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!

cancel ×

305 comments

Get some PRIORITIES (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601236)

It's mere hours after the single MOST HEROIC EFFORT BY FIREFIGHTERS IN US HISTORY [pittsburghlive.com] and you people are talking about television???? MY GOD, people, GET SOME PRIORITIES!!!!!!

first post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601237)

maybe this time???

TOASTY (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601244)

toaster,toaster toaser, do you have toast in you yet i think [rowdyruff.net]
so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Im not a toaster!!!!!!!!!!And one more
thing........YOUR A TOASER!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND A COOKIE WITH MILK SOAGE
MILK!!!!!!!!!!AND A BUTT WITH POOP IN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anandtech (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601246)

Anandtech has a review of AMD's latest processor, the Athlon 64 FX-53. Long story short -- the FX-53 is a "very solid processor," but you'd be better off waiting a couple months for Socket 939. Does it sound cool, you might ask?...do you wonder how long before someone cries about civil liberties? --- Does this seem like an idea that would suck? Is it good, or is it whack?

Re:Anandtech (5, Insightful)

abscondment (672321) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601303)

You can always get a better piece of technology by waiting just a little longer--the only real reason to wait then is if the standard is going to change. If you buy this current chip, it'll be the best you can get right now. When they change to socket 939, however, you'll be stuck with what you've got--no upgrade for you!

It's always best to buy right when the standard changes, so that you have the ability to upgrade later if you want to. If you buy right before the change, you guarantee having to purchase a whole bunch of new stuff for the next upgrade.

Re:Anandtech (2, Insightful)

yppiz (574466) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601523)

A decent motherboard costs $100 or less. Is there anything else I would have to replace, besides the CPU, if I wanted to upgrade from the current chipset?

If not, I don't see why I would want to wait for the next chipset.

--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

Re:Anandtech (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601720)

Is there anything else I would have to replace, besides the CPU, if I wanted to upgrade from the current chipset?

Quite possibly your ram.

Re:Anandtech (3, Interesting)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601564)

I can't find anybody anywhere that is saying you won't be able to stick a 939 pin Athlon in an 940 pin socket. Plus, Opteron chips will still use the 940 pin platform. You'll be able to upgrade still if you buy now. The only downside is that you'll have to use Registered ECC memory.

Re:Anandtech (1)

Rufus211 (221883) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601768)

you can be sure that 939 cpu's won't fit in 940 sockets. its not the number of pins that matters, it's the electrical interface. also 939 is going to use unbuffered ram whil 940 uses buffered

that said, amd has said they will continue to produce 940 socket cpus through the year.

Re:Anandtech (3, Interesting)

tiger99 (725715) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601582)

Personally I would wait a year, so they are cheaper. Certainly socket 939 is a "must", but I always take the view that where computers are concerned, if you wait till the last possible moment before you really must have something, you save a lot of money.

I definitely don't need one right now, but in a year, when it is a mainstream product, I will find some excuse to persuade myself to buy one. By that time the OS (Linux of course) will have been very well debugged.

I wonder when the move to 128-bit will come?

Re:Anandtech (2, Insightful)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601609)

At $733 for the processor and 200-300 dollors for the motherboard, I really don't think the cost of upgrading the motherboard should really be what you are thinking about, afterall I really wouldn't want to put my $733 processor out of commission, Id rather keep it running as a backup computer or doing some other job. Its not exactly something you throw out and replace.

Addendum (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601252)

Tom [tomshardware.com] 's review is here [tomshardware.com] .

$733 for 1000 (5, Funny)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601322)

Priced at $733 for 1,000 units...

Whooo! I can get one of these for 73 cents! :-P Yeah yeah, I know what they mean, but that's some horrible wording.

Re:Addendum (-1, Flamebait)

Loki_1929 (550940) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601494)

"Tom's review is here."

Why bother? Is this just to show how well you can rig benchmarks with enough driver vetting and settings tweaking? All you have to do to get the Tom's results is to take every other reviewer's work, reduce the AMD chips' performance a bit, add to the Intel chips' performance a bit, and then create a conclusion to support Intel's total dominance, power, and magnificance, regardless of what the (tweaked/rigged) benchmarks show.

Re:Addendum (3, Informative)

coughman (736890) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601651)

Extremetech also has a review too. They have a more negative opinion. link [extremetech.com]

Re:Addendum (2, Informative)

webtre (717698) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601690)

Here are some more benchmarks

AMDzone [amdzone.com]

AnandTech [anandtech.com]

XbitLabs [xbitlabs.com]

Ace Hardware [aceshardware.com]

There are even more at AMDZones [amdzone.com] main page.

Re:Addendum (4, Insightful)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601798)

Nice FX-51 reviews, but we want FX-53 reviews.

Re:Addendum (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601698)

But Toms review

is a little

more drawn out

Anand DIDN'T review it (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601261)

Derek Wilson did for AnandTech. Anand is a person, AnandTech is a site.

Re:Anand DIDN'T review it (2, Informative)

trickofperspective (180714) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601282)

Sorry, my bad. Won't happen again.

-Trick

Re:Anand DIDN'T review it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601402)

It BETTER not. I almost had a heart attack from such a glaring and horrible mistake.

It matters so fucking much! AAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHuuugggghhh.....

Nitpicky Bastard is a person (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601645)

He is author of parent.

the FX-53 is a "very solid processor" (4, Funny)

lofoforabr (751004) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601269)

I am yet to see a very liquid (or even a gasous) processor. Wouldn't it be cool? Hey, if it would be cool, it would solve the thermal problem inherent to solid processors. Why not make them?

Re:the FX-53 is a "very solid processor" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601292)

Who modded this interesting? Sheesh.

Re:the FX-53 is a "very solid processor" (1, Interesting)

DR SoB (749180) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601308)

Back in the 70's IBM mainframes were liquid cooled, the problem was, they often sprung leaks...

Re:the FX-53 is a "very solid processor" (4, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601423)

The Cray-2 supercomputer was also liquid cooled. They used a fluid called flourinert which is electrically non-conductive but a good thermal conductor. Flourinert was origionally developed as an artificial plasma substitute for heart surgery. It is also insanely expensive, around $500/gallon!

Re:the FX-53 is a "very solid processor" (5, Funny)

nomadic (141991) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601483)

It is also insanely expensive, around $500/gallon!

Wow, that's almost as much as a comparable amount of Starbuck's coffee...

Re:the FX-53 is a "very solid processor" (3, Funny)

flewp (458359) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601647)

But I bet it tastes better...

Re:the FX-53 is a "very solid processor" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601344)

isn't air also considered a gas ? plus i dont fancy water running very close to my circuit boards...

Whatever (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601432)

The two limiting factors in a PC these days (not taht home user should care) are the memory size, and the system bus speed.

Most people won't feel the limits in processor speed.

Re:Whatever (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601700)

"Most people won't feel the limits in processor speed."

Those of us that do 3D rendering for a living would disagree. Then again, to us, faster processor == more money.

It's a pity for Intel/AMD that gamers don't really rely on the processor as much these days. Faster frame rates are a video card away.

Re:the FX-53 is a "very solid processor" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601459)

Quantum cumputers would fall into the very liquid category. So far they can solve simple arithmatic by mixing two liquids. I dont know how they put in inputs or read outputs though :P

Re:the FX-53 is a "very solid processor" (4, Funny)

dubiousdave (618128) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601487)

I am yet to see a very liquid (or even a gasous) processor.

Clearly, you've never run your Athlon without its cooler in place.

Re:the FX-53 is a "very solid processor" (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601539)

The newest Intel chips run hotter than the newest AMD chips. Time to update your jokes.

Re:the FX-53 is a "very solid processor" (2, Interesting)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601642)

It's THG, but... http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20010917/

BTW, that only applies to non-64-bit Athlons/Durons. Yes, Intel is hotter than AMD. No, Intel processors don't hit 370 C when their heatsinks are removed, as the Pentium III shuts down, and the Pentium 4 slows down. The Athlon MP/XP had thermal overload protection in their spec, but some boards don't include it.

Re:the FX-53 is a "very solid processor" (2, Informative)

juhaz (110830) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601775)

See the weird line of numbers in that url? It's usually called "date". Magically you can deduce from that the information that the article in guestion is about three and half years old.

If some boards don't include something that's required by the specs, well, that's problem of the greedy bastards manufacturing such crap and the fools tricked into buying them.

Re:the FX-53 is a "very solid processor" (1)

dubiousdave (618128) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601704)

Not until we have an article on Intel chips. I wouldn't want to make a useless, smartass comment that's also offtopic. Besides, I love my smoking hot Athlons.

Re:the FX-53 is a "very solid processor" (0, Troll)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601762)

"The newest Intel chips run hotter than the newest AMD chips. Time to update your jokes."

Okay. Hey! My Athlon self destructed because it doesn't clock itself down when it overheats!

Hmm well I need to refine that joke a bit.

Ladies & Gentleman, We Got HIM!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601274)

Suck it, you terrorist-sympathizing bitches!!! [yahoo.com]

The lesson here, as always: don't fuck with the US or you're gonna get a good ass whooping!!

Hell yea!!!

Thank God! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601280)

Taco is back. Michael was getting tired (both his physical condition and our patience with him).

Thanks Taco! g2g and nab one of these hot new, sexy slabs of silicon yumminess from AMD now!

MICHAEL IS FUCKING LAME... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601312)

you know it. i know it. that motherfucking post was on topic (he's going to go get a new AMD proc....**GASP!** yes, the very one IN the story)....off topic my cock.

blow me, michael.

Re:Thank God! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601390)

Jeez, dude.

Don't kiss Taco's ass so hard, you might strain your lips...

Re:Thank God! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601441)

Yeah, his ass is rather massive.

Or is it Cowboyneal's? Or both!?!

God damn it, I'm so confused now.

Explaining the difference... (5, Interesting)

BJZQ8 (644168) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601288)

I had a conversation with a neophyte that was looking to "build their own computer" yesterday...He was obsessed with the idea that megahertz=performance...I tried to tell him that an FX-51, 52, or 53 would be a much better performer, all around, than any Pentium 4, "Extreme Gaming Edition" (as he put it) or not...but in the end, he was swayed by things like "Hyperthreading" and "Netburst"...AMD is having a hard time fighting against Megahurtz Madness and Buzzword Bufoonery.

Just tell them this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601321)

AMD will whiten your teeth. It's a fact, people love teeth whitening above everything else.

Re:Just tell them this (0, Offtopic)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601454)

They should come out with teeth whitening cigarettes and coffee. Those would be big sellers.

-B

Re:Explaining the difference... (5, Funny)

snarkh (118018) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601343)

But surely AMD's HyperTransport technology with 3DNow! is a worthy contender.

Re:Explaining the difference... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601369)

Well it's a good thing he didn't believe you because it's simply not true. The top end Athlons beat the top end Pentiums for gaming. The top end Pentiums beat the top end Athlons for most other applications. The top end from either line is ridiculously expensive.

Re:Explaining the difference... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601403)

The only advantage the top end Pentiums have are where Intel's people have gone in an done specific Intel optimizations. Since the 64-bit chips support SSE2, they also support many of these optimizations.

Re:Explaining the difference... (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601518)

Note that "Extreme Gaming Edition" was what this person called the P4 EE. He was going to be gaming on it, most likely.

Re:Explaining the difference... (4, Interesting)

74nova (737399) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601411)

some people are also scared of amd being cheap. my brother was convinced that there were some things his amd 600 wasnt compatible with just because it was an amd. i tried to convice him otherwise and, well, he now owns a 3.whatever dell with hyperthreading.

slightly OT, but 'Buzzword Bufoonery' is, in itself, a fantastic sort of anti-buzzword buzzword that i shall use from now on. a fictitious cookie for you if you invented that.

A meme is a terrible thing to watch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601599)

Google shows no hits for "Buzzword Bufoonery".

We have a new trope.

Intel changing naming scheme..... (4, Informative)

vwjeff (709903) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601476)

Intel is changing their naming scheme soon. You can find the article at:

http://news.com.com/2100-1006-5174895.html

Intel was forced into this due to the many variations of a chip with the same clock speed. It's also a good way for them to explain why their Pentium-m is faster than the Pentium 4-m.

Re:Explaining the difference... (2, Funny)

AnotherBlackHat (265897) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601631)

I've often thought that processors should take the clock and divide it by 16 as the first step, just so the Mhrzt can be 16 times higher.

Later they could remove the divide by 16 and claim to have an internal "clock multiplier" and charge extra for the part.

-- this is not a .sig

Re: (1, Funny)

struckleberry (763320) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601293)

Imagine...a Beowulf cluster of these! *sigh*

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601474)

I'll get a better beowulf cluster for the price using old pentiums (since I can buy five times as many processors for the money).

WWot?! 7p... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601295)

Virus protection on the chip? (2, Insightful)

platypussrex (594064) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601296)

The AMD website says the chip has virus protection against MSBlaster, Slammer, etc. Does anyone besides me think this is a bad idea? Not that virus protection is bad per se, but that all these "protections" built into the chip are harbingers of even more "protections" to come. I'll let your imaginations fill in the rest.

Re:Virus protection on the chip? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601350)

What they probably mean is the chip has the capability to set segments of memory with a do not execute bit, for parts of memory such as the stack. That reduces the amount of things that a hacker can do if he finds a buffer overflow to exploit.

Re:Virus protection on the chip? (-1, Flamebait)

garcia (6573) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601353)

It's unnecessary as some of us don't need that crap in our machines. Unless this part of the chip is upgradable, for free, quickly, then what good does it do when a new one comes out?

Virus/worm/fuck protection is up to the people to use. Manu's can put all this shit into products and put it out there but that doesn't mean dick when the viruses get more virulent and the people don't use them...

Re:Virus protection on the chip? (1)

trompete (651953) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601371)

Is that the automatic buffer overflow protection that Intel will be offering soon as well?

No, you misunderstand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601373)

The protection simply prevents buffer overrun exploits. It's a good thing, and has nothing to do with possible data/content censorship or DRM.

Re:Virus protection on the chip? (5, Informative)

RealErmine (621439) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601389)

It just means that it has buffer overflow protection [slashdot.org] integrated into the silicon. This is just good engineering practice rather than an Orwellian plot. The article just dumbed it down.

Re:Virus protection on the chip? (4, Interesting)

tiger99 (725715) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601492)

Splendid, it will now just be up to programmers to use that facility, which I assume has to be configured by software. It has been needed for a long time.

Now who is going to have the first kernel which sets it all up properly to be secure? Linux? OpenBSD? FreeBSD? Or will it be that backward little company in Redmond who have major quality and security problems with everything they do?

Re:Virus protection on the chip? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601515)

Microsoft announced it'll be part of Windows XP SP2, which is currently in beta.

Re:Virus protection on the chip? (2, Insightful)

lederhosen (612610) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601542)

Think it is allready in OpenBSD

Re:Virus protection on the chip? (4, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601615)

Well since every other major architecture except IA-32 has NOEXEC or similar I would imagine that every Free OS has such code already, it might need to be ported and cleaned up but most of the work should already be done. Also XP SP2 should have it later this year.

Re:Virus protection on the chip? (2, Interesting)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601672)

It should be simple to pass the flag into gcc and see if the kernel still works. (It should.)

Unless they do odd things like generate code on the fly, it shouldn't be a problem.

JIT runtimes might have problems, though, if you forced the flag in, say, your Gentoo installation.

Re:Virus protection on the chip? (1, Interesting)

stateofmind (756903) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601416)

I'm very much against this, if I don't want to be safe, thats my problem. If a doctor says I need anti-biotics for something, I'm not required to take them.

I understand that kind of thinking can hurt other people when my machine is on a network, and in my laziness my machine becomes infected and starts a DoS attack and such. But still, not every machine is on a network, and I don't want to have to pay for the extra security.

