FX's with 512KB of L2 cache - A64's with 256KB?

Apologies if this has been posted - not been on the forum much the past couple of days.

I dont know how reliable this site is - but if true indicates a marked change of what we expected AMD to put out!
Essentially it says there will be 3 variants of A64 for the 939 with L2 cache ranging from 1MB to 256MB and 2 variants of FX at either 1MB or 512KB of L2 cache!!!! The only way that they could still make any difference in this case between an FX and A64 (939) would be the single/dual channel or is there any other way they could differentiate if this were true?

Also states that the Paris line (non 64bit will be suffixed with an X to indicate Value line). and that current CG core will be replaced by D core or E core depending on cache.
http://www.x86-secret.com/
Note this is a dynamic site in French so although at present this story is the headline in a couple of days it might not be (just in case someone reads this thread in a couple of days time!!!)

yeah i think that's true sadly. i read somewhere that the low end a64's will have 256k.

The 256KB of L2 I can just about understand - I am struggling though with the concept that there may be both FX's and A64's using the same amount of L2 cache - as I am trying to fathom out how they can be differentiated to justify the price premium for the FX?

maybe low-end considered as, previously durons, and fx's as athlons.
just a thought.

sounds false to me. all fx will be 1mb cache, all a64s with 512mb and the thoughtbreds with 256k cache are moving over to socket 939. no point in getting socket 939 if your gonna use a tbred since they work in nf2 mobos LOL

Paris is definitely true... it's been in the works for awhile, apparently.

There was another article released on Paris that listed the expected effect on prices from the 256k release. Key thing is, it will result in decreased A64 motherboard prices as more people adopt the platform.

Very smart move on AMD's part, as it will help them sell their A64 line. Hammer was supposed to help them recover financially and this will allow them to sell chips without having to drop prices. Slick.

Don't think it will motivate many budget minded enthusiast to switch to 754, but we'll see how well the chips overclock...

Yes, the Paris I merely mentioned as the article suggests a new marking system for this line - eg "3300V" for the 1.8Ghz version. It has been common knowledge that it was AMD's intention to shift non A64's to the 754 pin layout for several months now - streamlines manufacturing and gives more longetivity to this particular socket.
I still dont understand the overlap of L2 cache (if true!!) unless AMD differentiate on channels or HT links (quantity and speed). Hopefully the article is incorrect.

That wouldnt make any sence at all. Think there gettin mixed up .

Socket 939 - AMD64's (512kb Cache L2) , FX's (1mb Cache L2)
Socket 754 - AMD64's (256kb , 512kb, 1mb Cache)

Difference being the sockets, which in turn means dual / single channel memory etc.

Think the article must be refering to the Socket 939 64bit chips as the FX's , and the Socket 754 as the AMD64's.
It makes absolutly no sence and would be totally unpractical (and extremely hard for AMD to do) to operate this way.

OC D, the reputation of that French site is not exactly stellar...

I share your initial reaction -- it simply doesn't make sense.

Dunno if anyone has mentioned this but the 256k version i have heard is going to be 32bit with the 64bit not enabled.

Yes, the new Durons (Paris is the core name, official name is yet unknown.)
http://www.c627627.com/AMD/AthlonXP/

If that source is correct, I hypothesize this will be what the case will be.

I have a feeling that Athlon FX's will be available in dual core, as AMD's CEO said all server chips will eventually be. I have a feeling that Athlon FX's will be dual core, becuase one they go Socket 939, the normal Athlon's will have dual channel memory, so there really would not be that much of an advantage going to Athlon FX. I have a feeling that the 512kb Athlon FX's will be dual cored versions. Less cache could mean less space and less heat. The normal ones, perhaps 1mb.

We already know about the 512kb A64's, that is no biggie. As seen from roadmaps, the next low end will be called "Paris" and have no 64 bit support, no dual channel memory, based off of skt 754, and have 256k of cache.

If I had to bet on it, that is what I would go with, but like most things, we will just have to wait to be completely sure.

Cheers!
-0cer

Dual cores aren't due until after 2006, probably 2007. Not even Toledo is dual core, and Toledo will come after San Diego which isn't even on the roadmap until well into 2005.

Dug up the article I heard about this initially in:
http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePublish=2004/04/27&pages=A7&seq=44

The link refers to Socket 754 Paris only. We knew about Paris in 2003, no one is surprised about Paris.

It's the "2 variants of FX at either 1MB or 512KB of L2 cache" part that's the problem.

FX has 1 MB and eventually will have 2 MB of cache.

If it has 512 KB cache, then it will not be an FX, it will be a Winchester or Newcastle not FX. That's the problem with the French source.

No, but some people had problems with Paris period.

He He c627627 and I discussed the Paris issue way back in September! lol. (I also remember the PM's flashing back and forward about whether Paris had been released or not!)
http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=233772&highlight=Paris
Hate to harp on about this but have AMD explicitly stated the A64 on 939 will be dual channel?
I remember us discussing this in December
http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=250699 and providing a link about it being dual channel
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13019
but I dont recall AMD actually saying as such? (Playing devils advocate here and hoping someone can come up with a link showing AMD has actually stated this!)

As overclockers.com pointed out, Paris might be AMD's "dark horse" because it's cheap, yet only about 5% slower than Socket754 A64 with 512K L2.

It won't have 64bit instructions, but that won't even matter until middle of next year when Win64 finally start getting more drivers support, and bug fixes.

The OC potential is also quite intriging since it has less Cache, would it OC like mad?

AMD could be screwing themselves over if everyone buys Paris instead of A64.

Wont have 64bit and might not have PCI - E that means its future proofing is somewhat limited to current technologies, therefore as time goes on the performance gap increases between itself and 64 bit cpus. As for overclocking potential I dont think the cache makes too much of a difference after all the current crop of Bartons are overclocking further than Tbreds did (its down to the manufacturing process maturing).
Regarding that article - it is full of assumptions for the poll (hardly the best way to conduct a poll!) - and I dont think a 754 pin A64 is going to be produced at 0.09micron as it is likely that the 3700+ is going to be last in the line for this so the 5% comparison is really not appropriate.
Also how can an assumption be that they stay above USD150 when we currently have 2800+'s already priced at USD178 and he has implied that 3300+'s will be USD175 in November? (unless he further assumes that lower speed 754pin A64's will be discontinued before the Paris release!!).
Given that a lot of people will have to replace a lot of equipment cpu, mobo, perhaps memory to go either 754 or 939 from XP (I know I do!!!) - I dont think the overall price differential will make many people opt for the Paris.

PCI-E will take at least 2 years to REALLY catch on. There is absolutely no reason for people to switch from AGP8X to PCI-E 16x anytime soon.

As for the 5% comment, it was regarding how a paris with 256K L2 should be about 5% slower than a newcastle OF THE SAME CLOCK SPEED due to less cache.

It might actually be more than 5%, because the overall difference between an A64 3000+ and 3200+ is around 5%, due to a 512K L2 cache difference.