POST A COMMENT

27 Comments

Back to Article

  • NullSubroutine - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link

    #5

    "Why the name change again? Sounds more like following another company rather than leading... oh well."

    Umm, AMD isnt following, all they did was drop title XP and a 0. However its actually nice that both Intel and AMD will be using similar naming schemes hopefullly there will be less confusion. Either way AMD was using naming schemes first with the FX and Opteron lines (recent within the past few years.)

    #19 Dell is a nice company but their service isnt dependent on the type of processor they use. The reason they go Intel is because of $$$. Coffee is more expensive for Dell than Celerons are.
    Reply
  • NullSubroutine - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link

    #5

    "Why the name change again? Sounds more like following another company rather than leading... oh well."

    Umm, AMD isnt following, all they did was drop title XP and a 0. However its actually nice that both Intel and AMD will be using similar naming schemes hopefullly there will be less confusion. Either way AMD was using naming schemes first with the FX and Opteron lines (recent within the past few years.)

    #19 Dell is a nice company but their service isnt dependent on the type of processor they use. The reason they go Intel is because of $$$. Coffee is more expensive for Dell than Celerons are.
    Reply
  • araczynski - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link

    I agree with 19, I received a reduced quote (5k+ less) from dell just by buying in volume, and that's on top of the further (slightly) reduced rates being an educational agency. Everything we buy is dell and has intel inside, so far no problems, even with 3 year warranties, one time one of the server's raid drives was acting up (not critically) and we had a replacement the next morning.

    if anythign broke down and we had to wait any longer then that then "...but we saved 5k" as an excuse wouldn't convince anybody to be nice to us :)
    Reply
  • nserra - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link

    #8 You are right!
    Instead of AMD made that Barton crap and have focus on Tbred clock speed or made some new "duron" with 128Kb of cache to compete with celeron it would have been a better choice.
    For me the 512kb cache on Barton was only marketing stuff, because it didn’t deliver much performance to the processor just for the cache (as have done to P4) and the mhz remained the same of Tbred, then that have been just ridiculous.
    Reply
  • Runamile - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link

    >Does this mean the xp is going to have a memory
    >controller on the chip since its going to be
    >compatible with 754 and 939?

    Thats actually a pretty good point fishsauce. Since the new amd64 boards dont have northbridge memory controllers, won't the athlonXP on the 754/939 boards require one? And isn't that one of the key things that is giving the 64's competitive agains Intel right now untill all the other functions are implemented by programmers? If thats true, then the future 'value' chips will be mighty impressive.
    Reply
  • AtaStrumf - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link

    Unlocking a Duron was as simple as unlocking the multipliers, but instead of connecting the L1 bridges you had to connect the cut L2 bridge. But that was before AMD started to lock both multipliers and Durons' L2 Cache. I got one of the last unlocked ones, so now I believe it is impossible, although I think you can unlock the multipliers if you change it to mobile. Just use google to find out exactly how. Reply
  • fishsauce - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link

    Does this mean the xp is going to have a memory controller on the chip since its going to be compatible with 754 and 939?

    I apologize beforehand if this is a dumb question.
    Reply
  • glennpratt - Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - link

    This is really more or less the demise of the name, the Athlon XP is more or less the Duron of the future. Reply
  • TrogdorJW - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    I have to laugh at the whole concept of businesses saving money by using Duron processors. Let's see... buying 100 PCs, they're all going to include hard drives, cases, support, graphics, etc. that amount to $600. Now we can go with a $50 Duron, a $100 Athlon XP, or a system from Dell that costs $1000 and performs slower than either! Guess which one 90% of businesses choose?

    I for one support roughly 150 PCs at my location, every one of them a Dell GX150 that was purchased for about $900. That's a 1.13 GHz P3 with integrated graphics and a 20 GB hard drive. But when we have a hardware failure, we call up our support people, they call Dell's local support provider, and we get the new part in two or three days. Save $5000 when you're buying 100+ PCs? Well, it might be noticed - briefly - but no one really cares. One day of downtime for the computers would cost far more than $5000.

    What really makes me sad is how "outdated" my XP-M OC'ed to 2.4 GHz is becoming. *Sigh* And I just bought it, too! Not like I really care - it runs what I need it to run (games) plenty fast for the present. :)
    Reply
  • Pumpkinierre - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    #17 AtaSmurf, How do you unlock the extra cache on the Duron? I did'nt think it was possible.
    Reply
  • AtaStrumf - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    I will miss Durons as well! Bought three of them and one is still running beautifully at 2,0 GHz (1,65V) and it cost me less than half of my Barton 2500+ (OC-ed to 2.2 GHz @ 1,65V) and since I unlocked the extra cache its giving me allmost the same performance. You just gotta love 'em.

    I just hope AMD gives us something else to play with. All their new chips are just too expensive to be as much fun as Durons.

