PDA

View Full Version : Intel guy looking the AMD direction for the first time.


No spam
September 13th 04, 03:08 AM
Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have
a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop.

I have always been a fan of Intel... mainly because when I got into
computers there was no AMD. My first IBM based PC was an 8088 with
640k RAM and a 21 megabyte hard drive.

The first time I had any knowledge of an AMD product was around 1996.
Because (and I might be remembering this incorrect ...) but as I
remember a good friend of mine had a K5 processor and I remember he
had all kinds of problems with Windows 95. MANY MANY more Windows 95
problems than I had on my 80486 SX 25... Or did I have the Packard
Hell Pentium (Classic) 100 MHz by then... Lol... I don't remember.

So as time went on I always stuck with Intel. I went from P classic to
PMMX to PIII to the latest which is the Celeron laptop.

Now I am looking to buy a new desktop and I am looking for the best
new technology. I am very interested in 64 bit technology. I know
Intel has had Itanium and Itanium II but as I understand it those are
not for consumers.

So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models. And is there
any new AMD 64 FX chip coming in the fourth quarter 2004?

Also can anyone explain the Intel roadmap for a consumer 64 bit CPU?

Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.



I was looking at Alienware. Are there other sites as well? I have to
say those Alienware systems always look damn cool.

Carlo Razzeto
September 13th 04, 05:00 AM
"No spam" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have
> a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop.
>
> I have always been a fan of Intel... mainly because when I got into
> computers there was no AMD. My first IBM based PC was an 8088 with
> 640k RAM and a 21 megabyte hard drive.
>
> The first time I had any knowledge of an AMD product was around 1996.
> Because (and I might be remembering this incorrect ...) but as I
> remember a good friend of mine had a K5 processor and I remember he
> had all kinds of problems with Windows 95. MANY MANY more Windows 95
> problems than I had on my 80486 SX 25... Or did I have the Packard
> Hell Pentium (Classic) 100 MHz by then... Lol... I don't remember.
>
> So as time went on I always stuck with Intel. I went from P classic to
> PMMX to PIII to the latest which is the Celeron laptop.
>
> Now I am looking to buy a new desktop and I am looking for the best
> new technology. I am very interested in 64 bit technology. I know
> Intel has had Itanium and Itanium II but as I understand it those are
> not for consumers.
>
> So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models. And is there
> any new AMD 64 FX chip coming in the fourth quarter 2004?
>
> Also can anyone explain the Intel roadmap for a consumer 64 bit CPU?
>
> Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
> PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
> integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.
>
>
>
> I was looking at Alienware. Are there other sites as well? I have to
> say those Alienware systems always look damn cool.

I'm not sure that AMD is really planning on releasing any new chips this
year, but it's been a while since I've looked at one of their processor road
maps. You may want to check www.amd.com for that information or do a google
search for "AMD Road Map" or something like that. As for the "straight poop"
on these chips, they are excellent preformers with amazing IPC. Which chip
you should buy will depend greatly on what kind of work you do, I use AMD
because I am a programmer who writes mostly web based applications. And as
it so happens AMD chips are much faster than Intel's chips when it comes to
running compiling source code, running webservers and running database
servers (espeacially in 64b mode). AMD's also tend to out preform Intel
chips in games, which was another factor in why I use AMD. As long as you
get a good quality AMD system preferably with an nForce 3 you shouldn't have
any problems what so ever with your system. From what I'm told Via chipsets
have gotten better recently, but I've heard that a lot and every time I've
ever tried one I was never happy with it. Which could explain your buddies
experience with his K5, chances are it was running in a system that had a
via chipset.

Carlo

Yousuf Khan
September 13th 04, 05:38 AM
No spam wrote:
> Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have
> a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop.
>
> I have always been a fan of Intel... mainly because when I got into
> computers there was no AMD. My first IBM based PC was an 8088 with
> 640k RAM and a 21 megabyte hard drive.

Well hi, and welcome to the 21st Century, Rip Van Winkle. :-) A lot of the
rest of us in these newsgroups started on those 8088 PC clones ourselves,
and we didn't seem to have much trouble accepting AMD as a credible
alternative.

Actually, AMD has been making Intel compatible chips for as long as Intel
has been making them. Initially it was making them with the complete
permission and support of Intel -- AMD was Intel's official second source
right from the days of the original IBM PC. And then later it was making
them without so much permission and support. :-)

I think the first time I'd heard of AMD was when I was shopping for a cheap
287 coprocessor to fit to my 386DX CPU. (Yes, 386's could also be fitted to
287's rather than 387's.) Then later I found out that AMD not only made
coprocessors but also direct clones of the processors. This was around 1988
or thereabouts.

> The first time I had any knowledge of an AMD product was around 1996.
> Because (and I might be remembering this incorrect ...) but as I
> remember a good friend of mine had a K5 processor and I remember he
> had all kinds of problems with Windows 95. MANY MANY more Windows 95
> problems than I had on my 80486 SX 25... Or did I have the Packard
> Hell Pentium (Classic) 100 MHz by then... Lol... I don't remember.

The K5 was not AMD's most successful design, not by a long shot. It was
AMD's first attempt its own original design. It's previous processors were
much more successful (the 386, 486, and 5x86), and it's later processors
were much more successful (K6, Athlon, and Athlon 64). So yes, you could
call the K5 to be AMD's lowest valley. Prior to the K5, AMD's designs were
all direct copies transistor-for-transistor copies of Intel's processors --
since AMD had been Intel's second source for years prior to that. At around
the time of the 386 were when AMD and Intel started having their first
feuds; Intel no longer wanted to have AMD as its second source, while AMD
insisted that they had a binding contract for just that. The court battle
eventually came down to an agreement that AMD would stop cloning Intel's
chips as of the end of the 486. So K5 was AMD's attempt to engineer a
Pentium-workalike, but with their own original design inside. The K5 didn't
succeed, but AMD's second attempt was the K6, which was also a
Pentium-workalike, and it also fit into the Pentium socket. This was much
more successful, and it in fact extended the Pentium infrastructure beyond
the Pentium, beyond what Intel had imagined for that infrastructure. The K6
was competing against the Pentium II's and III's, which were on their
next-generation infrastructure. AMD's next design, the Athlon, was (and is
to this day) their most successful original design ever; and not only was it
original on the inside, it was also original on the outside, as the Athlon
uses no infrastructure at all that's similar to anything from Intel's; oh it
runs all of the same software as Intel's, and all of the same peripherals,
such as USB and PCI cards work with either Intel or AMD, but below that
level Intel and AMD had diverged completely. Now the Athlon is giving way
slowly to the Athlon 64, which is another completely original design, and
actually quite a quantum leap over even the original Athlon, and anything
that Intel has (including their Itanium).

> Now I am looking to buy a new desktop and I am looking for the best
> new technology. I am very interested in 64 bit technology. I know
> Intel has had Itanium and Itanium II but as I understand it those are
> not for consumers.

No, the Itanium is definitely not for consumers (though originally Intel may
have had such hopes and plans). These days, it's living out life as a
server-only processor.

> So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models. And is there
> any new AMD 64 FX chip coming in the fourth quarter 2004?

Well, the AMD Athlon 64 FX processors are AMD's ultimate gaming processors.
And as such they are more expensive than their regular Athlon 64's. They
typically have slightly better memory interfaces than the regular A64's,
either dual-channel memory, or bigger cache, or both. I think most people
suggest that you stay away from the FX's, as they are extremely expensive
compared to the regular A64's. Quite a bit more money for only slightly
better performance.

Similarly, people suggest you stay away from Pentium 4 Extreme Edition vs.
regular Pentium 4. Exact same reasons.

> Also can anyone explain the Intel roadmap for a consumer 64 bit CPU?

Intel has copied AMD's 64-bit language extensions now. But it hasn't
implemented these extension throughout the board on all of its processors.
It is first going to implement them in its server Xeon processors, before it
brings them to its desktop Pentium 4 processors. It's expect that these will
take until the middle of 2005 before Intel has it fully incorporated on all
of its non-Itanium processors. Intel calls its version EM64T, while AMD
calls it's AMD64, but they are exactly the same thing.

