A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Latest Athlon 64 product introductions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 3rd 04, 01:52 AM
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Latest Athlon 64 product introductions

AMD introduced 4 new Athlon 64 and FX models. However each one seems to be
designed for three different types of sockets. Athlon 64 3500+ and 3800+ are
designed for the Socket 939, while Athlon 64 3700+ is designed for Socket
754. Meanwhile are now two FX-53 models, the older one designed for Socket
940, while the newer one is designed for Socket 939. There's a table in this
article to help you keep it all clear in your mind:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1605309,00.asp

Yousuf Khan

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)


  #2  
Old June 3rd 04, 03:44 AM
Anthony Fremont
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
AMD introduced 4 new Athlon 64 and FX models. However each one seems

to be
designed for three different types of sockets. Athlon 64 3500+ and

3800+ are
designed for the Socket 939, while Athlon 64 3700+ is designed for

Socket
754. Meanwhile are now two FX-53 models, the older one designed for

Socket
940, while the newer one is designed for Socket 939. There's a table

in this
article to help you keep it all clear in your mind:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1605309,00.asp


This is silly, how many socket types does one line of processors
require? Will there be a socket 941 next week?

Quote:
The FX-53 and 3500+, 3700+ and 3800+ include the Sunnyvale, Calif.,
company's Enhanced Virus Protection technology, which will be enabled
with Microsoft Corp.'s Windows XP Service Pack 2 release later this year
and is designed to add another layer of protection to desktops and
notebooks.
/Qoute

This is also absurd. CPU's should not be engineered to solve MS design
deficiencies.

  #3  
Old June 3rd 04, 06:02 AM
Post Replies Here Please
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Good point.

The more different "consumer" opterons (939/754) are released the
better the "real" opteron looks.

Really AMD is only following the market leader Intel. Intel and AMD
have had enough of folks running desktop processors for workstations
and/or servers. So therefore the best thing to do is engineer an
artifical difference. No more xp's running as mp's. AMD has finally
caught up with the p4/xeon duo. AMD has the amd64/opteron duo.

Whatever sounds confusing with all the models but still a lot better
than trying to decide which drug discount card to buy. Now that is a
real mess. ;-). Also a real ripoff.

Later



"Anthony" == Anthony Fremont writes:


Anthony "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
Anthony t.cable.rogers.com...
AMD introduced 4 new Athlon 64 and FX models. However each one
seems

Anthony to be
designed for three different types of sockets. Athlon 64 3500+ and

Anthony 3800+ are
designed for the Socket 939, while Athlon 64 3700+ is designed for

Anthony Socket
754. Meanwhile are now two FX-53 models, the older one designed
for

Anthony Socket
940, while the newer one is designed for Socket 939. There's a
table

Anthony in this
article to help you keep it all clear in your mind:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1605309,00.asp


Anthony This is silly, how many socket types does one line of
Anthony processors require? Will there be a socket 941 next week?

Anthony Quote: The FX-53 and 3500+, 3700+ and 3800+ include the
Anthony Sunnyvale, Calif., company's Enhanced Virus Protection
Anthony technology, which will be enabled with Microsoft Corp.'s
Anthony Windows XP Service Pack 2 release later this year and is
Anthony designed to add another layer of protection to desktops and
Anthony notebooks. /Qoute

Anthony This is also absurd. CPU's should not be engineered to solve
Anthony MS design deficiencies.

  #4  
Old June 3rd 04, 07:27 AM
Tony Hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 02:44:45 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
wrote:
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com...
AMD introduced 4 new Athlon 64 and FX models. However each one seems

to be
designed for three different types of sockets. Athlon 64 3500+ and

3800+ are
designed for the Socket 939, while Athlon 64 3700+ is designed for

Socket
754. Meanwhile are now two FX-53 models, the older one designed for

Socket
940, while the newer one is designed for Socket 939. There's a table

in this
article to help you keep it all clear in your mind:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1605309,00.asp


This is silly, how many socket types does one line of processors
require? Will there be a socket 941 next week?


