Amd Athlon 64 Processor

[netweiser]

Leading edge 32-bit performance
Support for future 64-bit applications
40-bit physical addresses,48-bit virtual
16 64-bit integer registers
16 128-bit SSE/SSE2 registers
Supports PC1600 to PC3200 DDR Memory
72-bit DDR memory
Up to 3.2 GB/s memory bandwidth
One 16-bit link up to 1600MHz
Up to 6.4GB/s HyperTransport bandwidth

whats all that mean? :blink: im mostly interested in the "bandwidth".

im currently using a athlon XP 1.4ghz.


EDIT: (more info)
Core Speed Not Specified
System Bus 1600 mhz
Level 1 Cache 128 Kb
Level 2 Cache 1024 Kb
Total Cache 1152 Kb
Architecture AMD Athlon 64


AMD Athlon™ 64 processor overview
The AMD Athlon 64 processor is the first and only Windows®compatible 64-bit PC processor. The AMD Athlon 64 processor runs on AMD64, a revolutionary technology that allows the processor to run 32-bit applications at full speed while enabling a new generation of powerful 64-bit software applications. Advanced 64-bit operating systems for the AMD64 platform from Microsoftf Red Hat, SuSE, and TurboLinux have already been announced, and they only run on processors with AMD64 technology.

With the introduction of the AMD Athlon 64 processor, AMD provides customers a solution that can address their current and future computing needs. As the first desktop PC processor to run on the AMD64 platform, the AMD Athlon 64 processor helps ensure superior performance on today's software with complete readiness for the coming wave of 64-bit computing. With AMD64 technology, customers can embrace the new capabilities of 64-bit computing on their own terms and achieve compatibility with existing software and operating systems.

[Autumn Fox]

Originally posted by netweiser@7 October 2003 - 22:54
whats all that mean? :blink: im mostly interested in the "bandwidth".


Great performence in 32-bit apps.
Support for upcomming 64-bit apps.
Able to adres more then 4BG of memory.
Additional instuctions for greater performence.
Support for fast DDR Ram.
72-bit, dunno :(
And 'bout this bandwidth, the CPU can transfer more data in one cycle, higher performence.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by Atumn Fox@7 October 2003 - 15:30
And 'bout this bandwidth, the CPU can transfer more data in one cycle, higher performence.
right. it can handle data in larger chunks than the older athlons, so the data spends less time queued up & waiting to be processed.

[adamp2p]

I am still unconvinced that purchasing any CPU at this time would be such a wise idea. Unless, of course you have lots of dough...

Especially this new 64 bit stuff...why pay for it when most apps are not 64 bit? The price is too high, in my opinion. Maybe wait until there are actually programs that use 64 bit instructions.

I am sure by then there will be an Athlon 4000+ available for a decent price.

I am not sure if you made a misake or not but the current P4 DDR 400 dual channel mobos all already do 6.4 GB/sec.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by adamp2p@7 October 2003 - 16:36
Especially this new 64 bit stuff...why pay for it when most apps are not 64 bit?  The price is too high, in my opinion.  Maybe wait until there are actually programs that use 64 bit instructions.
i agree, it's not a good time to buy a CPU right now, unless you've got a lot of money.

64 bit chips are expensive, but i wouldn't buy a 32 bit CPU either since 64 bit could become the-way-to-go sooner than we expect if software programmers are quick to jump on the bandwagon and make 64 bit versions of their programs.

well, i wouldn't get a 32 bit CPU unless i really needed an upgrade... in which case i'd just get the fastest one available at a low price ($100 USD or less).

but yeah, if you're not in dire need of an upgrade, i'd suggest waiting 6 or 12 months for the price of 64 bit CPUs to come down. PC components come out in improved versions so quickly that old ones don't stay expensive for very long. top-of-the-line PC stuff is hardly ever worth the price, as far as typical desktop applications go... it's more about bragging rights than anything.

