Below Ambient
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 1,766
socket 939 is all i have to say... and if that kit isnt from AMD you can bet AMD isn;t too happy with it 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Prescott Survial Kit from AMD
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
Socket 939 is all you have to say? With respect to what? Heat? It's already been stated that it has lower power consumption than Prescott. Price? Well yeah, it's brand new, it's not going to be at the bottom of their price lists. The fact that they still have nicely performing processors for their budget consumers speaks volumes.
Below Ambient
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 1,766
power consumption means nothing to me when the cost starts at 500.00 and is anticipated to MAYBE readh $350.00 a year from now.. thats ridiculous
Below Ambient said:
...and the $1000+ Intel CPUs are exempt from your ire?
Hmm...which gives you more performance for the dollar?
T8000 said:
simply, youre wrong
i can use my waterblock on an 800 mhz duron, or on a 633 mhz celeron, are they same as my processor?
lack of stability???? HAHAH!!! and as for 1%, you DO know it stops the method that most viruses use to exploit windows? oh no i dont think you did.
And well see how long those are around while 64 is being used by...well everyone
shows how much you know. first off athlons only burned to death, because AMD thought that motherboard manufacturers would have enough sense to handle it. they were wrong, they learned their lesson. second, the new ones throttle according to heat and usage. oh and P4's are always probabily 80-90C. the sensors are 40-50-more C off
Below Ambient
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 1,766
relic said:
i only know of one person that actually bought one of the EE's and overclocked its quite the performer but my $175.00 3.0E with a $400.00 Mach I gets it in 3dMark 2003
you guys are gettin me all wrong... i love the socet 939 and 754, but i think its insane how much money they jumped from the AXP... its a great performer, but its cost is hardly worth the effort to purchase...
Below Ambient said:
Actually I agree with you. The price IS too high...but to be honest I think that way because I'm used to AMDs being an incredible bargain and now they're just "a good buy" instead of "twice the performance for half the money".
Basically AMD is losing a large chunk of the enthusiast market with the new pricing.
I doubt they care, we're a small part of the total picture. Oh well...I can still play with cheap P4s and XPs.
True, but staying a bargain basement is a very dangerious policy from a financial perspective. They do need to make some profit, and now is their chance. And you can't really blame them; sure the pricing for 3700 and 3800+ is a bad joke (but hopefully it will go down soon, as supply meets demand...) But pricing for somewhat older chips is on par, and usually ten bucks cheaper than Intel. For example, A64 3200+ costs $274, while a P43.2C costs $282.
And, by the way, I agree with the pricing for FX chips, they should stay above at least $600.
And, by the way, I agree with the pricing for FX chips, they should stay above at least $600.
TekieB said:
Actually, FYI, an xServe G5 (dual 2GHz) uses a peak of about 44 watts of power per processor. A dual 2.5GHz can't be that much more (to be seen when they ship). The water cooling is probably to allow for a quieter machine, rather than sticking huge noisy fans in the machine. That, and the infrastructure will be there in the future to cool a greater number of processors without a significant noise increase.
AMDZone was making a joke about water-cooling, and not about heat generation.
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G5/xserveG5.html
I _do_ want one of those kits though
CrimandEvil said:LOL yeah right. How does dual core Prescotts blow up your skirt?
About the same as
Dual Core by AMD
relic said:What the P!!! should have been and the P4 never will be.
I'm looking forward to it.
come on man i know you knew that
intel announced theyre ditching their current progress and instead are going to be putting 2 or more cores in chips to reduce heat and give good performance. now THAT is going to be bad assed.uhhh in that artical above it states that a dual core presscot would puting out 200+ watts of heat. Not a heat reduction if u ask mekronchev said:come on man i know you knew that
64bit_is_here
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 773
T8000 said:
Heat output:your just wrong, as kronchev said. go see the specs again.
Cooling Fans: most coolers support prescott and the amd's?thats not the point. the thing is that prescott gives out more heat, and requires a louder/heavier cooler.
