athlon FX?

[Pete]

Originally posted by: stevejst
Hey, would you buy a chip that has been turned into 256 L2 cache because the other 256 was defective? I mean the 512 L2 Barton is already <$100 and you don't need new motherboard for it. What kind of grass are these AMD guys smoking if that is what they plan to do?

Hi there, you must be new to the AMD/Intel game. Intel has been selling CPUs with half-defective caches for years--they're called Celerons. The reason they do it? So they don't have to throw away those otherwise-functioning CPUs. There's no reason to tie up fabs making duplicate processors. If a half-cache FX performs the same as a Tbred, it'd be better to have one fab cranking out both Bartons and FXs than to have two fabs, one for Bartons, one for Tbreds.

Edit: This is assuming the FX is indeed a half-cache Barton.

 

[Richdog]

If the Thorton is Barton that could'nt handle the 512kb cache, what the hell is the point in releasing it as a new Duron? A thoroughbred 'B' is exactly this, a Barton without the extra 256kb cache, so does that not render the AthlonFX obselete as soon as it is released? It's not as though theyre going to overclock as well as a T-Bred 'B' either. Marketing at it's worst I believe. 😕:beer:

 

[Pete]

Richdog, look one post up for my answer.

 

[yhelothar]

i doubt it will be called athlonfx..
i would take rojakpot for a grain of salt..
who the hell is adrian and rojakpot? they aren't even a very well known review site...

 

[Soulkeeper]

yeah nothing but speculation till it comes from amd themselves or someone whose nda has expired

also if such a processor was to be released with 256k cache it would need sse2, still be socket A, and maybe have a few more tweaks to the core to be a good replacement for the low price duron line

atleast i would think so....

 

[stevejst]

Intel has been selling CPUs with half-defective caches for years--they're called Celerons.

You are absolutely right but ... first I don't see any of you being excited about Celeron for it is lowly. So is all this excitment about FX just because it is an AMD version of Celeron? All the fuss about new Celeron processor??
Second Intel's production on the high end is a heck of a lot bigger than what AMD puts out so there will be a "shortage" of Barton Celerons or is it that AMD plans little offering anyway. And then again ... what is all the fuss about releasing that junk?

But it makes very little sense to start with. Disabled old Barton in a new socket? Fancy but senseless.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: stevejst

Intel has been selling CPUs with half-defective caches for years--they're called Celerons.

You are absolutely right but ... first I don't see any of you being excited about Celeron for it is lowly. So is all this excitment about FX just because it is an AMD version of Celeron? All the fuss about new Celeron processor??
Second Intel's production on the high end is a heck of a lot bigger than what AMD puts out so there will be a "shortage" of Barton Celerons or is it that AMD plans little offering anyway. And then again ... what is all the fuss about releasing that junk?

But it makes very little sense to start with. Disabled old Barton in a new socket? Fancy but senseless.

Ahhh the sounds of a Competition basher. (violins playing) Poor baby, so upset that someone else can make a product that works as well and costs less, taking away some profits out your pocket, let's all go awwwww.

 

[Soulkeeper]

hahaha i'm gonna start laughing if people start arguing in this thread over a "socket" or better yet "defective cache" in cpu's that aren't even out yet

 

[pspada]

Originally posted by: Pete

Originally posted by: stevejst
Hey, would you buy a chip that has been turned into 256 L2 cache because the other 256 was defective? I mean the 512 L2 Barton is already <$100 and you don't need new motherboard for it. What kind of grass are these AMD guys smoking if that is what they plan to do?

Hi there, you must be new to the AMD/Intel game. Intel has been selling CPUs with half-defective caches for years--they're called Celerons. The reason they do it? So they don't have to throw away those otherwise-functioning CPUs. There's no reason to tie up fabs making duplicate processors. If a half-cache FX performs the same as a Tbred, it'd be better to have one fab cranking out both Bartons and FXs than to have two fabs, one for Bartons, one for Tbreds.

Edit: This is assuming the FX is indeed a half-cache Barton.

In fact Intel has been doing this for decades. Remember the 486sx? It was just a 486 with a defective on-board co-processor. Rather than throwing the chip out, they disabled the coprocessor, and gave it the 'sx' moniker. And before that there was the 386sx......:disgust:

 

[stevejst]

hahaha i'm gonna start laughing if people start arguing in this thread over a "socket" or better yet "defective cache" in cpu's that aren't even out yet

I said twice in this thread that none of us/you knows what exactly Athlon FX is. Yet the AMD fanboys keep on claiming they know. Therefore my post is just to ask HOW MUCH SENSE YOU GUYS MAKE!
But I am not saying it isn't possible. With AMD everything is possible. It is possible to have three+ years talk about the processor without having one, about posting fantasy benchmarks that nobody can replicate etc.

