AMD... you better come up with something quick.

[JungleMan]

I don't know why AMD doesn't use quad-pumping, however 800mhz DDR will theoretically provide identical bandwidth to QDR 800. In the real world, DDR will probably come out on top because of it having double the external clock. Since this thread is about speculating AMD's future, and very few seem to actually have done so thus far, here's a run down:

Q3 2003: AMD's Athlon 64 will be released. AMD users will rejoice, but their happiness will be short lived. Expect these chips to have very low clock speeds (1.6ghz-2.0 MAX,) but very high, and falsely so PR ratings. They may come out with some mysterious 3 digit rating also. Also expect very overclockable Bartons, which will probably not be able to hold their own too well because...

Q4 2003: Intel will release the Prescott. This processor will deal a heavy blow to AMD. It will be fabricated under a .09 micron process, so expect very low voltage draw, very low temps, and thus incredible overclocking potential. Not to mention 1 MB of cache, and just maybe a 1066mhz quad-pumped front side bus.

From hereon, Intel will clearly hold the upper hand until:

Q2 2004: AMD will release the San Diego. .09 micron and 1 mb cache. Expect 1000mhz or higher DDR fsb. DDR II support is iffy. AMD and Intel will be very equal at this point in overclockability and performance. Sure, flame wars will continue, but they'll just be splitting hairs. However, the 64 bit bus will provide much potential for AMD, breaking the 4GB memory barrier that Intel will have to live with. The 64-bit PCI bus will allow for far greater performance in graphics processing, among other things.

This is about all I know. In Q4 2004, Intel will release the Tejas, supposedly with 2MB cache and built around a 775 pin socket package. AMD will continue using the San Diego core.

In the short term, I'd advise all AMD fans to buy now. The Prescott will overshadow both the Bartons and Clawhammer. The Clawhammer will very likely be outperformed by the Barton itself in 32-bit apps, and as we know how well the Thoroughbred does against a Barton, the Thoroughbred may surpass all Clawhammers. The Prescott's .09 um archictecture will be all it will need to completely surpass AMD from an overclockers point of view. The Prescott, however, will most likely be outdone a few months later by the San Diego. Which side of the fence you want to jump is up to, but you'd probably be happy with both. I haven't seen one person ever whose been disappointed over a choice between AMD and Intel; but I've seen the formation of numerous fanboys. Basically, it's all good; no matter what you choose, you'll be happy.

You know an awful lot considering NONE of these chips are out yet.

First of all, the A64 is slated to debut at 2Ghz minimum. Not 1.6 like you say.

Secondly, when you add 64-bit Windows to the equation, Intel is going to have a heck of a time keeping up.

Thirdly, with the SOI tech and of course the brand-spankin-new architecture, I'd imagine that the A64 ought to be an awesome OCer

 

[Maxvla]

i wonder how many patches we'll have for 64bit XP ya know.. microsoft hasn't changed bits in a while. its going to be pretty nasty.

 

[Audioaficionado]

This all depends on AMD hitting their marks and staying in business. IBM isn't a white knight waiting to rescue AMD if they screw it up. They might be the first ones to pick over the body before the scavengers arrive.

I hope AMD succeeds, and in spades but it could go the other way too.

 

[Audioaficionado]

i wonder how many patches we'll have for 64bit XP ya know.. microsoft hasn't changed bits in a while. its going to be pretty nasty.

M$ keeps patching their products until they end-of-life it.

Determining which ones are really needed for your OS or just to break the competition's apps is the question.

 

[JungleMan]

i wonder how many patches we'll have for 64bit XP ya know.. microsoft hasn't changed bits in a while. its going to be pretty nasty.

Well, lest we not forget that XP 64-bit has been around for a while now. The main issues will just be making it work on x86-64 chips, but it shouldn't require major structural changes. Thus it might take a few months to get it sorted, but we can run 32 bit in the meantime (and still get great performance ) and once 64 bit XP is ready, we'll be ready with A64...

 

[Audioaficionado]

x86-64bit Linux is here. I'm not sure if x86-64bit Server 2003 is here yet or if it only works on Intel 64bit CPUs.

 

[Mr. $T$]

Well according to PC Mag the Opteron is at par with the Itanium running 64-bit code, plus it runs current 32-bit code,

And even at 1.6GHz, durring server type loads smokes the 2.8 Xeon. The only thing the Xeon wins in is PCMark

PC Mag.
Results on the Nile benchmark test showed the dual Opteron system outperforming the dual Xeon by a fairly wide margin. Across a 300 to 500 virtual user load, where transaction processing stabilized with both high disk and CPU utilization, the Xeon system averaged 7.6 pages received per second, while the Opteron system averaged 15.2—double the Xeon. In the response time measurements, at the 200 user load, average transaction time (start to finish) was approximately 34 seconds for the Xeon machine and 30 seconds for the Opteron PC, but moving to 300 users, the Opteron system stayed at 30 seconds, while the Xeon computer moved to 50. At 400 users, the times were 35 seconds and nearly 80 seconds, respectively, and at 500 users, the Opteron rig took about 50 seconds, but the Xeon system required nearly 100.

Here

 

[OC Detective]

Yup and with Asus soon to be offering a single cpu board for the Opteron with AGP those with cash will hopefully be giving the latest Intels (including the upcoming 3.2) a run for their money. Asus have a report on their site claiming the Opteron "trashes" whatever Intel offers in the server market
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9618

 

[Maxvla]

very nice. at least the server chips are doing well.

 

[treepop]

I might have misunderstood....but is the A64 a completly new core ie the difference between a k62 and an athlon..or is like a revision i.e. tbred barton?..thanks for clearing this up

 

[OC Detective]

A64 and Opterons are completely different from Tbreds

 

[Mr. $T$]

as far as I know, the k8 is a lot like the k7, (as apple would say) it is just better. ie.. SSE2, SOI, more cache, Better FPU pipelines(?), higher memory bandwith, Hypertransport, and a new shiny IHS/ACC wow.

ACC= My new abb for Anti-Core Crusing

 

[Maxvla]

yeah that IHS will be nice. if it turns out good i'll get me a hammer setup.

i have no allegiance to either side. i just want whats faster

 

[OC Detective]

yeah that IHS will be nice. if it turns out good i'll get me a hammer setup.

i have no allegiance to either side. i just want whats faster

So we will see you around here more often quite soon then!

 

[treepop]

OC Detective
what I meant to say is.....
is the A64 going to be totaly new like a new core....ie.....when amd went from a k62 to an atlhon tbird...or is just going to be a revision ie a tbred to a barton

 

[Mark Larson]

OC Detective
what I meant to say is.....
is the A64 going to be totaly new like a new core....ie.....when amd went from a k62 to an atlhon tbird...or is just going to be a revision ie a tbred to a barton

Its going to be a new core, like from the K6 to the Athlon.

 

[The Coolest]

I don't think its like going from K6 to K7, but its nothing like from Tbred to barton either...
Its sort of in between. The K8 is a very much improved K7, with additional goodies like SOI, SSE2 on-die memory controller, and also impoved FPU pipelines like stated before, but the basic core design still remains of the K7, with greatly improved performance and X86-64.

 

[Gautam]

I didn't say I knew the future; these are just products of my research thus far and my own speculations. Nothing I wrote actually goes out of the bounds of AMD's and Intel's current roadmaps. My apologies for implying anything else. Basically, I'd say that the Prescott would be a better choice than the Clawhammer simply on the basis of its .09 micron process. Remember how poorly the Palomino's overclocked in comparison to the T-Bred? The Prescott should manage to allow us overclockers just about that much of a jump. Intel is being very competitve even right now, and theres no reason why they will fail to do so in the near future. As for the 2.0ghz max, I admit, I was way of the mark, however AMD is stressing the unimportance of Mhz. They're more likely to increase the pipline length by huge amounts than increase their clock speed. It's the approach they chose to take when the released the Athlon XP, and they will stick with it. Intel chose to reduce pipeline length and increase clock speed. Thus you very well may see 6ghz Prescotts competing with 2.4ghz San Diegos; don't get me wrong, the Athlon 64 may very well be the victor. I just wouldn't want to buy a Clawhammer knowing that a few months later a new core revision will come out.

 

[OC Detective]

But according to the roadmaps the revision to the A64 will be its move to 0.09 micron - thats all - I am presuming the pin array will remain unchanged as that is AMD's way (unlike Intel I might add)

 

[Gautam]

That revision is the San Diego. It will also use a 754-pin socket package, as will the Clawhammer. Both will be called Athlon 64's.