PDA

View Full Version : HEHEHEHEHE AMD 64bit processor, MACS ????


Jonathan
09-24-2003, 10:24 AM
I find myself constantly rolling on the floor with humor at the latest and greatest. It's been less than a month since MAC was saying that it's new processor was the fastest available to home users, and now AMD boast the same claims with their new 64bit processors. Now already, the zealots have hit in the frontlines of nearly every IRC and forum I can pop my head into.

I'm typically ignorant when it comes to the inner workings of processors and hardware technologies, however I do know my software. In the end, you can have the FASTEST PROCESSOR on the planet, but if you can't run your apps, what good is it??? I'm not saying that the processors don't work or won't work. What I'm saying was that the last time Mac boasted their super fast chips, we found fudged numbers, inadequate application support(which was nothing new) and limited hardware. AMD on the other started out with heat issues as well as quite a few compatibility issues.

I live by the creed "If it aint broke, don't try to fix it." Before investing in the latest and greatest, I'll have to wait for what the end users make of it and begin burning up the websites with bug reports and rants.

Aearon
09-24-2003, 11:28 AM
what is your point? :shrug:

advance of technology is inevitable, of course there are companies always claiming to have developed the next best thing. however... amd's athlon 64 FX-51 is, on average the fastest desktop cpu out there.

I'm not saying that the processors don't work or won't work.

every piece of x86 software runs on the athlon 64. and why would their be any incompatibilities or 'bugs'? i haven't read a single word about that. every single review about the opteron or athlon 64 says both the cpu and chipsets are incredibly stable at this stage. (except for some beta boards being previed...)

AMD on the other started out with heat issues as well as quite a few compatibility issues.

there is no heat problem on any AMD64 retail product. in fact all approved heatsinks are built to handle much more heat than any athlon or opteron currently dissipates. if there are any incompatibilities i'd like to hear about them.

If it aint broke, don't try to fix it. Before investing in the latest and greatest [...]

fair enough, i'm not an early adopter either. however the Athlon 64 launch looks like a perfectly executed one. it's always a good idea to wait... but theoretically there's no reason not to go for it.

GregHess
09-24-2003, 12:13 PM
AMD on the other started out with heat issues as well as quite a few compatibility issues.

Intel's heat problem has become so utterly massive, that they've redesigned the ATX standard to take into account the 130 watt+ processors their soon to be releasing.

The new standard is called BTX.

http://www.intel.com/update/contents/dt10031.htm

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1876

AMD now takes second place to Intel's monster heat producers.

But if you visit some review sites...you'll see AMD is currently parading the performance crown with the FX chip*.

*=In most tests/benchmarks...including specviewperf.

Jonathan
09-24-2003, 12:35 PM
I see that nowhere in my post was Intel mentioned but already it's been turned into an intel vs AMD issue. In fact there wasn't even a comparison issue. (rolls on the ground in laughter!)

Well time to collect my 20 bucks:beer:

All kidding in aside, Basically what I was saying in my post was that you can't be sure until the end-users run the product into the ground. Fast is fast, but stability remains KING!!!!!

I don't read benches when it comes to processor technologies. Proponents for certain products always seem to boast theirs are faster and better and numbers can be fudged.

GregHess
09-24-2003, 01:25 PM
Maybe you should consider phrasing your next post with a bit more thought then.

Perhaps then everyone won't see it as a flame thread.

Here's why people are reacting the way they are.

HEHEHEHEHE AMD 64bit processor, MACS ????

rolling on the floor with humor

the zealots

what good is it???

FASTEST PROCESSOR on the planet

fudged numbers, inadequate application support

heat issues as well as quite a few compatibility issues

and my fav...

begin burning up the websites with bug reports and rants.

Which is exactly what you just did :).

Jonathan
09-24-2003, 02:23 PM
hehe, it wasn't exactly what I said as my first post is unedited, but humor is subject so misunderstandings are bound to happen.

