ATHLON 64: amd's suicide bullet

[urbanfox]

My god who is the moron that bumped this... when i wrote this (10+ months ago....)
the a64 WAS a joke. m4 was promising working beta's that stunk and it was going nowhere. the a64 did come in with some surprising 32 bit performance which if anyone didnt notice all the sudden dramtically spurred m$'s interest in the the 64 bit lifestyle (which still is no reality....) so part in what i said was true, but def wasnt a suicide bullet. however, when u really look at things now... true 64 bit computing with 64 bit driver support from top companies (ati and nvidia r slowly picking this up...) is a long way off, prob middle of 2005. so basically 1.5+ years from this article's writing will the 64 bit o/s take off...


EDIT

and the fx-53 and p4EE 3.4 r pretty damn close for anyone to say anything.

 

[urbanfox]

if you love power, you know nothing about CPU's, AMd 64 series processors are much better than Pentium 4's, they may have a higher spec rating, but if you think it this wy, 3.2 ghz Intel, 2.2 64bit, = intel still 3.2 32bit, 2.2 64bit basically equals 2x 2.2 32bit processors, 2.2 + 2.2 = 4.4 32 witch is better, also amd have higher cache space, *for the n00bs to cpus that where info is stored before being processed*, eg most amd 64bits have 1meg, whereas the best P4 with cache is 128kb
what do you think is best? think about it...

well, first off i wouldnt hope u call me noob... becus im about to trump u.

a64 512kb and 1mb cache (clawhammer and newcastle)
fx 1mb

p4c 512kb
p4e 1mb
p4ee 2mb

so right there ur screwed, the p4's have the same or more cache than the amd 64's. second, more cache doesnt mean ****. the speed of the cache is what is so important. doubt me? northwood 512kb cpu's vs same speed prescott 1mb cpu's.


so, dont tell me i know nothing about cpu's cus i know far more than u. in addition, once again...

LOOK AT THE DAMN DATES

i posted this when the a64 series was 1) not out and 2) was looking not so good for amd.

and also, what i said still stands now... 64 bit home cpmuting is a joke. until wxp64 comes out with some stable code and we get some 64 drivers its still a 32bit home world

 

[¤]´)÷¤--§îr Äürøñ--¤÷(`[¤]

well, first off i wouldnt hope u call me noob... becus im about to trump u.

a64 512kb and 1mb cache (clawhammer and newcastle)
fx 1mb

p4c 512kb
p4e 1mb
p4ee 2mb

so right there ur screwed, the p4's have the same or more cache than the amd 64's. second, more cache doesnt mean ****. the speed of the cache is what is so important. doubt me? northwood 512kb cpu's vs same speed prescott 1mb cpu's.

Actually, the amount of cache can affect performance quite a lot, else why does the P4EE have more? :P

Either way, the P4's design is flawed because of the external Northbridge. By integrating the northbridge into the CPU, AMD have removed the bottleneck which will make the P4s forever inferior.

Also note that even Intel's new x86_64 extensions are inferior to AMDs, as Intel stole from an unfinished AMD design spec.

 

[Viola A.I.]

I remember this.

Very wrong in the end, but I wouldn't try and turn the tables on a forum lurker because he doesn't have any sense of time.

 

[urbanfox]

I remember this.

Very wrong in the end, but I wouldn't try and turn the tables on a forum lurker because he doesn't have any sense of time.

... when i wrote thata article... like i have stated.... it was a long time ago and once again the a64 situation wasnt looking good.....

 

[urbanfox]

Actually, the amount of cache can affect performance quite a lot, else why does the P4EE have more? :P

i never said it didnt help, i was trying to disuade ssjgohan's idea that 1) the best o4 has only 128kb of cache ( i assume he is referring to l2 since he was comparing it to the a64 l2) and 2) that cache size doesnt mean sht, its about the speed. example, p4c 512kb and p4e 1mb cache. the p4c has faster cache and thats why it is basically the same exacrt performance as the p4e with the slower 1mb of cache. the p4ee has it best bopth ways, more cache and faster access to it.

EDIT
also, gohan, no, 2.2+2.2 = will not equal 4.4ghz (if in 64bit mode) cus thats not how it works, u do not gain a 100% performance increase by just going to 64 bit.

 

[Shinoda]

Lol I remember this thread, I actually thought Leo posted it. Any way its good the AMD64's have come out on top

Long live AMD.

 

[SilentDragz]

Yeah, but I'm holding off on getting one till I can get hold of WinXP 64-bit edition - don't wanna have to run Windows Server 2003

/SilentDragz

 

[Shinoda]

Get Linux then ^_^

 

[SilentDragz]

I run linux on my laptop and 2nd computer, I just couldn't use it for this one, too much software dependant on windows, e.g. Mir, most of my games, WW2online etc.

/SilentDragz

 

[urbanfox]

the windows 64 beta's r a joke, and ull be waiting for quite some time for a final version of windows xp 64bit edition.

 

[¤]´)÷¤--§îr Äürøñ--¤÷(`[¤]

the windows 64 beta's r a joke, and ull be waiting for quite some time for a final version of windows xp 64bit edition.

It's due in December....

 

[SilentDragz]

I'm thinking of getting the gentoo logo airbrushed onto the lid of my laptop :P

/SilentDragz

 

[Biohazard]

It's due in December....

this is coming from microsoft....

and considering how much work i hear it still needs, plus the fact that everyone is still working on wxp sp2... i heavily doubt a 2004 release.

 

[urbanfox]

this is coming from microsoft....

and considering how much work i hear it still needs, plus the fact that everyone is still working on wxp sp2... i heavily doubt a 2004 release.

......it would be nice if he logged out.

 

[urbanfox]

Based on the information at the time of the orginal post of this thread things were a lot different. It has obviously become clear that amd had mowed over the critics, incuding me, who know prefers amd ove intel, and believe me (and aurom with whom i arugued intel/ati vs amd/nvidia for how many pages lol?) i like the a64, or else i wouldnt have purchased one.