AMD Releases 64-Bit Desktop Processor

[CJE-P]

AMD is really pushing this for gamers, especially the FX-51. I watched their Webcast of the release and the demonstrations from Nvidia were pretty impressive. I don't think there is anything revolutionary regarding speeds here, but it's hard not to be excited by where this all could lead.

[ichorid]

The Athlon 64 boasts 64-bit data and address paths that go beyond current 32-bit CPUs' 4GB memory addressing cap with 40-bit physical (up to 1 terabyte) and 48-bit virtual (up to 256 terabytes) memory addressing space. According to AMD, the Athlon 64's single HyperTransport link runs at 6.4GB/sec of data transfer. Additionally, its single 72-bit channel takes that job away from its traditional place in the system chipset's external Northbridge, reducing the latency of read/write requests. AMD says this essentially controls the system at, or yields a FSB speed matching, the clock speed of the CPU.

:eek:

[causticVapor]

I can't wait for an FX-51 notebook to come out. I really have the urge to perturb all my Centrino friends with a faster Athlon and 802.11g support. :p

[iceblue]

you'll be luggin around a HUGE battery though.. it's gonna be 85 watts!

[Mm9004]

I know this is kind of a stupid question but, does this thing use twos in binery code or something?

I understand the power behind this thing, but what gives it that power?

[MJCfromCT]

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_3082211__2

using 2's in binary wouldn't make it binary anymore, still 1's and 0's

[auxus]

In all benchmarks i had see the 4 upcoming releases of the athlon 64 and 64fx, only one of the can stand up against the p4 3.06 Ht, athlon just makes you lose money very low cost Precessor with low life on them, so don't any processor can't match mine at 4.1ghz stable and running, and this is for opteron hey need 4 preccesor to win to 2 xeons, athlon need always the double to be able to match, sorry for them Intel It's the best

[Dracas]

Originally posted by MJCfromCT
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_3082211__2

using 2's in binary wouldn't make it binary anymore, still 1's and 0's

Putting a 2 in binary isn't possible, the fundamentals of digital technology is that there are two states. On (which is represented by 1) and Off (which is represented by 0). Adding a two would require some EXTREMELY delicate circuitry to allow for different voltages. EG, the circuitry would have to read 0 (off), 1 (on) and 2 (1/2 on, or half strength) which is nearly impossible to do at the rate all those 1's and 0's need to be transmitted in the system. Even if we did do that, it would only be adding an extra parity bit (sorta like RAM parity) and all it could really be used for is data checking. For what it would cost to make, the performance results would be negligible.

In this case, the difference between 32 bit and 64 bit is referring to the WORD size of the bit pattern. Instead of passing 32 1's and 0's before resetting for a new instruction, these new processors can process 64 1's and 0's before resetting for a new instruction.

Mathematically speaking, the fact that the new processors can pass 64-bits along as quickly as they do (which is TWICE the information the athlon XP 32-bit processors can handle) is amazing since it does so in as many clock cycles. It means there is much more flexibility in programming and hardware, and it also expands the base IO/Memory addressing capabilities into the terrabytes.

This is also observed in the GeForce FX videocards. The GeForce FX5800 used 128-bit DDR2, which while faster, can only pass 128 bits before needing to reset for a new instruction, while the 256-bit memory interface of the FC 5900 can do (theoretically) twice the instruction work in half the time. So they can use a lower frequency to do more work, granted they're doing almost double load. This all requires many more transistors than a 128 bit structure, but I think you get the idea.

Technically, this would be hard to do on a large scale, but with .13 micron and .09 micron scales, they have space to pack all those billions of transistors for 64-bit/256-bit logic into a tight space. Meaning, at the same size of a 32-bit/128-bit CPU or GPU (respectively) they can do twice the work.

Whew, there's rooms for corrections in there I'm certain, but I hope it was edutational. Happy posting :t

[MJCfromCT]

very educational :)

[Mm9004]

Finally I understand.

Where did you get that information? Come across it on the web or the wisdom of age?:cool:

[causticVapor]

Overlapping signals happen all the time in modern computer systems.

It's the way the P4's bus works; it's the way DDR RAM works. ;)

[Dracas]

Originally posted by Mm9004
Finally I understand.

Where did you get that information? Come across it on the web or the wisdom of age?:cool:

Age and wisdom, it also helps that I've thought of the whole Trinary support thing before, and that I'm a Computer Electronics Engineering Technology student at ITT :D

[neverwhere]

and that I'm a Computer Electronics Engineering Technology student at ITT

Lucky *******. Still though, passing twice the information in the same amount of space is remarkable. However, I dont agree with Intel's idea that nobody will use 4GB of DDR before the end of the decade... 'Ol Billy said 640k is all anyone will ever need ;) Oh, and this chip was tested on Nvidia right? No tests with ATI, or just not mentioned? (or am I too tired to notice) )-|

~Neverwhere

[Mm9004]

That's what I thought when I read that too. How can anyone (besides Moore, who coninues to be right even like.. what 40 years later?) accurately predict the RAM we will be using in 5 years?

At the rate of computers today vs. 10 years ago, I'd say we very well may be using more than 4 gigs by the end of the decade.

[Focusyn]

Originally posted by neverwhere

However, I dont agree with Intel's idea that nobody will use 4GB of DDR before the end of the decade... 'Ol Billy said 640k is all anyone will ever need ;)
~Neverwhere

That is one of the most misquoted quotes of all time. What Ol Billy said is that nobody would ever need more than 640k of BASE memory, speaking of DOS architecture, which could never exceed that due to limitations of the technology, and he was right. I do agree with you though, that people will be using over 4GB long before the end of the decade. I just upgraded from 1 to 2 GB of DDR333 in my own system and saw a pretty noticable jump in gaming performance. If going to 2GB this early in the decade is increasing performance, I"ll go one step further and assert that people will likely have 4GB by the HALF WAY point of this decade.....we shall see... The next generation games will be released soon, and I think cause another hardware revolution (especially Half-Life 2)

[Mm9004]

Exactily; people are not just going to sit there with a 64 bit processor on their hands and do nothing. They are going to take full advantage as soon as possible even if it means going to 4 gigs of RAM.

And any company that is in touch with their cosumers is going to know that (goodbye Intel), and in turn, they are going to start turning out high-end programs that take advantage of all that RAM, and in turn more and more people are going to make that jump to a higher-end PC if they want to see the main character in a video game blink when dust gets in their eye. Or examine a leaf up close only to find that it looks and feels and bends and tears like a real leaf. (oh yeah, the future.) :cool:

[neverwhere]

Oh, sorry man, and thanks for the correction on that basis. I use 1/4 of your 2GB DDR and I run perfectly fine on gaming issues. A 64-bit processer is a bit of overkill currently, as I dont know many games that will support it (sure, there are those select few as stated above, but will the changes in textures be worth the $700+ to get the FX-51. Now, don't get me wrong, I'd love to have it, but I dont think that I will be shelling out that kind of cash any time soon.

~Neverwhere

[atari1356]

AMD Tuesday released the much-anticipated Athlon 64, the industry’s first 64-bit desktop processor.

Umm... industry's first? G5 anyone? :p

[Paco103]

Originally posted by atari1356


Umm... industry's first? G5 anyone? :p

That's in a MAC though - they're referring to the PC Industry.

I can't wait until this drops in price, hopefully sometime next year :). Intel is going to shoot themselves in the foot if they don't do something. They might hold the OEM market, but I think they'll lose the enthusiast market. Once software becomes optimized for 64 bit (which a lot has been and a lot more will be I think) - then they're going to be so far behind. AMD also has the benifit of still being x86-32 backward compatible, which as near as I've seen, Intel has no plans for in 64-bit processing. I know I would not like that. Software is expensive to buy and make, and 90% of my stuff doesn't need to be upgraded for YEARS - so why should I be forced to buy new stuff (that maybe isn't even made anymore - so many wonderful but dead closed source products :( ). Well anyway - it's been nice knowing you Intel - unless you keep up with the market! :p


When the tech industry advances - a company can't just say "Nah, they don't need it yet"

[neverwhere]

Originally posted by atari1356
Umm... industry's first? G5 anyone? :p

Nobody cares about Macs!

Well now, Intel is going to die ...

[Paco103]

What are you talking about? Macs are cool! They look neat and. . . uh. . . . . well they have the nice wide bus path. . . . and you can't customize them and screw them up! Apple makes sure you only use the parts they say is okay! (And people complain about MS trying to control users :p ) They also do a great job at releiving the burdon of that heavy wallet!

[neverwhere]

shh! dont let my co-workers let them hear you bashing their lovely MAC's!

[Mm9004]

Umm.. you can't customize them? How is that a good thing?

[dyurdz]

Umm.. you can't customize them? How is that a good thing?

I think he is just being sarcastic...
:) :) :)
Well, in some way, being uncustomizable is a good thing... the lesser user intervention means the less likely to harm your system too. Unless of course, if we are talking about "advanced" users.

[Mm9004]

Lol, Missed all the little dots, I guess I was just tired. So now I agree with him.

Anyway, the only people that would cusomize their PC are the advanced users. So I wouldn't worry, if ya ruin your PC it's just a lesson learned; it doesn't pay to just play it safe.

"The man who at best knows the triumph of high achievement and who at worst, if he fails, fails while daring greatly, so that his place will never be with those cold timid souls who never knew victory or defeat."
-Teddy Roosevelt

[msweet]

Hey,

I definately think that Intel is prob a little off the mark as well.

So I decided to get my calculator (excel) out and make a few projections based on Mr Moores Law.

Here is the full excel sheet you can play with:

http://www.freedomgeneration.com/moores-law-projection.xls

ok lets assume that this is the average high performance rig as of July 2003:

CPU: 3.2 Ghz (or equivalent)
HDD: 120 MB (ok, ok, there are bigger drives)
RAM: 1Ghz


18 Month Incriments: CPU (Ghz) Hard Disk (MB) Ram (GB) Notes:
Jul-97 0.2 7.5 0.0625 Pentium Pro 200 - 8Gb HHD - 64MB ram
Dec-98 0.4 15 0.125 Pentium 2 400 - 15Gb HDD - 128MB ram
Jul-00 0.8 30 0.25 PIII 800 - 30GB HDD - 256 MB ram
Dec-01 1.6 60 0.5 1.6 Ghz P4 - 60GB HDD - 512 MB ram
Jul-03 3.2 120 1 3.2 Ghz P4 - 120GB HDD - 1GB ram
Dec-04 6.4 240 2 6.4 Ghz P5 - 240 GB HDD - 2GB ram
Jul-06 12.8 480 4 12.8 P5 - 480 GB HDD - 4GB ram
Dec-07 25.6 960 8 26 Ghz P6 - 1 TB HDD - 8GB ram
Jul-09 51.2 1,920 16 52 Ghz P6 - 2 TB HDD - 16GB ram
Dec-10 102.4 3,840 32 100 Ghz P7 - 3.8TB HDD - 32GB ram



So there you have it, we have alot to look forward to in 6 short years!

If you think that this performance is over the top, we will need all the performance we can get to render environments like "Finding Nemo" and "Final Fantasy" in realtime and at HD resolutions.

regards,
-->Matt Sweet

[Mm9004]

100 GHz by Dec 2010 huh?

Somehow, it sounds about right. we will see. If Moore can continue to be right for this long then we have a problem.. are we going to be bound to this guy forever?

100 GHz.. wonder what we'll do with that?:p

[Dracas]

We'd be able to play the Final Fantasy Movie like a game in real time, thats what ;)

[mireland]

Originally posted by Paco103
What are you talking about? Macs are cool! They look neat and. . . uh. . . . . well they have the nice wide bus path. . . . and you can't customize them and screw them up! Apple makes sure you only use the parts they say is okay! (And people complain about MS trying to control users :p ) They also do a great job at releiving the burdon of that heavy wallet!


lmao! http://www.fancysplace.com/smileys/grin.gif

[Mm9004]

Final Fantisy sucks.

Rainbow Six.:t

[mrwolves]

i got a amd athlon xp 2600 + 2.1 ghz and was wondering if my motherboard would support this new 64 bit processor? i have a KT400 msi motherboard too??:confused:

[Paco103]

No, the 32bit Athlons and the 64 bit Athlons have different controller chipsets, pin-outs, and various other things. The 64-bit is backward compatible in software and in expansion hardware - but not in the motherboard.