Maybe it would fared better if you copy pasted the quotes in the last post. :cool:

tomatoes and to'matoes

GregHess
09-24-2003, 02:24 PM
I just cut and pasted the elements of your previous post which indicate a flame, or negative post intended to illicit a response from other forum goer's.

Jonathan
09-24-2003, 03:47 PM
That is soooo funny, you paraphased it an such a way as that the post would reflect you point of view as my attempt to flame, as in "you fudged my post." I guess fudging not only goes on in the benchmark postings but also in the forum postings.

That post was last edited at 12:40 and you posted almost at 1:28 which is 48 minutes later and I edited that post seconds after I wrote it to correct some things which means unless you have a magic wand or you're an administator or whatever the case may be, you would not have seen what I wrote and it was damn near identical with what's already there.

Man this forum fudged! :thumbsdow

GregHess
09-24-2003, 03:59 PM
Your logic reminds me of tomshardware.

MadMax
09-24-2003, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by GregHess
Your logic reminds me of tomshardware.

Well that would be consistant with his post.

It certainly looks as if he gets all of his information from Tom's Hardware

stephen2002
09-24-2003, 06:22 PM
I think that BTX design is a step in the right direction. Right now ATX cases are kinda a mess of componenets and they are not really in the right locations to allow for optimum cooling of the super-hot CPUs and GPUs in today's PCs. I applaud Intel for finally steping in the right direction becasuse I doubt that computer components are going to suddenly start releasing less heat at the same amount of CPU power.

Sieb
09-24-2003, 06:50 PM
Athlon 64 and G5 are two completely different platforms. G5 is a Power4 chip from IBMs mainframe class servers. Athlon64 is built off the Opteron which is a 64bit x86 architecture. Both are capable of running older 32bit apps just fine in native mode. Unlike Itaniums that emulate 32bit. 64bit doesnt mean faster, just more efficient with a now seemingly unlimited memory limit.

Athlon64/Opteron are still limited since winxp64bit just went into public beta, most apps arent compiled for 64bit yet, once they are, they have to be on a 64bit OS to have any effect, and drivers for hardware aren't out yet for XP 64bit yet. So we have a ways to go before we see any real numbers worth looking at.

Heatwise, Athlon64s can handle up to 86C before they will shut themselves off.

If you want real facts to learn from, read reviews, not press releases.

parallax
09-24-2003, 07:46 PM
@ Jonathan

YOU stated that AMD initially had heat dissipation problems.
Greg simply put that aside because its really a thing of the past (even if you're aware of that or not)
To follow up, greg pointed to the fact that Intel currently has heat problems of their own as an example. I'm sure not to start a flamewar.
Don't turn this thing around.

And regarding the use of the new AMD chips, it has proven itself in the field, just look at the Opterons in ie. Boxxtech systems.
They're rocksolid, AND performance is top-notch.

Athlon64(FX) are simply based on the Opteron, so they're not that different.

richcz3
09-25-2003, 08:48 PM
Greg
I respect your views and techno knowledge but, on intel upcoming CPUs. I've read 90-115 mentioned at the recent intel outing. Hot, very hot yes, but...130 Watt! Seriously, that's better than an Easy Bake Oven. What site made that measurement? Please provide a link I want to read that. Even the Inquirer which is AMDMAX's favorite site they said 115 Watts. (kidding MADMAX of course, it's your 2nd favorite site). ;)

I personaly don't like the BTX case layout. Am I alone on this. Maybe functional, but the component setup inside and fan up high..??? This is not style and function. Me no like.

In defense of Jonathan he did state his lack knowledge of such technical voodoo and how it did not effect him. Quite self defacing about I might add. Something to take to heart as the average consumer views probably mirror his.