However, it's not just the extensions that matters here. AMD spent a great
deal of time not only improving the language, but it also came up with an
incredibly sophisticated infrastructure, which it calls Direct Connect
Architecture. That's just a marketing term for a processor that connects to
its RAM and its peripherals and to other processors directly with very few
other chips required in between, allowing for much higher throughput. This
is the real secret behind AMD64, not so much its 64-bittedness.

> Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
> PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
> integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.

Not having integrated graphics is a good choice. Integrated sound is
actually not so bad, especially if you get a motherboard with an Nvidia
chipset in it, because they have a version of the sound chipset that is
present inside the Microsoft Xbox. And integrated NICs are just great, no
reason why you would want a separate card for a NIC anymore.

> I was looking at Alienware. Are there other sites as well? I have to
> say those Alienware systems always look damn cool.

Sure, they're supposed to look cool. They are geared towards the gaming
enthusiast.

Yousuf Khan

Lachoneus
September 13th 04, 05:43 AM
> Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
> PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
> integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.

newegg.com has a good selection and prices. Look for a motherboard with
the nForce3 250Gb chipset.

Your aversion to integrated graphics is understandable, since they've
always been somewhere between pathetic and mediocre on the performance
scale. But you'd be hard-pressed to find a new motherboard that doesn't
have both integrated NIC and sound these days. You're better off with
an integrated NIC anyway (particularly for gigabit ethernet), because it
can run straight off the south bridge and not tie up any PCI bandwidth.
As for sound, new motherboards support 8-channel audio and SPDIF
digital output, so I don't even see the need for an add-in sound
card--and nothing's stopping you from disabling the onboard sound
plugging a sound card if you want to anyway.

Wes Newell
September 13th 04, 08:03 AM
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 19:08:38 -0700, No spam wrote:

> So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models. And is there
> any new AMD 64 FX chip coming in the fourth quarter 2004?
>
Very fast and very expensive. You'll pay a hefty premium (about $800) for
a small percentage of increased speed. Even the cheapest A64 (about $140)
will be at least 3 times faster than what you have now.

> Also can anyone explain the Intel roadmap for a consumer 64 bit CPU?
>
Not me. The Intel CPu I had was a 486.

> Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
> PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
> integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.
>
Sorry, I've always built my own. try pricewatch.com.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Yousuf Khan
September 13th 04, 08:35 AM
Lachoneus wrote:
> Your aversion to integrated graphics is understandable, since they've
> always been somewhere between pathetic and mediocre on the performance
> scale. But you'd be hard-pressed to find a new motherboard that
> doesn't have both integrated NIC and sound these days. You're better
> off with an integrated NIC anyway (particularly for gigabit
> ethernet), because it can run straight off the south bridge and not
> tie up any PCI bandwidth. As for sound, new motherboards support
> 8-channel audio and SPDIF digital output, so I don't even see the
> need for an add-in sound card--and nothing's stopping you from
> disabling the onboard sound plugging a sound card if you want to
> anyway.

You don't even need to disable the onboard sound system, you can keep it
completely enabled and still put a secondary sound card in. These days with
plug'n'play, you don't have to worry about resource conflicts as much. The
sound cards just rearrange themselves into different configurations to
accomodate whatever is in the computer.

Yousuf Khan

chrisv
September 13th 04, 02:04 PM
Lachoneus > wrote:

>You're better off with
>an integrated NIC anyway (particularly for gigabit ethernet), because it
>can run straight off the south bridge and not tie up any PCI bandwidth.

Which does the average home user a whole lot of good, considering
they're limited by their internet connection of 1Mb/s (give or
take)... 8)

Tony Hill
September 13th 04, 07:15 PM
On 12 Sep 2004 19:08:38 -0700, (No spam)
wrote:
>
>Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have
>a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop.
>
>I have always been a fan of Intel... mainly because when I got into
>computers there was no AMD. My first IBM based PC was an 8088 with
>640k RAM and a 21 megabyte hard drive.

Believe it or not, AMD was around at that time to. AMD first got the
contract to make x86 chips as a second source for Intel as part of
IBM's agreement to use the 8088 on the original PC.

>The first time I had any knowledge of an AMD product was around 1996.
>Because (and I might be remembering this incorrect ...) but as I
>remember a good friend of mine had a K5 processor and I remember he
>had all kinds of problems with Windows 95. MANY MANY more Windows 95
>problems than I had on my 80486 SX 25... Or did I have the Packard
>Hell Pentium (Classic) 100 MHz by then... Lol... I don't remember.

Computer problems are almost never caused by the processor, but rather
by all the accompanied hardware. The problem that AMD (and Cyrix) ran
into was that their processors were cheaper than Intel's chips and
tended to be used alongside cheap components. Take a piece of ****
power supply, motherboard, video card, etc. and you will have
problems, no matter what processor you use.

The K5 exasperated this issue by being, umm.. somewhat of a weak
design. It was one of AMD's first attempts at doing a ground-up
redesign of the processor (most previous chips had been strongly based
on, or often direct copies of, Intel's designs). The design itself
wasn't so bad, though a bit late. However when combined with the
terrible manufacturing problems that AMD had at that time it ended up
being WAY late to market and underperforming. The chip ended up only
having about a 1 year lifespan before the MUCH more successful K6 came
out.

>So as time went on I always stuck with Intel. I went from P classic to
>PMMX to PIII to the latest which is the Celeron laptop.
>
>Now I am looking to buy a new desktop and I am looking for the best
>new technology. I am very interested in 64 bit technology. I know
>Intel has had Itanium and Itanium II but as I understand it those are
>not for consumers.

You can safely ignore the Itanium line, it's definitely NOT what
you're going to be looking for. First off, it's not software
compatible with existing applications, requiring emulation to run all
your current code. What's probably more important though is that
you'll have a heck of a time finding an Itanium system for less than
$20,000.

>So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models. And is there
>any new AMD 64 FX chip coming in the fourth quarter 2004?

Yup, the FX 55. This chip will fit into the relatively new Socket 939
and is basically identical to the Athlon64 FX 53.

Of course, you probably don't want an Athlon64 FX unless you've got
more money than is good for you. The regular Athlon64 line is nearly
identical but selling for much more reasonable prices. An Athlon64
3500+ sells for about $375 and offers better than 90% of the
performance of the $850 Athlon64 FX 53. The only difference is that
the latter comes with a bit more cache (1MB vs. 512KB) and higher
clock speeds (2.4GHz vs. 2.2GHz).

So, sticking to the Athlon64 line of processors, you get a few
options. First off you've got two basic platforms, Socket 754 and
Socket 939. The primary difference been that the older Socket 754 has
only a single channel to memory while the newer Socket 939 has a pair
of memory channels (ie you add memory in pairs, much like you probably
did back on your old Pentium 100). Having twice as much memory
bandwidth results in more performance. For comparison, AMD sells a
2.2GHz processor with 512KB of L2 cache in a Socket 754 format as an
"Athlon64 3200+", while they rate an identical processor in Socket 939
as an "Athlon64 3500+".

One thing you may have noticed is that AMD is not using clock speeds
here, but rather model numbers. This is something that Intel has just
started doing as well, and it makes a reasonable among of sense since
clock speed is a VERY limited measure of performance. Things like the
memory subsystem and cache can have a noticeable effect on performance
even within a single line of processors, while the internal
architecture of the chip can have a HUGE effect when compared to
another chip. AMD's model numbers suggest a rough equivalent to
Intel's P4 line of processors, ie an Athlon64 3200+ will perform about
on-par with Intel's P4 3.2GHz processor (generally speaking AMD is
actually a bit conservative with their ratings and they are usually
faster than the "equivalent" Intel processors).


So... where does this leave us? Well as far as the whole 64-bit thing
goes, there's not that much to say at the moment. Microsoft, as
usual, is taking forever to get their operating system to market.
WinXP 64-bit for AMD64 (aka "x86-64", or "X64" in Microsoft-speak or
"EM64T" according to Intel, all the same thing, just different names)
has been delayed about 17 times already and probably won't actually be
available until Spring of next year. In Linux land, there has been
pretty solid support for AMD64 for at least a year now and basically
all distributions support it fairly well now.

What does a 64-bit operating system buy you? Well, beyond the
bragging rights at geek gatherings, it allows for two keep points.
First it allows you to properly access more than ~2GB of memory.
32-bit CPUs max out at addressing 4GB of memory, but due to a variety
of limitations, in practice things quickly get really ugly as soon as
you go beyond about 2GB. Even using more than 1GB of physical memory
starts requiring some hacks to work right on 32-bit chips. On the
other hand, a 64-bit chip can properly address MANY terabytes of
memory, good enough for a few years at least!

The second thing that 64-bit x86 buys you is a bit of performance.
Despite popular belief, 64-bit code is usually SLOWER than 32-bit code
if all else were equal (twice as much data to be tossed around in
memory pointers, requires twice as much cache space and memory
bandwidth), however in the case of AMD64 all is not equal. AMD took a
good look at the x86 instruction set and did some very smart tweaks to
it. They streamlined a few operations and, most importantly, doubled
the number of integer registers. The result is that with AMD64, AMD
managed to actually increase performance by about 5% on average when
going from 32-bit to 64-bit. Some applications might be a bit slower,
and a few applications could be a LOT faster in 64-bit code, but
generally you're looking at about a 5% performance improvement on
64-bit code. Note much, but hey, it's free!

>Also can anyone explain the Intel roadmap for a consumer 64 bit CPU?

Actually that's a good question, even Intel doesn't seem to know what
their roadmap for consumer 64-bit CPUs is!

About the only thing that is known so far is that Intel's Xeon
processors (x86 server chips) have copied the AMD64 instruction set
(Intel calls it "EM64T", but it's really AMD64). The latest and
greatest desktop Pentium4 chips also support EM64T in hardware,
however Intel has decided that consumers aren't ready for this and has
disabled this feature. In theory Intel could start selling 64-bit
desktop chips tomorrow, but thus far they have shown no interest in
doing so.

>Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
>PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
>integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.

Integrated NICs are pretty much standard and, honestly, there's no
good reason to get a PCI NIC these days. In many situations add-in
NIC cards actually offer LESS performance than integrated ones since
integrated ones have a direct path to the chipset while add-in NICs
have to go over the (comparatively slow) PCI bus. Even integrated
sound can be quite reasonable, and given that about the only add-in
sound cards you can buy are Creative Labs trash, many people stick to
the integrated sound.

Graphics is a slightly different game. Integrated graphics have
improved TERMENDOUSLY over the past 5 years, and for 2D stuff they are
every bit as good as an add-in card, but for 3D games they are still
quite weak. Most PCs targeting business users stick with integrated
graphics for good reason, for business type uses they are just as good
and a lot cheaper. If you're main purpose is to play games though,
get a decent add-in card.

>I was looking at Alienware. Are there other sites as well? I have to
>say those Alienware systems always look damn cool.

I think you'll find that most of us in these newsgroups tend to build
our own systems from parts, so we're probably not the best people to
ask. However, if you like Alienware systems you might also want to
check out www.voodoopc.com, nice stuff, though not cheap. HPaq also
sells some Athlon64 based systems in both their HP Pavilion and Compaq
Presario lines, though the quality of such systems might leave a bit
to be desired.

You can also get some "barebones" systems from most computer stores
and add in whatever components you like. Most stores even have an
option to have them build the system for you, installing the hardware
and OS for a small cost. Shuttle has made a bit of a name for
themselves selling small form factor barebones systems, fitting some
pretty high-end components into very small enclosures. Others have
followed, including some doing full-sized barebones systems. The only
trick with these systems is that you need to know a bit more about
what components you want.


Wewf... hope that wasn't too wordy for you!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Poseidon
September 13th 04, 08:25 PM
"No spam" > wrote in message
om...



> So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models.
Everybody in here is really helpful. For benchmarks, I like
www.tomshardware.com
Figure out which components you like, and then ask people in here about
their experiences with those components.


> Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
> PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
> integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.
> I was looking at Alienware. Are there other sites as well? I have to
> say those Alienware systems always look damn cool.
The best custom shop there is for building your PC is either your basement,
coffeetable, or kitchen table. (IMHO) Building your system yourself, you
get a lot of knowledge about computers and how they work. Plus, most of the
main manufacturers will give you three year warranties on the parts (Asus,
MSI, Western Digital etc.)

And Personally (I'm probably going to get flamed for saying this) I like the
Athlon 64 3400+ Processor as the best value) There's not much of a
performance difference between it and the 3500+ (in fact in some benchmarks
I've seen, the 3400 can outdo the 3500) and you're going to pay less or the
motherboard, you don't have to buy the more expensive dual-hanel memory
kits, and the processor is a fair bit cheaper. So you now have a good
amount of extra money to put into the components you want to splurge on,
like more memory, better video card, or bigger hard drive....

But that's just me...

Scott Alfter
September 14th 04, 12:47 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article rs.com>,
Yousuf Khan > wrote:
>No spam wrote:
>> Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have
>> a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop.
>>
>> I have always been a fan of Intel... mainly because when I got into
>> computers there was no AMD. My first IBM based PC was an 8088 with
>> 640k RAM and a 21 megabyte hard drive.
>
>Well hi, and welcome to the 21st Century, Rip Van Winkle. :-) A lot of the
>rest of us in these newsgroups started on those 8088 PC clones ourselves,
>and we didn't seem to have much trouble accepting AMD as a credible
>alternative.
>
>Actually, AMD has been making Intel compatible chips for as long as Intel
>has been making them. Initially it was making them with the complete
>permission and support of Intel -- AMD was Intel's official second source
>right from the days of the original IBM PC. And then later it was making
>them without so much permission and support. :-)

Toward that end, I have an IBM PC/XT at home (the real thing, not a clone)
that left the factory with an AMD processor. That would've been from the
era when AMD was copying Intel's stuff instead of rolling its own.

(Last time I switched it on, it still worked, too. It's currently set up
with DR DOS 6 and the DOS SMB client off of an NT Server 4 CD. When it's
hooked up to the network, it can access shared files on Linux and Win32
hosts (haven't tried it with Mac OS X, but that should work too) and it can
print to shared printers...not bad for 20-year-old technology. :-) )

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Linux)

iD8DBQFBRjGRVgTKos01OwkRAjN4AKCNjyhLnEUgRUGduIwXby YfHnH7QwCgrEpn
KcsbwX7AJm3f6IZQyGCD0Lk=
=Ozrs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Yousuf Khan
September 14th 04, 01:33 AM
Scott Alfter wrote:
> Toward that end, I have an IBM PC/XT at home (the real thing, not a
> clone) that left the factory with an AMD processor. That would've
> been from the
> era when AMD was copying Intel's stuff instead of rolling its own.
>
> (Last time I switched it on, it still worked, too. It's currently
> set up with DR DOS 6 and the DOS SMB client off of an NT Server 4 CD.
> When it's hooked up to the network, it can access shared files on
> Linux and Win32
> hosts (haven't tried it with Mac OS X, but that should work too) and
> it can print to shared printers...not bad for 20-year-old technology.
> :-) )

Oh, you mean to say, you still have a working XT? :-)

Yousuf Khan

Thomas A. Horsley
September 14th 04, 01:42 AM
>>You're better off with
>>an integrated NIC anyway (particularly for gigabit ethernet), because it
>>can run straight off the south bridge and not tie up any PCI bandwidth.
>
>Which does the average home user a whole lot of good, considering
>they're limited by their internet connection of 1Mb/s (give or
>take)... 8)

That depends on the home user. If you have a local network at home,
gigabit ethernet can make transfering video fiels around a lot
quicker :-).

Back on the original amd/intel comparison question: We have both dual
Opteron and dual Xeon systems at work for linux development, and people are
constantly wondering what is wrong with the Opterons when they first start
using them because everything finishes too fast (something must have gone
wrong, right?), but no, nothing went wrong, they are just that fast :-). It
boggles the mind sometimes how fast they are.
--
>>==>> The *Best* political site <URL:http://www.vote-smart.org/> >>==+
email: icbm: Delray Beach, FL |
<URL:http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley> Free Software and Politics <<==+

keith
September 14th 04, 03:29 AM
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:33:50 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Scott Alfter wrote:
>> Toward that end, I have an IBM PC/XT at home (the real thing, not a
>> clone) that left the factory with an AMD processor. That would've
>> been from the
>> era when AMD was copying Intel's stuff instead of rolling its own.
>>
>> (Last time I switched it on, it still worked, too. It's currently
>> set up with DR DOS 6 and the DOS SMB client off of an NT Server 4 CD.
>> When it's hooked up to the network, it can access shared files on
>> Linux and Win32
>> hosts (haven't tried it with Mac OS X, but that should work too) and
>> it can print to shared printers...not bad for 20-year-old technology.
>> :-) )
>
> Oh, you mean to say, you still have a working XT? :-)

Last time I checked I still had a working 5150. ...last time I checked.
;-)

--
Keith

Lachoneus
September 14th 04, 04:35 AM
> Oh, you mean to say, you still have a working XT? :-)

I'm considering buying a GeForce 5900 XT; is that close enough?

