Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 82

Thread: AMD Names New 64-Bit Processor

  1. #16
    Ultimate Member vibe666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Just left of the middle
    Posts
    1,184
    Julian, what you and the guy writing that artical don't seem to understand is that for the PC industry to move forward, ALL aspects of it must move forward. With so many different parts to the industry it's impossible for it to all move forward at once, so we have these giant 'leaps' in certain area's that seem totally unnecessary at the time, but as the industry catches up (and it always does) what initially seemed like a letdown turns out to be a godsend as the other parts of the industry needed to make the thing (whatever it may be) work at full efficiency come along and the full potential of said 'part' is realised.

    I remember exactly the same arguments over things like MMX SSL AGP etc in the past: Why do we need all the speed? Is it any faster really?

    The answer today, maybe well, sort of or even no, but by this time next year when there are 64bit OS's apps and games running on 64bit CPU's with mobo's, memory and video cards all optimized to run along side the CPU you'll be thankful that they bothered.

    The Hammer (Athlon64 ) is not a chip for today, it's for tomorrow, and people need to understand that it's not going to give you everything you wat on a plate right from the start.

    Have a bit of vision and look to the needs of the future.

    At the end of the day f you don't like it and don't want one then don't buy it. Nobody is forcing you are they?
    ***viBe***
    "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
    - Albert Einstein

  2. #17
    Member SLX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    304
    Originally posted by vibe666


    At the end of the day f you don't like it and don't want one then don't buy it. Nobody is forcing you are they?
    yeah its forced, its like everyones driving 64 mpg (miles per gallon) cars and your still in your 16 mpg POS car. And gas costs 3$ a gallon.

  3. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    1,185
    the guy in the article did say its technology for the future. NOW its useless
    NEXT year it will be pretty much useless

    nevermind i read that the 512K version will be over $500 and the 1MB version over $1000.

    apperantly the barton will cost over $500 as well.

    what is AMD doing? they are going down big time

  4. #19
    Senior Member Plaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Location
    Houston, Tx
    Posts
    834
    Originally posted by germanjulian
    the guy in the article did say its technology for the future. NOW its useless
    NEXT year it will be pretty much useless

    nevermind i read that the 512K version will be over $500 and the 1MB version over $1000.

    apperantly the barton will cost over $500 as well.

    what is AMD doing? they are going down big time
    The 1MB Hammer is a server chip. Look up the prices on Intel Itanium CPU's. They're anywhere from $1,000(700MHz 2MB L3) - $4,000(800MHz 4mb L3) a piece. The P3 Xeons aren't too low in price either. A 700MHz P3 2MB L2 Xeon will run you about $2,000. Sure, they've got bigger caches (The L3 cache on the Itanium) but those prices are insane. They're for big time servers, not desktops. The 512K Hammer will be the desktop version.

    As for the Barton? $500 (if the first batch sells for that much) isn't really that steep for a new CPU. The extra 256K of L2 will increase performance nicely and it will run at faster speeds than current XPs. Why aren't you complaining about the $700 pricetag on the 3.06GHz P4? I guess Intel is going down big time right along side AMD.
    Last edited by Plaster; 11-26-2002 at 06:09 AM.
    yo trick, why you so **** doofus?

  5. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    1,185
    no its just that amd top end processors 5 months ago where nice and cheap compared to the p4 ones.

    now they are the same

  6. #21
    Senior Member Plaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Location
    Houston, Tx
    Posts
    834
    I see what you're getting at. Yes, they were a lot cheaper for the highend. I believe it's just lower yields per wafer causing the debut price to be so high. This is the very reason why I'd never suggest someone buy the fastest CPU available. AMD Still holds a price/performance advantage. The advantage just isn't big when you're looking at buying something above an XP2200+. P4 1.4GHz CPU's are still over $100 while you can get a much faster 2100+ for about $30 less.

    If we're lucky, the Hammer (Athlon 64) will set a new performance standard and they can start making money again. If they die we'll be right back to the old Intel. Remember the P60 debuting at $2100 retail? Now that's a scary idea.
    yo trick, why you so **** doofus?

  7. #22
    Ultimate Member genesound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Studio City CA
    Posts
    1,841
    Originally posted by germanjulian
    no its just that amd top end processors 5 months ago where nice and cheap compared to the p4 ones.

    now they are the same
    Yeah... and? You heard about AMD's financial problems? They've been selling those 'cheap' chips at a loss to keep em in cash flow until their next new leading edge comes out when they can once again make some money. Geez, their on thin ice and you want to hit em with the flamethrower?

    As for their Athlon64, the buzz is it should be useable on the desktop before the end of next year, whereas Intels 64 bit solution is not intended to ever go desktop, as far as I understand it ...

  8. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    202
    has everyone forgotten there's little point having these procs if you can't use them properly?

  9. #24
    Senior Member Plaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Location
    Houston, Tx
    Posts
    834
    Originally posted by corrupted
    has everyone forgotten there's little point having these procs if you can't use them properly?
    You're right. I'd suggest you sell your PC.
    yo trick, why you so **** doofus?

  10. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    202
    who here can say they really need a 64-bit processor?

  11. #26
    Ultimate Member genesound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Studio City CA
    Posts
    1,841
    OK, now ask again in two or three years.

  12. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    202
    whenever someone in a business asks me if they should upgrade computers i ask them 1 question back: does it work now? if it doesn't fail all the time, there's no need to upgrade. if the software works fine, same deal. i've seen some software that cannot work with 32-bit computing. would you suggest everyone move up to 64-bit because "it's there"?

  13. #28
    Member SLX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    304
    Technology will allways evolve, just like species in nature, how far it will evolve is the exstent of its usefullness. I mean going from 64 bit from 32 bit thats not so much of a strech in tech evolution.
    Last edited by SLX; 11-29-2002 at 02:50 AM.

  14. #29
    Ultimate Member genesound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Studio City CA
    Posts
    1,841
    Originally posted by corrupted
    ...would you suggest everyone move up to 64-bit because "it's there"?
    Maybe someone who buys the newest car whether they need one or not. Otherwise get what's appropriate.

  15. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    202
    granted, there are people like that G, but tell me, do you need one of these procs yet?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •