The question is... IS is a big deal? To the workstation customers? To the enthusiasts?Originally posted by: EBNS.com
AMD confirms that Hammer's on-die memory controller now supports only DDR-I, and that DDR-II will require a new Hammer chip design, at least for the memory portion. But the company claimed this was no big deal.
Originally posted by: imgod2u
To the corporate market, this isn't a big deal. To the enthusiaste market, oh boy is this a big deal. People who buy in th enthusiaste market need a good upgrade path. Think of all the commotion over Intel's 473-pin P4's and the later 478-pin P4's. Intel gains a lotta market from the OEM market, which this kinda thing isn't a big deal with, but AMD almost solely relies on both the enthusiaste and budget markets.
The initial Hammers will only support DDR333. It won't be until Q4 '03 where DDR-II support will be implimented.Originally posted by: bdog
It's not really THAT big of a deal either, everyone knows it would have been foolish for AMD not to incorporate DDRII early on. This merely insures the Hammers future.
I have little doubt that Hammer will perform quite well. A month or two ago, some obscure European site posted some alleged Quake3 benchmarks on a Hammer running at 800mhz... But they are hardly confirmed as real.Originally posted by: human2k
Hopefully hammer wont be like Parhelia.............all hype..........no performance😉..............anyone have benchmarks at all on the hammer?
Originally posted by: Wingznut PEZ
I have little doubt that Hammer will perform quite well. A month or two ago, some obscure European site posted some alleged Quake3 benchmarks on a Hammer running at 800mhz... But they are hardly confirmed as real.Originally posted by: human2k
Hopefully hammer wont be like Parhelia.............all hype..........no performance😉..............anyone have benchmarks at all on the hammer?