You'd think the 3MB/sec 8-bit ISA bus would be a bottleneck for a GPU
that fast, though... maybe I should splurge for the 5900 AT with the
16-bit bus.

No Spam
September 14th 04, 05:02 AM
Thanks to all who replied. I have a new question. What is the Athalon
64 and 64 FX front side BUS? I read 1600 MHz somewhwhere but another
place I read that when you get down to it the FSB is not REALLY 1600.
So I was confused.

Carlo Razzeto
September 14th 04, 05:57 AM
"No Spam" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks to all who replied. I have a new question. What is the Athalon
> 64 and 64 FX front side BUS? I read 1600 MHz somewhwhere but another
> place I read that when you get down to it the FSB is not REALLY 1600.
> So I was confused.
>

If you want to really be confused then the answer actually is the A64 does
not have an FSB at all! FSB is generally used to signify the connection
between the CPU and memory controller. In the case of the A64 the memory
controller is actually right on the CPU it's self, there for it runs at the
same speed as the core. If you want something that is a bit easier to
understand, then the A64 uses a HyperTransport link to allow the memory
controller on the CPU to physically comunicate with your DDR memory. I
belive that currently the fastest HT connection available runs at 1GHz, but
I could be wrong. And if I am I"m sure I'll be corrected shortly. The desing
of the A64's memory interface is one aspect of it's design that is far
superior than the P4.

Carlo

Poseidon
September 14th 04, 06:00 AM
> Oh, you mean to say, you still have a working XT? :-)
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
My Commodore 64 still worked the last time I hooked it up! (maybe a year
ago or so..)

Yousuf Khan
September 14th 04, 06:24 AM
Lachoneus wrote:
>> Oh, you mean to say, you still have a working XT? :-)
>
> I'm considering buying a GeForce 5900 XT; is that close enough?
>
> You'd think the 3MB/sec 8-bit ISA bus would be a bottleneck for a GPU
> that fast, though... maybe I should splurge for the 5900 AT with the
> 16-bit bus.

You know that GPU by itself could probably emulate an 8088 at better than
full-speed. :-)

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan
September 14th 04, 06:39 AM
No Spam wrote:
> Thanks to all who replied. I have a new question. What is the Athalon
> 64 and 64 FX front side BUS? I read 1600 MHz somewhwhere but another
> place I read that when you get down to it the FSB is not REALLY 1600.
> So I was confused.

There is no separate FSB on an Athlon 64, it's whatever the speed of the CPU
itself is. FSB is generally used to denote the common interface speed
between the CPU and the memory controller chipset. But the A64 has its own
memory controller built right inside it.

Now that 1600 Mhz speed that you're talking about might be referring to the
Hypertransport speed. Another interesting thing about the A64's is that they
have separate memory channels and i/o channels. The Hypertransport
connectors are its i/o channels. And generally they run at 800Mhz, and they
are DDR parts (meaning they operate on both the rising and falling edges of
a clock signal), so they are equivalent to a 1600Mhz SDR signal. AMD is also
about ready to increase the speed of Hypertransport pretty soon from 800Mhz
to 1000Mhz DDR.

The A64 is very different to a traditional CPU like a Pentium 4. It's quite
a bit more sophisticated. A lot of the old performance metrics don't apply
to it anymore, like FSB speeds, etc.

Yousuf Khan

Russell
September 14th 04, 08:13 PM
Take a look at the higher-end systems we build, if not to buy from us, at
least to get an idea of what is compatible with what and to get an idea of
reasonable pricing. Alienware and Falcon Northwest are very pricy (high
profit margin for high overhead) and with Falcon Northwest, you're also
paying for a decent custom paint job. We offer both AMD-based and
Intel-based systems at reasonable prices including shipping costs and we use
only premium components for full retail component manufacturer warranties.
We handle all warranty replacement/repair work directly and offer free
advance replacement of any component(s)/system(s) found to be defective,
along with lifetime free tech support. We also offer a no-strings 30-day
full refund policy with no restocking fees on all systems, and we have a 10
rating at Reseller Ratings. You can see our current offerings (just a
starting point; we can also build anything else with any components you'd
like, as long as everything's compatible) at
http://tastycomputers.com/bistro_menu/bistromenu_main.htm.

Regarding integrated components, most newer motherboards offer all these
integrated bells and whistles these days, and a lot of them work just as
well or better than separate cards (especially Ethernet and onboard RAID),
and integrated sound and graphics is greatly improved recently over previous
incarnations, but you certainly don't have to enable the integrated stuff if
you don't want to (unless you buy a cheapee motherboard with limited
expansion options.) If you're buying or building a higher-end enthusiast
rig, you'd probably want a higher end 8x AGP or new 16x PCI-Express graphics
card, good processor, chipset, hard drive(s) and memory, but you can
certainly be very satisfied with integrated sound and NIC these days.

Hope this helps...and happy hunting on the right system for your unique
needs!
--
Russell
http://tastycomputers.com

"No spam" > wrote in message
om...

> Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
> PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
> integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.
>
>
>
> I was looking at Alienware. Are there other sites as well? I have to
> say those Alienware systems always look damn cool.

Scott Alfter
September 15th 04, 09:30 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article . com>,
Yousuf Khan > wrote:
>Scott Alfter wrote:
>> Toward that end, I have an IBM PC/XT at home...
>
>Oh, you mean to say, you still have a working XT? :-)

Yes...and a working TRS-80 Color Computer 2, and a working VIC-20, and a
working TI-99/4A, and four working Apple IIs (two IIGSes, a IIe, and a II+).
I should open a museum. :-)

(The IIe and II+ run 24/7 as temperature controllers for my beer, too. A
IIGS serves as the development system for the software running on those
systems. The rest are packed up, but it'd be nice to have a way to just sit
down and use any of them.)

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Linux)

iD8DBQFBSKZeVgTKos01OwkRAkJQAJ9Z4FrKaWgRBSdajpIcaQ RWKsdBTwCdH3kg
QlYlvwaTuEY0prb6B5vjlHA=
=HW72
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

September 16th 04, 02:47 AM
On 12 Sep 2004 19:08:38 -0700, (No spam)
wrote:

>Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC.
....snip...
>
>So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models. And is there
>any new AMD 64 FX chip coming in the fourth quarter 2004?
>
>Also can anyone explain the Intel roadmap for a consumer 64 bit CPU?
>
>Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
>PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
>integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.
>
>
>
>I was looking at Alienware. Are there other sites as well? I have to
>say those Alienware systems always look damn cool.

IMHO, A64 make sense only if you are looking at getting a pre-built
system. Well, if you are on a somewhat tight budget, A64 3xxx+ may be
a good solution. As for FX, they are only for the ones who either
have hard time with numbers, or want to brag about the "coolest, most
expensive" CPU.
A quick check on Pricewatch:
FX53 (s940) $725
FX53 (s939) $835 !?
Meanwhile Opteron 150 (s940), same 1 MB L2 cache, same 2.4 GHZ clock,
same dual channel memory controller, essentially the same CPU as FX53,
is only $590. Even Opteron 250 that does SMP in dual socket board is
only $819!!! Yes the Opteron (and BTW the s940 A64FX, too) requires
slightly more expensive registered ECC memory, but the $245 difference
will get you 1 GB of that RAM, even with a few bucks left for other
goodies.
S940 will also be the first to receive the dual-core CPU to plug into,
with s939 quite a few months behind. If you plan to upgrade, keep
this in mind.
So if you are building the system yourself, or if it's built to your
exact spec, go for Opteron. If you have the budget, go for _dual_
Opteron - I did, and never had to regret it. As for the place that
will build it - try http://www.monarchcomputer.com ; there must be
also some other places that will do it for you.
With all that said, A64 is still a better option comparing to P4 ;-)

John R Weiss
September 16th 04, 09:08 PM
"No spam" > wrote...
>
> So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models. And is there
> any new AMD 64 FX chip coming in the fourth quarter 2004?

The FX-53 is essentially the single-processor version of the Opteron 250 -- same
core, but not dual-CPU capable; 939 pins instead of 940.

> Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
> PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
> integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.

NTSI in Boston -- www.ntsi.com. They built my dual Opteron workstation. Their
"configurator" will give you an idea of what they have, but it is incomplete.
Also, they will quote you a system price for a custom-built system that is
significantly less than the sum of the components. After looking through the
web site, give them a call or drop them an e-mail with your requirements.

Nate Edel
September 16th 04, 09:42 PM
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan > wrote:
> Lachoneus wrote:
> > You'd think the 3MB/sec 8-bit ISA bus would be a bottleneck for a GPU
> > that fast, though... maybe I should splurge for the 5900 AT with the
> > 16-bit bus.
>
> You know that GPU by itself could probably emulate an 8088 at better than
> full-speed. :-)

Can GPUs actually handle at any decent speed the branches needed for
emulation?

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it." - Tom Lehrer

Tony Hill
September 17th 04, 04:58 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:42:44 -0700, (Nate Edel)
wrote:

>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan > wrote:
>> Lachoneus wrote:
>> > You'd think the 3MB/sec 8-bit ISA bus would be a bottleneck for a GPU
>> > that fast, though... maybe I should splurge for the 5900 AT with the
>> > 16-bit bus.
>>
>> You know that GPU by itself could probably emulate an 8088 at better than
>> full-speed. :-)
>
>Can GPUs actually handle at any decent speed the branches needed for
>emulation?

The latest and greatest GPUs are sufficiently flexible in terms of
programming that they probably could be hacked to do such a thing. It
might not be pretty, but it would probably work.

Emulating an 8088 doesn't exactly take much processing umph, even if
the GPU needed 10,000 instructions to emulate a branch properly it
would still probably be faster than an 8088.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

gaffo
September 24th 04, 02:46 AM
Yousuf Khan wrote:

> No spam wrote:
>
>>Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have
>>a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop.
>>
>>I have always been a fan of Intel... mainly because when I got into
>>computers there was no AMD. My first IBM based PC was an 8088 with
>>640k RAM and a 21 megabyte hard drive.
>
>
> Well hi, and welcome to the 21st Century, Rip Van Winkle. :-) A lot of the
> rest of us in these newsgroups started on those 8088 PC clones ourselves,
> and we didn't seem to have much trouble accepting AMD as a credible
> alternative.
>
> Actually, AMD has been making Intel compatible chips for as long as Intel
> has been making them. Initially it was making them with the complete
> permission and support of Intel -- AMD was Intel's official second source
> right from the days of the original IBM PC. And then later it was making
> them without so much permission and support. :-)
>
> I think the first time I'd heard of AMD was when I was shopping for a cheap
> 287 coprocessor to fit to my 386DX CPU. (Yes, 386's could also be fitted to
> 287's rather than 387's.) Then later I found out that AMD not only made
> coprocessors but also direct clones of the processors. This was around 1988
> or thereabouts.
>
>
>>The first time I had any knowledge of an AMD product was around 1996.
>>Because (and I might be remembering this incorrect ...) but as I
>>remember a good friend of mine had a K5 processor and I remember he
>>had all kinds of problems with Windows 95. MANY MANY more Windows 95
>>problems than I had on my 80486 SX 25... Or did I have the Packard
>>Hell Pentium (Classic) 100 MHz by then... Lol... I don't remember.
>
>
> The K5 was not AMD's most successful design, not by a long shot. It was
> AMD's first attempt its own original design. It's previous processors were
> much more successful (the 386, 486, and 5x86), and it's later processors
> were much more successful (K6, Athlon, and Athlon 64). So yes, you could
> call the K5 to be AMD's lowest valley. Prior to the K5, AMD's designs were
> all direct copies transistor-for-transistor copies of Intel's processors --
> since AMD had been Intel's second source for years prior to that. At around
> the time of the 386 were when AMD and Intel started having their first
> feuds; Intel no longer wanted to have AMD as its second source, while AMD
> insisted that they had a binding contract for just that. The court battle
> eventually came down to an agreement that AMD would stop cloning Intel's
> chips as of the end of the 486. So K5 was AMD's attempt to engineer a
> Pentium-workalike, but with their own original design inside. The K5 didn't
> succeed, but AMD's second attempt was the K6,



not really - that was NextGen's attempt - the NX686. The successor to
the NX586 (the first RISC-core x86 chip made) which competed with the
pentium I.


AMD bought NexGen - and simply re-packaged the NX686 and named it k-6.

So the k-5 was the only AMD designed chip until the Athlon showed up in
1999 three years later.




which was also a
> Pentium-workalike, and it also fit into the Pentium socket. This was much
> more successful, and it in fact extended the Pentium infrastructure beyond
> the Pentium, beyond what Intel had imagined for that infrastructure. The K6
> was competing against the Pentium II's and III's, which were on their
> next-generation infrastructure.






competed with - but really fell between the pentuim I and II in speed.
FPU was never of the quality of even the pentium I.

In fact IDT's-Centuar's Winchip II FPU outperformed the k-6 of equal
clock in programs optimized for the pentium I.





AMD's next design, the Athlon, was (and is
> to this day) their most successful original design ever;



thanks to its phenominal x87 FPU. - Which AMD learned the hard way with
their anemic k-6's FPU.





--
http://baltimorechronicle.com/041704reTreason.shtml

http://www.truthinaction.net/iraq/illegaljayne.htm


As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both
instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged.
And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air
-- however slight -lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.
Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme Court (1939-75)

"It shows us that there were senior people in the Bush administration who
were seriously contemplating the use of torture, and trying to figure out
whether there were any legal loopholes that might allow them to commit
criminal acts, They seem to be putting forward a theory that the president
in wartime can essentially do what he wants regardless of what the law
may say,"
Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch - commenting upon Defense
Department Lawyer
Will Dunham's 56-page legalization of torture memo.

If you add all of those up, you should have a conservative rebellion against
the giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a human being named
George W. Bush. Just as progressives have been abandoned by the corporate
Democrats and told, "You got nowhere to go other than to stay home or
vote for
the Democrats", this is the fate of the authentic conservatives in the
Republican Party.
Ralph Nader - June 2004 - The American Conservative Magazine

"But I believe in torture and I will torture you."
-An American soldier shares the joys of Democracy with
an Iraqi prisoner.

"My mother praises me for fighting the Americans. If we are killed,
our wives and mothers will rejoice that we died defending the
freedom of our country.
-Iraqi Mahdi fighter

"We were bleeding from 3 a.m. until sunrise, soon American soldiers came.
One of them kicked me to see if I was alive. I pretended I was dead
so he wouldn't kill me. The soldier was laughing, when Yousef cried,
the soldier said: "'No, stop,"
-Shihab, survivor of USSA bombing of Iraqi wedding.

"the absolute convergence of the neoconservatives with the Christian
Zionists
and the pro-Israel lobby, driving U.S. Mideast policy."
-Don Wagner, an evangelical South Carolina minister

"Bush, in Austin, criticized President Clinton's administration for
the Kosovo military action.'Victory means exit strategy, and it's important
for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is,' Bush said."
Houston Chronicle 4/9/99

"Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to
destabilize their country."
Washington, D.C., May 5, 2004

"The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem
of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there's a major
incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh my God, shouldn't we be organized
to deal with this?'"
- Paul Bremer, speaking to a McCormick Tribune Foundation conference
on terrorism in Wheaton, Ill. on Feb. 26, 2001.

