Poll: Decide AMD's Future!

[Mark Larson]

I say Intel is BAAAD.

 

[Gautam]

P5 eh... Are the going to shift to the Pentium 5 name with the introduction of the Prescott core, due in a few months, or the Tejas core, a year away...? In either case, Intel should be very competitive with the Clawhammers; their bandwidth will remain unsurpassed as far as I can tell, and Hyperthreading allows them to perform very nicely in integer operations as well. I speculate rather the opposite; that Intel will begin slightly in the lead, but then lose ground, especially when people will begin to demand over 4 GB of memory.

 

[Mark Larson]

P5 eh... Are the going to shift to the Pentium 5 name with the introduction of the Prescott core, due in a few months, or the Tejas core, a year away...? In either case, Intel should be very competitive with the Clawhammers; their bandwidth will remain unsurpassed as far as I can tell, and Hyperthreading allows them to perform very nicely in integer operations as well. I speculate rather the opposite; that Intel will begin slightly in the lead, but then lose ground, especially when people will begin to demand over 4 GB of memory.

From what i understand, the Prescott will be the P5. I could, of course, be wrong.

Whose bandwidth will remain unsurpassed?

HT helps with integer ops? I didn't know that... links?

People demanding 4GB of memory is still a ways off i'd say - you only have to look in these forums for people recommending 512MB instead of 1GB even today. I'm sure Intel has plans to implement PAE in their P4 chipsets for that too. (And knowing them, they'll probably spin it as the best thing since sliced bread )

 

[Gautam]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1576&p=3
The article's rather dated, but its information is still correct, AFAIK.

Unless I misinterpreted something, HT-enabled processors have the potential for performing calculations with far greater efficiency than non-HT ones, as do SMP systems. The downside is the overhead that is encountered in multi-threading, which Intel has undeniably done a very good job of dealing with even in their current processors. Thus, its proven to be very advantageous in processor-intesive tasks, and even less intensive ones.

I meant that the Athlon 64s' bandwidth will always be lower than their Intel competitors, as AMD doesn't seem to be having quad-pumped front side buses anytime soon. But whether this even matters is questionable; theoretically AMD-based systems are two-fold behind in memory bandwidth, yet still remain very competitive.

4 GB being commonplace is a long ways away, no doubt about that. It just allows Athlon 64's to be ahead in theory. Every now and then you see some rich a$$es these days with 3 gigs in their system for no other reason than bragging rights, you'll see plenty more when Athlon64 debuts. "Haha Intel n00bz()rs, mY3 6 g|gs pWnz j00r 3" Then again, some people really can benfit from very large amounts of memory, especially anyone in CG or digital photography. I didn't even think about PAE. I don't understand it at all, but from what I can gather, it only increases the amount of bits that can access the memory from 32 to 36-still far below 64. But yeah, if Intel's marketing could sell the Willamette, they can sell anything.

I actually tend to think that the Prescott will be named Pentium 5, due its addition of instructions, but I can't find a definitive answer anywhere, so whatever.

 

[Metallistar]

E - Cyrix will buy out both Intel and AMD and dominate the CPU market

Naw, just kidding, I think the XP's will be the duron of today, while the 64's will be the flagship. Of corse they will squeeze a few more xp's out b4 they discontinue them.

 

[johnoh]

As they will release the new 64's at a huge price premium, so will need a budget proc to cover lower end too

That's a good point. And we already know what those bargains are going to be. They'll reduce the price of the 2400-2800 and put axda2400 on em instead of axda1700 like they do now.

 

[knif_00]

i think like the common person seems to believe
A then C

but in all honesty, keep cranking out those 1700+ DLT3C JIUHB 0319's and who needs anything else
BWAAHAHA

::knif_00::

 

[Mark Larson]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1576&p=3
The article's rather dated, but its information is still correct, AFAIK.

Unless I misinterpreted something, HT-enabled processors have the potential for performing calculations with far greater efficiency than non-HT ones, as do SMP systems. The downside is the overhead that is encountered in multi-threading, which Intel has undeniably done a very good job of dealing with even in their current processors. Thus, its proven to be very advantageous in processor-intesive tasks, and even less intensive ones.

Very interesting... thank you for the link. I now see how HT can help integer performance.

And i suggest you read up on the other HT: www.hypertransport.org
The Athlon64 boasts more bandwidth than the current P4 and lower latencies. You can kinda compare it to two Athlons: one, an Athlon classic, with external L2 cache, and the other, a newer Athlon with internal L2 cache Its the next big thing in eliminating bottlenecks.

The strength of HT and the onboard memory controller is that it allows more usable bandwidth both ways, with lower latencies. Theoretical bandwidth is fine and all, but in the end, real-world situations are very different from benchmarks, aren't they

 

[lazyart]

Definitely A, then C. Not everyone with a Socket A board will want to pay the premium for the A64 when it first hits the market (I am one of them). Bartons will still be in production this time next year.

 

[cbakey]

A than C, but before C, i think that with the XP 3400+ or a speed like that they are going to come out with a new core, that OCs really far!

 

[Maxvla]

A than C, but before C, i think that with the XP 3400+ or a speed like that they are going to come out with a new core, that OCs really far!

there are no plans for a new core though on any of amd's roadmaps.

i myself think a then c as well. but we REALLY need to get rid of this horrible naming scheme. it has really lost credit lately.

any ideas for better naming schemes?

 

[Mark Larson]

there are no plans for a new core though on any of amd's roadmaps.

I remember discussing the Thorton in another section recently. I have no idea if AMD is going to continue the AthlonXP line, and if so, how much further.
Clawhammer > Barton > Tbred/Thorton is how it looks for the consumer market.

 

[Maxvla]

i thought thorton was like duron... the lower end bargain class.

 

[Legend911]

amd dicussion

I think they will have to go with C

 

[Mark Larson]

i thought thorton was like duron... the lower end bargain class.

That would be the AthlonXP. (which includes Thorton and Barton)

Now don't go confusing codenames with product names

 

[slowlaserrs]

A then C I dont see AMD going out any time soon.

 

[JoJoMoJo]

I predict the Intel Forums getting bigger

 

[OC Detective]

Apparently, AMD's Clawhammer Athlon64 is old news and that they are working on the switch to 0.09 microns with Sandiego. I'm thinking there preparing to ramp the MHz with 64-bit to boot

Imagine an Athlon64 4GHz CPU with like a PR rating of like 5500+ LOL


OC-Master

0.09 is old news now jk - they are talking about 0.065 in collaboration with IBM!
Anyway back to the matter in hand I say C

 

[HeXaDeCiMaL]

i thought thorton was like duron... the lower end bargain class.

Thorton is basically the T-Bred cores that are out now but relabled, they are also all going to be on the 333FSB as far as I know.

There is also a 2600+ Barton comming out and a 2600+ Thornton, so at one point we'll have:

T-Bred XP2600+ @ 2.133Ghz (266FSB) 256K L2
Thorton XP2600+ @ 2.083Ghz (333FSB) 256K L2
Barton XP2600+ @ 1.933Ghz (333FSB) 512K L2

Just to make things even simpler when u go out buying your new proc

 

[Maxvla]

Thornton is basically the T-Bred cores that are out now but relabled, they are also all going to be on the 333FSB as far as I know.

There is also a 2600+ Barton comming out and a 2600+ Thornton, so at one point we'll have:

T-Bred XP2600+ @ 2.133Ghz (266FSB) 256K L2
Thornton XP2600+ @ 2.083Ghz (333FSB) 256K L2
Barton XP2600+ @ 1.933Ghz (333FSB) 512K L2

Just to make things even simpler when u go out buying your new proc

that makes no sense to do that.

is amd going to have a new processor for every mhz now?