Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

First Round of AMD Athlon 64 Reviews In

CowboyNeal posted more than 10 years ago | from the comparing-notes dept.

AMD 248

wrinkledshirt writes "Here's a bunch of AMD Athlon 64 reviews, courtesy of 8Dimensional." AcesHardware and HardOCP match the Athlon 64 line against the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. amdmb, FiringSquad, and SharkyExtreme take a closer look at the FX-51. AthlonXP and PCStats have glowing reviews of the chips. Digit-Life compares the new Athlon 64 with Opteron and a Pentium 4. LegitReviews and Overclockers.com.au also both have succinct reviews of the FX-51. Overall the reviews speak very highly of the Athlon 64 and the FX version of the chip, with the only downside being the cost, especially of the FX chip.

cancel ×

248 comments

FP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7072956)

This first post is brought to you by the tripod-crushed skull of Bob Crane.

Re:FP (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073114)

You must be a fucking nigger. Get off my land, jigaboo.

Memory mapped disk? (1)

Thinkit3 (671998) | more than 10 years ago | (#7072958)

Isn't this a major benefit of more bits? You can play with the concept of mapping disk like memory, since you have plenty of address space for any size disk. The Athlon 64 might be a kludge, but introducing more bits is a good thing.

Re:Memory mapped disk? (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 10 years ago | (#7072982)

Given that there is no way to fit more then 8GB on an ATX MB and that requires spending 700$ for each of the eight 2GB DIMMs I'd say that the extra "bitness" is overhyped. You will not see consumer systems with more then 4GB any time soon.

Re:Memory mapped disk? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073022)

If you have lot of RAM or so programs will tend to exhaust the 32-bit address space before actually consuming all the physical memory. One example is that creating a thread might represent the reservation of 64KB of address space for its stack, while only 8KB of physical memory is actually committed.

A 64-bit address space is probably a good thing once a program is allocating 2GB or more of address space.

Re:Memory mapped disk? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073083)

What he's talking about has absolutely nothing to do with RAM. At all. This is about address space and virtual memory. Please learn the difference and you won't look like such a fucktard in the future.

Re:Memory mapped disk? (1)

DetrimentalFiend (233753) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073085)

That's true, but new form factors are on the horizion and extra bits now means that when form factors do more memory, you won't have to patch the software and redesign CPU's again.

Re:Memory mapped disk? (4, Interesting)

ianezz (31449) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073270)

You will not see consumer systems with more then 4GB any time soon

The point about mmap(2) is to let the system (the VM subsystem of the kernel) manage the caching for the userland processes using it, avoiding extra copies to/from buffers in userland and eliminating in several cases the need for custom caching code (processes don't have to worry about data being available in RAM: the kernel automatically takes care of that when needed).

You don't need gobs of memory to do this, but in order to work on large amount of data you need a large address space, which is what 64 bit architectures provide. Of course, the more physical memory you have, the less the kernel has to swap pages in and out, but the main point is not that.

A little example to clarify: in order to keep things simple (instead of needing two intermixed caching systems, one for the VM and one for disk accesses), the Hurd just mmaps the whole partition. This means that the maximum size of a partition has an upper limit given by the size of the addressing space, which is 4GB on 32bit architectures (actually less, since in that address space you have to keep also the code that uses the mmapped data, so it's more like 2GB/3GB). A 64bit architecture comes very handy here, given the current size of hard disks.

Aah! My Athlon64 review! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7072964)

I'm not supposed to get jigs in it!

Hmm.. (3, Funny)

darkov (261309) | more than 10 years ago | (#7072966)

Is it possible to have a first round of reviews after an earlier story about Athlon 64 reviews?

fp

Re:Hmm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7072977)

Major dupage here.

Re:Hmm.. (2)

bj8rn (583532) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073001)

Yes it is:

1) The earlier story was round 0, or
2) the earlier story was the pre-match bragging part, or
3) some other reason (not profit, though)

Wooah! (1, Funny)

Sir Haxalot (693401) | more than 10 years ago | (#7072974)

Remember bigger numbers =! better.
Think N64 and Playstation.

Yeah. (1)

Gldm (600518) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073058)

Do the math! (Jaguar)

Re:Wooah! (1)

sirmikester (634831) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073091)

While I agree with you in concept, your example has a flaw.. the N64 had far better performance than the playstation. In the case of performance bigger numbers == better.