"On Jan. 26, 1998, President Clinton received a letter imploring him to use
his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein's regime
the "aim of American foreign policy" and to use military action because
"diplomacy is failing." Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged, they
would "offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor."
Signing the pledge were Elliott Abrams, Bill Bennett, John Bolton, Robert
Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Richard L. Armitage, Jeffrey
Bergner,
Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter W. Rodman,
William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, R. James Woolsey and Robert B. Zoellick,
Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Four years before 9/11, the neocons had
Baghdad on their minds."
-philip (usenet)

"I had better things to do in the 60s than fight in Vietnam,"
-Richard Cheney, Kerry critic.

"I hope they will understand that in order for this government to get up
and running
- to be effective - some of its sovereignty will have to be given
back, if I can put it that way,
or limited by them, It's sovereignty but [some] of that sovereignty they
are going to allow us to exercise
on their behalf and with their permission."
- Powell 4/27/04

"We're trying to explain how things are going, and they are going as they
are going," he said, adding: "Some things are going well and some things
obviously are not going well. You're going to have good days and bad days."
On the road to democracy, this "is one moment, and there will be other
moments. And there will be good moments and there will be less good
moments."
- Rumsfeld 4/6/04

"I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this
country's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty's gift to
every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on
the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread
of freedom."
~ Bush the Crusader


RUSSERT: Are you prepared to lose?

BUSH: No, I'm not going to lose.

RUSSERT: If you did, what would you do?

BUSH: Well, I don't plan on losing. I've got a vision for what I want to
do for the country.
See, I know exactly where I want to lead.................And we got
changing times
here in America, too., 2/8/04


"And that's very important for, I think, the people to understand where
I'm coming from,
to know that this is a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't. I'm a war
president.
I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with
war on my mind.
- pResident of the United State of America, 2/8/04


"Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that
based on intelligence, that he has been very, very good at hiding
these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know
he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons.
And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, on "Meet the Press", 3/16/03


"I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the
Iraqis had nuclear weapons."
- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, 6/24/03


"I think in this case international law
stood in the way of doing the right thing (invading Iraq)."
- Richard Perle


"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with
respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project
conventional power against his neighbours."
- Colin Powell February 24 2001


"We have been successful for the last ten years in keeping
him from developing those weapons and we will continue to be successful."

"He threatens not the United States."

"But I also thought that we had pretty
much removed his stings and frankly for ten years we really have."

'But what is interesting is that with the regime that has been in place
for the past ten years, I think a pretty good job has been done of
keeping him from breaking out and suddenly showing up one day and saying
"look what I got." He hasn't been able to do that.'
- Colin Powell February 26 2001

Yousuf Khan
September 24th 04, 05:47 AM
gaffo wrote:

<big snip>

Boy, you really didn't have to quote so much of my original message. I know
it's worth quoting, but really .... :-)

>> The K5 was not AMD's most successful design, not by a long shot. It
>> was AMD's first attempt its own original design. It's previous
>> processors were much more successful (the 386, 486, and 5x86), and
>> it's later processors were much more successful (K6, Athlon, and
>> Athlon 64). So yes, you could call the K5 to be AMD's lowest valley.
>> Prior to the K5, AMD's designs were all direct copies
>> transistor-for-transistor copies of Intel's processors -- since AMD
>> had been Intel's second source for years prior to that. At around
>> the time of the 386 were when AMD and Intel started having their
>> first feuds; Intel no longer wanted to have AMD as its second
>> source, while AMD insisted that they had a binding contract for just
>> that. The court battle eventually came down to an agreement that AMD
>> would stop cloning Intel's chips as of the end of the 486. So K5 was
>> AMD's attempt to engineer a Pentium-workalike, but with their own
>> original design inside. The K5 didn't succeed, but AMD's second
>> attempt was the K6,
>
> not really - that was NextGen's attempt - the NX686. The successor to
> the NX586 (the first RISC-core x86 chip made) which competed with the
> pentium I.

Well, NexGen was bought because of their NX686/K6 design. By the time it was
released, NexGen was already a part of AMD for a year or so. AMD was
simultaneously developing the K6 alongside the K5. Also originally NexGen
was planning on a completely separate socket layout for the NX686, but when
they were brought into AMD, they changed it to be Socket 7 compatible.

> So the k-5 was the only AMD designed chip until the Athlon showed up
> in 1999 three years later.

NexGen was already integrated into AMD well before the chip was released.

> which was also a
>> Pentium-workalike, and it also fit into the Pentium socket. This was
>> much more successful, and it in fact extended the Pentium
>> infrastructure beyond the Pentium, beyond what Intel had imagined
>> for that infrastructure. The K6 was competing against the Pentium
>> II's and III's, which were on their next-generation infrastructure.
>
> competed with - but really fell between the pentuim I and II in speed.
> FPU was never of the quality of even the pentium I.
>
> In fact IDT's-Centuar's Winchip II FPU outperformed the k-6 of equal
> clock in programs optimized for the pentium I.

I don't think that's quite an "in fact". The K6 had probably the best
performing FPU after the Pentium's. The weakest around at that time was
Cyrix's, while the IDT barely even reached the same Mhz levels as either
Pentiums or K6's. If you're talking about FPU perf/Mhz ratio, then maybe
it's possible, but they never even reached any sort of competitive Mhz
level.

> AMD's next design, the Athlon, was (and is
>> to this day) their most successful original design ever;
>
>
>
> thanks to its phenominal x87 FPU. - Which AMD learned the hard way
> with their anemic k-6's FPU.

I wasn't measuring success by the performance of the FPU. I was measuring it
with the longevity of the design. The K6 lasted a long, long time. Probably
about 4 years.

And the K7 Athlons are still with us to this day, they started life out in
1999 as a Slot-A Athlon Classic, evolved into Socket-A Thunderbird Athlons,
Durons, Athlon XP's, Athlon 4's, Athlon MP's, and now Geode NX, and Sempron
almost 5 years later.

Yousuf Khan

Tony Hill
September 24th 04, 09:17 AM
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:46:34 GMT, gaffo > wrote:
>
>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> The K5 was not AMD's most successful design, not by a long shot. It was
>> AMD's first attempt its own original design. It's previous processors were
>> much more successful (the 386, 486, and 5x86), and it's later processors
>> were much more successful (K6, Athlon, and Athlon 64). So yes, you could
>> call the K5 to be AMD's lowest valley. Prior to the K5, AMD's designs were
>> all direct copies transistor-for-transistor copies of Intel's processors --
>> since AMD had been Intel's second source for years prior to that. At around
>> the time of the 386 were when AMD and Intel started having their first
>> feuds; Intel no longer wanted to have AMD as its second source, while AMD
>> insisted that they had a binding contract for just that. The court battle
>> eventually came down to an agreement that AMD would stop cloning Intel's
>> chips as of the end of the 486. So K5 was AMD's attempt to engineer a
>> Pentium-workalike, but with their own original design inside. The K5 didn't
>> succeed, but AMD's second attempt was the K6,
>
>
>not really - that was NextGen's attempt - the NX686. The successor to
>the NX586 (the first RISC-core x86 chip made) which competed with the
>pentium I.
>
>
>AMD bought NexGen - and simply re-packaged the NX686 and named it k-6.

Well considering AMD bought the company, that kind of makes it an AMD
design. After all, it's not like the NX686 ever existed as a real
product, nor did the company NexGen exist as a separate entity when
the processor came out.

Also, there was a bit more than just re-packaging it. At the very
least the bus interface was completely redesigned. the FPU integrated
and they added MMX support.

>So the k-5 was the only AMD designed chip until the Athlon showed up in
>1999 three years later.

The Am5x86 was, at least according to some definitions, an original
AMD design. Of course, it may have borrowed somewhat heavily from
AMD's previous Am486 chip which was a copy of Intel's i486.

> which was also a
>> Pentium-workalike, and it also fit into the Pentium socket. This was much
>> more successful, and it in fact extended the Pentium infrastructure beyond
>> the Pentium, beyond what Intel had imagined for that infrastructure. The K6
>> was competing against the Pentium II's and III's, which were on their
>> next-generation infrastructure.
>
>competed with - but really fell between the pentuim I and II in speed.
>FPU was never of the quality of even the pentium I.

Not quite, but it wasn't that far off in most cases.

Of course, when compared to the PPro/PII chips, pretty much everything
in x86-land else kind of stank when it came to FPU stuff. The
difference between the K6 and the Pentium was FAR smaller than the
difference between the Pentium and the PII.

>In fact IDT's-Centuar's Winchip II FPU outperformed the k-6 of equal
>clock in programs optimized for the pentium I.

In some situations yes, though it did so 2-3 years later. On the
other hand, the Winchip line of processor was (and still is as VIA
processors) an in-order design that had it's share of downfalls.

>AMD's next design, the Athlon, was (and is
>> to this day) their most successful original design ever;
>
>thanks to its phenominal x87 FPU. - Which AMD learned the hard way with
>their anemic k-6's FPU.

It wasn't all THAT anemic. In fact, as much as anything else it was
the socket 7 bus that it sat on which was anemic, the memory subsystem
pretty much stank. FPU work tends to put a very high stress on the
memory subsystem, and if that isn't up to par, even a top-notch FPU is
going to look rather poor. As it was, AMD was probably smart not to
invest too much into the FPU of the K6 as it really just wouldn't have
been able to do much with it anyway. Delaying the chip by 6 months to
a year and increasing the cost would have had a much more detrimental
impact on the chips sales than a slightly slower FPU.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Bobby
November 7th 04, 11:09 PM
Tony - Great post. One to save I think. Cheers.

Bobby

"Tony Hill" > wrote in message
...
> On 12 Sep 2004 19:08:38 -0700, (No spam)
> wrote:
>>
>>Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have
>>a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop.
>>
>>I have always been a fan of Intel... mainly because when I got into
>>computers there was no AMD. My first IBM based PC was an 8088 with
>>640k RAM and a 21 megabyte hard drive.
>
> Believe it or not, AMD was around at that time to. AMD first got the
> contract to make x86 chips as a second source for Intel as part of
> IBM's agreement to use the 8088 on the original PC.
>
>>The first time I had any knowledge of an AMD product was around 1996.
>>Because (and I might be remembering this incorrect ...) but as I
>>remember a good friend of mine had a K5 processor and I remember he
>>had all kinds of problems with Windows 95. MANY MANY more Windows 95
>>problems than I had on my 80486 SX 25... Or did I have the Packard
>>Hell Pentium (Classic) 100 MHz by then... Lol... I don't remember.
>
> Computer problems are almost never caused by the processor, but rather
> by all the accompanied hardware. The problem that AMD (and Cyrix) ran
> into was that their processors were cheaper than Intel's chips and
> tended to be used alongside cheap components. Take a piece of ****
> power supply, motherboard, video card, etc. and you will have
> problems, no matter what processor you use.
>
> The K5 exasperated this issue by being, umm.. somewhat of a weak
> design. It was one of AMD's first attempts at doing a ground-up
> redesign of the processor (most previous chips had been strongly based
> on, or often direct copies of, Intel's designs). The design itself
> wasn't so bad, though a bit late. However when combined with the
> terrible manufacturing problems that AMD had at that time it ended up
> being WAY late to market and underperforming. The chip ended up only
> having about a 1 year lifespan before the MUCH more successful K6 came
> out.
>
>>So as time went on I always stuck with Intel. I went from P classic to
>>PMMX to PIII to the latest which is the Celeron laptop.
>>
>>Now I am looking to buy a new desktop and I am looking for the best
>>new technology. I am very interested in 64 bit technology. I know
>>Intel has had Itanium and Itanium II but as I understand it those are
>>not for consumers.
>
> You can safely ignore the Itanium line, it's definitely NOT what
> you're going to be looking for. First off, it's not software
> compatible with existing applications, requiring emulation to run all
> your current code. What's probably more important though is that
> you'll have a heck of a time finding an Itanium system for less than
> $20,000.
>
>>So I want the "straight poop" about the AMD 64 FX models. And is there
>>any new AMD 64 FX chip coming in the fourth quarter 2004?
>
> Yup, the FX 55. This chip will fit into the relatively new Socket 939
> and is basically identical to the Athlon64 FX 53.
>
> Of course, you probably don't want an Athlon64 FX unless you've got
> more money than is good for you. The regular Athlon64 line is nearly
> identical but selling for much more reasonable prices. An Athlon64
> 3500+ sells for about $375 and offers better than 90% of the
> performance of the $850 Athlon64 FX 53. The only difference is that
> the latter comes with a bit more cache (1MB vs. 512KB) and higher
> clock speeds (2.4GHz vs. 2.2GHz).
>
> So, sticking to the Athlon64 line of processors, you get a few
> options. First off you've got two basic platforms, Socket 754 and
> Socket 939. The primary difference been that the older Socket 754 has
> only a single channel to memory while the newer Socket 939 has a pair
> of memory channels (ie you add memory in pairs, much like you probably
> did back on your old Pentium 100). Having twice as much memory
> bandwidth results in more performance. For comparison, AMD sells a
> 2.2GHz processor with 512KB of L2 cache in a Socket 754 format as an
> "Athlon64 3200+", while they rate an identical processor in Socket 939
> as an "Athlon64 3500+".
>
> One thing you may have noticed is that AMD is not using clock speeds
> here, but rather model numbers. This is something that Intel has just
> started doing as well, and it makes a reasonable among of sense since
> clock speed is a VERY limited measure of performance. Things like the
> memory subsystem and cache can have a noticeable effect on performance
> even within a single line of processors, while the internal
> architecture of the chip can have a HUGE effect when compared to
> another chip. AMD's model numbers suggest a rough equivalent to
> Intel's P4 line of processors, ie an Athlon64 3200+ will perform about
> on-par with Intel's P4 3.2GHz processor (generally speaking AMD is
> actually a bit conservative with their ratings and they are usually
> faster than the "equivalent" Intel processors).
>
>
> So... where does this leave us? Well as far as the whole 64-bit thing
> goes, there's not that much to say at the moment. Microsoft, as
> usual, is taking forever to get their operating system to market.
> WinXP 64-bit for AMD64 (aka "x86-64", or "X64" in Microsoft-speak or
> "EM64T" according to Intel, all the same thing, just different names)
> has been delayed about 17 times already and probably won't actually be
> available until Spring of next year. In Linux land, there has been
> pretty solid support for AMD64 for at least a year now and basically
> all distributions support it fairly well now.
>
> What does a 64-bit operating system buy you? Well, beyond the
> bragging rights at geek gatherings, it allows for two keep points.
> First it allows you to properly access more than ~2GB of memory.
> 32-bit CPUs max out at addressing 4GB of memory, but due to a variety
> of limitations, in practice things quickly get really ugly as soon as
> you go beyond about 2GB. Even using more than 1GB of physical memory
> starts requiring some hacks to work right on 32-bit chips. On the
> other hand, a 64-bit chip can properly address MANY terabytes of
> memory, good enough for a few years at least!
>
> The second thing that 64-bit x86 buys you is a bit of performance.
> Despite popular belief, 64-bit code is usually SLOWER than 32-bit code
> if all else were equal (twice as much data to be tossed around in
> memory pointers, requires twice as much cache space and memory
> bandwidth), however in the case of AMD64 all is not equal. AMD took a
> good look at the x86 instruction set and did some very smart tweaks to
> it. They streamlined a few operations and, most importantly, doubled
> the number of integer registers. The result is that with AMD64, AMD
> managed to actually increase performance by about 5% on average when
> going from 32-bit to 64-bit. Some applications might be a bit slower,
> and a few applications could be a LOT faster in 64-bit code, but
> generally you're looking at about a 5% performance improvement on
> 64-bit code. Note much, but hey, it's free!
>
>>Also can anyone explain the Intel roadmap for a consumer 64 bit CPU?
>
> Actually that's a good question, even Intel doesn't seem to know what
> their roadmap for consumer 64-bit CPUs is!
>
> About the only thing that is known so far is that Intel's Xeon
> processors (x86 server chips) have copied the AMD64 instruction set
> (Intel calls it "EM64T", but it's really AMD64). The latest and
> greatest desktop Pentium4 chips also support EM64T in hardware,
> however Intel has decided that consumers aren't ready for this and has
> disabled this feature. In theory Intel could start selling 64-bit
> desktop chips tomorrow, but thus far they have shown no interest in
> doing so.
>
>>Any thoughts on the best place to order custom built High performance
>>PCs? I can't stand the newer all integrated systems. I do not want
>>integrated Graphics, sound, NIC, ect.
>
> Integrated NICs are pretty much standard and, honestly, there's no
> good reason to get a PCI NIC these days. In many situations add-in
> NIC cards actually offer LESS performance than integrated ones since
> integrated ones have a direct path to the chipset while add-in NICs
> have to go over the (comparatively slow) PCI bus. Even integrated
> sound can be quite reasonable, and given that about the only add-in
> sound cards you can buy are Creative Labs trash, many people stick to
> the integrated sound.
>
> Graphics is a slightly different game. Integrated graphics have
> improved TERMENDOUSLY over the past 5 years, and for 2D stuff they are
> every bit as good as an add-in card, but for 3D games they are still
> quite weak. Most PCs targeting business users stick with integrated
> graphics for good reason, for business type uses they are just as good
> and a lot cheaper. If you're main purpose is to play games though,
> get a decent add-in card.
>
>>I was looking at Alienware. Are there other sites as well? I have to
>>say those Alienware systems always look damn cool.
>
> I think you'll find that most of us in these newsgroups tend to build
> our own systems from parts, so we're probably not the best people to
> ask. However, if you like Alienware systems you might also want to
> check out www.voodoopc.com, nice stuff, though not cheap. HPaq also
> sells some Athlon64 based systems in both their HP Pavilion and Compaq
> Presario lines, though the quality of such systems might leave a bit
> to be desired.
>
> You can also get some "barebones" systems from most computer stores
> and add in whatever components you like. Most stores even have an
> option to have them build the system for you, installing the hardware
> and OS for a small cost. Shuttle has made a bit of a name for
> themselves selling small form factor barebones systems, fitting some
> pretty high-end components into very small enclosures. Others have
> followed, including some doing full-sized barebones systems. The only
> trick with these systems is that you need to know a bit more about
> what components you want.
>
>
> Wewf... hope that wasn't too wordy for you!
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Winston
November 8th 04, 04:13 PM
Good article! You should save a copy (or at least the article's
Message-ID / Reference number) in case you ever want to say all that again,
or point people to the article. :)
-WBE

