Beta

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

AMD Bumps Up Socket AM2 Launch Date

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the scrambling-the-alert-five dept.

234

Thrill-Ki1l writes "According to DailyTech AMD has moved up the launch date for their new socket AM2 processors. The manufacturers of the new AM2 chipsets and motherboards have their hardware ready to ship early so AMD decided to launch the chips 2 weeks early. The new launch date is May 23rd."

cancel ×

234 comments

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

condolences (2, Insightful)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187507)

to everyone who just dropped a ton of cash building a brand new athlon x2 socket 939 systems...my condolences. at least this will bring the price of the higher-end athlon x2s down for the rest of us...yay!

Re:condolences (2, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187520)

You would hope anyone building a system would have done their research and would have known that new chips were coming.

Re:condolences (5, Funny)

ePhil_One (634771) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187534)

You would hope anyone building a system would have done their research and would have known that new chips were coming.

Really, the jokes on the people who by this new socket. I hear that eventually it well be replaced with something even newer! I'm waiting until 2019, when there will be no more computer upgrades (society will collapse July 17th, 2019, ending all new product development short of the flint arrowhead)

Re:condolences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15187654)

Cudos to the guy with the patent on the flint arrowhead then...

Re:condolences (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187783)

I think I've got some prior art on that that I found lying in a cotton field.

AMD's AM2 processor seems to be DRM-free (5, Interesting)

UseFree.org (950344) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187759)

Hastening the launch date by a couple of weeks isn't too significant, but AMD certainly deserves to be congratulated for (apparently) leaving DRM out of their AM2 microprocessors. In contrast, Intel has succumbed [slashdot.org] to RIAA/MPAA pressure and betrayed their customers by stuffing Treacherous Computing [gnu.org] down their throats.

I'm also happy to see that AMD has not put DRM into its AMD Live! [amd.com] technology, which competes with Intel's DRM-ridden Viiv. I'm sure AMD is taking a lot of heat from the entertainment cartel [downhillbattle.com] for not handcuffing users, and I hope they'll continue to keep their products DRM-free.

And let's not forget that AMD has been supportive of LinuxBIOS [linuxbios.org] by actively ensuring that their motherboards can run it [fsf.org] .

Re:AMD's AM2 processor seems to be DRM-free (4, Funny)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187770)

So tantalizingly close to on-topic. Excellent zealotry, A+.

Re:condolences (5, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187855)

I'm waiting until 2019, when there will be no more computer upgrades (society will collapse July 17th, 2019, ending all new product development short of the flint arrowhead)
You know that very few people use the Mayan calendar anymore?

It was the flint arrowheads that gave you away.

Re:condolences (1)

kg4czo (516374) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187896)

July 17th, 2019? Damn, my hatchday is the 18th. Couldn't they wait until the 19th? Why they gotta be hatin'?!?!

Re:condolences (1)

zmilo (815667) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187988)

Ah...but not true. How do you account for the jump from T-100 to T-1000, then? :D

Re:condolences (1)

Grey_14 (570901) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187538)

New chips are ALWAY'S coming, why worry? By time this really affects prices, anyone currently currently running a top of the line system will probably be wanting to upgrade again anyway's,

Re:condolences (2, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187656)

Well, when you're this close to the launch of the new socket you might as well wait in the hopes that you'll be able to upgrade the CPU or motherboard separately once over its lifetime, if you so choose.

Why, exactly? (3, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187827)

You would hope anyone building a system would have done their research and would have known that new chips were coming.

Putting aside that new chips are always coming up, why would this matter?

Only reason I can think of is that you're suggesting that you might want to put a faster cpu in later on. Is that it? If so...is that a really common thing to do? Because it seems kinda....well, dumb to me. You unplug your existing cpu and stick it in a box. Then buy another one that's only a few percent faster. Then unplug that 3 months later...and stick it in a box. Seems like a waste of money to me.

Every time I've done an upgrade, it's been a whole system upgrade. And then, I only do it every 5 years or so. Is there really a need to stay on the bleeding edge all the time that I'm missing?

Re:Why, exactly? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187870)

If you start with the slowest CPU in a given socket, you can eventually get something like a 50% improvement with a new chip in the same socket.

Re:condolences (2, Interesting)

Bin Naden (910327) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187525)

I didn't get screwed: I bought the cheapest CPU with a socket 939 motherboard and will buy a better CPU once the prices go down much like 754 cpu went down once 939 came out.

Re:condolences (4, Insightful)

Bob_Robertson (454888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187561)

Actually, the release of new hardware should drop the price of dual and quad 939 motherboards to buyable levels, as well as the dual core 939 CPUs.

