Opteron Performance.... :)

[d_fresh1]

who cares, i like performance hardware , let other ppl waste their money on it

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by d_fresh1
who cares, i like performance hardware , let other ppl waste their money on it

If you have the requirement to have 64bit capable hardware, the Opteron is not a waste of money. Also, just wait - once the Opteron scales, you'd see some good 32bit performance also!

[The-Fella]

Lets not speculate too much now until we have seen some more reviews and comparisons.

Trickle, admitedly I made that comment without too much to back it up with, but my point is more that progress is something that we should get excited about even if the infancy of a product isn't all that.

I'd imagine that if the signs were not good for the AMD64, AMD might have noticed this and decided to scrap the project (it has happened before). However, AMD seem to be pushing ahead with it even if it is a bit delayed, but that just builds anticipation.

I can't wait for it to come out.

[spikegifted]

AMD is not going to scrap Athlon64, they can't - they've bet the house with it - it's just a part of the 'Hammer project. Given that the Athlon64 is less complicated than the Opteron, there is every chance that it can be launched a higher clock speed than what is currently available in the Opteron - less components, less chances of things going wrong in manufacturing. I think the key to AMD's success will be two things - clock speed and yield.

Watch this space.

[Agent]

Originally posted by Trickle
Lets face it. The signs are NOT good for AMD 64.

For all the existing software we'll would be using it with, its barely any faster than an overclocked 1700+. There is little, if any reason for peeps who built machines round the turn of the year to look at this seriously - with is NOT a good sign for the AMD64

Same goes for that phat (literally) gfx card in the pics too. There is still no reason for a owner of a near 1 year old 9700pro to upgrade.

Yes, but the point is the AMD 64 can run 32bit app's still.

I dont really see how you can say that it doesnt look good for the AMD64 when it hasnt even started to mature, there isnt a public windows 64bit OS released, nor the games / software to go with it.

[directhex]

well, remember Pentium Pro, which had appalling 16bit performance? or Itanium, with awful 32bit performance?

Opteron is bloody impressive to still kick ass in legacy 32bit

--jo

[spikegifted]

Exactly!! For both the Opteron and Athlon64, it is their abilities to deliver excellent 32bit performance (once the clock speeds scale) and to allow seamless transition from 32bit to 64bit processing that will make them very attractive to people from all along the technology curve.

[Trickle]

Originally posted by Agent
I dont really see how you can say that it doesnt look good for the AMD64 when it hasnt even started to mature, there isnt a public windows 64bit OS released, nor the games / software to go with it.

Sometimes you have to get off the fence and call on things.

For the consumer, I personally see 4 things happening:

a) AMD giving up on ramping clock speeds to compete with Pentium5 when it debutes. AMD are at least releasing this first.

b) No significant amounts of 64 bit software that will interest any of us. I mean, whats the point when it doesnt run on the current intel installed userbase machines.

c) Any of the 64 bit software that does appear (ie UT2003) running any faster on it than the 32 bit version runs on current top of the line Intel machines - well no more than 5/6%.

d) AMD going full out to fool the poor average joe homeuser that this unquantified 64 is going to be any use to him in the short term. + AMD will try to peg their prices in the £400+ range for the top chips that dont and will never give >50%+ speed than an overclocked £50 1700+.

Edit: All the above is imo of course.

[spikegifted]

Trickle:

You forgotten to mention 2 major factors - the uneducated saleforce and the uneducated buying public. If you go to some high street store like Dixons or Currys or PC World, some sales guy will be pushing 64bit rigs because 'they're twice as fast as 32bit one'... And then, you have some guys who will believe this and snap up an Athlon64-powered rig...

[Zak33]

The whole 64bit thing is gonna kickoff BIG TIME soon.....and we shall revel in being at least partly aware of even WHAT IT MEANS.

Most people out there, kids and parents alike...already have 128bit game consoles.....and 256bit vid card memoory controller.

BUT... B U T none of themknow what a BIT even is.

I am only vaguely aware of the importance...thanks mainly to David's assistance.

BUT..one thing that remains ESSENTIAL....is that ITS BACKWARD COMPATIBLE..... and therefore runs the best chance of all, of eating the market for breakfast.

Kid you not......(and my tech knowledge is realy basic, so probably need Tarinder in here for real help)......if the thing is capable of turning in results like those in 32bit Windows style OS's....we MUST have a beast of a seller....cos PEOPLE WILL BUY IT REGARDLESS of their understanding.

Imagine a motherboard/chipset/processor/memory controller capable of whipping up a 64bit storm.....even BEFORE the OS gets a hold of the application......

Its likely to be a power house isn't it ?

[spikegifted]

Yeah, I agree that the Athlon64 has all the potential to be a great product for AMD and those who are keen to see AMD coming up with a strong competitive alternative - just like the original Athlon (K7 and K75) to the Pentium III 'Coppermine' and Athlon 'Thunderbird' core to the early Pentium 4 (can't remember Intel's code name). Indeed, if the chip turns out to be competitive in terms of both price and 32bit performance, it will be a huge boon when a popular 64bit OS comes to the market.

Persoanlly, however, I tend to buy a product that suits my needs and I still don't know if 64bit processing is something that I need to consider in the immediate/short-term future. At the moment, I have both dual Xeon and dual XP/MP rigs, so my 'allegence' is split.

Time will tell...

[d_fresh1]

as any1 tested 64 bit performance? like a 64 bit game/benchmark>>?

[St3v3]

d_fresh1, there ain't any 64-bit games to benchmark yet.

I think that you gotta look at this as a good sign that technology is moving forward. It's exactly the same situation as IPv4 to IPv6, It's gonna take some time.

I think AMD has got themselves one good CPU but I don't think they should only focus on the 64-bit part as that will come when people see the Athlon 64 for what it is.

As for the speed thing, The athlon 64 is MUCH faster than any P4 that I've seen and I've only seen 2 opteron machines. At least AMD isn't run by it's marketing department and only focus upon the Ghz race. I hope that consumers realise that Ghz isn't everything soon and focus upon REAL performance.

[d_fresh1]

doooh, some1 make a 64bit game ...wot happens if the 64bit part ends up being carp?

[St3v3]

UT2003 will be ported to 64-bit unless they bring out UT2004 first i think.

Wish they'd have more 64-bit programs on the release of Athlon 64

[vortigern_red]

Forget, for a moment, that the opteron (or athlon 64) is a 64bit chip just pretend it is a 32bit chip.

See its still faster than the athlonXP clock for clock without the 64 bit, mainly due to the memory controller. There is no way AMD will realese an athlon64 that is slower than any athlonXP!

Loads of people will run these as 32 bit chips as they offer compelling performance without 64 bit.

On the point of 64 bit only offering 5-10% additional performance in UT2003. Epic claim that it will be more like 10-15% and this is on top of what may be the fastest desktop chip in 32 bit. Don't assume the next Intel core will be faster!!

We know that M$ are going to offer AMD64 windows and epic (for one) are going to offer 64bit games but don't underestimate the industy support for this chip, I think many are hoping that this move to 64bit will revitalise the market and generate some much needed interest from people bored with just constant speed increases and little innovation!

As for the guy who says its barely faster than an *overclocked* athlonXP 1700, in what benchmarks and overclocked to what? Obviously in some things, lets call them "streaming" apps (ie mp3 conversion, some rendering ect) clock speed is the most important thing, However in a lot of things the "hammers" on die memory controller and high IPC will count.

The xp1700+ is a mature process, in six- nine months time there will be a new "XP1700+" it will be the slowest athlon 64 on 0.9 micron. You can't really compare an overclocked chip to a stock one, come on!!

The early P4 was the winnamette