Look at the prices of Opteron. AMD fanboys cannot afford that. All of your sigs are about Barton/T'bred, nobody tried Opteron, howz that?
There is a 242 refurbished Opteron for $350 at newegg ($100 discount) that I see there for three days already and none of the AMD fanatics seems to be ready to buy that. Barton's Celeron does make sense in that regard though I see absolutely no reason for anybody to buy such a junk if that is what you expect will happen. Not me.

 

[sellmen]

Originally posted by: stevejst

hahaha i'm gonna start laughing if people start arguing in this thread over a "socket" or better yet "defective cache" in cpu's that aren't even out yet

I said twice in this thread that none of us/you knows what exactly Athlon FX is. Yet the AMD fanboys keep on claiming they know. Therefore my post is just to ask HOW MUCH SENSE YOU GUYS MAKE!
But I am not saying it isn't possible. With AMD everything is possible. It is possible to have three+ years talk about the processor without having one, about posting fantasy benchmarks that nobody can replicate etc.

Look at the prices of Opteron. AMD fanboys cannot afford that. Barton's Celeron does make sense in that regard though I see absolutely no reason for anybody to buy such a junk if that is what you expect will happen. Not me.

I find it interesting that you can spout nonsense like "you won't be able to buy any Athlon 64 easily this year. No matter what AMD says," then complain when AMD fans speculate about the AthlonFX. Hypocrisy at its best.

If the AthlonFX is simply a Barton w/ 256k L2 cache enabled, what is so hard to understand? AthlonFX = Thoroughbred, in terms of performance. Unlike the celeron, which is completely crippled, the throughbreds have been shown to be excellent performers, only slightly behind the Barton core. If AMD saves money by only fabbing Bartons, then disabling 256k L2 cache on some, good for them.

 

[stevejst]

If the AthlonFX is simply a Barton w/ 256k L2 cache enabled, what is so hard to understand? AthlonFX = Thoroughbred, in terms of performance. Unlike the celeron, which is completely crippled, the throughbreds have been shown to be excellent performers, only slightly behind the Barton core. If AMD saves money by only fabbing Bartons, then disabling 256k L2 cache on some, good for them.

It is hard to understand how do you know that? What is your source of that information?


And all the fuss about a release of the new processor would be about a new socket for T'bred??
The understanding is not an issue, the issue is SENSE!

 

[sellmen]

Originally posted by: stevejst

If the AthlonFX is simply a Barton w/ 256k L2 cache enabled, what is so hard to understand?

It is hard to understand how do you know that? What is your source of that information?

And all the fuss about a release of the new processor would be about a new socket for T'bred??
The understanding is not an issue, the issue is SENSE!

I said IF.

You are complaning about the "celeron Athlons," so I stated that if AMD takes that route, it's not like there is a huge performance drop. Barton w/ 256k = Thoroughbred.

There is no new socket as far as I know, just a new way of fabbing their 256L2 chips.

 

[stevejst]

There is no new socket as far as I know, just a new way of fabbing their 256L2 chips.

As far as I have heard, Athlon FX will appear in 940 socket version. Are you telling it won't?
Read here.

 

[sellmen]

Originally posted by: stevejst

There is no new socket as far as I know, just a new way of fabbing their 256L2 chips.

As far as I have heard, Athlon FX will appear in 940 socket version. Are you telling it won't?
Read here.

I have no idea what AthlonFX is. Some of the links in this thread have shown it is a Barton w/ 256K L2 disabled, making it essentially a Thoroughbred. The link you provided shows it is a Athlon 64 based processor.

If it is a Barton w/ 256k L2 disabled, its not the end of the world; AMD is simply saving money by only fabbing Bartons, then disabling half the L2 to sell as "Athlon FX" (Thoroughbred) CPU's.

If its a Athlon 64, well then, so be it. Not much to say about that, we'll see more in a month.

Either way, there is no reason this thread should turn into an Intel/AMD bashfest.

 

[SpideyCU]

Originally posted by: sellmen
Either way, there is no reason this thread should turn into an Intel/AMD bashfest.

Sadly it's getting a little late for that, but at least only one person thus far has used the infamous "you fanboys!" routine, stamping his feet and jumping up and down to rile folks up. All else has been pretty much civilized, thankfully.

Who knew Soulkeeper was right? There's arguing over parts of CPU that haven't even materialized yet. Fascinating.

 

[Corporate Thug]

stevejst, why do you keep repeating yourself? there is no damn fuss. people are just curious how the performance is gonna be and when it is gonna be released. what fuss are you talking about???

and how does the opteron enter in this thread??? at this point, it is kinda impractical to buy them esp for home use. shall we go ahead and jump to the conclusion that intel sucks cuz the 3.2 isnt selling as well as the 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, and 3.0??? it seems that your fanboism is more than anyone elses here

 

[stevejst]

If it is a Barton w/ 256k L2 disabled, its not the end of the world; AMD is simply saving money by only fabbing Bartons, then disabling half the L2 to sell as "Athlon FX" (Thoroughbred) CPU's.

If its a Athlon 64, well then, so be it. Not much to say about that, we'll see more in a month.