It's not like the 939 performance has dropped, only that the bleeding edge has cut another swath. Let them go, and enjoy the savings!

Bob-

Re:condolences (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187779)

I am assumeing you mean 940 sockets, 939 does not support multi sockets.

Re:condolences (1, Insightful)

caspper69 (548511) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187799)

Exactly. I once held off on buying a dual-cpu motherboard because I didn't think the (south)chipset was up to snuff. How stupid. Here was a motherboard with 3 PCI-X(66) and 1 PCI-X(133) (in addition to two PCI32 slots and two PCIe x16 slots). I was upset because the USB host controller only supported USB1.1. Completely neglecting the fact that I could buy a trivially inexpensive add-in card and get the same functionality with minimal effort. People always look to the latest and greatest, but fail to ask one simple question: "What is it buying ME?"

If it's not a huge increase in speed, then you have to understand that legacy platforms will continue to be supported for a good deal of time into the future. Never wait. Who cares? I know there are individual (and technologically sound) reasons why you would, but reviews have stated for ages that AM2 doesn't deliver any boost, and until DDR2-800 is available may not offer any tangible benefit whatsoever.

So what's wrong with buying a nice dual or (drool) quad core desktop with socket 940 processors? You can (at this very instant) buy a quad core with dual x16 SLI and all the integrated platform goodies for about $400. If you wait until AM2 feeds down the pipe, it'll drop by 30%. My questions is this: if this lower priced platform still allows expandability with the peripherals you desire, and still supports (into the forseeable future) any new processor revisions, then what's the problem??

There isn't one. Take care (power) bargain shoppers!

Re:condolences (2, Interesting)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187576)

How about those of us who dropped not so much cash on such a system?

As long as I catch DDR1 prices at its lowest point (to reach 2GiB RAM total), my Opteron 165 @ 2.49 GHz system should cut it for a while.

Save condolences for intel fanboys (1, Flamebait)

Saven Marek (739395) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187594)

I think you should save condolences for intel fanboys :>

The last month has been unbearable with them conroe this and conroe that. And what did I say back when they were all waiting for their chips? I said intel you will have your ass handed to you on a platter before conroe is released.

And thank you AMD this is exactly what you have done. All the intel hype was hoping conroe could beat AMD's old generation S939 chips and that's what they did, but that was a chip intel will release in 6 months beating a design more than a year old! of course that will happen.

Now let's see if intel have the guts to compare conroe to socket AM2 so cavialerly? I doubt it I doubt it very much. You have too test current models against current models or you are just hyping thin air.

Try better next time intel

Re:Save condolences for intel fanboys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15187619)

yeah that 2-5% marketshare amd has sure is handing intels ass to it on a platter.

Re:Save condolences for intel fanboys (1)

DrMrLordX (559371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187702)

AM2 has been shown to perform at the same speeds or slower than those of s939 using common DDR2-533. It takes enthusiast DDR2 to get better performance out of AM2. Socket AM2 is a joke. Conroe will murder it with glee, and this is coming from a long-time AMD buyer. Don't believe me? Check this out [anandtech.com] .

That old link? (3, Interesting)

John Jamieson (890438) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187823)

Fine, and I can show you an article that says the 65nm Athlons will clock 40% faster, and the conroe is actually slower if you don't fit in the 4Meg L1 cache. (anyone can add cache)

Why don't we wait 6 months and then start trash talking, when we have actual products.

One of two things has happened
1. AMD has become complacent and has no strategy of really updating a now old product this year. In this scenario they were lulled asleep.
2. Intel has stunk so bad that AMD has been holding some cards close to the chest because it did not need to play them.

No staged demo by either AMD or Intel will give us the answer, but we will know in 6-8 months.

Re:condolences (3, Insightful)

toddestan (632714) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187768)

Actually, I feel sorry for the people who built 754 systems back in the day. It seemed that AMD moved onto Socket 939 pretty quickly after that one.

Though I really feel for anyone who has a Socket 423 Pentium IV system. Very short lived standard (1.3-2.0Ghz), expensive rambus memory, 100Mhz bus ("quad pumped" to 400Mhz), and really odd CPU coolers that screw into the motherboard that are virtually impossible to get replacements for.

Re:condolences (1)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187971)

Actually, I feel sorry for the people who built 754 systems back in the day. It seemed that AMD moved onto Socket 939 pretty quickly after that one.

Amen to that. I'm stuck with two S754 systems. I sooooo wish I'd paid a few extra dollars to get 939....

summary (5, Insightful)

The_GURU_Stud (955937) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187509)

what should also be on the summary is that it was bumped up to coincide with Intel's paper launch.

w00t (0, Offtopic)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187531)

What else can we say?

WD AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15187539)

Wow it's nice to see a launch date come forward for a change. Props to AMD. Those guys must really have a hand on their engineering. PS. I don't work for AMD.

Is it really worth it? (5, Insightful)

Bin Naden (910327) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187542)

Is it really worth it to be an AMD processor with a DDR2 memory controller? Sure this meant a lot for the intel architecture but from what I understood the AMD architecture will not gain a lot from this memory speed increase. Also, the latency on the memory will likely also increase which might cancel all gains made from the increased speed. Therefore, I'm waiting and seeing before I get me one of those.

Re:Is it really worth it? (5, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187600)

There was an article somewhere recently (Anandtech? Tom's Hardware?) checking performance of DDR2 versus DDR on the Opteron. They determined that DDR speeds below 533 (IIRC) would hurt the performance. At 533, it was about even. As the processor and or memory speeds up then you will see the benefit. This isn't strictly necessary right now. I think it was actually due to the latency issue that you mentioned that this was the case.

I'd rather see FB-DIMMs, personally. But the move to DDR2 was going to happen at some point. Better now (when it's not necessary and people can still choose a great processor and DDR combo) then later (when DDR is more expensive and they were hurting for the change).

I seem to remember that was going to be something else with this socket upgrade (in the form of processor features) that was more interesting or offered better performance increases than the memory change. I don't remember if it was SSE4 (is that out yet?), a better branch predictor, AMD's Vanderpool (can't remember the name), or what.

Re:Is it really worth it? (2, Informative)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187790)

Yeah, Pacifica (AMD's hardware virtualization support) is going to be available for the first time with AM2.

Re:Is it really worth it? (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187795)

"I'd rather see FB-DIMM"

FB-DIMM increases the latancy of ram, effectively adding multiple memory controlers off the die. So far as amd have been preaching (and done a good job of showing in practice with the a64 core) off die memory controlers are a bottleneck.

Re:Is it really worth it? (4, Informative)

PsychicX (866028) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187606)

This article [anandtech.com] examines the question in depth. Hope that helps.

Re:Is it really worth it? (1)

Bin Naden (910327) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187647)

OMG, 7% increase in performance! That means at least 2 extra frames per second on Oblivion!

Re:Is it really worth it? (1)

DrMrLordX (559371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187711)

That's only with expensive enthusiast DDR2. Common DDR2-533 can actually produce speeds slower than equivelant s939 parts. Sad huh?

Re:Is it really worth it? (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187757)

"Expensive enthusiast" RAM is the common RAM of the future.

Re:Is it really worth it? (1)

agallagh42 (301559) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187793)

"OMG, 7% increase in performance! That means at least 2 extra frames per second on Oblivion!"

I think there's something wrong with your math. 2 extra frames per second in Oblivion equals a 200% increase in performance:

old fps = 1
new fps = 3
increase = 2

2/1=200%

Re:Is it really worth it? (1)

Bin Naden (910327) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187853)

new fps = 3

Or 3 cps (crashes per second) in my case.

Re:Is it really worth it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15187673)

I remember when it was Intel that was the worst culprit with changing sockets. The story back then was that it was to appease the motherboard manufacturers (ie. if you needed to upgrade your CPU by a significant amount, you usually had to upgrade the motherboard as well as the socket had been changed in the meantime). I wonder how much of that was true, and how much it is relevant to AMD now.

Re:Is it really worth it? (1)

Mr Z (6791) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187811)

AMD integrated the memory controller onto the CPU. The downside of this is that whenever memory technology changes, the pinout must also change.

Re:Is it really worth it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15187843)

So few people upgrade their CPUs that that conspiracy theory is implausible. Intel's socket changes usually have legitimate reasons (faster bus, increased power, etc).

Re:Is it really worth it? (1)

tetromino (807969) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187706)

Is it really worth it to be an AMD processor with a DDR2 memory controller?

Yes, if you care about the price of memory in your new machine. The price of DDR2 is generally expected to drop below DDR1 during this year, as manufacturers convert DDR1 production lines to DDR2. The performance won't change by more than a couple percent though (because the higher bandwidth of DDR2 is almost exactly cancelled out by its worse latency).

Re:Is it really worth it? (1)

Doomstalk (629173) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187755)

Is it really worth it to be an AMD processor with a DDR2 memory controller?

Well, it's certainly easier than my old dream of being an astronaut...

