AMD Names New 64-Bit Processor
Oh I cannot wait to build a system around this bad boy, but why give it such a lame-duck name?
Yeah, Athlon 64 sounds lame!
What do you guys think, is AMD going to mantain Socket A for this upcoming chip? Or is that impossible?
AMD Names New 64-Bit Processor
A few questions, thoughts:
1) will I NEED an upgrade of this magnitude conisdering I have a 2200+ 1.8GHz T-bred already
2) when will home users NEED a 64bit CPU
3) what kind of performance benefits/increases will be that tangible to enthusiasts and regular consumers vs. businesses
4) will the enthusiast crowd ever truly give up the "Hammer"nomenclature
5) I've heard two ways regarding Front Side Bus
a. it will be an integrated memory controller, thus not really having a FSB
b. it will run at 800Mhz
6) I agree that their naming isn't exciting enough. They're most likely naming it Athlon 64 to play off the already successful Athlon name. Besides, Intel has been using their 'Pentium' naming structure since 95, so it's no surprize AMD will do likewise.
"all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
This puts my plans for a new pc on hold till its available! I am all over this. I can't wait to get a 64-bit Linux going on this.
To the last post:
It depends what you do. If you do word processing and a few sounds things then no way. If you crunch video or play fully rendered 3d games there will be a benefit here though it may not be with current games. I need to do a little more research.
It seems to me that we won't see too much increase until software takes advantage of this, but look at the 486 to Pentium bridge. Pentium's had a 32bit bus with dual pipelines and there was a huge increrase in performance. I think it is totally worth aiming for hme pc's and business pc's.
[Sorry about the info before - I was looking at the wrong line when I typed it - not paying much attention - was looking at 386 SX - ooooopppppppssss]
Last edited by rraehal; 12-18-2002 at 04:18 PM.
No, the clawhammer will run on a 700 somethin' pin count socket.
is AMD going to mantain Socket A for this upcoming chip?
IMO, clawhammer sounds better than Athlon64.
The 386 was 16-bit, while the 486 was 32-bit.
Originally posted by rraehal
The 486 had a 16-bit wide data path so it took two cycles to get info into and out of the cpu. Pentium's had a 32bit bus with dual pipelines and there was a huge increrase in performance. I think it is totally worth aiming for hme pc's and business pc's.
Just wanted to point out the following link from Toms Hardware Guide. It should give a better description and view of both the Hammer and Clawhammer.
Found this article awhile back. It should give us an idea of what this puppy can do! I think that AMD has the right solution for the upcoming 64-bit OS & apps and the downward compatibility to run the current 32-bit OSes & apps that's going to make Intel lose sleep when it is released! I read somewhere that in order for the Intel Itanium to be able to run 32-bit OSes & apps, it would require some emulation software!
Hope that the info helps everyone in getting a better picture of the new and upcoming stuff from AMD.
I'm not so sure I'm all that excited about this new chip. The way I understand this to work is that you only benefit from the 64-bit features if you have 64 bit apps. How long is it going to take to get 64 bit apps? How hard is it to make a 32 and a 64 bit version of a program, since the vast majority of people won't upgrade? I'm betting we won't see any 64 bit apps until at least a year after the chips are out-and then they'll be rare.
Am I correct in my thinking, or are there benefits for 32 bit programs too?
I'm not impressed either. It's not for home use. It's like using a rocket sled to commute - fast, but not very usable.
It's for servers and high-end workstations, boys.
its utter rubish!
i read the chip runs at 1.4Ghz and even with 64bit a 32bit 2.2Ghz processor will outperform this baby.
by the time it chips for $$$$$$ we will have a nice athlon xp with 512k and something around 3200+. for less and it will be faster then the fasters athlon 64bit processors
amd is so so struggleing
This statement is infantile. Currently an athlon xp has to run at 1.8 Ghz to outperform a 2.2 Ghz pentium, hammer runs at 1.4 which is the more powerful processor?
i read the chip runs at 1.4Ghz and even with 64bit a 32bit 2.2Ghz processor will outperform this baby
I think what AMD should be congratulated for is bringing 64 bit to the desktop. The performance difference may not be that massive now but imagine what you'll be able to do with a 64 bit OS and 4 plus gigs of memory. Only 64 bit computing will allow you to run programs like games, graphics design, video editing from the memory.
Just to let everyone know on this forum that as we speak, there are beta versions being tested out for Windows XP 64-bit and Linux 64-bit OSes. If it is in beta right now, its not going to be long before it is released. The apps that are going to run on these OSes are not going to be far behind! It is a good thing that the processors are evolving as they are, the competition and current advanced developments are all for the betterment of future products! This is a good thing for consumers like us overall. So let us not bicker over whether we think that it will be useful or not, just to see what unfolds before us!
AnandTech has info on the Athlon 64 from Comdex. Answers many of the questions here...
64 bit is slower then 32!
i was right all along
It's not even really so much the speed, it's that 64 bits just isn't that necessary for our everyday computing. But in out bigger is better world, we're gonna get it. And eventually it will lead to improved OSes.
Last edited by genesound; 11-25-2002 at 02:06 PM.