Let the processor do the processing.

Josh

Re:Virus protection on the chip? (4, Interesting)

gokulpod (558749) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601418)

If you knew how the protection is done you woudlnt be so critical of it. The core of AMD's Enhanced Virus Protection is the a NX bit which specifies whether a page of memory is executable or not. This way, even if buffer overruns occur in that area of memory, it wouldnt be executed. I am not really sure how this is a bad thing.

Re:Virus protection on the chip? (2, Interesting)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601707)

I'm curious if that bit is preserved when pages get moved into swap space. It'd be interesting to study the kernel mechanism for Linux.

I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601527)

One of these days, the CPU itself will be telling you that.

Very solid not good enough (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601379)

I prefer my processors to be very very solid.

Re:Very solid not good enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601473)

I prefer mine to be solid and throbbing.

Preferably with deep penetration into my specific market share.

Pardon me... (2, Informative)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601380)

...but why aren't the graphs loading? I can see that they're Flash, but when I right-click on them, it says "Movie not loaded" and "About Flash Player"

If you do manage to see the "movies" ... would anyone mind converting them to GIF or PNG?

Re:Pardon me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601614)

They do that so you have to see the ads. Might be annoying to you, but its better for Anandtech.

Re:Pardon me... (1)

juhaz (110830) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601800)

Not that it works... adblock and few handy regexps quickly negates whatever evil trickery they've resorted to.

Got to love blocking flash with patterns.

Re:Pardon me... (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601810)

Except I can see the ads. Including that animated one off to the right that looks like an animation in space.

Capsule Review. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601385)

There's a new consumer CPU out. It's faster than the ones previously made.

Re:Capsule Review. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601437)

Well, sentence one is given (and that counts as news.) Sentence two is the purpose of the review... which shows that in certain cases, it is faster, and in other cases, it is not. Useful information for people looking to upgrade.

Waiting (5, Funny)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601435)

you'd be better off waiting a couple months for Socket 939."

So if I wait long enough, better, faster stuff will come out?

Re:Waiting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601465)

See comment here [slashdot.org] .

Oh, the humanity-- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601519)



Aiming for funny and getting insightful.

Re:Waiting (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601678)

There are times to wait for the next best thing...

AMD's 754 and 940 will be replaced by 939s (I think). If you don't think you will ever want to upgrade this CPU, it doesn't matter what you choose. I think the 939s are dual channel though (754 is single).

BUT... as for current AMD motherboards, PCI Express isn't around and is a _MUST_ at this point. PCI Express will be taking over from this point forward. This means future video cards _may not_ be available for AGP setups. I bet the higher end cards won't be at all.

I haven't upgraded a CPU in any computer I have, but I have upgraded vid cards. I am sure AMD boards will have PCI Express soon. If you are thinking of buying, let this be your reason to hold off.

Re:Waiting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601697)

So if I wait long enough, better, faster stuff will come out?
no, but it will have more legs/pins.

Waiting (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601750)

Todays better, faster stuff will be cheaper

wait a sec.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601455)

i think michaels computers had this processor in his systems for months now, this is old news ...

Re:wait a sec.. (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601580)

http://www.tomshardware.com/column/20040317/images /desktop1.gif

Nope, it's the "AMD FX-51 3400+". Actually, if AMD used PRs on the FX-51, it would probably be 3400+, seeing as the only difference between the FX-51 and the A64 3400+ is that the FX supports dual-channel, but requires ECC. Performance isn't that much different, even...

Still, it's obvious that Michael's Computers is BSing...

Invisible Flash (-1, Redundant)

Euphonious Coward (189818) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601534)

All the graphs looked alike to me: an icon in the middle of a rectangle. Would anybody care to post PNGs?

(Note: I am very happy, otherwise, that flash ads don't clutter my Galeon window. If I could click on any flash that I actually want to see, that might be OK, as long as it didn't execute any actual buggy, insecure Macromedia code. But what good is it, really? Tufte had the word: "chartjunk".)

Other Reviews (4, Informative)

breakinbearx (672220) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601595)

As covered by arstechnica, there are also reviews at [H]ardOCP [hardocp.com] , Hexus [hexus.net] , HotHardware.com [hothardware.com] , Sudhian [sudhian.com] , and The Tech Report [techreport.com] . AMD's official announcement is here [amd.com] .

Flash for Graphs?!? (4, Interesting)

Rob Riggs (6418) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601646)

Who the hell uses proprietary Flash(tm) technology to display simple friggin' graphs! What the heck is the purpose of that? PNG, JPEG or GIF isn't good enough?!? Someone needs to hit these guys with a cluestick.

That's just lame.

Re:Flash for Graphs?!? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601771)

This has been discussed a thousand times. Here goes one more...

Anandtech gets revenue from advertisements. These advertisements are in flash. If you don't have flash enabled, then Anandtech does not get paid for that advertisement. Therefore Anandtech makes sure the information of value is also in flash, to ensure that they are compensated for your viewing of their material.

So please, when you find that cluestick - make sure to give yourself a good whack with it.

Re:Flash for Graphs?!? (1)

mapmaker (140036) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601809)

What the heck is the purpose of that?

The purpose of that is to make you enable Flash when viewing thier page. That their ads are also Flash based is purely a coincidence...

Wait a couple of months? (3, Insightful)

fullofangst (724732) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601658)

I don't get it. Why bother saying "you'd be best off waiting" for the next chip ? The Athlon FX-53 is a flagship chip. It's the currently fastest chip they do. If you want the highest performance, you would obviously buy it now. If you wait a couple of months then you don't want the highest performance. This is what this chip is for, here and now - the fastest available performance. Yes there will be a faster one in a few months but that just continues ad infinitum. If you lived by the rule of waiting for something faster to come out, you'd die of old age before you actually purchased the damn thing.

Re:Wait a couple of months? (5, Insightful)

Phosphor3k (542747) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601739)

What he is saying, is that the current socket form factor will be discontinued in a few months. If you want to ensure any sort of future compatibility as far as upgrades are concerned, bite your lip and wait a few months for the new socket.

Re:Wait a couple of months? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8601745)

See comment here [slashdot.org] .

What's with AMD's name (2, Interesting)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601684)

Why can't AMD stick to the traditional K6, K7 and keep on adding up. All this Fx and Opteron and 8 million other names are confusing as hell.

Whatever happen to marketing making your purhase decisions easier. It's doing to exact opposite nowadays. Intel ain't doing a whole lot better.

Duel Opterons (4, Informative)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601703)

Been wanting to go back to a true Dual system, (my last was a Dual P3-800, My Dual P2-400 is my Linux box) Keeping an eye out on prices for a new modern Dual system compared to a fast AMD FX.

You can pick up a Dual AMD-2800 for about 500 bux for a barebones cpu's+mb+case (also uses PC2100 ram). Opterons for dual systems are ridiculously priced, 248's are about 900 bux each, and motherboard for 300, so about 2500 dollars for a basic barebones system. Dual Xeon 3.2's with 1meg cache are about the same price, but xeon motherboards are less "workstation" friendly, and more expensive. ( PCI-64 slots, etc)

Also with PCI-X gfx cards about to be released, a bunch of new motherboards will come out. And It looks like Socket 940 is going to be phased out later this year for Socket 939, so a FX buy might be a locked in purchase, with no upgrades. Which the Opteron uses 940, so I'm a little confused about the Opteron's upgrade path.

Hoping if I want 6 months, the prices for Opterons will be down enough to build a basic dual system, with PCIExpress, and at least 2+ ghz CPU's. Something that will be fast as an FX in gaming, but also have the dual cpu smoothness feel with power of running virtual machines and crunch numbers well.

The Xeon line is cheaper, maybe some new motherboards might come out and bump it up to the system im thinking about.

FX-53 tested against 16 other processors (4, Informative)

EconolineCrush (659729) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601811)

Tech Report's review [techreport.com] tests the FX-53 against a total of sixteen other chips. Good reading if you've got a benchmark fetish, too.
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...