an extra bi to see if it's executable? How the fuck do you expect that to work?

64bit performance gains... (5, Informative)

Natalie's Hot Grits (241348) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889114)

Before anybody starts talking about how little 64bit cpu's actually increase performance, let me tell everyone what 64 bit mode will actually bring to the table over the Opteron/Athlon64 32 bit modes:

1) more registers. This will get us fair performance increase from the start, as compilers will have more registers to work with when doing calculations on multiple pieces of data.

2) support for larger system memory sizes. This won't help you in video games, but it will help you doing high end photoshop, and other applications (provided you spend the money to get more memory put into your system)

3) native operations on 64 bit data. Typically, when someone wants to do operations on a 64 bit integer in a 32 bit CPU, you have to split up the work in software. Now with 64 bit registers, you will be able to do operations on 64 bit integers in the same time as it takes to do the same operation on a 32 bit integer.

4) when using native 64 bit mode, certain legacy instructions of x86-32 are depreciated. This is a cleanup for the x86 ISA, which in the past has contained literaly EVERYTHING that the previous generation of CPU supported. AMD's x86-64 ISA eliminates these legacy features and moves them into firmware emulation (don't worry, it won't degrade any modern 32 bit code, just terribly outdated stuff from the 386 days, which doesn't need 2GHz of power in the first place)

On top of these performance enhancements that 64 bit mode brings you, you get all of this just because you are using AMD's Opteron/Athlon64 CPU:

1) Dual channel DDR Memory interface, with memory controller on the die of the CPU. This reduces latency and improves memory bandwidth so dramatically that even Intel's off die memory controller can't keep up (this is why video games are so much faster on the amd64 platform than on athlon-32 platform)

2) HyperTransport bus to the south bridge, which will give high bandwidth access to the PCI bus, PCI-X, and other IO intensive controllers. Eventually AGP slots will be phased out for PCI-X slots which will be universal for both video, and other devices.

3) when using multiple CPU's in the same system, the new AMD-64 platform gives you dedicated memory bandwidth to each CPU installed. On the intel and athlon-32 platforms, all the CPU's in the system shared the same memory controller which runs either single or dual channel DDR anywhere from 266MHz - 400MHz.

Re:64bit performance gains... (4, Informative)

p3d0 (42270) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889186)

Nice summary. I would only add a couple of things:
  • 64-bit math on IA32 requires register pairs. With 8 GPRs, one of which is reserved for the stack pointer, that means you can only keep 3 long-longs in registers. On AMD64, even if you dedicate another register to the frame pointer, you can still get 14 long-longs in registers: almost a factor of 5 improvement.
  • The benefits from the memory subsystem will be offset by the fact that objects containing pointers will be twice as big as on IA32. That means objects could have twice the cache footprint and twice the memory bandwith requirements.

Re:64bit performance gains... (2, Insightful)

barawn (25691) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889378)


The benefits from the memory subsystem will be offset by the fact that objects containing pointers will be twice as big as on IA32. That means objects could have twice the cache footprint and twice the memory bandwith requirements.


Except that pointers make up only a small fraction of the code footprint of an executable - most of it is ints, which still are 32-bit by default on x86-64. In general you can easily minimize the number of pointers in code by doing math (i.e., with 32-bit ints) on one base pointer.

The estimate is that code size will increase by about 10-15% on x86-64. Considering that the L2 cache is 1MB, as opposed to the standard size of 512k nowadays, it's a net win. Presumedly in the future they'll increase the cache size even more.

Re:64bit performance gains... (-1)

Ilvatar (667201) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889380)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you have a pointer to your particular object it doesn't have to be 64bits long. Unless of course the address is longer than 32bits, but that doesn't happen unless there's a shitload of ram in the machine.
Or am I missing something?

Opcode depreciation (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889290)

when using native 64 bit mode, certain legacy instructions of x86-32 are depreciated.