On the other hand Jonathan, coming into a temple like the Technical and Hardware Forum eschewing technology advancements is like going to a church with a hot date and well...you get the idea. Its not going to take a zealot to get bug eyed if you stir the waters.


richcz3

GregHess
09-25-2003, 11:31 PM
richcz3,

The 130 watts is scaling up.

Aka if you look at the 115 watt processors, guess how much hotter the processor after that one is? (Aka the next speed stepping up)

Here's some prescott temp graphs with megahertz.

http://www.overclockers.com/articles811/4.gif

Based on an older article on overclockers.com. (Looking for the updated one)

The greatest difficulty intel is currently facing, is how to get these chips cooled, while maintaining a quiet computer.

If they can't figure this out, dell will drop them.

GregHess
09-25-2003, 11:38 PM
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11092

The 103 Watt heat discussed by the inquirer is just for the first prescott, the 3.4 Gigahertz.

So if you take the graph in my previous post, move the 103 watt to the 3.2 area, you'll see they'll be reaching 130 watts extremely quickly...and beyond that.

As you may be aware this is going to require some unique cooling solutions (water, btx motherboard, active cooling), to maintain cool systems.

It'll be interesting to see how intel tackles this problem. (We've already seen the BTX standard annouced)

The 130 watt number I throw around was quoted to my by someone in the business of the amount of energy the first OEM heatsinks will have to be able to disappate for prescott.

MadMax
09-25-2003, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by richcz3
Even the Inquirer which is AMDMAX's favorite site they said 115 Watts. (kidding MADMAX of course, it's your 2nd favorite site). ;)


A pox upon you infidel........

Flyby
09-26-2003, 09:19 AM
I think we've almost reached the limits of air-cooling with 130W on such a small area...

We've seen an increase in RPM of the fan to push more air through the heat sinks, with an incredible increase of dB as a result.
The solution was to make the fans bigger and slower so you could get an acceptable noise level.
But how big can you go with those heat sinks? 20x20cm seems out of the question...:)

I think the area of more exotic cooling becoming mainstream is just around the corner. Peltier, liquid cooling or phase change (vapochill) cooling solutions look more and more interesting...

sumatra
09-26-2003, 12:50 PM
Actually the size of fans cant quite scale more.. we're at 90mm max now but going further to 120mm solutions without the use of a ductfan will yield worse results at least with the traditional fans (motor in center) cause of the size of the motor shadow.
Tmd fans(ring motor) are a promising idea though i dont think they scale too well (curently @74mm)
Watercooling is a promising solution either as cooling or noise wise. Actually i think NEC(not sure about the company) in japan announced a pc with standard watercooling

GregHess
09-26-2003, 01:34 PM
Aye your correct sumatra, Nec was the first company to ever announce an OEM water cooling solution.

The TMD fans are nice, but they're still noisy. I haven't seen any larger then 74 mm either, and they've been promising a 80-92mm one for awhile now.

Guess the magnet strength must be expodentially higher on the edges then in the center to get the same force.

Thalaxis
09-26-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Sieb
G5 is a Power4 chip from IBMs mainframe class servers.


No, it's not.

Thalaxis
09-26-2003, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by GregHess

It'll be interesting to see how intel tackles this problem. (We've already seen the BTX standard annouced)


A whole new transistor design, for one thing.

What I think will be even more interesting is seeing how Intel will
deal with the 64-bit issue, and with the clock speed issue that
their marketeers have overblown.

Personally, given the impressive performance of the Athlon64
and the continued ramping (beyond expectation, and also better
than I had hoped for I must say) of the Opteron, combined with
the impressive industry acceptance thereof, where does the
Xeon fit? My guess is that the newly launched Itanium2's in the
$750 and $1200 price points will start eating into Xeon sales
almost as much in the long term as the Opterons will.

And then there's the Penium-M... with the 1.9 and 2.0 GHz models
coming soon, all it will take is one good gaming platform
implemented in an SFF box and it will start eating into the P4's
market, as well.

CGTalk Moderation
01-16-2006, 05:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.