POST A COMMENT

12 Comments

Back to Article

  • ripdude - Friday, March 05, 2004 - link

    Does anyone have an idea when the 939's mobo/cpu's will be available in europe?
    I'm considering to wait for the 939's for my upgrade, running a duron 1,2 gets on your nerves after a few years.
    Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Thursday, March 04, 2004 - link

    Trogdor: There was a typo which we updated. Thanks for pointing this out.

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • ybee - Thursday, March 04, 2004 - link

    Can anyone explain how the 90nm process fits in?

    If Athlon FX-55 is launched as a 130nm part will it be later replaced by a 90nm part in Sep-Nov or will the FX line be simply discontinued?

    Also, will Athlon 64 4000+ be a 90 nm part or still a 130nm part? Which other athlon 64s will be moved to 90nm and when?

    I am totally confused by all this roadmappery.
    Reply
  • Pumpkinierre - Thursday, March 04, 2004 - link

    And you (AT) told us emphatically that the A64 3000+ was an early release of the Newcastle. So what are these 512k Sckt939 A64s called? Reply
  • klah - Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - link

    "Strange... I see FX-53 and FX-55 both launching in May '04."

    Maybe they changed it... now it has FX53-March, FX55-May.

    Reply
  • TrogdorJW - Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - link

    Strange... I see FX-53 and FX-55 both launching in May '04. I thought the AMD interview you did recently had them stating that there would only ever be one FX class CPU in circulation at any given time, and that when a new version came out, they would discontinue the old one. Apparently, they had second thoughts. No real surprise there, since that will allow old inventories to clear much nicer.

    As for the renaming, while it makes it clear what you're getting (a 3400+ is a S754 chip and a 3500+ is a S939 chip), I find the halved L2 cache plus dual-channel RAM to be a questionable upgrade to S754. Then again, I've never like AMD's PR ratings. Bah! I suppose they really couldn't release 1 MB L2 cache on S939 without totally marginalizing the FX CPUs.

    Finally, I'm still curious what the real performance of the "new" Athlon XP 3200+ chips will be. Sure, they only have half the L2 cache of the Barton core, but Barton didn't benefit from the doubled L2 cache nearly as much as Northwood. The on-die memory controller will probably make the new XP chips at least as fast as the old XP chips, I would imagine. Too bad there doesn't seem to be an option for the XP 256K chips on S939, as the dual-channel would probably help them overcome the lack of L2 cache even more. Hopefully, though, with the new XP chips we'll have faster clock speeds than the current XP chips. I think the 3200+ really needs 2.4 GHz to match the P4 3.2 GHz.
    Reply
  • UlricT - Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - link

    how bout if only the S-939 versions get the new stuff like SSE3 quoted here:
    http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/6363

    That should validate the rating increase!
    Reply
  • tombman - Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - link

    And what´s up with Socket 940 FX-53? Is it dead? Reply
  • Ecmaster76 - Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - link

    "The innuendo is that lower clocked Athlon 64s will whip up on Socket T".
    oops, I misquoted.
    Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - link

    Yeah :) Fixed. Reply
  • ZapZilla - Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - link

    "The innuendo is that equivalently clocked Athlon 64s will perform better on Socket 754".

    Uh, shouldn't it be better on Socket 939?
    Reply
  • dylman - Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - link

    My guess is that AMD upgraded their Performance Ratings, at least partly, in response to Prescott's lengthened pipeline. If 3.2 Northwood GHz is faster than 3.2 Prescott GHz, then that has to affect AMD's PR rating also (assuming that we acknowlege that the PR rating is a comparison to the P4 and not the old Thunderbird *cough*).

    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now