Posted on 04/20/2005 6:07:33 PM PDT by ConservativeMind
By attentively studying the behavior of a Dual Core Athlon 64, we realized that a very interesting characteristic of the upcoming Desktop Dual Core chip from AMD was hidden...
...So, It seems that AMD chose to activate the "HyperThreading" bit on those Athlon 64 Desktop CPUs in order to profit from optimizations already done by many programmers for HyperThreading technology. This will make possible for those upcoming Athlon 64 Dual Core to also benefit from work already carried out. For now, we do not know yet if the Dual Core Opterons will also have this bit active.
(Excerpt) Read more at x86-secret.com ...
This, along with early news that tomorrow's annoucement from AMD will mention the desktop and server dual-core processors, will mark a major coup.
Users will benefit while Intel's stock suffers.
Droolage.
Chipzilla is taking a beating from AMD.
The desktop version will also fit in existing 939 pin mobos. More info about the AMD Athlon 64 X2 here: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20050413023541.html
Will I be able to run Windows 98 on it?
Yeah, but why would you want to?
If you buy the chip, why not get XP-64?
I suppose, but Windows XP 64 is due for release, why not make the most of it.
Yes, but you must F-Disk it first.
If Windows 98 can run on it (which I assume it can), it will not handle the second core. It may be possible HyperrThreading from one processor could work, though.
I believe XP Professional is needed for anything related to multiple cores or more than one processor (up to two).
Actually, HyperThreading shouldn't work either.
Windows 98 never supported it.
ping
I **ONLY** buy AMD! I've bought three Athlons/Durons so far. My next buy will be from NewEgg, will be a mobile 45watt Athlon 2500+ I'll overclock on my Shuttle board.
AMD has aced out Intel as far as power consumption. The AMD chips of the least two years run cooler that the Intel equivalents
Serves 'em right to suffer
Will I be able to run Windows 98 on it?
And you would want to torture yourself why?
Running W98 is like buying a Pinto and driving it in reverse on the street.
Various Unix versions should get a boost from this chip, too.
Actually there have been dual-CPU motherboards for years. It deals more with how the motherboards bios handles the data processing than the operating systems.
Also, AMD 64 CPU are legacy compatiable with 32 bit bases operating systems, W2K for example, so in theory it should work with an older older operating system.
> It appears AMD has also imbued the new desktop version
> of these processors with HyperThreading.
Well, yeah, but ...
a. Intel HT has been useless (or even a performance hit)
for the majority of users. Intel has hyped it to little
avail. Is there any reason to suppose AMD's is more
beneficial?
b. My understanding was that on AMD, DC is enabled using
the same bit that Intel uses for HT (which cleverly
avoids having to wait for always-late Microsoft for
specfic DC support). So how is this new pseudo-HT enabled?
c. And if always-enabled, does it screw up CPU counts
for MS licensing restrictions?
I run Win2K fine with my dual Xeons. XP is admittedly a better product in some respects; after all, when my old video card suffered its occassional crash, XP caught the infinite hardware loop, shut down the video card, and didn't freeze like Win2K did. However the bloatware is getting so annoying--WinXP on a 2 gHz machine runs no faster than Win98 on a 500 mHz machine. I'm making my stand on Win2K and sticking with it as long as possible.
Also, hyperthreading worked fine with my Win2K system when I had it enabled. It saw 4 processors just fine.
Scratch that--I think Win2K Advanced Server is the only Win2K flavor that can handle HT--and that was what I was running. Now using plain old Win2K Pro.
AMD Inside here. CPU 44 deg C, motherboard 31 deg C. Runs 24/7/365.
HyperThreading is overrated. I have seen performance tests of Intel's HyperThreading CPUs over at www.tomshardware.com a few years ago using the same Intel CPUs; one with hyperthreading, one without hyperthreading and the there was a 5% to 10% performance lose with the CPU using hyperthreading compared to the one that was not on each single run program test they took.
My point in my previous post here was that you can use dual-CPUs with older operating systems.
I love AMD chips. Just bought a computer from TigerDirect.com that has an Athlon XP +3000 in it for only $400.00. (TigerDirect has great deals, BTW).
I agree it's mostly for the hardcore gamers and those running small businesses.
I'll just stick with my Athlon for now, although I'm seriously looking into buying a new computer with the new AMD Sempron chip in it.
AMD Sempron? I don't really pay attention to Computer hardware news lately. What is the difference between a AMD 64 CPU and a AMD Sempron CPU?
Hot stuff (literally). I heard an Intel guy state that AMD can't get as many of these on a wafer as Intel can their version. Might just be whistling in the dark, but AMD has to produce 'em before they can sell 'em.
Sempron is more for everyday, home applications. It does run video and audio too. The 64 is for hardcore gaming and running huge applications.
Kind of like comparing the Intel Celeron to the Intel Pentium 4, only that the Sempron is just as powerful as the lower-end Pentium 4. The Sempron replaced the AMD Duron chip, BTW.
TigerDirect has great deals on their Systemax PCs. Much better than Dell, IMO. (Personally I think Dell is overrated).
That was a joke.
Sounds like a good computer! TigerDirect is a good company. I would buy more stuff from them but unfortunately I get get nicked for sales tax since they are based in my state of Florida. Their catalog is a trip, makes you want to buy stuff, makes your mouth water.
