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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 |