Interesting. What method of depreciation will be used? I've searched on the net for opcode depreciation, and I can't see any straight-line depreciation methods or even accelerated cost recovery systems that would apply here.

Re:64bit performance gains... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889301)

"support for larger system memory sizes. This won't help you in video games, but it will help you doing high end photoshop"

Bullllll-shite. Games are one of the most memory intensive applications.

One small point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889321)

AGP will be phased out for the advent of PCI Express, which isn't the same as PCI-X.

Re:64bit performance gains... (1)

doomy (7461) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889452)


2) support for larger system memory sizes. This won't help you in video games, but it will help you doing high end photoshop, and other applications (provided you spend the money to get more memory put into your system)


How would this not help games? My "Republic : The Revolution" supports only systems with 512 MB of ram or more.

I think the cheaper the ram becomes the more we'd see programmers making unoptimized memory hogging games and thus games in general would become highly dependent on a large memory system.

Re:64bit performance gains... (1)

emmons (94632) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889522)

How would this not help games? My "Republic : The Revolution" supports only systems with 512 MB of ram or more.

Because at the moment, games don't need much more than 512mb. Right now you can put up to 2 gigs in a 32 bit system. (More with SMP Xeon systems, but it's a hack that the OS and application have to support.) When games start needing more than 2 gigs then there will be an improvement with a 64 bit system and more ram.

20% Gain (3, Informative)

MBCook (132727) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889456)

IIRC, Tim Sweeny said that by recompiling one of the versions of UT (2003 maybe?) for the x86-64 platform without optimizations, they saw up to a 20% performance boost. Now if they were to optomize the code on top of that, they could probably get a little more.

So even for programs that don't need to use 64 bit math, moving them to the x86-64 platform can speed them up. It won't improve your typing speed in Word, but it can probably speed up most if not all your games if they are simply recompiled.

About 64-bit gaming performance (2, Interesting)

yourruinreverse (564043) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889125)

This was only in 32-bit mode no less! I can't wait for 64-bit benchmarks come out!

The above seems to imply that game benchmark results will be better at 64-bit. Now, if those games needed access to many gigabytes of game data, that would be an entirely correct assumption.

Apart from the utter pointlessness of 64-bit gaming for the coming years because of the comparatively humble data requirements of current games, a benchmark of 64-bit gaming performance (say, its 3D calculation or its AI plotting performance) would be mostly a waste of time, as you would see very likely only see an equalling performance at best.

Re:About 64-bit gaming performance (1)

scd (541350) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889208)

Generally speaking, this is true. However, AMD has added more registers that can only be accessed when running in x86-64 mode. I think the register count goes from 8 to 32.

This could make a big performance difference if an application is compiled with these additional registers in mind.

Re:About 64-bit gaming performance (4, Informative)

amorsen (7485) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889209)

a benchmark of 64-bit gaming performance (say, its 3D calculation or its AI plotting performance) would be mostly a waste of time, as you would see very likely only see an equalling performance at best.

This would have been the case if IA-32 was a sane architecture. Athlon64 in IA-32 mode has only 8 visible general purpose registers, whereas it has 16 in 64-bit mode. That makes 64-bit mode a win in almost all cases. Technically it would have made sense for AMD to introduce a new 32-bit mode, but it would probably have been bad for marketing.

Re:About 64-bit gaming performance (2, Insightful)

mjuarez (12463) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889237)

The above seems to imply that game benchmark results will be better at 64-bit.

With a little tweaking and register optimization, they will be better. You have double-sized registers, and much more general purpose registers. In tight inner loops, being able to complete a loop in 10 vrs 20 clocks makes a hell of a difference.

Now, if those games needed access to many gigabytes of game data, that would be an entirely correct assumption.

We are getting to that point. I believe Doom 3's textures are approaching the gigabyte size, and you need many of those at the same time on memory to be able to correctly display a level. Of course, even if it was not necessary, being able to load up ALL textures to memory will make the game so much more playable. In general, if the RAM is there, gaming companies will find a way to use it to make the game better/faster.