NX Tech: LACK OF STABILITY?!?!?!?!?!?! give me an example please. amd's are just as stable as intels. dont pull facts out of your ass. and the nx technology helps quite a bit, not 1%.
64bit: not supported yet, but 64bit software is coming up. and fyi, sse2 is supported by the a64's.
Heatsink failiure: almost every recent motherboard supports the shutdown temmperature these days, so its not a factor at all.
so get your facts straight and do some research before shitting on threads like this.
maxkilling
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2001
- Messages
- 755
Even thermal throttleing works flawlessly on AMD's with the right motherboard.. Like th NF7S,, When i shutdown my fans and allow the water to heatup, the cpu will start throtteling ,, and still beat most P4 setups
edit:
btw: That kit is a MUST HAVE for enthousiasts!!
- Great work Kyle
,, and still beat most P4 setups edit:
btw: That kit is a MUST HAVE for enthousiasts!!
- Great work Kyle
T8000 said:
90nm Prescotts do not scale linearly. Once you scale clockspeed past a certain point, power consumption shoots up exponentially. 130nm A64s do not have this problem in general (may change with 90nm Socket 939 chips).
Why are you comparing a 3.4GHz A64 with a 3.4GHz Prescott? It would take a 5.4GHz Prescott to compare with a 3.4GHz A64 (using synthetic benchmarks done by insane oc'ers at XS). At that point, the Prescott would consume just as much, and probably much more than the A64.
T8000 said:
What's your point? Yes, you can use the same coolers. But with Prescott you will get 60-80 C while with A64 you will get 30-40 C. So with A64s you can use a quiet hsf that you cannot use with Prescott because it won't cool the Preshott sufficiently.
T8000 said:
I doubt you have tested this and actually know anything about it's capability. I think you are just angry Intel did not have the foresight to include this in from the AMD x86-64 instructions they copied. I have not tested it either but I will say this: once supported by SP2, a hardware flag will be just as good, if not better, than software av programs.
And what is your point about stability? Athlon systems are just as stable as Prescott systems, probably more so since Prescott generates such high temps with slight oc's.
T8000 said:
Obviously you have not heard of Windows XP-64 beta for download. SSE3 is hardly a revolution like x86-64, it is only an extension of SSE2. It's widely used either. Hyper-Threading was nothing before Microsoft fully supported it starting with Windows XP.
T8000 said:
That's because the Prescott NEEDS those precautions. They can and will hit 90 C. Unless you are really stupid and don't mount the hsf properly or you live in 60 C ambient conditions, an Athlon will not hit 90 C.
EDIT: I forgot to add. If you have nothing helpful to contribute here but flame-bait, then don't come here. Because now that everybody thinks you are an idiot, you will be ignored.
MechWarrior
Slob Ur Knob - $5
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,215
DaveX said:
You think? I know.
T8000 said:
As others have pointed out, this is a half truth.
IMO, educated users never get affected by viruses. You see an e-mail attachment called "nakedchick.scr" from "[email protected]" and you DON'T click on it. I.e. 99.9% of viruses pass you by. (I've been using computers for 20 years -- never infected and yet I only run a virus scan once in a blue moon)
However, this is only half the picture. No matter how wise you are in your ways, there are unfortunately various subsystems which the user has little/no control over. The most common way of attacking a service is buffer overrun exploits. If you want to run e.g. a web service on the end of your xDSL connection then welcome to patch-country (where you pray your software vendor stays ahead of the black hats).
I'm not sure I have to explain any further than this, but your statement was so oblivious to basic facts that it is very tempting to go on, so I will: Consider a vulnerable HTTP server (basically a four year old unpatched version of IIS). The attacker will attempt various long URLs hoping to find one that will cause the buffer to overflow into code space. That will likely cause IIS to terminate or with some luck, eventually that code might even get executed allowing the attacker to take over control of the web server and its content (to various degrees -- I think its fair to say that even with the hardest Linux permissions in place, such a webserver is from this point serving whatever content the attacker wants to).