Re:Is it really worth it? (2, Informative)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187771)

"Sure this meant a lot for the intel architecture but from what I understood the AMD architecture will not gain a lot from this memory speed increase."

Early indications are that Intel's architechtural improvements with Conroe will give them a significant edge over AM2 chips, even though AMD still has an on-die memory controller and Intel doesn't.

"Also, the latency on the memory will likely also increase which might cancel all gains made from the increased speed."

They'll be using 667 and 800 mhz clock speeds, so it won't be too bad, but the gains from the extra memory bandwidth aren't as big as one might expect. At least for AMD.

"Therefore, I'm waiting and seeing before I get me one of those."

Sound advice for any pre-launch situation. :)

I'm going to take the wait-and-see approach as well, but so far looks like I'll be continuing my pattern. My last few computers have been Pentium II, Athlon, Pentium 4, and Athlon 64.

Though I rarely get top-of-the-line chips, so if AMD cuts the prices for their high-end stuff when Intel has faster parts, that might make them preferable even if Intel holds the performance crown at the time.

I mostly want dual cores and hardware-supported virtrualization so I can run OpenBSD under Xen. Both AM2 and Conroe will have that, so it's pretty much a question of who gives me the best performance.

Re:Is it really worth it? (1)

John Jamieson (890438) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187864)

Early indications are that Intel's architechtural improvements with Conroe will give them a significant edge over AM2 chips, even though AMD still has an on-die memory controller and Intel doesn't.

Actually, early indications seem to indicate that it stomps the Athlon when everything fits in the massive L1 Cache, but the "architechtural improvements" you talk about only bring it up to parity without the gigantic cache. (anyone can add cache, it is an expensive move that you only make if you really need the performance)

That Anand "preview" was in a very controlled situation, we really need to read more than ONE article before we decide who is king, and that Conroe will be superior to AM2

Re:Is it really worth it? (1)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187983)

"Actually, early indications seem to indicate that it stomps the Athlon when everything fits in the massive L1 Cache, but the "architechtural improvements" you talk about only bring it up to parity without the gigantic cache. (anyone can add cache, it is an expensive move that you only make if you really need the performance)"

Even if that's true, Intel usually holds a pretty big lead in moving to smaller processes, so bigger caches aren't likely to leave their arsenal.

"we really need to read more than ONE article before we decide who is king, and that Conroe will be superior to AM2"

Well, I certainly won't be making purchasing decisions until I read multiple reviews of shipping hardware. These are just early indications.

Too many sockets!!! (3, Interesting)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187543)

Although I find AMD to be better chips, I still stay with intel because their chips are all on one socket.
AMD at the moment offers no upgrade path because their Semprons & Athlons are different sockets, you can't turn a budget AMD box into something more powerfull without replacing the motherboard.

Intel allow people to start with a Celeron and easily upgrade to a P4 or Pentium D if more CPU power is required, I find the upgrade option far better value.

Re:Too many sockets!!! (2, Informative)

Bin Naden (910327) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187567)

The reason that AMD had to go this route is that the AMD architecture has the memory controller embedded in the CPU chip while the intel machines have the controller contained in the motherboard. This means that AMD have better overall memory performance, however, a change in memory technology forces them to redesign their CPU and use another socket for fear that consumers might put those new CPU's in older 939 motherboards and either fry them up or call for tech support too much.

Re:Too many sockets!!! (5, Insightful)

Z0mb1eman (629653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187587)

Y'know... I used to reason along the same lines. After 10 years of building/upgrading my own computer, however, I realized one thing:

Not once has it made sense to upgrade the processor. Every time it would've provided only a small gain compared to the expense and hassle. I've upgraded the RAM, hard drives, and video card several times - but by the time I felt I needed a better processor, it made more sense to replace the entire motherboard and go with a new generation (or build a new box entirely).

To each his own, of course. But in the future I'm going to worry about the upgrade paths a motherboard offers for the RAM, drives, or video - and not the CPU, because I know I'll never bother.

Then again, so far I've mostly had AMD boxes, so maybe there is some truth to what you say. :)

Re:Too many sockets!!! (1)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187625)

I was the same to until 7 months ago when one of my PC's died and I had to build a new box. The PC that was being replaced was only my home workstation used for just light work so I decided to put a basic processor as I didn't want to spend $300+ on a CPU that wouldn't be used, but still wanted an upgrade path just in case.

Just recently for work I had to test some software that needed a beefier CPU but I didn't want to put it on my server, all I had to do was upgrade the Celeron to a Pentium D.

If I had gone with the AMD route, I would have needed a new board & CPU instead of just the CPU, this instance it did save me some cash.