This has been discussed before, but to sum up briefly:

- Originally all Athlon64 processors were to be socket 754, that's it,
that's all. Socket 940 would be used for all Opteron processors and
never the two shall meet

- Then a few months before the Athlon64 was released, dual-channel
memory became a checkmark feature that all high-end systems needed to
have. Socket 754 wouldn't cut it and AMD needed something quick.
Easy solution: take an Opteron and sell it as a desktop chip in socket
940.

- For the long-term though, AMD needed a proper solution, one designed
for dual-channel memory for the desktop. The result is socket 939.

That should be it for sockets for the entire K8 line-up. 3 sockets
actually isn't all that bad, especially if you compare it to Intel's
P4/Xeon line. They started with Socket 423 for the desktop and Socket
603 for workstations/server. Then moved to Socket 474 for the
desktop/laptop and socket 604 for workstations/servers. In another
couple months they'll move to a totally new socket 775 for desktops
(and laptops?), and they may have another new socket for servers soon.

The PIII was even worse though, since it actually had three different
and not-quite-compatible Socket 370s as well as Slot 1, not to mention
Slot 2 for servers. AMD's old Athlon chips also went through a few
revisions, first going from Slot A to Socket A and then changing the
voltage and bus speed sufficiently that old socket A boards couldn't
handle new chips.

Long story short, socket changes are the norm, not the exception. AMD
having only 3 sockets for a processor core isn't too bad.

Quote:
The FX-53 and 3500+, 3700+ and 3800+ include the Sunnyvale, Calif.,
company's Enhanced Virus Protection technology, which will be enabled
with Microsoft Corp.'s Windows XP Service Pack 2 release later this year
and is designed to add another layer of protection to desktops and
notebooks.
/Qoute

This is also absurd. CPU's should not be engineered to solve MS design
deficiencies.


Again, this has been discussed at length, but the short version of
this is that it's a feature that *SHOULD* have been in the processor
long ago. x86 was one of a very small number of high-end
architectures that doesn't already have this feature (except in
segmentation, and there's already a big flame-war going on about that
is this newsgroup!).

It's not just for Windows either, Linux and some of the BSD's already
make use of this security feature in their x86-64 distributions. Of
course, calling it "Virus Protection" is a total misnomer, it won't do
a thing to stop viruses. What it will help prevent is worms and
hacking attempts through buffer overruns. However the difference
between a "virus" and a "worm" has been pretty much lost on the
mainstream media, let along the general public.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca
  #5  
Old June 3rd 04, 10:07 AM
RusH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Anthony Fremont" wrote :

Quote:
The FX-53 and 3500+, 3700+ and 3800+ include the Sunnyvale, Calif.,
company's Enhanced Virus Protection technology, which will be
enabled with Microsoft Corp.'s Windows XP Service Pack 2 release
later this year and is designed to add another layer of protection
to desktops and notebooks.
/Qoute

This is also absurd. CPU's should not be engineered to solve MS
design deficiencies.


this is NX bit, some stupid marketoid turned it into "av protection tech
bla bla, and now we rule baby" "/


Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
  #6  
Old June 3rd 04, 11:48 AM
Anthony Fremont
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tony Hill" wrote in message

Again, this has been discussed at length, but the short version of
this is that it's a feature that *SHOULD* have been in the processor
long ago. x86 was one of a very small number of high-end
architectures that doesn't already have this feature (except in
segmentation, and there's already a big flame-war going on about that
is this newsgroup!).

It's not just for Windows either, Linux and some of the BSD's already
make use of this security feature in their x86-64 distributions. Of
course, calling it "Virus Protection" is a total misnomer, it won't do
a thing to stop viruses. What it will help prevent is worms and
hacking attempts through buffer overruns. However the difference
between a "virus" and a "worm" has been pretty much lost on the
mainstream media, let along the general public.


