Athlon 64
So...
Consensus seems to be it merely keeps pace with Intel's fastest (upcoming 3.2+ GHz P4 Extweeem)
AMD is really pushing its nVidia partnership to its OEMs even thought the VIA chipset is the better option for now.
They aren't going to be cheap...especially when you can just buy a P4 2.4C and overclock the damned things to 3+ GHz.
And, no major OEM boxmakers have Athlon 64 offerings because Windows XP 64-bit edition isn't available yet. I guess they're afraid of the customers asking why a 32-bit OS runs on 64-bit hardware. At least Apple can force its hand. AMD has to compete with Intel...and the longer it takes OEMs to adopt Athlon 64, the rosier things look for Intel.
Consensus seems to be it merely keeps pace with Intel's fastest (upcoming 3.2+ GHz P4 Extweeem)
AMD is really pushing its nVidia partnership to its OEMs even thought the VIA chipset is the better option for now.
They aren't going to be cheap...especially when you can just buy a P4 2.4C and overclock the damned things to 3+ GHz.
And, no major OEM boxmakers have Athlon 64 offerings because Windows XP 64-bit edition isn't available yet. I guess they're afraid of the customers asking why a 32-bit OS runs on 64-bit hardware. At least Apple can force its hand. AMD has to compete with Intel...and the longer it takes OEMs to adopt Athlon 64, the rosier things look for Intel.
Comments
OMG he just said "imaginate" again!
PC politics are plain crazy, and it's times like this I'm glad to be an Apple user. Basically, motherboard manufactures didn't like the Athlon 64's lack of dual channel memory support and pressured AMD into releasing the Athlon 64 FX, so they could list dual channel support in their specs. In reality, the dual channel controller on the Athlon 64 FX is barely faster than the Athlon 64's single channel controller. The performance difference between these two chips comes purely from clock speed. So, now AMD has two Athlon 64 lines that are pin-incompatible and use the different types of memory. Because, the Athlon 64 FX is a re-branded Opteron, it uses a 940-pin socket format and only supports registered DIMMs. The Athlon 64 use a 754-pin socket format and only supports unregistered DIMMs. AMD will also announced they'll be changing the pin layout of the Athlon 64 FX this winter to make it incompatible with the Opteron. It's a total mess, and Intel throwing the whole 3.2GHz Xeon MP, I mean P4 Extreme Edition, into the mix just makes things even more confusing. Dam you Intel!
Sifting through all this garbage, the Athlon 64 has amazing potenial. Like the G5, it offers good performance in today's 32-bit apps, but the real benefits will come along down the road once 64-bit OS and application support arrives. Anandtech has a nice preview of the performance benefits of 64-bits with these Linux benchmarks. The only thing that might put a damper on the Athlon 64s success is Intel and PC politics. The shit AMD is pulling with the Athlon 64 FX, isn't going to help them win over enthusiasts and OEMs. But, as a Mac user, I shouldn't let it upset me, since I know Apple's vertical integration and monopoly on the Mac market will make our 64-bit transition happen quicker and much more smoothly. This whole Athlon 64 fiacso is really only a curiosity. Best of luck to AMD though.
Originally posted by Kecksy
If you just compare the performance of the regular Athlon 64 to the regular 3.2GHz P4, AMD does pretty well. These chips are really the only ones you should be looking at, since both the Athlon 64 FX and P4 EE are nothing more than overclocked, re-branded server chips selling for $800 a piece.
PC politics are plain crazy, and it's times like this I'm glad to be an Apple user. Basically, motherboard manufactures didn't like the Athlon 64's lack of dual channel memory support and pressured AMD into releasing the Athlon 64 FX, so they could list dual channel support in their specs. In reality, the dual channel controller on the Athlon 64 FX is barely faster than the Athlon 64's single channel controller. The performance difference between these two chips comes purely from clock speed. So, now AMD has two Athlon 64 lines that are pin-incompatible and use the different types of memory. Because, the Athlon 64 FX is a re-branded Opteron, it uses a 940-pin socket format and only supports registered DIMMs. The Athlon 64 use a 754-pin socket format and only supports unregistered DIMMs. AMD will also announced they'll be changing the pin layout of the Athlon 64 FX this winter to make it incompatible with the Opteron. It's a total mess, and Intel throwing the whole 3.2GHz Xeon MP, I mean P4 Extreme Edition, into the mix just makes things even more confusing. Dam you Intel!
Sifting through all this garbage, the Athlon 64 has amazing potenial. Like the G5, it offers good performance in today's 32-bit apps, but the real benefits will come along down the road once 64-bit OS and application support arrives. Anandtech has a nice preview of the performance benefits of 64-bits with these Linux benchmarks. The only thing that might put a damper on the Athlon 64s success is Intel and PC politics. The shit AMD is pulling with the Athlon 64 FX, isn't going to help them win over enthusiasts and OEMs. But, as a Mac user, I shouldn't let it upset me, since I know Apple's vertical integration and monopoly on the Mac market will make our 64-bit transition happen quicker and much more smoothly. This whole Athlon 64 fiacso is really only a curiosity. Best of luck to AMD though.
I'm the creative director for a PC manufacturer who was a launch partner with AMD. We push a lot of AMD boxes out our doors. I have to agree with Kecksy that this launch seems hastily put together. The motherboard manufacturer's are having trouble with the chipsets. The confusion between the two chips is difficult to parse and effectively market. Similar to the G5 launch, there's confusion from the end-users about 32-bit SW on 64-bit HW.
Compared to the built up excitement and ultimate launch of Apple's 64-bit architecture, AMD's looks like a circus with a lot of unanswered questions. The irony is that the company I work for has created all of its PR, marketing materials and website on a Mac - which always puts a little smile on my face.
Northgate Innovations
Originally posted by Kecksy
If you just compare the performance of the regular Athlon 64 to the regular 3.2GHz P4, AMD does pretty well. These chips are really the only ones you should be looking at, since both the Athlon 64 FX and P4 EE are nothing more than overclocked, re-branded server chips selling for $800 a piece.
Actually all AMD's offerings don't look overly impressive compared to what Intel has done except in gaming and even there it is sparse (on the benchmarks I looked over Intel won 29 to 10 for 3.2 GHz P4 to Athlon 64). Nor do I think Intel isn't prepared for when 64 bit apps start to appear.
AMD's reliance on registered RAM is only going to hurt them and their launch has been pretty unspectacular. I really wouldn't want to be AMD right now but I'll pass judgement early next year after there has been a little more time to adjust.
Alienware being their only recognizable launch partner is also a concern. (You can't buy a Falcon Northwest box at Best Buy).
In addition, nothing I've seen in the past few month leads me to believe Intel is at all on their heels. They still seem to be making countermoves at will, as if they feel they are well ahead and in complete control of the game. I remember they pulled back their plans to go 4 GHz by the end of 2003 for lack of competition from measly 2.2 GHz Athlon XPs. Now it looks as if Intel is prepared to go back to the original plan and release a ~4 GHz P4 'Extreme' around January 2004 with the release of Prescott.
And I also remember a PR flunky hyping up AMD's addition of SSE2 into AMD64, and how he alleged it would blow us away. Another empty promise. Intel is going to introduce SSE3 soon and AMD hasn't yet achieved parity with SSE2.