Either way, there is no reason this thread should turn into an Intel/AMD bashfest.

It is entertaining nevertheless.
One way or the other, Barton is not exactly a business success for AMD. It is more of a lifeboat/stretcher before they can release new CPU with Hammer core. The overall abysmal comparison of Barton to HT Pentium is forcing AMD to live or die with the next CPU. They have to claim performance at least for a month. Therefore it seems ilogical (not necessary improbable) that they would be making a fuss about a crippled CPU of Celeron type. For Christ sake, Athlon FX is their main Sept 23 release.
I expect to see a brand new CPU with Hammer core that performs better than Barton. If that is delayed once more as so many times in the past year or so (remember Compudex?) then they will be back in good old K5 days, selling low end crap as alternative to Intel's low end crap. Opteron as it is, with sky-high prices, is not a viable desktop option.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Therefore it seems ilogical (not necessary improbable) that they would be making a fuss about a crippled CPU of Celeron type

ok, you claim that we dont know much about the performance of the athlon FX and you are indeed correct as there arent any benchmarks or officail statements from AMD as to what it actually is. keeping that in mind, how can you come to the conclusion that the performance is comparable to the celeron??? cuz someone said that it is a new celeron?

 

[stevejst]

how can you come to the conclusion that the performance is comparable to the celeron???

Get your glasses and read once again what was written.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: stevejst

how can you come to the conclusion that the performance is comparable to the celeron???

Get your glasses and read once again what was written.

i dont where glasses but thanx!


more info

1.4 Ghz is supposed by on par with a 2.0 ghz celeron. so i performs quite a bit better than a celeron clocked at equal speeds. and for only $32. heck, 1.2 ghz durons cost that much right now

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: stevejst
Again, nobody knows what FX is. Here is another story.
All speculations.
But if it really is a defective Barton then I wonder who exactly would want to buy that?

Ask Celeron users of days past.

oops, others already brought that up.

 

[Soulkeeper]

Originally posted by: stevejst

hahaha i'm gonna start laughing if people start arguing in this thread over a "socket" or better yet "defective cache" in cpu's that aren't even out yet

I said twice in this thread that none of us/you knows what exactly Athlon FX is. Yet the AMD fanboys keep on claiming they know. Therefore my post is just to ask HOW MUCH SENSE YOU GUYS MAKE!
But I am not saying it isn't possible. With AMD everything is possible. It is possible to have three+ years talk about the processor without having one, about posting fantasy benchmarks that nobody can replicate etc.

Look at the prices of Opteron. AMD fanboys cannot afford that. All of your sigs are about Barton/T'bred, nobody tried Opteron, howz that?
There is a 242 refurbished Opteron for $350 at newegg ($100 discount) that I see there for three days already and none of the AMD fanatics seems to be ready to buy that. Barton's Celeron does make sense in that regard though I see absolutely no reason for anybody to buy such a junk if that is what you expect will happen. Not me.

the opteron is a server chip that is why it is so much more expensive than the athlon64 will be or the new athlonFX if it comes out
this is great
(why stop supporting socket 462)
makes sense to me

wait till late september then we'll all know what's really going on tho
also a few board/chipset/core mods down the line people like me with a good athlon system might adopt one
next year prices should be good

a cut down version of the barton for 462 sockets would be nice
cause the hammer has an integrated memory controller so you would think they would need a different socket like the 940 as they already are
so if it used socket 462 that would be great to position a whole platform against the celeron and be very competitive
not to mention the posibility of .09 making it cheaper and adding the posibility for 512kb and sse2 even if the first one don't

 

[Soulkeeper]

ok i think i cracked something wide open with regards to the opteron

942 pins = 462+240+240

this allows for a dual channel ddr2 memory bus plus all the pins a regular socketA athlon has minus 2 (which is no big deal since the athlons don't even use all 462 pins and both memory modules could share a few pins possibly)

in theory this would make it possible to offer chipsets that use a 942 pin socket designs with option memory controllers for backward support for 462 pin athlons allowing what ever memory configurations they might support

also this means the hammer could have an effective lifecycle comparable to that of ddr2 (atleast untill it needs a memory controller upgrade for newer memory types when they come out)


i'm guessing over a 4 to 6 year lifecycle on this puppy atleast
amd did a good job this time
now they don't have to rely on chipset makers to optimize memory controllers cause they can do it at their leisure
with core updates offering much more than just clock speed and cache increases with their core changes

this sucker would scream on a .09u process with ddr2 533 dual channel

i can't wait to read an indept design analysis of the hammer series

 

[stevejst]

a cut down version of the barton for 462 sockets would be nice

I don't want a cut down version of Barton. Barton is already cut down as low as I want to go. What is needed is a price cut on Opterons or Opteron type i.e. retail dektop version that is affordable. And a bit faster than 240, 242, and 244.
It is about a time for Hammer to come out, enough of paper benching. For if this continue like the last few years there will no many people left in AMD camp.