But going the A64 route you dont have to be ready for 64bit right when you switch. thats the beauty of it. It's transparent, its a world class 32bit chip with 64bit waiting in the wings.. which will soon be utilized.. even if you dont "need" it, its still a nice feature to have, and potentially a bad feature to go without.

-------------------------

Exactly and that's the point. Intel simply can't just have 32-bit anymore if they hope to survive, provided AMD64 picks up anyway. The fact that the Athlon 64 offers the best 32-bit performance available is AMD's failsafe. If someone really wanted to stick with only 32-bit stuff, they could buy the Athlon 64 and do just that. At the same time, if they decide to give 64-bit a shot, they don't have to go out and buy a new processor. That's where Intel loses big time.

-------------------------
Intel Core i7 860
ASUS P7P55D-E Pro
Corsair HX650W
Corsair XMS DDR3-1333 (4GB @ 8-8-8-24)
Sapphire Radeon HD 6870
Western Digital VelociRaptor 300GB
Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB

Best [content edited] deal period is the 3000+ A64 ATM 4 gaming

if they do go with A64 extensions, i'm certain they wont become available until just before WinXP64 comes out.

the 3000+ definatley.

While the 3000+ looks like it performs right up there with the 3200+ don't you think that crippled cache could become more of a performance hit once the 64 bit software comes out? It seems like the cache will play a bigger role then. I'd go with the 3200+ just because it's not much more and has double the cache.

It's possible, but I doubt it. I guess we'll find out eventually, but I'm assuming AMD knows what they're doing since all Athlon 64s will eventually have just 512KB of L2 cache.

-------------------------
Intel Core i7 860
ASUS P7P55D-E Pro
Corsair HX650W
Corsair XMS DDR3-1333 (4GB @ 8-8-8-24)
Sapphire Radeon HD 6870
Western Digital VelociRaptor 300GB
Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB

QUOTE (Ardrid @ Jan 16 2004, 05:12 PM) I'm assuming AMD knows what they're doing since all Athlon 64s will eventually have just 512KB of L2 cache.
That's what I mean. They must have used 512KB for a reason.

I'm pretty sure 32-bit will be around for quite a while yet. It's not like the 16 to 32-bit switch that IMO was relatively quick. AMD is winning big with the A64, not because it's 64-bit but because it beats out every other 32-bit chip and being the best buy out there. 64-bit is nice to have, but you won't even get to use it in everything for a long time to come. I personally hope we never switch to strictly 64-bit processors, I don't want to abandon all my lovely 32-bit software

QUOTE (Tamerz @ Jan 16 2004, 05:16 PM)That's what I mean.  They must have used 512KB for a reason.
My guess is that the went with 1MB cache for two reasons:

1. Marketing. Maybe AMD felt the need to match Intel in the numbers game

2. Technical. At the time they were designing the chip they could not be sure the CPU would perform with only 512KB, and it wasn't a risk worth taking. The cache size would depend on statistical phenomenon of the way programs accessed RAM and on the effectiveness of the branch prediction unit. Both factors would have been uncertain at the time the decision was made.

But now they have real world performance data...

Even so, it would not surprise me to see the 1MB cache back for top end Opterons (which might run with huge working sets) at some point in the future.


Peter


PS:
@Ardrid (see below)

Thanks for the correction. Keeping the 1MB for Opterons (and FX) does make sense - much more likely they will be handling really huge chunks of data.

QUOTE (pcy @ Jan 16 2004, 05:46 PM) My guess is that the went with 1MB cache for two reasons:

1. Marketing. Maybe AMD felt the need to match Intel in the numbers game

2. Technical. At the time they were designing the chip they could not be sure the CPU would perform with only 512KB, and it wasn't a risk worth taking. The cache size would depend on statistical phenomenon of the way programs accessed RAM and on the effectiveness of the branch prediction unit. Both factors would have been uncertain at the time the decision was made.

But now they have real world performance data...

Even so, it would not surprise me to see the 1MB cache back for top end Opterons (which might run with huge working sets) at some point in the future.


Peter
Or that the 512L2 batch clocks higher, hence 3700+ etc

QUOTE (pcy @ Jan 16 2004, 08:46 PM) My guess is that the went with 1MB cache for two reasons:

1. Marketing. Maybe AMD felt the need to match Intel in the numbers game

2. Technical. At the time they were designing the chip they could not be sure the CPU would perform with only 512KB, and it wasn't a risk worth taking. The cache size would depend on statistical phenomenon of the way programs accessed RAM and on the effectiveness of the branch prediction unit. Both factors would have been uncertain at the time the decision was made.

But now they have real world performance data...

Even so, it would not surprise me to see the 1MB cache back for top end Opterons (which might run with huge working sets) at some point in the future.


Peter
The Opterons aren't losing their 1MB L2 cache. It's only the Athlon 64 that's going to be affected. The Opteron and the FX will still have 1MB of L2 cache.

-------------------------
Intel Core i7 860
ASUS P7P55D-E Pro
Corsair HX650W
Corsair XMS DDR3-1333 (4GB @ 8-8-8-24)
Sapphire Radeon HD 6870
Western Digital VelociRaptor 300GB
Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB

My suggestion to AMD is to consider mass consumer intensive advertisement.
After the K's AMD were known for a speed/value chose, not particularly for the fastest cpus.Now when the AMD64 came out they finally have the top - they should use this window to push them into market bevore Intel comes out with it's marketing gimmicks.

