Athlon 64 XP3400+ goes on sale

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Even though it hasnt been officially announced yet

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80704-R

--Jakk:t

[sm8000]

Huh. Think maybe it's a pre-order?

[Someone Stupid]

It's not a real 3400, Overclockers.com had an article on this awhile back. Notice no way to find the clockspeed out from the retailer. It is just a 3200.

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Oh it's real alright :)

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543,00.html



http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?ArticleID=1376
http://www.cpuperformance.com/index.php?page=features&id=featID3ffa591098a91
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/amd64_3400/
http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-184-1.htm
http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/cpus/amd/athlon64/3400+/001.htm
http://www.hardtecs4u.com/reviews/2004/amd_athlon64_3400/
http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD02ODM
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1941
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2004q1/athlon64-3400/index.x?pg=1
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_a643400/
http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/CCAM/amd_a64_3400+.shtml
http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=277
http://open.itworld.com/4917/040106mslinux/
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc1

--Jakk:t

[zybch]

I'd bet that Intel are a little annoyed. Even though the new athlon 64 doesn't actually run at 3400, people still take the number to mean that it does.
Intel would have dearly wanted to get to 3400 first but have been beaten once again.
I think they are having trouble with their .09 process, just like they ran in to significant probs when moving from .18 to .13.

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Originally posted by zybch
I'd bet that Intel are a little annoyed.

Probably, but who cares :D

--Jakk:t

[Someone Stupid]

I was just going from your link and after catching up on some reading on overclockers.com, hadn't checked anywhere else. I saw today before I checked here that you were right Jakk.

[cwin]

64bit processors are a bit pointless at the moment because of the lack of OS/Program support for 64bit. XP 64bit edition isnt as good as XP (only really good for servers) :rolleyes: and longhorn is still a long way off. Sure linux users can get good out of them, but really its only servers that mainly run linux. General population (techie or newbie) run XP Pro/Home or 98/ME.

I'd wait for a while before 64 bit. I'm with Intel waiting for a while first. More profit that way ;) :t

[too_much]

I don't intend to go 64bit at all. I'm happy with my rig, and until the majority of new games coming out pretty much need a 64 bit system, I'm sticking to good ol'.... hmm... normal stuff? :D

[sm8000]

32 bits ought to be enough for anybody.

[too_much]

So what exactly is the point of 64bit desktops? I doubt games are gona need it too quickly (not that I'd know). I can understand graphical designers, software designers, programmers etc finding use for a huge super fast rig, but the top end 32bit rigs at the moment are flying...

What exactly is the point of all this?

[Rugor]

RAM and Registers

A 32-bit processor can only natively address 4GB of RAM. Period. It's a hardware limit based on the fact you can only create so many different addresses with 32 bits. A 64-bit addressing scheme gives you access to a lot more memory, and that's going to become important.

One of the big weaknesses of the x86 ISA is that it only has 8 general purpose registers, which severely limits performance. AMD64, doubles that limit to 16, and once the software comes out that will help performance a lot too because they won't need as many register renaming tricks, and threads won't have to wait as long for registers to open up.

[zybch]

Originally posted by sm8000
32 bits ought to be enough for anybody.

Hmmm, you sound like Bill Gates when he said "640Kb of RAM will be enough for anybody".

How much RAM do you have sm8000?!

XP-64 looks lite it'll be quite significant improvement over the 32bit version, not in features but just speed. The problem is that Microsoft is allready late (it was supposed to have a simultaneous launch with the A64). All the reviews of beta version I've read are very encouraging, and as soon as it gets launched the saled of A64 chips will probably surge.

Then all we'll have to wait for are some 64bit versions of the games and apps that are currently in use.
Aparently its not anywhere near as mamomth a task to convert an app to a64 code than it is to make it i64 (itanium) compatible.

[too_much]

Originally posted by Rugor
RAM and Registers

One of the big weaknesses of the x86 ISA is that it only has 8 general purpose registers, which severely limits performance. AMD64, doubles that limit to 16, and once the software comes out that will help performance a lot too because they won't need as many register renaming tricks, and threads won't have to wait as long for registers to open up.

I don't have a clue what you just said, but I'm getting the idea now :D

[sm8000]

LOL, I have 256 MB of RAM. It used to be enough for me :)

Bill did not use the word "RAM" in that quote - he wasn't referring to RAM. Can't remember what he was talking about though.

And yes, for folks like most of us, Itanic is pointless and useless, not to mention pricey!

[Someone Stupid]

I'm not even thinking of getting an A64 system until it moves to socket 939. I want a desktop motherboard, not a workstation/server one tweaked a minor bit (if any) to fit desktop uses. If 939 was out now, I'd have made the jump having lost a motherboard and the magic little 2500 I managed to acquire a little while back, but I'm not buying what is essentially I dead product line for a premium price especially when it isn't offering anywhere near that big of a performance increase.