AMD Processors
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Athlon 64 Roadmap
Topic Summary:
Created On: 10/11/2003 04:34 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Previous Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 10/16/2003 01:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Ardrid
Heavy Wizardry

Posts: 12398
Joined: 10/08/2003

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. That's actually what Paris is rumored to be...an A64 with 256KB of L2 cache and AMD64 disabled, which would translate into an Athlon XP. The cache seems a little small, but considering that the "new" Athlon XP would take advantage of the on-die memory controller, the cache size shouldn't be much of an issue. Plus, it's an easy way of reducing the die size thus reducing AMD's manufacturing costs

-------------------------
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
 10/16/2003 01:55 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
ALIEN3001
Senior Member

Posts: 315
Joined: 10/07/2003

You don't think disabling AMD64 will lower costs of production or anything, don't you?
AMD MUST sell as many AMD64 CPUs as it can, selling s754 chips withouth AMD64 would mean significantly higher adoption time for AMD64 on all apps that are based on x86. That would be really stupid.
Producing chips with 256K L2 can lower costs, and such chips would make good Durons 64

-------------------------
{Signature removed. Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines regarding signatures}
http://forums.amd.com/index.php?act=boardrules
 10/16/2003 07:53 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
monte84
Elite

Posts: 2174
Joined: 10/06/2003

so they are just going to lable a cut-down A64 as a 754 pin AXP?

-------------------------
Phenom II X 1055T @3.64Ghz 1.425V
NB @ 2800Mhz HTT @ 2800Mhz
Gigabyte 890FXA-UD5
8GB Crucial Ballistix @ 1866 8-8-8-24-33-1T
AMD Radeon HD6950 2GB GDDR5 shaders @1536 OC to 840/1300
 10/17/2003 12:19 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Ardrid
Heavy Wizardry

Posts: 12398
Joined: 10/08/2003

No, I was saying that cutting the cache to 256KB would lower manufacturing costs as compared to the the Athlon 64 with 1MB of L2 cache. I do agree that disabling the AMD64 instructions would slow the adoption time somewhat, but I'm assuming AMD feels that ppl would go the extra mile to pick up a chip that has AMD64 even if it is priced somewhat higher.

And yes, Monte, that's what the rumors seem to indicate. We obviously won't know for sure until Paris officially launches. AMD could very well make two versions of Paris. One with and without AMD64, although this would significantly undercut the margins on the chip that lacks AMD64 as they'd essentially be at the same price point. I guess we'll know AMD's plans soon enough.

-------------------------
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
 10/18/2003 01:18 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Pro Kid
Senior Member

Posts: 5241
Joined: 10/08/2003

I gotta go back in time a little bit. We were talking about the 3400+ for a while, does anyone know what speed it will run at.

-------------------------
Life is hard you know this $hit gets taxin,
Thats why when ya find me Ima be relaxin...
 10/18/2003 03:00 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Ivan Andreevich
Senior Member

Posts: 2783
Joined: 10/06/2003

Well, if AMD introduced some CPUs into the value segment by Q204 at the latest, they would fly off the shelves like crazy. THEN AMD64 would be a success. That should be a goal for AMD.

Ardrid
The main advantage of using 256KB is NOT lowering production cost. Production cost makes up a very small percentage of the end cost. The main advantage is increasing the yields. I bet right now they are already setting aside tens of thousands of chips on which 1 MB doesn't function but 256 KB will. So hopefully, by the end of the year they will have some hundreds of thousands of 256 KB chips. And Q1/Q2 they can floooow out on the market and take everything by storm.

How about that idea?

Pro Kid
Probably 2.2 Ghz. It seems logical enough to me heh.
 10/18/2003 12:37 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Pro Kid
Senior Member

Posts: 5241
Joined: 10/08/2003

Wait a sec, sure it would seem logical for the A64 but from what I heard theres gonna be a new AXP coming out, hopefully I misinterpreted something.

-------------------------
Life is hard you know this $hit gets taxin,
Thats why when ya find me Ima be relaxin...
 10/18/2003 01:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Ivan Andreevich
Senior Member

Posts: 2783
Joined: 10/06/2003

New Athlon XP... it can be ANYTHING from a Barton 3400+ (which is easily possible with today's steppings) to a Barton on 0.09 or an Athlon XP for Socket 754 without 64 bit support (something I don't believe in is required)
 10/18/2003 01:15 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Pro Kid
Senior Member

Posts: 5241
Joined: 10/08/2003

/me feels somewhat foolish for buying 2500+

-------------------------
Life is hard you know this $hit gets taxin,
Thats why when ya find me Ima be relaxin...
 10/18/2003 01:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
BEENTHERE
Senior Member

Posts: 1079
Joined: 10/10/2003

The 2500+ is the sweet spot for price/performance as they O/C very, very well and most enthusiasts now days do O/C. Not everyone can afford or justify bleeding edge prices but thankfully as clockspeeds ramp we all get to enjoy super performance gains. For the youngens here... it wasn't that long ago when Pentium 90s were the fastest chippie available and at a very expensive price. If you can't even imagine how slow a Pentium 90 is compared to todays 3200 MHz CPUs, I could scare you with talk about 8088 and 286 CPUs where you could type faster than the processor could output, but I'll spare ya.

Thankfully AMD changed the landscape forever with the K6 series, and the rest is history as they say.