Re:Wooah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073262)

No it didn't. The N64 may have had bilinear filtering, however the PlayStation was capable of pushing out far more polygons due to its intelligent design (integrated GTE). I can fire up a PSX game on a PlayStation emulator on my PC, run it with bilinear or trilinear filtering and it looks light years beyond anything the N64 could do. All N64 games look blocky as hell, because objects weren't constructed out of as many vertices as objects in PSX titles.

Re:Wooah! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073207)

Correction =! != !=

64bit.. Schmobit... (2, Funny)

deunan_k (637851) | more than 10 years ago | (#7072979)

Enough! Leave me alone with my abacus...

Um, anyone knows how many bits can an abacus counts to?

No problem (1)

jbarket (530468) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073051)

Sure! Just let me whip out my abacus and do a couple of calculations and...

Re:64bit.. Schmobit... (2, Funny)

notanatheist (581086) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073110)

this is not a problem with an abacus as you can own an original 8 bit abacus and just add 8, 16, 32, or even 64bit upgrade kits. You may need a larger frame to accomadate the beads but you'll have years of growth from your very own abacus.

great (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7072980)

I wonder how long it will take Micro$oft to make an OS for 64bit... 2 years... The time it will take Linux to make an OS for 64bit... 2 months

Re:great (1)

ColdGrits (204506) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073014)

so how long until Sun release an OS for 64 bit?

Oh, wait., they already did, decades ago.

What was your point agian?

Re:great (1)

kyrre (197103) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073223)

Linux has been availible for 64-bit plattforms for years as well.

Try reading the links? (1)

Gldm (600518) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073081)

The Ace's review does some testing on the already pretty useable windows64 beta. I don't think it'll take that much longer for it to get up to their normal stability standards for a release.

Re:Try reading the links? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073404)

If it's a beta it's already up to their normal stability standards.

(Someone had to say it)

Re:great (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073124)

Uhm, you're a retard, there are already several versions of windows which will run just fine on a 64 bit system. Please do your research before you say something stupid about Linux, because we all know you just want to be the most coolest geek evar for promoting Linux.

Rent a brain cockbite.

Re:great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073213)

Linux already supports Athlon64 with all it's features.

Re:great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073234)

The time it will take Linux to make an OS for 64bit... 2 months

nope 2 seconds... oh wait a 64 bit linux kernel already exists....

linux has been in the 64 bit world for a very long time already...

Hang on.. (3, Insightful)

madprof (4723) | more than 10 years ago | (#7072986)

Give it a bit more time. The motherboards can still be tweaked to get more performance out of the system. I think we should wait a bit before really making decisions, and get in a whole load more real world testing too.
Benchmarks are not always entirely, although often can be, illuminating.

Re:Hang on.. (1)

Gldm (600518) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073097)

The FX will also probably perform a bit better once it's freed from having to use registered memory. Wait for the 939pin version.

Re:Hang on.. (2, Informative)

captainclever (568610) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073143)

I had to buy a new box as a pg database server recently..
almost bought a dual opteron, but chickened out and went for a Xeon instead.

the suse distro that supports it is still a bit shaky and i wanted to wait for some good bench results.

maybe my next server will be 64bit.. :)

Re:Hang on.. (5, Informative)

FatherOfONe (515801) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073191)

We have a dual Opteron 1.8GH and a 2GH on order. We found that with RedHat and Oracle the Opteron in 32 bit mode beat the crap out of a quad Xeon for the stuff we do.

Just an F.Y.I. Again this was with 32 bit code. I tried the RedHat BETA and it wouldn't even boot up without locking.

So given that Oracle cost us over $20k a processor, we saved over 40 grand!

Re:Hang on.. (1)

_|()|\| (159991) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073472)

So given that Oracle cost us over $20k a processor, we saved over 40 grand!

I didn't know anyone actually bought processor licenses. I'm surprised that a dual Opteron beats a quad Xeon. All things being equal (i.e., 3 GHz Xeon compared to 2 GHz Opteron) I would have thought that hyper threading would give the advantage to the Xeon.

Hmmm... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7072987)

Bullshit bullshit bullshit

buttfucker

Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7072990)

The first 64-bit x86 desktop chip and the second 64-bit desktop chip to continue to run a 32-bit OS... or something. Man I'm getting confused. Which company had the first affordable 64-bit desktop again? Sun, Apple, AMD??