In light of that, I agree with you. Rather than taking the comment at
face value, I should have looked to see what was really being added to
the proc. I know better than to listen to media hype, but I guess I got
caught with my pants down on that one by taking their comment at face
value. Segment protection features in the CPU as you described are
sensible.

  #7  
Old June 3rd 04, 01:50 PM
chrisv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tony Hill wrote:

Long story short, socket changes are the norm, not the exception. AMD
having only 3 sockets for a processor core isn't too bad.


(so far)

8)

  #8  
Old June 3rd 04, 03:32 PM
Anthony Fremont
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"RusH" wrote in message
22.80...
"Anthony Fremont" wrote :


This is also absurd. CPU's should not be engineered to solve MS
design deficiencies.


this is NX bit, some stupid marketoid turned it into "av protection

tech
bla bla, and now we rule baby" "/


Ahh....ok. That's allot more sensible than "antivirus protection". NX
is a good idea, data pages shouldn't be executable and code pages
shouldn't be writable (well most of the time anyway ;-).

  #9  
Old June 3rd 04, 07:07 PM
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Anthony Fremont wrote:
This is silly, how many socket types does one line of processors
require? Will there be a socket 941 next week?


There were originally only two sockets available, Socket 754 and 940. Socket
754 was for single-channel, unbuffered DDR RAM; it was only going to be used
by Athlon 64 systems. Socket 940 was dual-channel, buffered DDR RAM; it was
only to be used by Opteron systems. But then it introduced the Athlon 64 FX
which was really a rebadged Opteron. Thus Athlon 64 FX and Opteron were
sharing the same type of motherboard platform, so the distinction between
Opteron and Athlon 64 blurred.

Later AMD decided that it would like Athlon 64 systems to be dual-channel
too like the Opterons, but it didn't want them to use the expensive buffered
RAM like the Opterons. So Socket 939 was born -- dual-channel, unbuffered
DDR RAM.

Quote:
The FX-53 and 3500+, 3700+ and 3800+ include the Sunnyvale, Calif.,
company's Enhanced Virus Protection technology, which will be enabled
with Microsoft Corp.'s Windows XP Service Pack 2 release later this
year and is designed to add another layer of protection to desktops
and notebooks.
/Qoute

This is also absurd. CPU's should not be engineered to solve MS
design deficiencies.


Well, "anti-virus" is really a marketing term. It's really a type of
anti-buffer overflow feature, and it's not really something meant to be used
against viruses, but against worms.

Yousuf Khan


  #10  
Old June 4th 04, 02:24 AM
Post Replies Here Please
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Yousuf" == Yousuf Khan writes:

Yousuf and 940. Socket 754 was for single-channel, unbuffered DDR
Yousuf RAM; it was only going to be used by Athlon 64 systems.
Yousuf Socket 940 was dual-channel, buffered DDR RAM; it was only to
Yousuf be used by Opteron systems. But then it introduced the Athlon
Yousuf 64 FX which was really a rebadged Opteron. Thus Athlon 64 FX
Yousuf and Opteron were sharing the same type of motherboard
Yousuf platform, so the distinction between Opteron and Athlon 64
Yousuf blurred.

A quick question if one believes the recent benchmarks posted at
several sites it appears the performance advantage of dual-channel
memory over single-channel is really not significant. With faster
processors or faster memory will dual-channel memory make significant
performance gains over single-channel memory in the future? I guess
does the market expect dual channel because that appears to be the
standard?

Thanks

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentium 4 vs. Athlon XP vs. Athlon 64's MarkW General 2 October 10th 06 12:11 PM
Advice on an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ 939 System Chris Hafner Homebuilt PC's 11 February 8th 05 04:22 AM
Proposed Build - Help! Colin Phillips Homebuilt PC's 19 August 11th 04 11:12 AM
Confused about A7v266 with Athlon XP Bruce Asus Motherboards 7 January 18th 04 04:06 PM
Athlon 64's vs. Athlon XP vs. Pentium 4 MarkW Homebuilt PC's 1 December 14th 03 04:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.