Athlon64??

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:03:08 -0500, "Strontium"
wrote:

I'm not sure
why you think I have a personal attatchment, to Intel. Or why you think
that I have some grudge, against AMD. I used to be very loyal to the AMD
name and product. But, after a few years of the 'one-upping' game that both
companies have engaged in, I know that my loyalty doesn't mean anything.
It's seems we are always going to have people that will, endlessly, be
fanboys for one or the other.

Ok, I was wrong then. No big deal. Sorry.

But to answer your question "why you think.." - Well, it was that
repeated "...sad sad..." which appeared to be gloating, that set me
off.


ancra

Ancra wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 00:43:07 -0500, "Strontium"
wrote:

Poor AMD. Has to resort to 64bit technology to even 'touch' the P4 HT.
Sad, sad, sad.

?? Are you just very young, or... ;-)

(I'm biased too. I have two P4's. A 1.5MHz and a 2.4MHz. And I have
two Athlons. 700MHz and XP3000+. The 1.5MHz is, most of the time,
slower than the 700 it was supposed to replace. And on my main working
app, a very specialized 4D pathfinding app, the 3000+ is
_SEVERAL_TIMES_ faster than the 2.4GHz!

Just wondering, what chipset board is the 2.4 on? Is it a 533 or a 400 FSB
one? Just curious.

--

Stacey

Ed Light wrote:


"Stacey" wrote
Actually because you post your OPINION that an AMD64 excells in a 32bit
environment doesn't make it so.

Unless the shipping chip has some MAJOR clock speed increases, prescott
is going to blow it away.

I thought the AMD 64 could run old 32 bit software great and the Intel 64
couldn't?

That isn't an Intel 64.


PS On the benchmarks, Intel _always_ aces AMD in multimedia encoding.

Given that's the main use for me, that's what matters to me. For other
people something else could easily be better. I figured since all the AMD
fanboys say it's only because of SSE2 encoding the P4 is faster and since
the AMD 64 has SSE2 I expected it to be much better than this shows.



--

Stacey

John wrote:

Unless the shipping chip has some MAJOR clock speed increases, prescott
is going to blow it away.

The shipping chip will perform much better than a testing model. That
was rated at 2800+. These are the speeds for the release models:

*1800 MHz is 3200+
*1900 MHz is 3400+
*2000 MHz is 3600+
*2100 MHz is 3800+


Cool. I hope the SSE2 code works good and this chip is fast. I just want
fast video editing/encoding and could care less who makes the chip.
--

Stacey

JK wrote:

You seem to be obsessed with those early test results for a 1.6 ghz
Athlon 64, for which it appears that SSE2 was probably not properly
enabled. They were very preliminary results for an early prototype,
that are not indicative of how the final production line chips will
perform. Very soon we should have benchmarks for the one way Opterons.


So now you're going to compare server chips to desktops ones?
--

Stacey

Power challenge of new Macs
By Ian Hardy
BBC ClickOnline
Apple released its latest desktop machine with all the usual pizzazz,
with Chief Executive Steve Jobs claiming the Power Mac G5 to be "the
world's fastest personal computer". But can we take his word for it?

Nick Stam, Director of PC Magazine's testing laboratory in New York is
not convinced quite yet.

In 1998 he successfully challenged Apple's claims that the original
iMac was faster than a Windows machine under certain conditions.

So is the new G5 truly the world's faster personal computer?

"You take that with a grain of salt because you don't know what
they're presenting in the benchmark up there," said Mr Stam.

"We don't have a system to test ourselves and we know there is all
kind of tweaking that can be done and that's the big issue right now."

Steve Jobs also made a big announcement about the G5 processor, ahead
of competitors such as chip maker AMD.

"The 64-bit revolution has begun and the personal computer will never
be the same again," said Mr Jobs in his address last week to Apple
devotees in San Francisco.

"The new Power Mac G5 combines the world's first 64-bit desktop
processor, the industry's first 1GHz front-side bus and up to 8GB of
memory to beat the fastest Pentium 4 and dual Xeon-based systems in
industry-standard benchmarks and real-world professional
applications."

But his statement about being the first 64-bit machine has to be taken
in context.

"Of course it isn't shipping yet. It's not shipping for a couple of
months. So they're not first-to-market today as Steve said," said Mr
Stam.

"AMD may likely decide to come out in August instead of September with
their new desktop Athlon 64. It's bragging rights is what it is, and
that's what Steve is great at."

Hardcore fans

True Macintosh believers see things a different way.

POWER MAC G5 SPECS
1.6 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
800 MHz front-side bus
256MB 333 MHz Dual Channel (128-bit) DDR
4 DIMMs, 4GB maximum memory
80GB Serial ATA hard drive
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra-64MB DDR
US retail price - $1,999
For people like Matt Cohen, co-owner of Tekserve, an Apple reseller in
Manhattan, comparing Macs and PCs is a long-established yet
meaningless tradition, especially to his customers.

"I don't think that the PC market is their competition, in that
sense," said Mr Cohen. "The performance and the ease-of-use of a Mac
operating system is at the forefront of his argument."

Apple is currently on a roll after recovering from such problematic
products as the Cube computer.