Re:Finally! (2, Informative)

yoshac (603689) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073052)

None of the above. It was Digital, with the Alpha AXP chips. It runs native 64bit Unix/VMS and 32bit Windows. Also x86 emulation via the !FX emulator.

Re:Finally! (1)

Gldm (600518) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073135)

I seem to remember a few DEC Alpha based "PC"s running WindowsNT back in the early 90s. Does that count?

anandtech (1)

adpowers (153922) | more than 10 years ago | (#7072996)

Don't forget Anandtech [anandtech.com] .

Re:anandtech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073142)

Anand, Home of the Cookie Attack.

vs. Pentium 4 AGAIN???? (0, Insightful)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 10 years ago | (#7072997)

So of course I didn't read any of them.
Gimme the results of Athlon 64 vs G5 vs Opteron vs Itanic ... then there'd be something worth reading from a buyers perspective.

troll (0, Flamebait)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073043)

I can give you your wanted "review"
A64 fx51:=Opteron
A64 a little slower
G5: Slow crap, Half to 75% of A64 performance (not countin photoshop gaussian blur and the 3 other altivec optimiced algorithms in exitance)

But i guess you smartass dont understand that 64bit x86 on the desktop means x86 desktop chips should be used in the comparison. And yes, p4 is one.

Re:troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073325)

Christ, someone who is honest about being a troll and uses an accurate subject line!

Re:vs. Pentium 4 AGAIN???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073057)

Why?

It's P4 vs. A64 on the PC.

Opteron vs. Xeon vs. Itanic in the server space.

Opteron vs. G5 in clusters.

And G5 vs. nothing for mac users...

Re:vs. Pentium 4 AGAIN???? (1)

jrockway (229604) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073072)

Actually, I'd like some Linux-centric benchmarks. I don't care how long WinRAR takes; it's useless. What about bzip2? And then there's the kernel compile, games, etc. Before I buy something, I want to know how it performs on things that _I_ do.

That said, I have a 3000+ right now (er... a 2500+ "unlocked" to a 3000+ :-D) and won't be upgrading soon. It's fast enough and I can't use more than 512MiB of RAM at a time anyway (all programs in memory + disk cache of them are only about 300MiB for me; gcc uses some more...). I'm saving my money for a 2.0TiB RAID array :)

Re:vs. Pentium 4 AGAIN???? (0, Insightful)

slash-tard (689130) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073077)

Well the Itanium (itanic is a joke name - titanic) is firmly priced as a server chip. Last I saw the latest was running about 3000.

The Athlon FX is essentially an opteron rebadged as a desktop chip just the the P4 EE is essentially a 3500 top end Xeon with a higher bus speed rebadged as a desktop chip.

Barefeats.com has a few reviews of the dual g5 vs a few Xeon and P4 systems. The g5 loses pretty bad on the game benchmarks. It comes out ahead on some business benchmarks while losing some other ones, including the photoshop test.

The Athlon FX beats the P4 at most tests so it would probably win most against the G5. A doubt a dual opteron would lose any benchmark against a dual g5. The opteron scales much better in mutli cpu configurations.

I know some mac zealot will respond that software hasnt been optimized for the G5 yet, well it hasnt been optimized for x86-64 yet either.

Re:vs. Pentium 4 AGAIN???? (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073350)

The Athlon FX is essentially an opteron rebadged as a desktop chip just the the P4 EE is essentially a 3500 top end Xeon with a higher bus speed rebadged as a desktop chip.

Almost. The Athlon FX is an Opteron with 32 bit processing abilities. The P4EE is a Xeon with more cache.

I know some mac zealot will respond that software hasnt been optimized for the G5 yet, well it hasnt been optimized for x86-64 yet either.

And you'd both be right.

LK

Re:vs. Pentium 4 AGAIN???? (1)

notanatheist (581086) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073096)

at least Tomshardware.com threw in the results from earlier Opteron tests for comparison in his full blown review. Seems the Athlon still holds out in processes that require quicker execution while the P4 is still best for anything CPU intensive. Another thing, how reliable are the new AMD chips going to be? AMD should not allow certain motherboard makers to have boards for their chips. There's only a few reliable manufacturers out there yet people still buy the cheapest board, ram, and power supply and complain about how your system is unstable. /end rant

Re:vs. Pentium 4 AGAIN???? (1)

Gldm (600518) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073108)

Yeah, it's not like you can just look them up [spec.org] . Oh wait, Apple doesn't like to send them scores. Wonder why that is....

Re:vs. Pentium 4 AGAIN???? (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073252)

Shhhhh.....you'l get moderated as a troll....

Re:vs. Pentium 4 AGAIN???? (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073360)

Holy crap.

Gee, sorry to have pissed on your cheerios.
You know there are some of us who can give a rats ass about the P4.

There are some of us who'd like to see the difference between all 64bit processors out there.

I'm sorry that some of you can't wrap that around your pointy little heads, but I digress.

Look, IMO, benching a 64bit CPU vs a 32bit CPU while interesting is overkill when all the sites do basically the same review.

While the redundancy of these reviews can be good for QA of the overall reviewing process, the results of the P4 vs A64 are only usable for those that are concerned over the benefits of upgrading their desktop machine/lowend server.

For those of us that are scientists, animators, et al that currently plan on implementing a 64bit solution, it would be nice to see where things stack up.

So yeah, seeing the G5 bench against the A64 or the Opteron would be more beneficial and also let us see where the AMD/IBM crop sits against Intel/HP.

Pentium 4 Emergency Edition (1, Funny)

Master Bait (115103) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073008)

It was either the Inquirer or The Register that had an interesting article saying that these CPUs (which are MP Xeons) still have their multi-cpu support enabled, thus saving astute customers thousands of dollars over their full-priced, $3,900 Xeon counterparts.

Re:Pentium 4 Emergency Edition (3, Interesting)

MarcoAtWork (28889) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073074)

while it's very likely that this is the case for the reviewing samples (probably rushed out as fast as possible, I can't believe that Intel had plans for the EE all along given that there were 0 leaks) given that this is a paper launch by the time the EE will actually be available to customers I'm sure the MP support will disappear.

Re:Pentium 4 Emergency Edition (3, Informative)

Unoriginal Nick (620805) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073086)

It was either the Inquirer or The Register that had an interesting article saying that these CPUs (which are MP Xeons) still have their multi-cpu support enabled, thus saving astute customers thousands of dollars over their full-priced, $3,900 Xeon counterparts.

The multi-cpu support may or may not be still enabled, but the P4 EE has a different pin count than the XeonMP, so you wouldn't be able to use it in the XeonMP boards anyway.

Re:Pentium 4 Emergency Edition (1)

Gldm (600518) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073125)

Yes, now all you need is some multi-socket 478 motherboards.... seen any?

do they use any 64 bit applications ?? (2, Informative)

zymano (581466) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073015)

The OS is 64 but most of the games/applications are 32 bits ?????

Re:do they use any 64 bit applications ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073075)

Yes, most of the tests use 32bit software - and 32bit windows as well.

Some apps show a 100% speedup from 64bit, some none at all.

But the A64 is pretty damn fast even with 32bit software, and there is no problem with running 32bit and 64bit apps together.

Re:do they use any 64 bit applications ?? (1)

lederhosen (612610) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073102)

Yes!

Windows (beta) is 64 bit and can run 64 bit
applications as well as 32 bit ones.

That is, you got all your old apps and can get
new 64 bit ones that you need.

Of course there is 64 bit GNU/Linux and BSD for
it as well.

don't bother with the FX yet (4, Informative)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073017)

The socket format will be changing soon, and once the upcoming changes happen, things will be much better. You'll then be able to use non-ECC memory, and the motherboards will be less expensive.

Until then, yeah, the FX is freaking fast, but waaaaay overpriced, so don't bother.

Re:don't bother with the FX yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073053)

And by that time, AGP will have been supplanted by PCI Express x16 which is what all videocard makers are switching to.

Re:don't bother with the FX yet (2, Informative)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073093)

I think that the new Socket 939 format will be available 6 months or so before PCI Express x16 becomes mainstream. I've been reading that the switch to PCI Express won't be happening, for the most part, until the 2nd half of next year, whereas Socket 939 should be at the beginning of 2Q next year. Of course, that assumes that everything happens on schedule, which never happens. :)

It's all a moot point for me - my next computer will be a Mac G5. Because of the coming PCI Express train, I'm not going for the big duallie for now - I'm gonna get the single proc 1.8GHz machine, then upgrade to the then-biggie once they migrate to PCI Express.

Re:don't bother with the FX yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073347)

Until then, yeah, the FX is freaking fast, but waaaaay overpriced, so don't bother.

You should have said, ".. so don't bother unless you really really need the speed NOW."

Right now for my verilog simulations, time is money. I wish I had one now.

Re:don't bother with the FX yet (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073381)

Hey, there will always be exceptions to any rule. A Hummer will be the best vehicle for some people, just not for the vast majority of people. I refuse to put such silly-ass disclaimers on all my Slashdot posts, despite the inevitable replies calling for them.

If you've got the money to burn on a system that has already been announced as an 'end of life' platform, by all means, go ahead.

A good alternative - send the money to me. :)

Re:don't bother with the FX yet (1)

BlueBiker (690984) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073356)

The socket will be changing to 939pin for next generation dual memory channel 64-bit Athlons but not for Opterons, which the FX-51 essentially is [~Opteron 148 IIRC]. If what you want is a system upgradeable to future Opterons, starting with an FX-51 may be a relatively inexpensive approach.

Re:don't bother with the FX yet (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073396)

The FX is a crippled Opteron - it has fewer HT links. If you want an Opteron, get an Opteron.

hooray! (0, Redundant)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073018)

I got my chip and mobo in last night but I still have to wait for the other parts. I cant wait to see how this baby really runs.

Quote from the article (1)

nick-less (307628) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073020)

A 64-bit computing experience means that our PCs will no longer be limited to addressing only 4GB of RAM. In a 64-bit environment, it's now possible to address 8 terabytes of memory

sound's like SCO math to me...

Re:Quote from the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073044)

Indeed, 42 bits is enough to map 8TB.

I think the AMD64 chips have 48 bit adresses...

Re:Quote from the article (1)

TCM (130219) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073059)

Should be more like

$ echo "2^64/1024/1024/1024/1024" | bc
16777216


16M TB, they're only off by a factor of 2097152.

Re:Quote from the article (4, Informative)

The One KEA (707661) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073078)

Not quite.

The AMD64 core uses a 40-bit physical memory address space, which is 1 Terabyte. It also uses a 48-bit virtual memory address space, which is 256 Terabytes.

A full 64-bit physical memory address would allow for 16 Exabytes of memory.

you can get more ... (1, Informative)

flex941 (521675) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073028)

Follow this link ... 2.8Ghz Athlon FX [aceshardware.com] for talk and benchmarks.

P4 Emergency Edition looks like from past centruy in light of this. Ok, probably one can overclock that chip too.

Re:you can get more ... (2, Informative)

The One KEA (707661) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073050)

Damn! You stole my thunder; I was going to post this benchmark.

I think the biggest con of the FX51 is that soon it will be orphaned because of the 940pin -> 939pin change, which will allow that particular core to use normal DDR400 memory instead of registered ECC DDR400 memory.

Re:you can get more ... (1)

flex941 (521675) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073076)

Don't know. It was explained that 939 pin socket cpus need 4-layer mobos. And 940 pin cpus 6-8 layer mobos. Manufacturing of 4-layer ones should be cheaper.

But given the price of this particular cpu I must conclude that those extra $$ doesn't matter.

Betas Of Athlon64 Optimized Linux (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073037)

Are avalible from SuSE [suse.com] , Gentoo [gentoo.org] , and Debian [jukie.net] !

SO if you are complaining "theres no 64 bit os yet", stop complaining, leave the evil empire behind and see the REAL power of opensource.

Got me thinking (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073144)

I wonder when/if Sun will release a 64 bit Solaris x86?

Re:Got me thinking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073275)

apparently yes - they seem to have some deal with a couple of manufacturers (boxx?) for opteron boxes certified for solaris.

Solaris on dual BOXX Opteron (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073361)

Re:Solaris on dual BOXX Opteron (1)

sl0ppy (454532) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073397)

it would make sense.

one would think that a port of solaris to 64bit x86 would be fairly trivial. they already have 64bit support in their code base, and can't have diverged the sparc/x86 source bases too much, and still keep code manageability.

plus, sun already has experience with 32bit drivers in a 64bit architecture, from when they rolled out their ultra-1's.

they could possibly just do a recompile.

these chips are beasts (1)

ghettoreb (711310) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073088)

this is a godsend for the people that like to brag about the number of opterons they have in their gaming PC, but these chips are too darn expensive for the majority of us. I wish that AMD will create some low end chips in the $150-$200 range. The AthlonXP's they have out now in that range are too slow for their price.