Marcos

Re:About 64-bit gaming performance (2, Insightful)

MROD (101561) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889368)

Hmm.. you say that having bigger and more registers is going to increase the speed of programs..

Well, this may be true if the only code running is the game and doesn't transfer double the data from the memory to process (64bits rather than 32).

However, what happens when the operating system does a context switch or some other exception occurs? The latency from saving the processor context is going to go way up as you have to save far more data to memory and then load the same large amount of data in for the new context.

If you double the size of the registers and double the number of registers (and possibly add to the size of the CPU's other program registers) you suddenly quadruple the amount of data which has to be changed over. On a system with many threads and processes running this can add up to a significant deficit.

Now, if your programmers decide that they want to work on 64bit wide data instead of the 32bit they used to on the old system, you suddenly find that your processor is having to move double the amount of data around there system.. You have to hope that any increases in memory bandwidth the engineers included are enough to cater for this.

I think the main thing I'm trying to say is that 64bit computing isn't necessarily faster than 32 bit computing. Indeed, because some of the overheads can be double or quaduple, it can be a performance hit.

Sorry for possibly raining on your parade, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

Re:About 64-bit gaming performance (2, Informative)

mjuarez (12463) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889510)

However, what happens when the operating system does a context switch or some other exception occurs? The latency from saving the processor context is going to go way up as you have to save far more data to memory and then load the same large amount of data in for the new context.

There is no "context-switch" delay. The processor takes exactly the same amount of time doing a context-switch at 64-bits than at 32-bits. Remember that the processor has to do a certain number of clocks per second, and it cannot "fall behind" or get delayed.

Now, if your programmers decide that they want to work on 64bit wide data instead of the 32bit they used to on the old system, you suddenly find that your processor is having to move double the amount of data around there system.. You have to hope that any increases in memory bandwidth the engineers included are enough to cater for this.

If you read the article, you will have noticed that Opteron has an integrated memory controller. In this case, it means the controller was moving data at 2.0Ghz. This adds up to significant increases in performance in the benchmarks, as could be seen by the article.

I think the main thing I'm trying to say is that 64bit computing isn't necessarily faster than 32 bit computing. Indeed, because some of the overheads can be double or quaduple, it can be a performance hit.

Absolutely true. It can be slower (just take a look at Itanium :-), but it shouldn't! Did you even read the article? In most of the benchmarks, the Opteron was even faster than dual-Xeons (although I'm not sure the benchmarks were fully using the additional processor) I didn't see a "performance hit" anywhere in the benchmarks.

Re:About 64-bit gaming performance (2, Insightful)

katz (36161) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889512)

Your analysis is detailed and insightful, and at one time was a big issue. However, today's sheer clock speeds and superscalar pipelines render it far less of a burden. How fast does your OS switch contexts? every few milliseconds? "iostat" on my 1.0 Ghz Athlon t-bird says 351 cs/sec; 1.0/351 ~= 2 ms execution time per context. This is enough time for even the >>tightest>miniscule compared to the time tight loops have at their disposal. This, coupled with the fact that context switches are so carefully and constantly streamlined to be as efficient as possible, make this context switch--which was an impediment at one time--insignificant now.

Roey

Re:About 64-bit gaming performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889259)

"Apart from the utter pointlessness of 64-bit gaming for the coming years"

Quick! Someone send this post to Epic games. They are wasting money developing a 64-bit version of Unreal Tournament. If only they had consulted with this slashdot reader first they could have saved millions.

Re:About 64-bit gaming performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889308)

They said they've done some testing, but AFAIK there's been no product announcement.

Whether games are released for AMD64 will depend on business factors, not the number of registers on the CPU.

Re:About 64-bit gaming performance (3, Informative)

Ospeovedizer (85934) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889296)

What you say is true, if the only improvement of AMD64 is 64-bit support. However, AMD64 also doubles the number of general-purpose and XMM (for SSE, SSE2) registers to 16 of each. This will make many programs run faster, as having 8 general-purpose registers is just not enough. Far too much time is given to swapping data into and out of registers on x86.
The additional registers is really what I like about AMD64. I couldn't care less about 64bit for now.

Re:About 64-bit gaming performance (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889460)

You forgot that Epic has already demoed 64-bit UT2003...

Athlon64 will be in short supply (4, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889129)

or so says Ars Technica. In addition most of the initial shipments will go to motherboard manufacturers for bundling with their boards. I really don't like the idea of that becoming common practice as that much purchasing power will mean tight pricing controlls. Read more Here [arstechnica.com] .

When are the 64-bit benchmarks coming (1)

barole (35839) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889131)

I have read so many reviews of opteron/athlon64 running in 32-bit mode under windows.

There is good opportunity right now for some site to stand apart from the crowd by doing a real review on a 64-bit version of linux. Does anyone know of any out there?

Re:When are the 64-bit benchmarks coming (1)

dbirchall (191839) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889387)

How about this InfoWorld article [infoworld.com] from a month ago, which involved a dual-Itanium box running Red Hat Enterprise and three dual-Opteron ones, running SuSE?

Google [google.com] can probably find you more, if you ask it nicely.

Intel Itanium vrs. AMD Opteron/Athlon64 (4, Informative)

mjuarez (12463) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889184)

Just to set some things straight:

- Itanium, Intel's 64-bit chip, uses a totally different architecture (EPIC) from the current Pentium x86 line of chips. This architecture is NOT compatible with x86, so that effectively you need a recompile for existing software work on Itanium. There is an EMULATION mode for x86 in Itanium, which is absolutely unusable according to various sources on the Net. You will DEFINITELY not want to run a game on it. Finally, prices for a low-end 1.0Ghz Itanium chip start at approx $800.

- AMD's Opteron/Athlon64 chips are compatible with everything you are running right now at 32 bits. You can install a complete 32-bit operating system in it, and everything will run just as today, albeit a little bit faster. There is no need for an "emulator". And, of course, you can already use Linux at full-64 bits, available from SuSe, RedHat and Mandrake. Also, Microsoft will release a 64-bit version of XP at the end of the year.

Marcos

Zzzzzz...... (1, Insightful)

Bowling Moses (591924) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889204)

Another preview? We've been seeing bloody previews for the last two freaking years. Wake me up when it hits the shelves in volume and has broad based software support for 64 bit mode.

Shockwave Flash (-1)

Nix0n (649693) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889211)

All I get for the benchmarks results are a bunch of grey boxes. I guess it doesn't matter to most of you hypocritical linux zealots who actually use windows.

First Look at Windows XP 64bit for AMD64 (5, Informative)

rchatterjee (211000) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889227)

GamePC [gamepc.com] is running a first look [gamepc.com] of Windows XP 64bit edition for the AMD64 (x86-64) architecture.

Re:First Look at Windows XP 64bit for AMD64 (0)

AntiOrganic (650691) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889267)

Windows XP is sooo yesterday. I want to see an AMD64 version of Debian, then I'll be happy.

Re:First Look at Windows XP 64bit for AMD64 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889447)

Windows XP for 64 bit AMD is new, still in beta.

Does this mean I can finally afford a P4 HT system (1)

YoungBonzi (692874) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889282)

Or will the Opteron not affect Intel prices?

too much flash... (1)

starman97 (29863) | more than 11 years ago | (#6889286)

What an annoying page..
I turn off Flash to squelch their highly annoying
animated ads and none of their graphs show up.

Why shockwave-flash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6889440)

I never bothered re-installing shockwave, because all it ever does is make advertising more obnoxious.

Is there a good reason why the benchmark graphics are in flash format?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?