They now have a growing list of recent achievements which customers
crave. It goes on with Apple's online music store iTunes and its chain
of US stores have also been doing very well.

"When Apple agree that a standard makes sense, they embrace it," said
Mr Cohen.

"I'm actually quite impressed that Apple is able to innovate new
standards that they then make accessible to the rest of the computing
community as well."

Challenges ahead

Just days before the official launch of the G5, details of the new
machine were posted on the Apple website for a few seconds.

But Mr Jobs even turned that major blunder into a promotional slogan
calling it a premature specification.

Apple's CEO delivered his presentation as if no-one in the audience
had heard the rumours.

Yet the biggest question still remains - can Apple generate enough
excitement in the coming months from developments such as its new
Panther operating system and its iSight video web camera to increase
market share from a miniscule 3.5%?

That is where big announcements and banner headlines really play their
part.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...gy/3044824.stm

Published: 2003/07/05 07:32:57 GMT

© BBC MMIII

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:48:46 -0400, Stacey wrote:

Just wondering, what chipset board is the 2.4 on? Is it a 533 or a 400 FSB
one? Just curious.

You're guessing quite right, it has a slow memory solution.


ancra

most apps now are being re-writen to run at 64bit and not 32.

16bit was great but 32bit was even better, jus think what the 64bit would be
like(only running 64bit apps of course)

Simon


"JK" wrote in message
...


Strontium wrote:

-
Majestic stood up, at show-n-tell, and said:

Coming soon is the new Athlon 64
I have a few questions about it.

I am thinking of upgrading my system can converting everything into a
64bit system

Hardware wise...
Besides upgrading my motherboard and buying a new athlon64
do we need to buy new graphics card? sound card? or harddisk? Ram?

or we just need a driver updater for 64bit system?
do we need to find hardware which are compatible with 64bit system?


Software wise...
Maybe i can get a copy of window xp 64...
what will happen to my data now if i migrate to a 64bit system?
will moives, mp3, document be affected?

athlon 64 can also be use in a 32bit enviroment
so what happen if i am using a 32bit software in windowxp 64?
can it work? or i have to stick to everything 64bit for window xp 64


Last question...can a 2.0ghz athlon 64 be faster than a athlonxp 2400?
Quite interesting to see that AMD has nothing close to a 3.0Ghz
processor.

What amazes me is that people seem to think that 64bit technology is
Mecca.
It's been around, for a while, already.

It has been around in very high priced servers. Now for the first time
it will be available in affordable desktop PCs.

It's main usage being unix servers.
Why the general consumer would need it, baffles me.

Why do we need 32 bit processors? Why not use 16 bit processors instead?
Did you enjoy using 16 bit processors? :-)

Yet another marketing
ploy, by the manufacturers.

LOL!

I doubt, very seriously, that you will have any
applications that will even use 64bit..

LOL! Did you say that you doubted 32 bit applications would appear
when many were still using 16 bit processors?

.regardless of whether the OS can
utilize it.

--
Strontium

"I thought I'd lost you, somewhere. But you were, never, really ever
there
at all.. And, I want to get free..."

Ancra wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:48:46 -0400, Stacey wrote:

Just wondering, what chipset board is the 2.4 on? Is it a 533 or a 400 FSB
one? Just curious.

You're guessing quite right, it has a slow memory solution.



Ah, no doubt those were VERY lame and I can see why you were disappointed. A
P4 demands high memory bandwidth and without it they realy suck. I used
100% AMD chips (or P3's if the customer demanded Intel) until the 845G/PE
boards came out that allowed decent memory bandwidth at a reasonable cost.
From those to today the P4's work fine and especially if the software is
coded for it, but we already went over that. 8-)

--

Stacey

JK wrote:



Stacey wrote:

Strontium wrote:

When it comes down
to
it, it's what suits the individual.

Exactly. I build about 2-3 systems a month and get to try out different
things. About 65% I sell are AMD's but depending on the user I might
recomend a P4. What sold me on my latest P4 box was when I tested a
XP2400/166 vs a 2.4/533/DDR333

The 2.4 ghz P4 533 is around $150. A fairer test would have been
against an XP2800+ 533 or even an XP2700+.

Was I supposed to manufacture them? At the time I was testing this, an XP
2400 was the fastest chip AMD made.


What motherboard
did you use with the XP2400? Did you use an nForce2 one with
two sticks of ram?

They weren't out yet either. And even if they were, the difference between 1
and 2 sticks is negligible at best unless you're using the on-board video.
I'd think an AMD zealot like yourself whould at least know that..

The via boards at the time crashed and constantly dropped frames so SIS was
the only other choice since AMD doesn't make chipsets for their chips.
Sorry I haven't needed to upgrade so this was the last testing I've done.


Comparing a $91 AMD processor to a $150
Intel processor is not exactly a fair test. In fact, to make things even
fairer, you should have compared systems that are the same cost.

At the time they were close, within $100/10% and given the P4 was TWICE as
fast on the app I was using, there was no problem choosing. When you're
talking about spending $800-$1000 to build a system, $60 for twice the
performance in this app is well worth doing for me. For people who say just
want a system for gaming, the AMD makes more sense. Shame you can't do
anything but PUSH AMD products instead of helping people get the right
system for their uses.


--

Stacey