    As for the new roadmap, it's obvious AMD is having the same problems Intel is hence they're both taking the same path --> 90 nano dual cores. But I hate this new naming scheme. It'll take me a week to figure out what the hell a 3/5/7/?/?xx is. Talk about following the leader :(
    Reply
  • HammerFan - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    Kristopher, how about this for a multi-core hybrid?

    Integrate to seperate cores onto the same package, with the links between the two cores contained in the package and not the die itself. The could eliminate the yield issue and keep latencies lower than two completely independent chips.
    Reply
  • acx - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    Integrating multiple cores onto one chip most likely allows a lot more optimization tricks for synchronizing a MP system than multiple chips on a board. The architect controls everything on a single chip and the latency to get from one chip to another is a lot less. Besides, there is more than enough transistors available for 2 cores (sans cache) so why not? Reply
  • HammerFan - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    I like the idea of multicore CPUs..as for heat issues, why can't AMD stretch 130nm SOI far enough to allow them to produce multi-core CPUs. I'm sure there are plenty more tweaks to make on SOI to get it to run faster than it does now. Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    Zap: In my opinion, several smaller cores on one chip would yeild better performance but several chips on one board would yeild higher (thus costing less?). Maybe the solution is a little bit of both?

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • ZapZilla - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    Interesting that a few years ago multi-core chips were forcast as a result of "hitting a wall" in the ability to decrease process size.

    Yet, today we find that multi-core chips are needed due to heat density issues of the ever-larger number of transistors on chip.

    Alas, there is no money it seems in moving from one process generation to the next with constant or small growth in the number of transistors.

    So which would be better, a single multi-but larger-core chip or several single, smaller-core chips (on a smaller process) plugged into seperate sockets?
    Reply
  • gherald - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    Anemone, you are 100% clueless. *Everything* you just said was wrong. Reply
  • Anemone - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    Ok I'm liking the FX-57, and I'd consider it if 90nm, but I'd have to see pci-express boards on the NF3 250gb before that would be a mixable combination.

    Not sure how I feel on this but its quite surprising and pleasantly so, that AMD would be appearing to come back into the game with a sooner release of the FX-57 rather than later. If I have kept up on the news this could be a 90nm part that also would incorporate the use of up to 500mhz DDR and potentially SSE3 (not that SSE3 over SSE2 is a showstopper).

    Because AMD delays so often, I'll probably have to believe it when I see it, but I think its the right direction they need to move, sooner rather than later to keep the momentum they've gained so far going.

    Now we need promised dual core desktop cpu's on 939 socket sealed in a promised date. Otherwise, dual cores are questionable as to socket needs and timing and certainly whether they will offer dual cores to the desktop (at least FX pricing level products).

    Good, but we need more, and they can't delay. Faster, sooner, is good and will help convince the market to use them, not just the enthusiasts.
    Reply
  • Zebo - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    Just to follow up. At the business level if I were to build/buy, say 100 machines for my office workers I could save $5000-$6000 right there building machines with a Duron over a barton. You think Mr's Smith plugging away on word and email cares or would notice any difference? No. But 5K is noticeable.

    Even for enthusiasts I doubt they'd pass an a/b test w/o using benchmarks.

    For overclcokers a Duron was a steal easily overclcoking to 2.3Ghz, better than all bartons OC but the mobiles, which carry thier own premium in price.

    Nope it's a really sad day to see this chip go.
    Reply
  • Zebo - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    Aww poor Duron the best bang for the buck chip EVER! So unappreciated so sad to see it's demise.:(


    #7 show me one benchmark, any test, of a $100 Barton performing twice as well as a $50 1.8 Duron and you may have a point, but thier within 20% of one another accross the board!! Making the Barton a relative rip-off just like all pentiums are.
    Reply
  • segagenesis - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    Oh yeah, I give my condolences to the Duron also, it will be missed! I remember the days when you could make a decent machine using a Duron for alot cheaper (then) than getting an Athlon or P4.

    Prices the way they have been being able to get even a barton core 2500+ for under $100 kind of defeats the purpose of the Duron existing. Most people (read: non-gamers) are sufficient with just 2ghz.
    Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    Actually sega, yeah thats exactly the reason. It even said so on the roadmap.

    :)

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • segagenesis - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    Why the name change again? Sounds more like following another company rather than leading... oh well. Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    lol hutch.....

    tuche.

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • JHutch - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    Many hands make light work---

    English playwright John Heywood.

    While Heywood *was* born in the 15th century (1497), he was only 3 years old when the 16th century rolled around. And since all of his "work" was done in the 16th century, he would be more accurately labelled a 16th century playwright. ;)
    Reply
  • JHutch - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    Reply
  • Myrandex - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    They should release a faster Socket A variant to give at least a slight upgrade path, as it should not be too difficult given people overclocking way past the 3200+ speed grade. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now