I would also like to see motherboards become cheaper because chipsets no longer have to have a memory controller (since the A64's have one built in)

just my $.02

Re:these chips are beasts (1)

levik (52444) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073298)

I agree with you... I would like to see motherboards and ram become cheaper. Also I want processort to become cheaper, and monitors could stand being a little cheaper than they are.

Other things that should be cheaper are electricity and internet access. Laptops should definitely be A LOT cheaper, as should air travel.

Re:these chips are beasts (1)

minion (162631) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073319)

I wish that AMD will create some low end chips in the $150-$200 range. The AthlonXP's they have out now in that range are too slow for their price.

I would also like to see motherboards become cheaper because chipsets no longer have to have a memory controller (since the A64's have one built in)


So essentially, you're a real cheap-ass and want something for nothing. Maybe you could send your congressman a letter suggesting welfare for geeks.

Re:these chips are beasts (1)

spinlocked (462072) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073379)

...I wish that AMD will create some low end chips in the $150-$200 range...

Why? Do you have >4GB of RAM?

Re:these chips are beasts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073412)

Give it a few months. The chip companies aren't dumb, they just look to recoup some of their R&D and retooling costs and increase yields before making the full-on price assault at consumerland.

I, for one, (1)

civilengineer (669209) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073098)

welcome a plethora of processor reviewers

more motherboard reviews, please (esp. w/ Linux) (3, Informative)

_|()|\| (159991) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073145)

I haven't made all the rounds, but it seems like everyone is using the same two motherboards: Asus SK8N and MSI 8KT. I really like the looks of Monarch's Hornet 64 [monarchcomputer.com] , with a uATX Gigabyte GA-K8VT800M. I'd like to see some reviews first, especially regarding chipset support under Linux. I'd also like to hear more about video drivers. I've heard that NVIDIA's drivers need some work. (Does ATI even have any?)

We've got a couple of Opterons at work, one for 32-bit compatibility testing, and another for the AMD64 port. It's pretty cool to see this in Python on SuSE Linux 8.2 beta:

>>> type( 9223372036854775807 )
<type 'int'>
SuSE Linux 9.0 for AMD64 is supposed to ship next month. Hopefully, it will be a little cheaper than RHEL 3.0 for AMD64, which will be more than twice the price of RHEL 2.1 for x86!

Re:more motherboard reviews, please (esp. w/ Linux (1)

Drathos (1092) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073332)

According to amazon.de, the 64-bit edition of SuSE 9.0 is the same price as SuSE 9.0 Pro (around $80). This means it's simply the Pro edition compiled for x86-64. I'm sure there will be a version of SLES (if there isn't already) for x86-64. That will be the one to compare to RHEL.

Establishing the ultimate randomness (1)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073154)

Slot, Socket, Boardfrequency, Memory Type, CPU Bitcount and CPU Class...
Bit by bit (no pun intended) vendors are establishing a true real life randomness of standards. A shure sign that computers are becoming a comodity. Soon we'll see the same with operating systems.

Proper benchmarks (3, Insightful)

NitroPye (594566) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073155)

Untill I see proper benchmarks done with applications built for 64bit chips I am going to go pffffft.

I am still blown away that the FX did better then then 3.2 P4.

Proper benchmarks include not using a 64bit beta stupid o/s like windows, a properly optimized linux (suse 64 or gentoo) and applications built for the chip. Openoffice, kde and kde apps, mozilla, some miscellaneous 3d engines running some impresive demos, maybe tenebrae quake. Tenebrae quake is great being that its open source and takes a huge amount of gfx and proc power.

"organic" ICs (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073204)

What's this "organic" stuff? Apparently, plastic IC packaging (as opposed to ceramic) is now referred to as "organic".

Re:"organic" ICs (3, Funny)

cosmo7 (325616) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073261)

Organic integrated circuits are produced without using fertilizer or pesticide.

Re:"organic" ICs (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073339)

Organic IC are made from sylicone waffers that have been grown from.....

I expect that they use some kind of thermoset plastic (organic in chemistry) and not a ceramic.

Most Only 32 Bits... (4, Informative)

MBCook (132727) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073220)

The reviews are basically all 32 bit, which is a shame. Linux is out there. I've only seen one review that did anything really 64 bit (running win32 programs on win64 doesn't count). The only 64 bit test they did under Linux was MP3 encoding. The test was the Athlon 64 running a 32 bit version they compiled of the MP3 encoder vs running a 64 bit version of the same program. The "bitness" was the ONLY thing that was changed.