Most cheaper Dell computers have two slots for memory and onboard video. Not for me but I would recommend to others who are not so fussy
http://www.gotapex.com/
AMD Opteron is kicking butt in the technical computing market.
You'll find that the AMD64 cores run much faster and much cooler for many tasks. Dual Xeons generally get crushed by dual Opterons, and there is no price advantage to the Xeons. Vastly superior memory architecture and performance, and an I/O fabric that Intel wishes they had. Opterons are large dollar iron at small dollar prices.
We've stopped buying Xeons for about a bit over a year now. The Opterons soundly spank them by virtually every measure. Try them on your next system -- you'll like them.
Opterons are the current golden boy of the high-performance computing crowd. With mature compilers available now, their floating point and integer performance is top notch. (Yes, the G5 and PPC processors are faster at DSP codes, but how much high performance work is DSP... precious little, and they are mediocre at everything else.)
AMD has a killer advantage with their memory architecture. Most codes are performance bound by memory latency, and nothing off-the-shelf can touch the Opteron in this department. Wicked good architecture with an excellent pedigree (Cray and Alpha fabrics on Nexgen derived core), very arguably the most balanced architecture to hit the commodity world since the Pentium Pro. I buy nothing else for raw power in the low- to mid-range.
Thanks for the recommendation. I've been leery of AMDs; with the first & only AMD box I built, all seemed to go well, until I ran some code that would thrash the OS & push the CPU to the max... the screen went nuts, the OS froze, and finally the box shut off on its own. In retrospect, it was probably a misinstalled fan.
And of course the HPC crowd doesn't usually have anything to do with Windows, with Linux being the leader.
If they are equivalent in speed, this would be a big factor for me. I have 6 computers in this one room, including overclocked 3.2 Prescott chipped machines, 2 2.8 Ghz machines, and a 2.4Ghz. It is like having 6 space heaters in the room with me. This room is 10 to 15 degrees hotter than the rest of the house.
The CPU temps on the Prescott machine under load is over 50C and the air that comes out the back is 90F or more. The others aren't quite as bad, but it adds up. The 525 Watt power supplies are adding to this, but they would be cooler if the chips drew less wattage for the same speed.
How much cooler are the AMD chips?
Plain ol' Win2K Server will see the HT ... I am seeing 2 procs on my Win2kServer boxes ...
This chart is useful as far as the wattage drawn. The general consensus at silentpcreview is that at this time AMD is the leader in cooler chips
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article31-page1.html
Measured draw for high-end dual Opteron systems used in clusters is usually 175-185 watts from the wall running at max load. Similar Xeon systems run well north of 200 watts, closer to 225 as I recall. The rule of thumb for power cost is $1/watt/year, so that is another reason Opterons are popular for large clusters -- the savings in power consumption alone are enough to pay a good salary.
So yes, substantially cooler and typically faster.
They have enabled hyperthreading "optimization", ie enabled HT bit recognition.
Any CPU that runs X86 code can have hyperthreading "optimization".
Sempron is based on 2 cores, K7 & k8
The K7 or socket 462 cpu aka socket A Sempron is simply a socket A cpu with the MP bridge connected (see specifications), they come with 256k L2 (except the Sempron 3000+ = full 512K L2), 32bit support.
The K8 Semprons are based on the A64 architecture, are socket 754, have cool & quiet and the non execute bit, 32bit support.
Here's a little known trick about the Socket A Sempron, you can use them in any dual socket A configuration straight out of the box, you can pick up 2 Sempron 3000+'s cheaper tha 2 MP2800+'s, the only draw back is the Semprons will only go to 1.6GHz instead of the 2.13 of the MP2800+'s
Sempron specifications
http://forums.amd.com/index.php?showtopic=23474
A64's will support 32 & 64 bit processes, at this time they come in Socket 754, 939, & 940. With a few new sockets on the way.
The price of the socket A & 754 products is going up as production ceases or heads inot different directions, socket 939, 940 prices are coming down as production ramps up.
Come visit us at the AMD Corporate processor support forum and have a look around or post any general questions.
http://forums.amd.com/index.php?act=idx
MD Willington
Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,237
I believe the real scoop for AMD was releasing backwards-compatible 64-bit processors. Both AMD Opteron and AMD Athlon-64 will run 32-bit applications without modification. In the case of Opteron, it is positioned as a server chip to compete with Itanium. Even though it will run 32-bit applications, the performance will not be as good as some of the desktop processors because it is optimized for 64-bit instructions. The Athlon-64 on the other hand is marketed as a consumer processor and has both excellent 32-bit performance as well as 64-bit capability all on one chip. This is the market niche where Intel was lacking. I believe Intel will be releasing (if they haven't already) a Xeon 64-bit/32-bit capable processor. I think Intel made a serious error in believing that the world would stampede to upgrade to the Itanium, which has a very similar though not completely backwards compatible instruction set. The Intel's instruction set badly needed a housecleaning, but Intel has made a reputation for backwards compatibility. I can take software developed on a 386 and run it on any P4. I believe customers, particularly the consumer market, have come to expect it. That's why Itanium was a business-class server-only processor. Intel had the misfortune of releasing a non-backwards-compatible server processor when everyone was tightening their belts.
I think there's something like an inverse-Moore's Law at work, which says the faster computers get the more bloated the software applications become and therefore the net increase in computing speed is zero.
That is interesting to know, thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.