Dual-core NOW! or later?

[imported_Otter]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
Not that I have too much doubt about your statements (never underestimate large corporations' desire to shove DRM down our throats), but do you have the links to where you read that?

I don't think I saved the links, but I'll see if I can scare up something later.

 

[imported_Otter]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Bite my tongue, looks like there will be a lower priced X2.

X2 3800+ $345 on August 1

Any idea how much cache it will have per core and what the stock frequency will be? If it might be expected to OC to nearly the same speeds as the more expensive CPU's, and it's got at least 512K cache per core, that chip will have an awesome bang to buck ratio.

The thing is, when will it actually be possible to buy one? I wouldn't count on AMD shipping any of these the first day of August.

 

[Furen]

well they shipped the FX-57 on the release date (granted, it's a low volume cpu). I think Nvidia is making immediate availability fashionable...

And about DRM - I'm pretty sure socket m2 athlons (as opposed to semprons) will have DRM and a "trusted computing module"--this is what amd is calling "Presidio". AMD has mentioned repeatedly that it supports DRM and TC but that you SHOULD be able to disable it--think of it as an enabling technology this generation, the "shoving-down-our-throats" will happen on the software/content side once there is enough of an installed base.

 

[Link]

Originally posted by: Cheesetogo
AMD will probably release a 2 ghz dual core soon, which would probably run about 350-400. In the meantime, you could get a 3000 venice or a sempron.

You know what? AMD will indeed release $350~400 X2, but just like 4200 and 4400, the retailers will jack up the price due to high demand, making it close to $500.

 

[Hacp]

That would last probably only for one or two weeks, since demand won't be as high as when the original dual cores are released. If it really is 2.0 GHz and 512 Cache, then the Pentium D processors are really in trouble, not that they weren't in trouble before this announcement.

 

[bREwIn dOdgEr dUDe]

Originally posted by: Zim

Originally posted by: bREwIn dOdgEr dUDe
huh...............?..... lower clocked x2processors, AMD saving up?....... get a 3200 64 venice, call it a day... should keep you sufficient for a good two years.... start reading more CpU forums...

If you specifically want a dual core processor then a 3200+ 64 isn't going to be of interest. Personally I want an X2 and even if you clocked your Venice's to 10GHz I wouldn't be interested. Dual core is the future... if you read the cpu forums.

I think the prices should come down under $400 for an X2 4200+ as soon as the supply chain stablizes. That might be by the end of this year, although I just don't know what AMD's plans are. What I can say with reasonable certainty is that now isn't the time to buy if you're looking for value.

And as for an AMD 64 3200+ keeping you satisfied for the next two years (even if overclocked)... are you telling me that at this time next year when everyone is running their Athlon X2's and their Pentium D's that you're gonna be happy? Good for you if you are! If that's the case then the processor the guy already has will probably do for the next two years. I have an Athlon XP Mobile clocked to 3000+ and it could do the next two years if I wasn't too picky.

And BTW, X2's overclock too!

the X2's are the future, and with demand i guess prices should go down (good to see AmD announcing $345 processors)... tho' personally my eyes keep gravitating to the 4400 X2... but as it is, the wallet will not reciprocate...or is it the wife?...

 

[GTaudiophile]

I am debating between an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Manchester) vs. an AMD Athlon 4000+ (San Diego). In gaming benches, the San Diego comes out only slightly ahead it seems, so why not go for the X2?

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

AMD is so clever, its starting to scare me. Now they goin for the midrange comps, with the X2 3800+ one can build a decent dual-core gaming rig for a 1000$.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: Otter

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
Not that I have too much doubt about your statements (never underestimate large corporations' desire to shove DRM down our throats), but do you have the links to where you read that?

I don't think I saved the links, but I'll see if I can scare up something later.

Yay! I get to wear my tinfoil hat!

The standard linkage:

Trusted Computing FAQ (starting to grow cobwebs)

rms in action

EFF paper "Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk"

Sources in favor are left as an exercise to the reader.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: bersl2
Yay! I get to wear my tinfoil hat!

The standard linkage:

Trusted Computing FAQ (starting to grow cobwebs)

rms in action

EFF paper "Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk"

Sources in favor are left as an exercise to the reader.

Sorry for the continued thread hijack, and while I will say that I agree with you on this, I'm already familiar with most of that material (haven't taken the time to read all of it now, but I seem to recall reading it before).

I was curious to find out exactly how Longhorn would be limited on a non-"trusted" system. Not that I'm really anxious to be an early adopter by any means - I'm sure the X Window System will have caught up (and probably surpassed) Longhorn's graphics capabilities by the time the latter comes out, and hopefully the GIMP will be a bit more digital photographer friendly by the time I'll need to switch to it from Photoshop.

Edited for clarity in word choice

 

[imported_Otter]

Originally posted by: Otter

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
Not that I have too much doubt about your statements (never underestimate large corporations' desire to shove DRM down our throats), but do you have the links to where you read that?

I don't think I saved the links, but I'll see if I can scare up something later.

I've been unable to retrace my steps or find another source for this info. I recall that I considered the source reliable, but I also remembered it as being an article by Ed Stroligo, and it turns out not to have been part of that article. I don't think I'd have gotten unsubstantiated blogging by some anonymous, tinfoil-wearing "expert" confused with something more authoritative, but given that I haven't been able to turn up any new references, it's likely that the article I read (wherever I read it) was simply wrong.

If MS isn't going to try to shove feudal computing down our throats in the near future, I'm both relieved and disappointed. While I think that "trusted computing" is about as trustworthy as your average politician, I was rather hoping that MS would go ahead with this and that it would become their Micro-Channel Architecture. In the late 80's, IBM's insistence on the MCA bus ended their domination of the PC market. If MS would pull an IBM and speed the transition to a more open OS market, that would be very good for the industry.

[/hijack] And back to the main topic.