4.0Ghz P4 now officially cancelled

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:46:38 GMT, gaffo wrote:
JK wrote:

There are those with 16 bit processors that still perform flawlessly,
although some people want to run the latest and highest performing
software,

which in less than a year will probably be 64 bit software for
most applications.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! Talk about Beachfront property!

How long did it take 16-bit to yield to 32-bit?....................

no, don't bother, I'll tell you, effectively TEN YEARS!!!!!!!

386-1986............................32 bit software showed up in 1996.

64-bitness will remain irrelivant WRT to the home user for another 8 yrs
or so. (using the Opteron initial release time).


and yes - I beleive this is a realistic timeframe for "Joe Ave" (i.e.
the mainstream).

I really don't think this is an accurate time-frame this time around.
This are already very different. It took 6 years for the very first
32-bit x86 operating system to be released after the 386 came to
market, this time around we had the first 64-bit OS for the Opteron
only 6 months after it's release. Win95 brought the first 32-bit
(err, kinda) OS to the mainstream desktop 9 years after the release of
the 386, now we're probably looking at about 2 years after the Opteron
release for WinXP x64 to come out. On the application site, there are
already TONS of open-source programs ported to 64-bit in Linux-land,
and even in Windows world there are a handful that are available now
(even before the OS is available).

In short, the transition is happening MUCH faster now than it did back
in the 386 days.

Just as in the late 80's and early 90's (i.e. 16bit on a 32bit)
million of us will be using a 64-bit chip to run 32 bit software.

Sure, especially in Windows. We really don't need a 64-bit version of
most applications, though the performance benefits (in the specific
case of x64) might see them arise. However there are enough
applications that WILL see 64-bit become the standard reasonably
quickly that I think it's rather short-sighted to buy a 64-bit system
if building one today. Given that you can get a 64-bit processor for
"free" (ie same cost as a comparable 32-bit chip), then the question
isn't so much "why 64 bits?" as "why not 64 bits?"

Now a 64-bit chip means nothing to me, and on board memory controller
which will let me run 32-bit/16-bit faster DOES MEAN SOMETHING.......in
the "here and now".

I'll buy for 64-bitness in the next decade - thanks.

I'll buy 64-bit when I can afford to buy a major upgrade, because
honestly there's no good reason not to these days.

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

Johannes H Andersen wrote:
JK wrote:

[...]

The move to 64 bits and memory controllers integrated into the
cpu for much greater performance are important reasons to
upgrade. Of course those chips with integrated memory
controllers are made by AMD though.

How do you conclude that integrated memory controllers results in
much greater performance????????

They (integrated memory controllers) lower the latency to main memory
significantly.
ergo the chip isn't spinning it's wheels aimlessly anywhere near as much in
the event of an L2 cache miss.

-JB

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:53:06 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
wrote:



JK wrote:

[...]

The move to 64 bits and memory controllers integrated into the
cpu for much greater performance are important reasons to
upgrade. Of course those chips with integrated memory
controllers are made by AMD though.

How do you conclude that integrated memory controllers results in
much greater performance????????

sighBecause latency is the enemy... in every part of a system - losing
the North Bridge FSB connection between CPU and memory controller counts
for a lot. The fact that the North Bridge memory address arbitration and
routing is moved into the CPU die and done at CPU clock speeds is another
big factor.

And why is it important to upgrade
when my Dual Channel Hyper Threading Northwood 2.8/800 has performed
fast flawlessly since I build it in July?????? Idle Temp 36 Deg.
Max temp with 100% flat out numerical analysis = 56 Deg ????????

If you're happy with what you have thats err, fine. That Hyperthreading is
there, in large part, of course, to counter memory latency.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:46:38 GMT, gaffo wrote:

JK wrote:


There are those with 16 bit processors that still perform flawlessly,
although some people want to run the latest and highest performing
software,



which in less than a year will probably be 64 bit software for
most applications.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! Talk about Beachfront property!

How long did it take 16-bit to yield to 32-bit?....................

no, don't bother, I'll tell you, effectively TEN YEARS!!!!!!!

In your little cell, maybe!

386-1986............................32 bit software showed up in 1996.

Uhh that was Windows 95 - there had been 32-bit software available, even
from M$, well before that and of course M$ did have the little detour known
as OS/2 which was 16-bit in its original form. Before the 32-bit GUIs were
available, people were running 32-bit software routinely - some of them
without even knowing it - in the form of DOS Extenders from Phar Lap
et.al... and often (pre-emptively) multi-tasked under the DesqView
environment. That was in 1987/8 for Phar Lap - I know... I used it.

64-bitness will remain irrelivant WRT to the home user for another 8 yrs
or so. (using the Opteron initial release time).

Obviously you have not grasped what 64-bitness means.

and yes - I beleive this is a realistic timeframe for "Joe Ave" (i.e.
the mainstream).

Just as in the late 80's and early 90's (i.e. 16bit on a 32bit)
million of us will be using a 64-bit chip to run 32 bit software.


Now a 64-bit chip means nothing to me, and on board memory controller
which will let me run 32-bit/16-bit faster DOES MEAN SOMETHING.......in
the "here and now".

I'll buy for 64-bitness in the next decade - thanks.

Cut your nose off to spite your face if you want.

snip of boilerplate

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

gaffo wrote:
How long did it take 16-bit to yield to 32-bit?....................

no, don't bother, I'll tell you, effectively TEN YEARS!!!!!!!

386-1986............................32 bit software showed up in 1996.

The 386's featureset was already being exploited within a year of
introduction. Remember all of those DOS extenders and memory managers were
also 32-bit software. They added a 32-bit "hypervisor" layer below DOS, long
before Windows did the same thing. Qemm386 and Desqview were out within a
year of the first 386. Then in Unix land, SCO (when it was still a real
company) had Xenix and then eventually Unix running on 386s.

Yousuf Khan

Johannes H Andersen wrote:
How do you conclude that integrated memory controllers results in
much greater performance???????? And why is it important to upgrade
when my Dual Channel Hyper Threading Northwood 2.8/800 has performed
fast flawlessly since I build it in July?????? Idle Temp 36 Deg.
Max temp with 100% flat out numerical analysis = 56 Deg ????????

Because it takes a P4 with about 2MB of L2 to equal the performance of an
A64 with only 512K of L2.

Yousuf Khan

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:14:56 +0200, Grumble
wrote:

Yousuf Khan wrote:

Will now concentrate on 2MB L2 caches instead.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19089

I don't think one is allowed to say "officially" and "the Inquirer"
in the same sentence.

Read the First Amendment.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:38:21 GMT, "AJ" wrote:


"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message ...
AJ wrote:
Personally, if Northwoods go away and Prescott is the only Intel
choice, I'm gonna buy AMD. Secondly, if motherboards from Intel
become $120, I'll go third party there too. Enough of the gouging
already. "Innovation" where it is not necessary is not appreciated.

Not even sure why you would need to announce this, AMD and/or third-party motherboards should've always been on your radar,
even before now.

Historically, good integrated motherboards for AMD haven't been there.

AJ

Wake up, Nforce is here since, uhmm, 2001. And even much-criticized
VIA is not that bad, at least since KT800 came out

wrote:
Historically, good integrated motherboards for AMD haven't been
there.

AJ

Wake up, Nforce is here since, uhmm, 2001. And even much-criticized
VIA is not that bad, at least since KT800 came out

It's still going to take a long time before I trust another VIA motherboard
again. Just like it will take me a long time to trust another ATI graphics
card again. But those days will come, if I keep hearing good things about
either of those two companies.

An underrated chipset company is SIS.

Yousuf Khan

" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:38:21 GMT, "AJ" wrote:


"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message ...
AJ wrote:
Personally, if Northwoods go away and Prescott is the only Intel
choice, I'm gonna buy AMD. Secondly, if motherboards from Intel
become $120, I'll go third party there too. Enough of the gouging
already. "Innovation" where it is not necessary is not appreciated.

Not even sure why you would need to announce this, AMD and/or third-party motherboards should've always been on your
radar,
even before now.

Historically, good integrated motherboards for AMD haven't been there.

AJ

Wake up, Nforce is here since, uhmm, 2001. And even much-criticized
VIA is not that bad, at least since KT800 came out

I forgot to add that I was shopping for a micro-ATX board. For some reason,
the 3rd party vendors don't like to make full-featured boards of the uATX
kind instead relegating uATX to the "value" category.

AJ