[bigdawgfoxx]

NETWEISER..in addition the L1 and L2 cache are pretty much like RAM that is built into the processor...its VERY fast...the more of it you have, the faster it will go! The Pentium 4 has 512KB the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition has 2048Kb...which on test didnt help very much. I also wouldnt think it would be smart to buy one...unless you have a board and ram that will be compatible with like an XP 2400...cuz thats not much..but if u gotta buy the mobo, ram, and cpu it aint worth it

[adamp2p]

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@8 October 2003 - 04:45
NETWEISER..in addition the L1 and L2 cache are pretty much like RAM that is built into the processor...its VERY fast...the more of it you have, the faster it will go! The Pentium 4 has 512KB the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition has 2048Kb...which on test didnt help very much. I also wouldnt think it would be smart to buy one...unless you have a board and ram that will be compatible with like an XP 2400...cuz thats not much..but if u gotta buy the mobo, ram, and cpu it aint worth it
Actually, the P4 EE has 2048 kb level 3 cache and 512 l2 cache.

[Neo 721]

It would be wiser at this time to wait a while for what appears to be a mid-range AMD 64 or opteron. To aviod a high price or performance that soon out date

[netweiser]

ooo right kool. i aint going to be buying 1, cant afford it. dont need it though, mite get a ram upgrade, i only have 128mb.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@7 October 2003 - 19:45
The Pentium 4 has 512KB the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition has 2048Kb...which on test didnt help very much.
when improving one part doesn't help, it's usually a sign that there is a bottleneck somewhere else in the computer. there's no such thing as a computer without bottlenecks (a place where one part isn't keeping pace with the other parts). so if improving the CPU cache or front side bus doesn't increase performance, it might be because the system RAM or the PCI bus or something else is holding the CPU back.

at best, upgrading one area just shuffles the bottleneck to a different area.

[adamp2p]

And I don't know about the "didn't help much" bit; the extra cache does help a lot--depending on the application.

Gaming would be a primary example.

[bigdawgfoxx]

Adam..I read an article on Toms Hardware and it sowed about 20 test.... the P4 EE and the P4 (both running at 3.2Ghz) didnt have much difference. But thats just what i saw.

[Amarjit]

Originally posted by adamp2p@8 October 2003 - 00:36
I am still unconvinced that purchasing any CPU at this time would be such a wise idea.  Unless, of course you have lots of dough...

Especially this new 64 bit stuff...why pay for it when most apps are not 64 bit?  The price is too high, in my opinion.  Maybe wait until there are actually programs that use 64 bit instructions. 

I am sure by then there will be an Athlon 4000+ available for a decent price.

I am not sure if you made a misake or not but the current P4 DDR 400 dual channel mobos all already do 6.4 GB/sec.
Yes, I agree entirely, until Windows XP 64-Bit Edition is completed (at the moment it's beta) only then 64-Bit applications will appear on the scene. Adobe Photoshop 8.0 is almost final, but not yet released, because that production unit was made substantially higher, and was only being capable of being tested on the Apple Mac G5, so at the moment, Adobe are porting the version down to 32-Bit.

EDIT Server software is far more advanced. They have taken to opportunity to opt for 64-Bit processers such as the Intel Xeon and the AMD Athlon64 to be installed on the top-of-the-range machines. Microsoft seized this as an opportunity to integrate a priceless feature into Windows Server .NET 2003; 64-Bit processer support. But the 64-Bit Windows XP will bring these great processers to desktop machines, rather than the currently featured server-computers, being displayed from the likes of Armari, for example.

[lynx]

I think someone has said it before, but as far as I know the Xeon is and always will be a high spec 32-bit processor.

Does anyone know if AMD's 64-bit instruction set is the same as Intel's is going to be? If not, are we going to have 2 different versions of XP (64-bit)? We've been down that road before, with different versions of NT3.x and NT4.

[adamp2p]

What I have read (at computer tech sites like the inq) is the AMD 64 instruction set will actually be integrated into the Prescott. But as far as I know there really is no "standard" as Windows has not released any Official 64 Bit OS for regular old people. When there are actually operating systems and programs that use such a set, that will be exiting as it will actually have potential to be very powerul. If you are really interested in that kind of stuff, read the inquirer.