LITTLEBLACKDOG.COM

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 5:20 pm Post subject: Athlon64 finally arrives

http://www.littlewhitedog.com/default.asp?id=3326

Athlon64 3200+ is at Newegg for $449.

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduct.asp?catalog=343&DEPA=0&submit=property&mfrcode=0&propertycodevalue=4954

A micro-ATX Gigabyte motherboard using the VIA KT800 chipset is $120.

The Intel Pentium4 3.2C (not the overclocked Xeon MP aka Pentium4 3.2EE "Emergency Edition") is $616.

The cheapest 875P Canterwood motherboard is $129.

So, you could spend $569 for the Athlon64 (or $585 with heatsink & fan) and motherboard or you could spend $745 for the Pentium4 and motherboard. Of course, the Athlon64 lags way behind the Pentium4 in number of blue aliens and blue men shown on TV.

Tail-Wagger Joined: 10 Aug 2003 Age: 25 Posts: 2202

if i had the money, i'd go amd64

although i hear they dont offer that much proformance boost in desktop pcs

i'd like to have it just for bragging rights..

-dann

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 5:41 pm Post subject:

I'm guessing I'll upgrade to one of these next year sometime. April at the earliest, if at all.

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 1:34 am Post subject:

It is out too soon. Smile

I haven't worked thru all the XP's and Bartons yet!!! Sad

Mutt Joined: 09 Apr 2003 Posts: 101 Location: Middle Earth

Gonna wait until UT2004 comes out

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 2:14 pm Post subject:

correct me if i am wrong... but to truely benefit from a 64-bit processor... don't you need 64-bit applications? I know operating systems come in the 64-bit flavor.. but what applications are coded as such? I would assume certain database applications, and other enterprise level applications that have been using the Itanium for something like 2 years now... but what's out there for the "home user?"

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 2:18 pm Post subject:

Yes, but all applications will benefit to some degree. Your comp will run faster just by installing a 64 chip. To truly benefit, software would have to be rewritten.

On another note, would you have to buy a new mobo to use this chip? If so, what are some of the mobo's that are compatible?

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 2:29 pm Post subject:

hrbib21 wrote:
Yes, but all applications will benefit to some degree. Your comp will run faster just by installing a 64 chip. To truly benefit, software would have to be rewritten.

On another note, would you have to buy a new mobo to use this chip? If so, what are some of the mobo's that are compatible?

Yes, you would have to buy a new motherboard. Cant cram 700 some odd pins into a motherboard with 400 some odd holes. Asus has several motherboards that are compatiable, one with an nForce3 Pro chipset, and the other with the VIA KT800 chipset. And not too surprising, nForce once again kicks the living crap out of VIA.

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 2:42 pm Post subject:

hrbib21 wrote:
Yes, but all applications will benefit to some degree. Your comp will run faster just by installing a 64 chip.

ehhh... a 64-bit chip can use large amounts of memory more efficently... yes. But being a 64-bit chip has little to do with FSB or processor speeds. I'd say the over all benefits will be minimal at best. Granted... you need the chip available before you can make the software...

Is there some kind of 64-bit roadmap anyway? when do they plan on writting of 32-bit computing?

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 3:16 pm Post subject:

smokinAMD wrote:
Asus has several motherboards that are compatiable, one with an nForce3 Pro chipset, and the other with the VIA KT800 chipset. And not too surprising, nForce once again kicks the living crap out of VIA.

Not in the reviews that I read, it didn't. Except for an apparent AGP issue on one board, the KT800 performed better than the NForce3. Of course, most of us have had bad experiences with VIA chipsets at one time or another.

Here's a good review:
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2003q3/athlon64/index.x?pg=1

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 3:23 pm Post subject:

JustAnEngineer wrote:
smokinAMD wrote:
Asus has several motherboards that are compatiable, one with an nForce3 Pro chipset, and the other with the VIA KT800 chipset. And not too surprising, nForce once again kicks the living crap out of VIA.

Not in the reviews that I read, it didn't. Except for an apparent AGP issue on one board, the KT800 performed better than the NForce3. Of course, most of us have had bad experiences with VIA chipsets at one time or another.

Here's a good review:
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2003q3/athlon64/index.x?pg=1

Heh, I just noticed that the benchmark I was referring to was using the FX on the nForce3 board and the normal 64 on the VIA board.

I also suggest that you read the Hardocp benchmarks over again, as the nForce3 board clearly is in the lead in all of the tests for tne 64 non-FX except for the 3dmark ones due to the AGP issue you mentioned.

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 3:44 pm Post subject:

Interesting. [H] gives favor to the nForce3 while TechReport likes the KT800. I'm not exactly sure what to say, besides the fact that I'm going to give this some more time to mature before I even consider upgrading.

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 6:16 pm Post subject:

smokinAMD wrote:
Yes, you would have to buy a new motherboard. Cant cram 700 some odd pins into a motherboard with 400 some odd holes.

Of course you can! Thats what man invented hammers for hammer

Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2003 3:01 am Post subject:

Interestingly, most of the (UK) retailers I've researched offer the Barton XP3200 and the Athlon 64 3200 for around the same price.

Now, am I right in thinking that socket 754 is for Athlon 64 and socket 940 is for AthlonFX and Opteron? How do these sockets differ, do they have a different number of pins, different pinouts or something? I (initially) thought that all of AMD's x86-64 CPUs shared a common interface.

Moderator Joined: 05 Dec 2000 Posts: 5941 Location: USA

Robbo wrote:
Now, am I right in thinking that socket 754 is for Athlon 64 and socket 940 is for AthlonFX and Opteron? How do these sockets differ, do they have a different number of pins, different pinouts or something? I (initially) thought that all of AMD's x86-64 CPUs shared a common interface.

I believe the 754 is single channel memory and single CPU vs. dual channel memory and multiple CPUs for the 940 - there is also suppose to be a 939 socket that supports just the dual channel memory (no multi-cpu support) - w Big Smile

f!