I'm worried for AMD because of the situation here, in Israel, where I live.

Vast majority of stores don't even sell AMDs , for "they don't have any warranty and will be fried shortly", a B.Sc.(!! student told me that the Barton is only good as a grill, the average consumer didn't ever heard the name "AMD" and will buy slower Intel for extra (50%-100%) cost.
A friend of mine, net admin, doesn't know what's Operton is.

On the other hand Intel is popular and you'll see "Intel inside" logo all around.
Here in Haifa there's Intel center, where the Banias chip was invented from the scratch ( known as Centrino)- just to show that it's not a 3rd world country.
Israel is 2nd in the world in startups after the US - AMD doesn't benefit from it at all.

Bottom line - if AMD doesn't want to be a fanclub for a short list of enthusiasts they chould change their marketing policy, or the "Prescotts", "Tajas" etc will rule and it won't even matter what's the diff. between 32/64bit.
Gil.

-------------------------
quote:A.M.D = All Men Desire.

System:HEC 475Watt.AMD Athlon XP-M2500 IQYHA0351MPMW.
Abit NF7v2*Sp97*NB1+delta*A-DATA DDR500
MSI 'the rock' RX9800*WD800JB
*257x10@1.83V*261x10@1.9V (CPC off)

Believe me, if AMD had the funds to do the kind of mass marketing Intel does they would've been done it by now. It's a money issue.

-------------------------
Intel Core i7 860
ASUS P7P55D-E Pro
Corsair HX650W
Corsair XMS DDR3-1333 (4GB @ 8-8-8-24)
Sapphire Radeon HD 6870
Western Digital VelociRaptor 300GB
Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB

That's why I think we all need to do what we can to "spread the AMD gospel". I know most of us are, and I've even read several of the system builders on the forum use AMD exclusively for it's great cost/performance. Let everyone that's in the market for a computer know about AMD and how they are just as reliable as Intel, run cooler, use less energy, and are faster in some cases and just as fast in the others. If only all those people buying budget Celeron system could know how bad the Duron spanks that chip, AMD would be in business. That's where the money is, in entry, to mid-level systems not in the market we look at, the upper edge of technology.

Yeah, I've been sayin this for a while. AMD is at a severe loss due to their marketing. But thats a situation that I can't help. I was talkin about AMD stocks with a kid in my class and some other kid asks me why I would get stocks with AMD instead of going with Intel. At that point I thought to myself,"If it weren't for my horse, I never would of spent that year in college" before I passed out.

-------------------------
Life is hard you know this $hit gets taxin,
Thats why when ya find me Ima be relaxin...

QUOTE (:::====={XX} @ Jan 12 2004, 06:57 AM) well should I go with athlon 64 or xp??
A64, much better clock for clock because of hypertransport technology.

-------------------------
--======== proud owner of new razor tarantula gaming keyboard ========--

HT actually has little to do with it. The performance increase is mainly due to the internal optimizations (larger TLBs, etc.) and the on-die memory controller.

-------------------------
Intel Core i7 860
ASUS P7P55D-E Pro
Corsair HX650W
Corsair XMS DDR3-1333 (4GB @ 8-8-8-24)
Sapphire Radeon HD 6870
Western Digital VelociRaptor 300GB
Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB

QUOTE
Ardrid Posted on Jan 16 2004, 07:12 PM
  Believe me, if AMD had the funds to do the kind of mass marketing Intel does they would've been done it by now. It's a money issue. 


See - there's your lack of buiseness understandinng ( I won't say AMD's because you don't represent them). there's no such thing as "lack of funds", the only thing matters is the deficit/proficit at the end of the year.AMD MUST invest in marketing in order to have funds for anything in the future, the advertisement funds pay off exponentially, even if the product is a bad piece of [organic isomprhic substance], like Celeron , imho.

I liked last AMDs ad with the crushing train, it is funny but won't give any info for incompitent consumer.
AMD has to work on their image e.g lifetime warranty, support, - and solve default problems with DDR/board incompatibility ("why my athlon XP runs at 1500? why it won't boot)- those things aren't CPU's fauld but hurt it's image.
Gil.

P.S: Maybe it should be a topic of itself.

-------------------------
quote:A.M.D = All Men Desire.

System:HEC 475Watt.AMD Athlon XP-M2500 IQYHA0351MPMW.
Abit NF7v2*Sp97*NB1+delta*A-DATA DDR500
MSI 'the rock' RX9800*WD800JB
*257x10@1.83V*261x10@1.9V (CPC off)

And how do you suppose AMD is going to "invest in marketing" when they're in the red? You don't call that lack of funds? Marketing is the last thing on their mind right now. When they start making a profit, then they can start looking towards marketing.

-------------------------
Intel Core i7 860
ASUS P7P55D-E Pro
Corsair HX650W
Corsair XMS DDR3-1333 (4GB @ 8-8-8-24)
Sapphire Radeon HD 6870
Western Digital VelociRaptor 300GB
Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB

QUOTE (Ardrid @ Jan 16 2004, 07:12 PM)Believe me, if AMD had the funds to do the kind of mass marketing Intel does they would've been done it by now.  It's a money issue.
Money and Time.

AMD are doing it right.

But it takes time to build a quality product, even longer to establish a reputation for quality, and years more to project that reputation into the marketplace as a brand image.

You have to reach people who don't understand computers, and are not interested in technology.

And you have to stay solvent while doing all that investment...



Peter