Kenneth Farmer
November 9th 04, 05:34 PM
"Bobby" > wrote in message
...
> Tony - Great post. One to save I think. Cheers.
>
> Bobby
>
> "Tony Hill" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 12 Sep 2004 19:08:38 -0700, (No spam)
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have
> >>a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop.

[snip]

> >>Now I am looking to buy a new desktop and I am looking for the best
> >>new technology. I am very interested in 64 bit technology. I know
> >>Intel has had Itanium and Itanium II but as I understand it those are
> >>not for consumers.
> >
> > You can safely ignore the Itanium line, it's definitely NOT what
> > you're going to be looking for. First off, it's not software
> > compatible with existing applications, requiring emulation to run all
> > your current code. What's probably more important though is that
> > you'll have a heck of a time finding an Itanium system for less than
> > $20,000.

[snip]

Just to bring that $20K back to reality...entry-level HP Integrity rx1600's
can be gotten for $2800+/- from HP.

Ken

____________________________________
Ken Farmer <><
LinuxHPC.org. http://www.LinuxHPC.org

Anne
November 9th 04, 08:37 PM
HI, definatly go for amd 64 bit, Start with a 3200xp 64 bit cpu. I jumped up
from a powerfull 2200 xp. The difference startled me. Long live amd. Down
with intel. Anne
"Kenneth Farmer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Bobby" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tony - Great post. One to save I think. Cheers.
>>
>> Bobby
>>
>> "Tony Hill" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 12 Sep 2004 19:08:38 -0700, (No spam)
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have
>> >>a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop.
>
> [snip]
>
>> >>Now I am looking to buy a new desktop and I am looking for the best
>> >>new technology. I am very interested in 64 bit technology. I know
>> >>Intel has had Itanium and Itanium II but as I understand it those are
>> >>not for consumers.
>> >
>> > You can safely ignore the Itanium line, it's definitely NOT what
>> > you're going to be looking for. First off, it's not software
>> > compatible with existing applications, requiring emulation to run all
>> > your current code. What's probably more important though is that
>> > you'll have a heck of a time finding an Itanium system for less than
>> > $20,000.
>
> [snip]
>
> Just to bring that $20K back to reality...entry-level HP Integrity
> rx1600's
> can be gotten for $2800+/- from HP.
>
> Ken
>
> ____________________________________
> Ken Farmer <><
> LinuxHPC.org. http://www.LinuxHPC.org
>
>

Antec
November 13th 04, 03:01 AM
Yes i changed to the x64.
Just as soon as i could work out if Intel were
Or were not going to have a x64 at a reasonable price.
That would run the new Windows x64 OS but after
they opted not to go ahead with the Prescott and its apparent x64 extensions
I went AMD for the first time and am far from disappointed.
I used the Gigabyte GA - K8VNXP MOBO and a socket 754 3700+ and it is a gem
of a computer
So that i have nothing slowing the machine down I also installed a GeCube
ATI x800 Platinum.
The machine feels bullet proof and I have had no compatibilities problems
I run it as a media centre with 2 x 200GB SATA 7200 A Leadtek Digital TV
Tuner And 2 X 120GB Seagate ATE 7200 for the OS Samsung 8x DVD Burner Dual
layer & 52XDVD Combo drive for copying DVD's direct and the system has yet
to falter no lockups no BSOD boots super fast and loads all software on
demand.

I say "and i am not being bias" Definately go 64 BIT Go AMD x64.

"Kenneth Farmer" > wrote in message
om...
> "Bobby" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tony - Great post. One to save I think. Cheers.
>>
>> Bobby
>>
>> "Tony Hill" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 12 Sep 2004 19:08:38 -0700, (No spam)
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Hello everyone. I am looking to buy a new desktop PC. I currently have
>> >>a Compaq Pentium 3 733 MHz desktop and a Dell 2.0 GHz Celeron laptop.
>
> [snip]
>
>> >>Now I am looking to buy a new desktop and I am looking for the best
>> >>new technology. I am very interested in 64 bit technology. I know
>> >>Intel has had Itanium and Itanium II but as I understand it those are
>> >>not for consumers.
>> >
>> > You can safely ignore the Itanium line, it's definitely NOT what
>> > you're going to be looking for. First off, it's not software
>> > compatible with existing applications, requiring emulation to run all
>> > your current code. What's probably more important though is that
>> > you'll have a heck of a time finding an Itanium system for less than
>> > $20,000.
>
> [snip]
>
> Just to bring that $20K back to reality...entry-level HP Integrity
> rx1600's
> can be gotten for $2800+/- from HP.
>
> Ken
>
> ____________________________________
> Ken Farmer <><
> LinuxHPC.org. http://www.LinuxHPC.org
>
>

Mark Hahn
November 13th 04, 11:25 PM
> Just to bring that $20K back to reality...entry-level HP Integrity rx1600's
> can be gotten for $2800+/- from HP.

no '-' there, you're talking about a ridiculously stripped machine
with a single, extremely low-end processor (much slower than an
entry-level AMD, for instance). and 512M for crying out loud!
no hard drive at all, no management card that anyone buying a
server would demand. frigging 1-year warranty!

configure it up to a sane if slow server (8GB ram, 3-yr, second
cpu, pair of disks) and you're up to $15K. again, this winds up
being a machine which will not hold a candle to a similarly configured
opteron for less than half the price.

Kenneth Farmer
November 15th 04, 03:43 AM
"Mark Hahn" > wrote in message
...
> > Just to bring that $20K back to reality...entry-level HP Integrity
rx1600's
> > can be gotten for $2800+/- from HP.
>
> no '-' there, you're talking about a ridiculously stripped machine
> with a single, extremely low-end processor (much slower than an
> entry-level AMD, for instance). and 512M for crying out loud!
> no hard drive at all, no management card that anyone buying a
> server would demand. frigging 1-year warranty!
>
> configure it up to a sane if slow server (8GB ram, 3-yr, second
> cpu, pair of disks) and you're up to $15K. again, this winds up
> being a machine which will not hold a candle to a similarly configured
> opteron for less than half the price.

Mark,

I've obviously hit a nerve. Certainly not intended. The mentioned price
was just a bit overboard. Once again...

rx1600's start at $2800+/-. I'm not any recommendations, I'm just pointing
out that $20K is a stretch.

Ken