# Athlon 64

Will be launched on 23rd Sept. I hope price war Btw Intel and AMD will spark another round of price-slicing, so that I can buy a notebook with better price and performance.

Oh, there will be price-slashing, but not on the 64 for quite a while. It'll probably be released for around 450 and stay that way for at least 5-6 months.

No price slashing.

When AMD comes out with their 64-bit CPU, only two will exist from large companies.

The G5 64-bit computer from Apple and IBM.

And the AMD.

When AMD comes out with their 64-bit CPU, only two will exist from large companies

But obviously, only for so long. In fact, Intel hasn't released anything about 64-but development, but it's strongly suspected that they have.

Oh, wait just found an article. The Prescott will have 64-but compatability built in! :/

Here's to hoping AMD comes out on top. Cheers.

russ_watters
Mentor
Guess you guys have never heard of the Itanium....its been out for about a year, but it isn't meant for consumers.

Originally posted by kenikov
When AMD comes out with their 64-bit CPU, only two will exist from large companies.
[/B]

I believe it's code named "hammer"?

Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
I believe it's code named "hammer"?

That it is. And in fact, M$is developing a new OS based on the hammer, code-named "The Anvil". BoulderHead Originally posted by Beren That it is. And in fact, M$ is developing a new OS based on the hammer, code-named "The Anvil".
Will the consumer be stuck between them?

i expect there will be price war bwt amd and intel,

russ_watters
Mentor
Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
I believe it's code named "hammer"?
Server version "sledgehammer" -> Opteron (already released)
consumer version "clawhammer" -> Athlon FX (today)

dduardo
Staff Emeritus
bah with all this 64bit mumbo jumbo. I'm not wasting a penny on this technology until I really need to use more than 4GB of RAM. As it is already, I don't see myself upgrading my hardware for another 10 years or so.

Last edited:
Originally posted by dduardo
bah with all this 64bit mumb jumbo. I'm not wasting a penny on this technology until I really need to use more than 4GB of RAM. As it is already, I don't see myself upgrading my hardware for another 10 years or so.

just wait for Win2004

dduardo
Staff Emeritus
Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
just wait for Win2004

You mean Win2006. Longhorn, Microsoft's next version of windows, isn't do for a while. Perhaps they will release a Windows XP SE, just as they did with windows 98. I also can't wait for the new MS Office with really really advanced spell checking, requiring 10GB of RAM

 By the way, I just love Monkey Island. I own every version.

I challenge you to Monkey Kombat:

Ack-Chee-Eek

Last edited:
Originally posted by dduardo
bah with all this 64bit mumbo jumbo. I'm not wasting a penny on this technology until I really need to use more than 4GB of RAM.
Maybe I'm not the only one who still uses 486's?
I know some people who think win311 was too bloated.

russ_watters
Mentor
Originally posted by dduardo
The official toms-hardware review of the AMD 64 is in: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/index.html

As I suspected from the beginning, the processor falls flat on its face. Intel is yet again the leader in CPUs.
The article was far less negative than you indicate. The P4 was faster in 32 tests, the Athlon in 15.

Its also important to note that the chip currently runs in 32 bit mode only. The A64 version of Windows isn't ready yet. When it is ready, AMD will have a 64-bit desktop chip and Intel will not. I have heard that companies like the fact that AMD's chips run both 32 and 64 bit code. Intel's will not.

And also, the platform is brand new - it will improve significantly over the next few months as kinks are ironed out. The P4, if you recall, was a colossal flop when released and has since come of age.

I have played with the 16-bit win311 extensively on a PII-450MHz. It runs fast of course but still takes longer to load web pages and is more prone to skip during playback of mp3 files than, for example, the 32-bit win9x versions run on the same machine.
So, based on that, I'm thinking that once all the support is in place for a 64-bit OS that it should be an improvement over a 32-bit OS.

certainly multimedia applications will benefit from going to 64 bits...

dduardo: are you my perpetual enemy LeChuck in disguise???
Ack-Chee-Eek

russ_watters
Mentor
Originally posted by russ_watters
The article was far less negative than you indicate. The P4 was faster in 32 tests, the Athlon in 15.
Something else I didn't realize - that P4 hasn't been released yet (1-2 months). The Athlon is faster than the current fastest Intel chip in most of the tests.

Here's an Athlon 64 shown in a completely different light..

And another thing you should know about the tomshardware review was that some of the graphs for P4EE had them running @ 3.4 and 3.6Ghz.

Well.. personally i could care less, because both beasts costs over \$1000AUS!

Last edited by a moderator:
russ_watters
Mentor
Originally posted by Jikx
And another thing you should know about the tomshardware review was that some of the graphs for P4EE had them running @ 3.4 and 3.6Ghz.
Where do you see that?

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-22.html

Update Sept 24,2003: Unfortunately we have made a mistake in the original article: In addition to the official P4 EE 3.2GHz we had included benchmark scores of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz. These values were planned for a future THG article and were not intended to be included here. We would like to apologize especially to those readers who misinterpreted our charts. The two bars of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz have now been removed.

dduardo
Staff Emeritus
Still, there is no clear advantage to using 64bit vs 32bit from the home users perspectiv. It is all going to come down to the software manufacters supporting the increase in bandwidth.

russ_watters
Mentor
Originally posted by dduardo
Still, there is no clear advantage to using 64bit vs 32bit from the home users perspectiv. It is all going to come down to the software manufacters supporting the increase in bandwidth.
Its actually a myth that 64 bit equals double the bandwidth or speed (in this context). 64 bit vs 32 bit processing has nothing to do with bandwidth. Its the size and complexity of the instructions. For example if something could do 2 32 bit operations a second, it would do 1 64 bit one per second for exactly the same bandwidth.

dduardo
Staff Emeritus
Originally posted by russ_watters
Its actually a myth that 64 bit equals double the bandwidth or speed (in this context). 64 bit vs 32 bit processing has nothing to do with bandwidth. Its the size and complexity of the instructions. For example if something could do 2 32 bit operations a second, it would do 1 64 bit one per second for exactly the same bandwidth.

I didn't say it doubled the bandwidth, but 64bit does speed things up. For instance , double precision floating point on a 32bit processor requires going through the floating point unit multiple times. but a 64bit processor can do the same in one clock cycle, thus increasing the amount of data it can handle.

The point is, if the software doesn't support these type of features, then 64bit is no better than 32bit.

Last edited: