AMD Details Dual-Core Plans...

[IGBT]

Text


Despite these advantages, AMD says its high-end desktop processor will remain a single-core chip--the Athlon 64 FX--even after the introduction of the dual-core Athlon 64. "The AMD Athlon 64 FX processor will continue to be the gamers' PC [processor] of choice," AMD says in a presentation detailing the dual-core Athlon 64.

 

[Colt45]

i want it. and 4 gigs of ram

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Colt45
i want it. and 4 gigs of ram

And a 40GB RAM disk and a U320 SCSI SAN with 15kRPM drives?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Will the dual core be crippled some how compared to the 64FX.

Lower clock, FSB, cache, etc.?

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Colt45
i want it. and 4 Tb of ram

Fixed.

 

[ArmchairAthlete]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Will the dual core be crippled some how compared to the 64FX.

Lower clock, FSB, cache, etc.?

I think game developers just aren't likely to start writing their games to take advantage of two CPUs/cores since few will have those.

They did say the FX would stay the "gamer" CPU anyhow.

 

[Kalmah]

Wow, has Intel even made a 64bit processor yet? They are falling behind it looks.

I agree though, I doubt many games are going to be making use of a dual core for a very long time. Not until it becomes standard on computers from like dell, gateway and compaq.

 

[BW86]

Originally posted by: Kalmah
Wow, has Intel even made a 64bit processor yet?

Yes

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: Kalmah
Wow, has Intel even made a 64bit processor yet? They are falling behind it looks.

They do and there is an article on the frontpage of this site about them.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Kalmah
I agree though, I doubt many games are going to be making use of a dual core for a very long time. Not until it becomes standard on computers from like dell, gateway and compaq.

Why would this even be an issue? It's not dual processor. It's still a single chip. When actually released, benchmarks will determine whether a dual core 1.8ghz chip will be faster in XYZ game than a 3500+ @2.7, for example. But I don't think a game will need to be "optimized" for it.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel

Originally posted by: Kalmah
I agree though, I doubt many games are going to be making use of a dual core for a very long time. Not until it becomes standard on computers from like dell, gateway and compaq.

Why would this even be an issue? It's not dual processor. It's still a single chip. When actually released, benchmarks will determine whether a dual core 1.8ghz chip will be faster in XYZ game than a 3500+ @2.7, for example. But I don't think a game will need to be "optimized" for it.

A dual core cpu is just 2 cpus on a single socket to put it simply. It will have the same strengths as a dual cpu system.

Oh, and Intel's dual cores will be out before AMD's, so saying intel is getting behind is foolish.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: Kalmah
Wow, has Intel even made a 64bit processor yet? They are falling behind it looks.

I agree though, I doubt many games are going to be making use of a dual core for a very long time. Not until it becomes standard on computers from like dell, gateway and compaq.

Intel has had a 64bit processor years before AMD. It's called the Itanium (IA-64). It's been out since around 2000?

 

[JackBurton]

I want a dual FX-55 core chip.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: Colt45
i want it. and 4 gigs of ram

And a 40GB RAM disk and a U320 SCSI SAN with 15kRPM drives?

The ships computer from Star Trek's Voyager - Credit Card sized, of course
:roll:

However, there is a practical consideration to this . . . . where's the Killer apps that require this much computing power for desktop. In this case the "bottleneck" becomes the game (or app).

As soon as that special game requires dual-core 64-bit, i'm on it . . . .

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: ArmchairAthlete
I think game developers just aren't likely to start writing their games to take advantage of two CPUs/cores since few will have those.
They did say the FX would stay the "gamer" CPU anyhow.

Exactly. Games are one of the areas probably the least likely (or last likely) to take advantage of dual-core CPUs on the PC. Eventually though, game developers will have to adapt to using multi-threading, because all of the next-gen consoles are going to be designed that way as well.

Blade/transaction servers will eat these things up though, and overall general Windows' multi-tasking should be similarly ehanced, just like the "normal" SMP rig days of yore. (Abit BP6/VP6, anyone?)

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: ArmchairAthlete
I think game developers just aren't likely to start writing their games to take advantage of two CPUs/cores since few will have those.
They did say the FX would stay the "gamer" CPU anyhow.

Exactly. Games are one of the areas probably the least likely (or last likely) to take advantage of dual-core CPUs on the PC. Eventually though, game developers will have to adapt to using multi-threading, because all of the next-gen consoles are going to be designed that way as well.

Blade/transaction servers will eat these things up though, and overall general Windows' multi-tasking should be similarly ehanced, just like the "normal" SMP rig days of yore. (Abit BP6/VP6, anyone?)

When are we talking about 64bit dual-core being finally needed for gaming . . . . 4-5 years? . . . .
. . . '09 :shocked:

 

[batmanuel]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel

Originally posted by: Kalmah
I agree though, I doubt many games are going to be making use of a dual core for a very long time. Not until it becomes standard on computers from like dell, gateway and compaq.

Why would this even be an issue? It's not dual processor. It's still a single chip. When actually released, benchmarks will determine whether a dual core 1.8ghz chip will be faster in XYZ game than a 3500+ @2.7, for example. But I don't think a game will need to be "optimized" for it.

If the game isn't multithreaded, it will only use a single core, so the second core will only be used to run background apps (not the game itself) and thus you will get roughly the performance of a single 1.8 GHz processor. You might get a tiny boost from your background apps like your virus scanner bing offloaded to the second core, but nothing dramatic. Thus the high end single core chips running at close to 3GHz are going to eat the slower clocked dual core hip for breakfast in games, which is why the FX series is staying single core for the time being.

As for who LAUNCHES the dual core chips first, that doesn't matter one bit. What matters is which implementation works better and which one is available in quanties to purchase first. Intel could introduce their dual core months before AMD, but if they paper launch the chip it doesn't count for much beside bragging rights.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: Kalmah
Wow, has Intel even made a 64bit processor yet? They are falling behind it looks.

I agree though, I doubt many games are going to be making use of a dual core for a very long time. Not until it becomes standard on computers from like dell, gateway and compaq.

Intel has had a 64bit processor years before AMD. It's called the Itanium (IA-64). It's been out since around 2000?

Pretty much a moot point. Aka, makes no difference to the average AT poster and likely never will.

 

[ribbon13]

Besides the new Itaniums have 24MB L2 cache... that would sure make your electricity bill go up.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: Kalmah
Wow, has Intel even made a 64bit processor yet? They are falling behind it looks.

I agree though, I doubt many games are going to be making use of a dual core for a very long time. Not until it becomes standard on computers from like dell, gateway and compaq.

Intel has had a 64bit processor years before AMD. It's called the Itanium (IA-64). It's been out since around 2000?

Prescott's are Now shipping in 64bit versions and are sold under the 600 series label. Intel calles their 64bit technology EMT64 and has been avalable for a while now in XEON processors.


http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-195&depa=1

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-196&depa=1

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-197&depa=1

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-198&depa=1

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: ArmchairAthlete
I think game developers just aren't likely to start writing their games to take advantage of two CPUs/cores since few will have those.
They did say the FX would stay the "gamer" CPU anyhow.

Exactly. Games are one of the areas probably the least likely (or last likely) to take advantage of dual-core CPUs on the PC. Eventually though, game developers will have to adapt to using multi-threading, because all of the next-gen consoles are going to be designed that way as well.

Blade/transaction servers will eat these things up though, and overall general Windows' multi-tasking should be similarly ehanced, just like the "normal" SMP rig days of yore. (Abit BP6/VP6, anyone?)

ABIT BP6 Link

ABIT VP6 Link