The results? The 64 bit version took nearly HALF THE TIME of the 32 bit version. This is the kind of thing we have to look forward to in some things (MP3s, video encoding, etc).

The Athlon 64 is fast in 32 bit mode, and can beat a P4 many times. But when the 64 bit code comes along, the P4 will be taking one hell of a beating.

PS: Sorry I don't remember which review had this test. I don't have time to go hunting for it right now.

Re:Most Only 32 Bits... FOUND IT (4, Informative)

MBCook (132727) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073231)

Found it! It was Anandtech [anandtech.com] . Check out the bottom of the 32 bit vs 64 bit [anandtech.com] page of the review.

Re:Most Only 32 Bits... (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073433)

You forget that the P4 with an optimized MP3 encoder (IE not LAME) beat out the AMD chips even at 1.8gHz before the 64FX came along. The extra registers and such help, but not as much as some good ol' SSE2 optimizations with a compiler that does all the work for you.

Re:Most Only 32 Bits... (1)

BlueBiker (690984) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073442)

It's my understanding that while AMD64 chips give a nice boost in integer calculations [largely due to extra GPRs], their SSE2 floating point is only about on par with the fastest P4s. Later versions should have improved SSE2.

64 bit resources (2, Insightful)

JusTyler (707210) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073227)

I've been struggling to find any good 64 bit resources for Linux.

Basically, I want to know about all the 64 bit versions of major apps and systems, like MySQL, Perl, and so on. I know Perl is in 64 bit, because you can compile it to be, but what about stuff like MySQL, Apache, TomCat...

Post your best 'going up to 64 bits on Linux/FreeBSD/elcheapo UNIX' resources here, and attract some karma :-)

Re:64 bit resources (1)

exhilaration (587191) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073322)

You just recompile any app to "be 64-bit". If you want a pure 64-bit system you can do it, as long as you can also recompile all your drivers.

64 bit: necessary? (1)

Dan Farina (711066) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073230)

Other than the extra memory addressing, I don't see why 64 bit is really such a big deal.

Granted, it doesn't hurt anyone, but the AMD 64-bit processors have many other fine engineering tweaks to make them as fast as they are. I suspect that the main reason for the performance increases in 64 bit mode are (and someone correct me if I'm wrong here) the extra registers that open up in this mode.

So you can address 2^64 bytes of memory, but no one loads them a word at a time anyways, it's all paged over in chunks to predict what you're going to need in registers next.

The main gains, I suspect, are in simply high IPC (which boils down to a lot of optimizations and transistors) and notably the on-die uber low latency (indeed, practically no latency) memory controller. But these don't make a big marketing splash, nor can they be simplified to a nice rally cry. Hell, most of us don't know the entirety of the specific optimizations, but do know that smiply being able to address a bigger word doesn't mean much to most, and thus that the chip can stand on other merits alone.

This is a great chip (once costs get down) but I don't see the rally cry of 64 bit to really mean anything except to servers, to the consumer it will be mostly useless and obsolete by the time we need such vast amounts of memory. (Then again, you never know how far AMD will stretch their cores, which is a very good thing, good motherboards two years ago could run most of the chips up until present day with an update.)

Am I half-correct, delusional, or just plain misinformed and my basic knowledge of machine structures utter crap?

Re:64 bit: necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7073345)

first, it's not 2^64, it's 2^48. they decided there's no need for really 64bit address space (so did Power970 actually) and 1 byte less makes pointers less costly to manipulate (think code size, cache, memory fetches etc.).

then the rest of advantages, if i remember correctly (besdes the on-die memory controller) were something like: more registers, both gp and sse(2) , better branch prediction, addition of sse2, larger cache (compared to athlons). plus native use of 64bit integers, but that only affects stuff that uses a lot of long long operation (like enctyption, compression) check out some technical reviews for more details.

Re:64 bit: necessary? (1)

Dan Farina (711066) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073410)

but really, look at most of these optimizations, most of them have nothing to do with the intrinisic ability to handle 64 bit words.

Free OS's? (1)

-tji (139690) | more than 10 years ago | (#7073443)

Until now, when only the Opteron was available for AMD64 support, there was very little effort for free OS support. There were efforts by RH and Suse for expensive enterprise server OS's..

Now that the low end 64 bit chip is out, what is the best Linux Distro that is freely available, or at least cheap??
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...