DDR333 ... the truth

[NucleusWDS]

Click HERE

 

[bjc112]

looks alright... but nothing toooo big yet..

 

[Daovonnaex]

This is nothing new.

 

[NucleusWDS]

Who said it was NEW?

 

[SuperSix]

<< This is nothing new. >>



Nice thread crap.

And a big fat 1 in your user rating for that one.. :|

 

[Buzzman151]

Ok.... I must be retarded or just seeing this for what it is..... I didnt' see jack in there that surprised me. Am I not looking at this correctly or what?

 

[jonnyGURU]

<<

<< This is nothing new. >>



Nice thread crap.

And a big fat 1 in your user rating for that one.. :| >>



I was expecting a "thank you for your off topic post" from you.

Are we losing our edge?

 

[Daovonnaex]

<<

<< This is nothing new. >>



Nice thread crap.

And a big fat 1 in your user rating for that one.. :| >>

I felt obliged to post that as this topic is redundant. I fail to see the need for the existence of this topic, as we've known about this for sometime.

 

[ElFenix]

the limiting factor is the FSB. thats completely obvious from the numbers. it takes 2 things to get 166FSB processors. AMD feeling confident they can make a lot of processors run with 166MHz FSB and we'll get a 166 multiplier set. they also know that 166 MHz FSB is pointless without 166MHz ram, so they have to wait for jedec to finalize a standard.

 

[John]

<< I felt obliged to post that as this topic is redundant. I fail to see the need for the existence of this topic, as we've known about this for sometime. >>



The same can be said for the IBM 75/60/120GXP threads as well.

 

[ScrapSilicon]

Thanks ElFenix for the synopsis...(...*mumbles to self* 'lotta quick on the draw thread bashers for GH ' ...)

 

[meson2000]

I didn't think AMD had to do anything specific to the processor in order to enable 166mhz FSB. I thought
they had to just lower the multipliers that the processors ship with (i.e. Just burning different bridges).
The mhz of the processor wouldn't be effected at all and there are no physical changes to the core needed. Am I correct??

I think AMD isn't raising the FSB because they are not confident that all the motherboard manufacturers
would be able to produce stable boards at 166mhz FSB. If AMD starts releasing 166mhz CPUs but a portion
of the boards out there have instability because of the higher bus speed, that would reflect badly on
AMD even though they might have nothing to do with the instability directly.

 

[jonnyGURU]

<< I didn't think AMD had to do anything specific to the processor in order to enable 166mhz FSB. I thought
they had to just lower the multipliers that the processors ship with (i.e. Just burning different bridges).
The mhz of the processor wouldn't be effected at all and there are no physical changes to the core needed. Am I correct??

I think AMD isn't raising the FSB because they are not confident that all the motherboard manufacturers
would be able to produce stable boards at 166mhz FSB. If AMD starts releasing 166mhz CPUs but a portion
of the boards out there have instability because of the higher bus speed, that would reflect badly on
AMD even though they might have nothing to do with the instability directly. >>



Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a weiner!! (sorry... beer talking)

On most Athlons, all you should have to do is lower the multipler and up the bus. You do end up with better bandwidth overall (CPU and memory scores look better) but altogether rather lack luster IMHO. Personally, I'm getting better scores running a P4 asynchronously at 100/166 over an Athlon w/ same.

You get a bonus donut for your second paragraph. AMD can not "depend" on the motherboard industry to migrate into the 333 MHz platform when the industry is currently "sketchy" at best. I mean, look at what we have... The Iwill XP333 is buggy at best and a friend that works at Biostar told me over a beer or two (hiccup) that the M7VIF (the first VIA based PC2700 board) won't be truly "mature" (BIOS revisions, address compat. issues, etc) for another two months.

Sledgehammer is to overcome the whole front side bus issue of PCs altogether so discussing PC2700 as a viable platform for that CPU is a moot point. The next AMD CPU is the Thoroghbred and the way things are looking, that's going to be a 266 MHz FSB CPU if AMD is going to make it Q2 target date. Maybe it can "become" a 333 MHz FSB CPU "down the road" (Q4?).


Ok... Broke enough NDAs for now... back to my beer.

I feel a rant developing in OT.... Hmmm.......