-------------------------
If only they knew...
 10/18/2003 02:19 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Pro Kid
Senior Member

Posts: 5241
Joined: 10/08/2003

That reminds me I once read up on a little thing a while ago, probably by some radicals, about CPU's scaling in speed was no longer necessary due to your hands wouldn't be able to keep up with the PC anyway.

-------------------------
Life is hard you know this $hit gets taxin,
Thats why when ya find me Ima be relaxin...
 10/18/2003 03:31 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
BEENTHERE
Senior Member

Posts: 1079
Joined: 10/10/2003

Some folks miss the obvious when they start talking about PC processor/system speeds/performance. The argument is usually along the lines of typing speed for word processing. Thankfully we pasted that threshold with the late 286 chippies.

Where faster CPUs help system performance is with intense apps like GUIs, large databases, 3D CAD/modeling, digital audio/video, and scientific apps where there is a lot of data crunching. All kidding aside it takes a 2500+ to run the latest Windoze O/S's because they are so bloated with poor code. Many folks are shocked to see how fast Linux runs on a 286/486 compared to Windoze on a current speed CPU. Believe me the WinTel Cabal is quite happy with a bloated, slow, O/S as it justifies in peoples mind a need for speedy CPUs.

-------------------------
If only they knew...
 10/18/2003 07:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Ivan Andreevich
Senior Member

Posts: 2783
Joined: 10/06/2003

Heh "all kidding aside" a Pentium 2 with 256MB RAM, RAID 0 and a Radeon video card will be faster in WINDOWS then Pentium 4 2.66 Ghz with 128 MB RAM, a single drive and a intel Extreem () graphics. No need for CPU speed in Windows itself.

CAD / games / videoediting / encoding of different sorts / rendering... can you ever have enough speed there? Not soon enough!



STOP THIS OFFTOP! This is about Athlon 64 ROADMAP, people!
 10/20/2003 09:47 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Ivan Andreevich
Senior Member

Posts: 2783
Joined: 10/06/2003

I wish we could have someone who WORKS at AMD tell us more about this.
 10/20/2003 10:05 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Ardrid
Heavy Wizardry

Posts: 12398
Joined: 10/08/2003

In AMD's case, cutting the L2 cache would most certainly help their manufacturing costs as well as their yields. They've mentioned on a number of occasions that they're manufacturing sweet spot is btw 100-120mm^2. These babies are weighing in at 193mm^2. They aren't exactly cheap to make. Trust me, making the Athlon 64/FX and Opteron is NOT a fun time for AMD. It costs them about $58 for a Hammer die. That's $20 more than a Barton die. Think about that $20 spread over the millions of chips they're going to make. Cutting the cache would make things a lot better for them as a large portion of the die is devoted to cache. In fact, more than half of the die is devoted to 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
 10/20/2003 11:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Pro Kid
Senior Member

Posts: 5241
Joined: 10/08/2003

QUOTE (Ardrid @ Oct 20 2003, 06:05 PM) In AMD's case, cutting the L2 cache would most certainly help their manufacturing costs as well as their yields. They've mentioned on a number of occasions that they're manufacturing sweet spot is btw 100-120mm^2. These babies are weighing in at 193mm^2. They aren't exactly cheap to make. Trust me, making the Athlon 64/FX and Opteron is NOT a fun time for AMD. It costs them about $58 for a Hammer die. That's $20 more than a Barton die. Think about that $20 spread over the millions of chips they're going to make. Cutting the cache would make things a lot better for them as a large portion of the die is devoted to cache. In fact, more than half of the die is devoted to cache.
Well as far as I'm concerned from what I see large cache isn't doing very much for CPU's, the Barton wasn't that much better then the TBred B and Those new Xeons and EE's that Intel put out arn't much better then their predecessors.

-------------------------
Life is hard you know this $hit gets taxin,
Thats why when ya find me Ima be relaxin...
 10/21/2003 01:25 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Ardrid
Heavy Wizardry

Posts: 12398
Joined: 10/08/2003

That's bc the Xeons and the EE are using L3 cache. And even then, we see some major improvements in certain apps. A prime example of the effect cache can have on performance can be found by looking no further than the Celeron. Compare a 2GHz Celeron to a 2GHz Pentium 4. I don't have to tell you that the Celeron get's massacred. Even a Celeron overclocked to 3GHz gets stomped by a P4 at 2.26GHz more than half of the time, all thanks to the cache, or lack thereof.

-------------------------
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
 10/21/2003 01:32 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Pro Kid
Senior Member

Posts: 5241
Joined: 10/08/2003

Lets not also forget that the Celerons dog slaw processors, I wouldn't be suprised to see a C3 beat on of those.

-------------------------
Life is hard you know this $hit gets taxin,
Thats why when ya find me Ima be relaxin...
 10/21/2003 01:34 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Ardrid
Heavy Wizardry

Posts: 12398
Joined: 10/08/2003

They're dog slow because they're exceedingly crippled. They generally have 1/4 the amount of cache that the P4s do.

-------------------------
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
 10/21/2003 01:52 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Pro Kid
Senior Member

Posts: 5241
Joined: 10/08/2003

*shudder*, I once thought of using a celeron for the home pc and then realized I could get an AXP for around the same price and far better performance.

-------------------------
Life is hard you know this $hit gets taxin,
Thats why when ya find me Ima be relaxin...
Statistics
112018 users are registered to the AMD Processors forum.
There are currently 0 users logged in.

FuseTalk Hosting Executive Plan v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.



Contact AMD Terms and Conditions ©2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Privacy Trademark information