Although I probably could have afforded the Pentium D 7 months ago, I didn't think i would need it if it was only going to be used for email and office.

Re:Too many sockets!!! (1)

Doomstalk (629173) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187765)

One would argue that if you had gone with an AMD system, the processor would've been cheap enough for you to have just bought the better processor in the first place.

Re:Too many sockets!!! (2, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187852)

Amen! As a shop tech I hate Intel for NOT diversifying their sockets. For the most part, each chipset is tied to a specific series of processors. It doesn't matter that it fits in a socket 478, if the chipset doesn't like the CPU it's not gonna boot PERIOD. Instead we have to worry about families like Prescott, Northwood, Willamette.. or even worse their friggin product numbers that you have to break down to figure out the speed and features of the cpu. Try telling a relative on the phone to buy a Pentium 672.. much easier to say "Get an Athlon 4000!".

Excluding old sketchy motherboards (ECS, Gigabyte), you can pretty much stick any Socket-A AMD on any board. Same thing with the 939, even the early boards will run fine with a screaming new dual-core.

As for the upgrading issues, it's very rare that you'll swap just a CPU, unless you bought a crappy CPU to begin with. Most people who want to future-proof their PC will buy the best kit they can afford and make it last. They won't get a budget CPU that they know will be obsolete within a year or two. We're still in a young computing age where everything is in great flux. Perhaps in another decade or two, computers will have reached a point where things have stabilized and one set of mainboard, ram and power supply can last through several generations of processors. For now, that's just a penny pincher's absurd dream.

Re:Too many sockets!!! (1)

kgruscho (801766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187721)

I almost agree with this, I have done well with buying a high end motherboard towards the end of the product cycle, and a midline price/performance point chip, then buy the top of line chip as it is phased out. I bought an ASUS A7V when it was fairly new with duron 700, then got an affordable 1600+ Athlon XP, later I bought an ASUS A7N8x-e deluxe, which I now run with a Barton XP-M 2800+ with 400FSB. It still holds its one with most of the single core systems out there.
I was never at the bleeding age, but always doing relatively good for a desktop, non-games box. I do agree that CPU upgrades generally go hand and hand with mobo upgrades though, as you can tell by the fact I did 3 cpus and 2 mobos... and yes I know that those chips are not supported on those boards.

Re:Too many sockets!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15187609)

you can't turn a budget AMD box into something more powerfull without replacing the motherboard.

Yeah, but at least until recently the price difference between an AMD CPU and an equivalent performing Intel CPU has typically been more than the cost of a new motherboard.

Re:Too many sockets!!! (1)

PsychicX (866028) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187613)

Socket 754 has benn phased out. Semprons are now socket 939. I'm not clear on how AM2 affects this situation, though.

Re:Too many sockets!!! (1)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187632)

The irony is the 754 will outlive the 939 since that is what the pin count the mobile CPU's use. Go figure. If things go like the last time, the AM2 and 939's will be priced about the same with a small performance lead for the latest greatest. As time goes on, the 5G+ whatever will be offered for the 939, but it will cost at least one limb more than the AM2 version.

Re:Too many sockets!!! (1)

DrMrLordX (559371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187719)

That is factually incorrect. On a few OEMs have gotten s939 Semprons. AM2 will have Semprons as well which casts doubt upon s754's future, but s939 is definitely finished.

Re:Too many sockets!!! (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187616)

The difference between socket 754 and 939 was quite legitmate. They needed the pins for the second memory channel. The difference between 939 and 940 was pointless and served to segment the market, much like Intel does between P4s and Xeons.

I seem to remember that AM2 was going to be their new socket for everything for a while on. Both budget and performance processors are going to use it (I think).

As another reply pointed out, this particular gripe only affects a tiny portion of the user base. I've been bitten by it (specifically Intel's socket->slot->socket->other socket game years ago). At least motherboards aren't generally $300-$400 like they used to be. Makes having to purchase a new one much easier to stomach.

Re:Too many sockets!!! (5, Informative)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187618)

Personally, I feel AMD has been a bit more reasonable with sockets. Pentium 4's have at least 423, 478, 775, and Pentium M has 478 and 480. Socket A lasted a long time, overlapping with Socket 370, IIRC. Since then, we've had 754, 939, and now AM2. (I'm ignoring 940, but also ignoring the Xeon sockets...) Since AM2 isn't actually out yet, that's two sockets that have been released in the same time frame that Intel released five.

Re:Too many sockets!!! (2, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187682)

Socket A lasted a long time, overlapping with Socket 370, IIRC.
Nope -- you forgot Slot A. (I got bit by that one...)

Re:Too many sockets!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15187684)

The P4 series also had pre-Prescott 478, and post-Prescott 478 - those extra watts required some power circuitry changes which meant incompatibility. Additionally there is the socket 479 for the mobile processor junkies (P4M's count, don't they...)

Re:Too many sockets!!! (2, Informative)

Gwwfps (912993) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187780)

Not to mention all the different chipsets for 775 that are not compatible with all 775 CPU's.

Re:Too many sockets!!! (1)

FFFish (7567) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187621)

I've always found myself upgrading the whole kit and kaboodle anyway... I suspect the people who piecemeal-upgrade their system are far in the minority.

Most people haven't the knowledge to do it themselves, and a good number of us who do built it ourselves are too cheap to be continuously upgrading, so that by the time we spring for a worthwhile upgrade, we also need new slot styles, memory stick design, CPU, maybe even PS or HD.

Re:Too many sockets!!! (4, Informative)

Spokehedz (599285) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187626)

Err... the P4 Comes in two socket styles. The old mPGA and the new 755-socket-whatcha-ma-callit. So right away, your argument is null and void.

The 'old' 468-pin is just that--the OLD socket. Meaning, it's a completely different chip altogether.

AMD has had some issues with sockets lately, I will grant you that. But Intel has been behind the 8-ball for a while now. AMD is now the innovator, and they are just playing catchup.

Re:Too many sockets!!! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15187635)

You're wrong. The P4 comes in several sockets, and to get dual-core you need a 3rd motherboard. The AMD 939 supported single and, later, dual-core, on the same socket. I'm not saying AMD don't have as many sockets but Intel don't make it easier.

Re:Too many sockets!!! (2, Insightful)

stone2020 (123807) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187666)

So you think you are going to be able to put a new Intel Conroe chip in your current motherboard? You hear that? That's Intel laughing all the way to the bank.

Gorram It! (1)

Null Nihils (965047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187550)

I remember reading that "Socket 939 will be around for a long time, its planned for it to last longer than Socket A." So I built a S939 rig and thought I was being cleverly future-proof. And now they're phasing it out? Not to mention, I got my current motherboard just before PCI-Express came out. I had a helluva time upgrading my video card while being forced to stick with AGP.

You can't win when it comes to computer hardware. Hopefully, in a few months, I'll still be able to stick an older (much lower-priced) dual-core in my S939 motherboard and have a bit more power. However, so much for a box that was more upgradeable than not.

Re:Gorram It! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15187695)

"And now they're phasing it out?"

errr... where did u read that? they will continue to devolope cores for the 939, well into the 3-ghz quad-cpu range.

well i have no idea really that is just a guess ;P

What's the point? (1)

frieko (855745) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187732)

I have an idea, pick the processor you actually want and don't worry about upgrades! In my experience if it's time for a new processor, it's time for a new machine. Mem/hd/gpu make good upgrades but who wants to put a new hotness AMD X4 FX-80 into a slow-ass mobo.

Re:Gorram It! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15187837)

Yeah, that's more or less what everyone seemed to be saying for a while. According to them, s754 was like world's stupidest thing to buy. Dead end, don't bother! Like s939 was gonna last for the next 25 years or something...

I still have 2 of my systems that are on good old socket A/462, an Athlon XP 2600+ and a 3000+ (also have 2 Intel systems, and a s754 one). Both have nice motherboards with everything one really needs (SATA RAID, 4 DIMM slots each filled with 512MB PC3200 sticks, USB2 & FW, SPDIF, etc). So I haven't even bothered upgrading them as I didn't really see 939 being that much of an upgrade (64 bit extensions are rather useless until the software gets there). It just wouldn't have offered a lot more performance (unless you shelled out lotsa $ on a bleeding edge CPU and nice new board) - not enough to warrant spending that much.

And now, they're retiring it before I even bought one... And all that for a very minor speed increase (not much benefit from DDR2 AFAIK, like 10% tops). I generally prefer AMD CPUs (netburst is like the worst thing evar), I just might be buying a Conroe - especially since they're supposed to be a lot more affordable than the top AMD chips (like 500$ for a Conroe that'll be significantly faster than AMD's fastest X2 chip that costs 1000$)

AMD truly had better CPUs than Intel during the P4 timeframe, but it better get its act together than make something new that can keep up with the Conroe. Intel has some new great stuff coming up too (new cores, new CSI bus, 45nm transition, etc)

Right now I don't even know why one would want to buy one of those new AM2 chips.

Re:Gorram It! (1)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187868)

Nothing is future-proof. The only thing consistant in the universe is change.

Even if they never needed to change socket types, eventually they'd do so just so you have to buy a whole new mobo. If this wasn't a marketing conspiracy - CPU technological advancement has not really slowed down enough to warrant that we stop making faster chips and more complicated machines.

Why bother? (-1, Troll)

IlliniECE (970260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187552)

The thing's gonna pale in comparison to Intel's upcoming offerings.

Re:Why bother? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15187563)

Yeah, Intel's upcoming offerings are gonna smoke all of AMD's stuff!

Re:Why bother? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15187575)

I think I'm going to have to agree with that. From my first experiences with the Pentium M, even though I generally go with AMD for my systems, I really had to give them some large amount of credit for the Pentium M. So far its the last intel CPU I've used in anything that wasn't acquired by me for free. So I actually am almost excited about a wide-scale transition to that architecture for desktops. As much as they've shown they can compete very very well, AMD might be a little behind on this one.

For those who don't know about it... (3, Informative)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187553)

Here's good info on the AM2 [nyud.net] .

fake? (5, Funny)

muszek (882567) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187568)

The story is fake. Nothing in our industry is released early.

Re:fake? (3, Insightful)

Bin Naden (910327) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187588)

This is what we call a paper release as pioneered by IBM in the good old days. When the competitors threaten to release a better product then yours, you claim that you are developing an even better product than them in order to prevent consumers from switching to the competitor. The actual release date doesn't matter, all that matters is that consumers anticipate that you will have an awesome product coming along that they will want to save money for. And as IBM proved, you don't even have to release the product. You might just want to do this in order to cause your competitor financial hardships.

Re:fake? (1)

dwater (72834) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187902)

It hasn't been released yet. There's still time for it's new release date to be put back to it's original one.

939... (3, Funny)

Hyter (927004) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187578)

and 939 was suppose to be "future proof."

Re:939... (3, Funny)

Bin Naden (910327) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187597)

and 939 was suppose to be "future proof."

And 64k was supposed to be more than anyone would ever need.

Re:939... (1)

Bob The Cowboy (308954) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187825)

I know you were just being funny, but anyone who believes that anything in this (or any?) industry is "future-proof" should be forced to carry a sign that says "Looking for bridge real estate"

Re:939... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15187990)

I know you were just being funny, but anyone who believes that anything in this (or any?) industry is "future-proof" should be forced to carry a sign that says "Looking for bridge real estate"


It also depends on what you're expecting of your computer. I bought a 3500+ almost a year after they first came out. The CPU had gone through a few revisions (Clawhammer, Venice, Whinchester.... I think), but it was still the 939 socket. 6 months later a friend was wanting to buy a PC and was thinking on a 3800+, because he didn't see the point of the dual cores. All CPUs so far were/are still using the 939 socket.

Flash forward to today... my 3500+ still plays the games I want (mostly WoW, but there was also Doom, Quake4, Oblivion), and I have upgrades available should things actually start feeling slow.

As far as I'm concerned, it was as good as futureproof gets in the world of computers. How long has it been available now, over 2 years? Buy the best CPU for it now (or wait until they're being phased out and are cheaper) and you get another year, maybe 2.

-Steven

Re:939... (1)

updatelee (244571) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187982)

anyone that tells you that is full of shit.

buy it for now, dont count on being able to upgrade it later.

do they feel threatened by intel? (1)

john_uy (187459) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187586)

i mean with the initial benchmarks out for their new architecture, i think amd maybe trying to reduce the advantage of intel by releasing some products early. :)

i hope to get a processor wars soon (and hopefully, motherboard, chipset, memory, etc.) so everything will go faster and better while price drops. :)

Way to go Apple! (1)

supabeast! (84658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187628)

I'm sure that announcements like this make Steve Jobs really happy that he went with AMD. 64-bit dual core? Hey, if intel can make it on time maybe Apple can launch those new desktops in August.

Re:Way to go Apple! (1, Informative)

goMac2500 (741295) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187720)

Except Intel is launching 64 bit Quad Core in August. Yep, Steve seems to be pretty happy.

Re:Way to go Apple! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15187883)

It's pretty funny to see the UNIX-hating, Intel-hating Mac zealots of the world to have converted within a couple of years into pro-UNIX, pro-Intel zealots that talk like Apple invented UNIX and the x86. Of course, it doesn't make your statements any more well-founded or your arguments any better, but it's still funny.

Why don't you tell us a little more about how Intel sucks and how great PPC is, and how PPC is so much faster than Intel despite the benchmarks?

Re:Way to go Apple! (2, Interesting)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187966)

"It's pretty funny to see the UNIX-hating, Intel-hating Mac zealots of the world to have converted within a couple of years into pro-UNIX, pro-Intel zealots that talk like Apple invented UNIX and the x86."

Are you sure its not just UNIX fans' imagination that Mac zealots have become pro-UNIX? It seems to me that Mac zealots like whatever Apple makes, they don't care much about the underlying technology as long as the user experience is good. I seriously doubt that long-time Mac users are getting excited about the OSX command line interface.

Wow! (0, Troll)

Crazyscottie (947072) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187670)

Changing launch dates for a major product? They must be copying Microsoft's marketing strategy for Vista!

Oh, wait...

Re:Wow! (2, Insightful)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187813)

Yeah, cause Vistas coming early... No.. wait.. Sorry

Re:Wow! (0)

maelstrom (638) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187857)

What the?

But how much more money will it cost? (2)

layer3switch (783864) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187690)

I am not talking about superficial retail madeup price. By past pricing scheme with early release claim, the tendency normally bend toward higher price otherwise cheaper with later release.

I was looking forward to get it when it came out, but if higher price tag came along with it because of earlier release date, I would just wait.

Re:But how much more money will it cost? (1)

Shazow (263582) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187745)

I don't see why the price would be more expensive when released early versus when it would have been released normally. Usually prices start off at some point, and decrease proportionally to the time since release (by which I actually mean proportionally to the number of sales).

It's not like they're giving a limited amount of people a "special preview". They shifted the release date earlier.

If anything, now you wont have to wait as long for prices to drop. Since it'll be out earlier, the prices will drop earlier, by the above logic.

- shazow

Early Release? (1)

insane_machine (952012) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187710)

Now there is something that doesn't often.

It's been ready for a while (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15187716)

I thought the AM2 boards were being intentionally held back anyway. They'd delayed the release to wait for DDR2 modules to get cheaper, but I guess they decided they've waited long enough. The AM2 certainly won't be future proof, but when they bring out their first 65nm chips it'll be for the AM2 as well, so the boards aren't just for the DDR2, they oughta be current (at least for processors) for 18 to 24 months. If I sound like I know what I'm talking about in any of this, please disregard, it's all from stuff I'd read online in the last while since I'm thinking about building a new computer.

What about power use? (2, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187803)

I've heard power consumption cited as one advantage of DDR-2 over DDR. On laptops that idle around a dozen watts, even a few hundred milliwatts in the memory subsystem can be a signficant change.

Aye Lads... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15187873)

...this is Earthday weekend. A little introspection and reflection is in order.

Perhaps it is time to look at this utterly ridiculous SUV model of computing. Because that is what it is for the most part. Building chips and mobos and computers takes WAY more energy and natural resources than it costs to run them. People look at CPU per watt, but that is a tiny part of the story, the true energy hog nature of these gadgets goes into the unrelentless manufacture of billions of them. Is it *really* necessary to upgrade constantly? Or is this putting the pressure on "the other guy" to do their bit and sort of ignoring our bits...? Perhaps a smidgen of "well, MY reason is so important and blah blah blah I am exempt, I simply MUST have the latest every six months because..."

    I call hypocritical BS on any such claims.

  It takes tons of pollution-TONS-to produce a new computer, and no telling how much energy if you follow it all the way back to mining and manufacture and shipping, etc. Beaucoup lots.. then disposal time, where it gets worse....

  Maybe we should just kick back and force the manufacturers to release less often and spend their time designing better, designs good for longer than a few months by NOT paying for the latest and greatest until such a time as at least a few years are past? Just maybe?

Memory Capacity? (3, Interesting)

Bill Dimm (463823) | more than 8 years ago | (#15187997)

I may buy/build a workstation soon that will need the capability of holding a large amount of RAM (say 32GB - calculations requiring a lot of memory but not a huge amount of CPU) at some point down the road (I can probably put off fully populating the memory for a while). I came across this post [aceshardware.com] , which seems to say that motherboards for DDR2 will allow more DIMMs (16 2GB sticks is a lot cheaper than 8 4GB sticks right now, at least for DDR). It is talking about DDR2 with Opterons. Is there a launch date for DDR2 on Opteron? Is the capacity actually greater with DDR2? Is DDR likely to become scarce down the road, causing DDR2 to be a cheaper option for future expansion? Any opinions are appreciated (I haven't had an excuse to buy hardware in a long time, so I haven't kept up on such things).

Sidenote: Yes, I am aware of the iWill DK88 [iwill.net] (16 DIMMs DDR) - anybody have any experience with it (especially with Linux)?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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