Next from AMD
- CaterpillarAssassin
- Almighty Member
- Posts: 2252
- Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 11:29 am
- Location: somewhere in N.E
This is purely speculation, but I think they're waiting to make a big deal about smp systems around Christmas time, along with releasing their 1.4 gigger.
The limit for current athon/t-bird cpus is 1.4 gig I think, so they're gonna play this "apples for apples faster than P4" up some more, and reduce prices even more. They have to design a new processor soon if they want to keep competing. Actually I heard that they were going to make Palomino (current server design) a desktop cpu or something like that.
Meanwhile, intel is supposed to have 2 gig P4s soon.
[Edited by bitSLAP on 04-24-2001 at 08:05 AM]
The limit for current athon/t-bird cpus is 1.4 gig I think, so they're gonna play this "apples for apples faster than P4" up some more, and reduce prices even more. They have to design a new processor soon if they want to keep competing. Actually I heard that they were going to make Palomino (current server design) a desktop cpu or something like that.
Meanwhile, intel is supposed to have 2 gig P4s soon.
[Edited by bitSLAP on 04-24-2001 at 08:05 AM]
- Hipnotic_Tranz
- Almighty Member
- Posts: 3750
- Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 6:35 am
- Location: Indpls, IN
- Contact:
They are going to need those 2gig CPUs to perform as much as an Athlon 1.4
Atleast if what I read and see about the benchmarks (Athlon vs. P4) are true.
The problem with this is that still the common user will buy this 2gig chip because it's "faster" when all it really has is a label that states it's faster. I wish people would open their eyes to AMD--they are doing some great things and not getting noticed in the general public.
The problem with this is that still the common user will buy this 2gig chip because it's "faster" when all it really has is a label that states it's faster. I wish people would open their eyes to AMD--they are doing some great things and not getting noticed in the general public.
[align=center]<img src=http://i54.tinypic.com/j9tydf.gif>
<i>
My get up and go
must have got up and went.
</i>[/align]
<i>
My get up and go
must have got up and went.
</i>[/align]
I think right now AMD is just trying to get the MP chipsets out so they can start entering the Server market. There is alot more money there as well as the Mobile market. I think you will see them concentrate there for the next 3-6 months, and they will just due small revisions to the actual core until then.
I just heard that the MP boards will support the Duron processor as well. No artificial crippling of the CPU here. Just think for about $500CND you too can have a dual processor Duron and mobo

I can't wait!!!!
I just heard that the MP boards will support the Duron processor as well. No artificial crippling of the CPU here. Just think for about $500CND you too can have a dual processor Duron and mobo
I can't wait!!!!
<b>Sofwtare Development</b> is the race between programmers making better idiot proof software,
and the Universe making better idiots.
So far the Universe is Winning!<a href="Mailto:seanalex@home.com">:bonk</a>
and the Universe making better idiots.
So far the Universe is Winning!<a href="Mailto:seanalex@home.com">:bonk</a>
- Kakarot
- Golden Member
- Posts: 1713
- Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 8:26 am
- Location: Chicago Land Area
- Contact:
I've heard that AMD is tweaking the Tbird core to reduce power consumption and heat output so that they can 1)enter the moble market and 2)have an easier time getting their tbirds up to the 1.7-2.0gig range. Also, Intel is tweaking their P3 so that it will go to higher speeds(1.2-1.7) range I do believe. The P4 blows ass, period.
"Why build only one when you can build two for twice the price?"
<a href="mailto:murphy@excaltech.com">Email</a>
<a target=NEW href="http://www.heatware.com/eval.php?id=377">Heatware evals</a>
<a href="mailto:murphy@excaltech.com">Email</a>
<a target=NEW href="http://www.heatware.com/eval.php?id=377">Heatware evals</a>
bitSLAP...why Bring somethign UP and then tell Everyoen else Not to talk about it that is totally retarded. Sorry but the p4 is not a viable cpu as it stands at the present time.
Greg
Greg
<a href="http://www.pcabusers.org" target="_new"> <img src="http://www.pcabusers.org/images1/banner.jpg" border="0"></a>
<a target=NEW href="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_87793.html">JOIN the PCA Seti Team!</a>
<a target=NEW href="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_87793.html">JOIN the PCA Seti Team!</a>
- CaterpillarAssassin
- Almighty Member
- Posts: 2252
- Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 11:29 am
- Location: somewhere in N.E
bah! They all suck... /\ Cyrix3 all the way baby!
http://www.cyrix.com/products/C3.htm
-
Speck102
- Senior Member
- Posts: 466
- Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 5:24 pm
- Location: West Sacramento, CA
- Contact:
If you are a die hard q3 fan and it is your life and you have absolutely nothing else to live for and you are willing to squeeze every last possible framerate out of the game for rediculas amounts of money, then buy the p4, that is about the only thing that it is good for, but then again if the t-bird was at 1.7 gigs it would be woopin' some ass.
I thought that the P4 had some serious design flaws. I read that it is impossible to keep all of the pipelines continuously fed, etc.
I tend to think the P4 isn't that great, due to a few things. For example:
1) The P4 needs a double-pumped ALU just to keep up. So a 1.5 GHz P4 with a 3 GHz ALU can just barely compete with a 1.5 GHz Athlon. Something seems fishy to me there. I mean, why would such an 'advanced' ALU need to run twice as fast to compete?
2) Assembly loops running on the Athlon and P4 show the athlon winning VERY heavily. This is due to the fact that the P4 has some serious latency issues when doing certain floating calculations. Not optimized, you say? How can you be more optimized than running a continuous loop of floating DIVs and MULs?
I tend to think the P4 isn't that great, due to a few things. For example:
1) The P4 needs a double-pumped ALU just to keep up. So a 1.5 GHz P4 with a 3 GHz ALU can just barely compete with a 1.5 GHz Athlon. Something seems fishy to me there. I mean, why would such an 'advanced' ALU need to run twice as fast to compete?
2) Assembly loops running on the Athlon and P4 show the athlon winning VERY heavily. This is due to the fact that the P4 has some serious latency issues when doing certain floating calculations. Not optimized, you say? How can you be more optimized than running a continuous loop of floating DIVs and MULs?
- p o o p
Poop,
I would tend to agree with you, but I think Intel is going with the idea that people won't use the ALU as much as they would the SSE2 instructions. I would be interested to see how the P4 competes on that level. I think Intel is ingnoring the regular ALU in favour of the extra instructions, this seems to be confirmed when I see results from test done with P4 optimized code done. If Intel can get the S/W developers to optimize their code with the SSE2 instructions then I think the playing field gets more interesting, and it seems to be going that way.
On, another note, I still want a dual Athlon board though!
I would tend to agree with you, but I think Intel is going with the idea that people won't use the ALU as much as they would the SSE2 instructions. I would be interested to see how the P4 competes on that level. I think Intel is ingnoring the regular ALU in favour of the extra instructions, this seems to be confirmed when I see results from test done with P4 optimized code done. If Intel can get the S/W developers to optimize their code with the SSE2 instructions then I think the playing field gets more interesting, and it seems to be going that way.
On, another note, I still want a dual Athlon board though!
<b>Sofwtare Development</b> is the race between programmers making better idiot proof software,
and the Universe making better idiots.
So far the Universe is Winning!<a href="Mailto:seanalex@home.com">:bonk</a>
and the Universe making better idiots.
So far the Universe is Winning!<a href="Mailto:seanalex@home.com">:bonk</a>