Now, do a flashback ten+ years, to when NT 3.1 was launched. At this point NT supported x86, MIPS and Alpha CPUs. NT's memory architecture is page based. Each page is 4K in size and is marked as executable code or data. On the MIPS (or Alpha, I can't remember which) CPU, code pages aren't normally writable, so there's already existing WIN32 API functions in place that will allow the software to override this and temporarily mark an executable page as readable (VirtualProtect() API function).
What AMD did was to finally bring support for this into the x86 line of CPUs, some ten years after Intel should've done the same thing. I suspect this is one of the features MS (or rather Dave Cutler) pushed AMD into implementing. This is a simple, yet brilliant feature and there's little doubt that Intel's marketing department will tout it as such when they finally get around implementing it. XP SP2 merely sets the flags appropriately, plus provide a dialog to list software that doesn't support this. (i.e. no big change for the OS or third-party software that behaves properly in accordance to the existing Win32 API)
For more about MS' involvement: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/muglia_winserver.asp (search for "Cutler" to get right to the meaty section)
In addition, I think it's important to point out that what's important about 64-bit vs 32-bit isn't that the registers are twice the size they used to be. The important factor is that there's more registers, which makes it much easier to write optimizing compilers. This alone will make sure today's Athlon64 owners get a nice performance boost in the future once existing software is recompiled for AMD64. With Intel CPUs you simply get less technology for more money. Why pay more when you'll have to replace that CPU sooner?
Summary: This feature protects against a wide range of currently known exploits where the user has no way of protecting himself, effectively shutting the door hard on an entire industry devoted to malware.
--
Rune
64bit_is_here
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 773
nice work rune,
a good read. informative.
i hate it when fanboys post about stuff which they dont know about.
a good read. informative.
i hate it when fanboys post about stuff which they dont know about.
PhyberOptik
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2000
- Messages
- 1,526
T8000 said:
Eh?
Dude, gimme some of that good stuff you're smokin, sounds like heaven.
Sharing and caring, the CareBear way of life
ne0-reloaded
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,216
PhyberOptik said:Eh?
Dude, gimme some of that good stuff you're smokin, sounds like heaven.
Sharing and caring, the CareBear way of life
lol yall prolly made T8000 cry, that shit was funny
PhyberOptik
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2000
- Messages
- 1,526
EinsteiN said:
Unless it's when a girl points and laughs
relic said:Actually I agree with you. The price IS too high...but to be honest I think that way because I'm used to AMDs being an incredible bargain and now they're just "a good buy" instead of "twice the performance for half the money".
Basically AMD is losing a large chunk of the enthusiast market with the new pricing.
I doubt they care, we're a small part of the total picture. Oh well...I can still play with cheap P4s and XPs.
I beg to differ. I just bought an XP-M 2500+ for $80.
It is in my old A7N8X-D @ 2500MHz on AIR, with the fan virtually silent.
Pic: http://www3.sympatico.ca/t20/amd1.jpg
How much more of a bargain do you need? Should AMD give processors away?
Granted 64BIT computing is not cheap, but how essential is it now? I play my latest games just swell on my cheapo CPU. If you must have the bragging rights, be prepared to pay high $$$, if you want a great system cheap, AMD still has your back.
t10 said:
We're not discussing the Athlon, [H]ardBro.
The survival kit's for 64-bit. (Hence the 64 green vs 32 blue bits)I've got a few 2500+'s too.
The gradient is rather steep though, it's a hella jump to the new socket AMD CPUs.
CrimandEvil
Dick with a heart of gold
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 19,670
They're talking Prescott cores dudekronchev said:well then good thing itll use Pentium M cores
CrimandEvil
Dick with a heart of gold
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 19,670
The article (and several others I've seen) say Intel is going to be making Dual core Prescotts note that it is not offical word though, not a wise thing from my perspective. Hence the title: