Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:20:48 01/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2004 at 23:39:42, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On January 08, 2004 at 22:50:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>Where is this going on? Aren't all of the 64 bit Athlons named "Athlon 64"? >> >>They are not being called that everywhere. IE 3400+ what? > >I think you're confused about AMD's product line. 3400+ is the speed rating. >Athlon 64 is the family name. The full name of the chip is "Athlon 64 3400+" so >I don't think you have a valid complaint. athlon. athlon-64. opteron. FX51. And there is "no confusion"? > >>>Besides, why shouldn't 64-bit Athlons be family members with 32-bit Athlons? The >>>architecture is very similar and they're backward compatible. The Athlon 64 is >>>related to the Athlon more than the Pentium 4 is related to the Pentium. >> >>say "opteron". that is what we are talking about. Yet it has been called >>opteron, FX51 and athlon-64. Yes, I know that one has 1/2 the bus width, >>but still, they are essentially the _same_ CPU. I don't see the need for > >Yes, of course they're the same CPU, just as the Pentium 4 Xeon is the same as >the Pentium 4 Mobile is the same as the Pentium 4. It's called brand >differentiation. There are differences. IE xeon has the cache coherency stuff for MP. Normal processors do not. In the past, xeon has bigger L2. It is still optional in that you can buy a 2mb L2 cache xeon, but not normal PIVs. And _everyone_ considers "xeon" to be "better". Whether it is for all apps or not is another issue. Now we have AMD. Opteron is king of the hill IMHO. Yet they have "blended" the name and it is getting lost in the "blend" which is unfortunate. IE Intel has made great "hay" with the xeon line. AMD is burying the opteron name. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. > >>the confusion. Any more than I liked the old Intel crap of 486-50DX2 and >>other such nonsense that tossed in the internal clock vs the external clock >>stuff. > >It's not really nonsense. How else do you propose people tell the difference >between a 486/50 and a 486DX2/50? I wouldn't fake the MHZ numbers, for sure. If the external clock frequency is 50mhz, it's 50mhz. If it is 25mhz external and 50 internal, it is 25mhz. > >>The opteron is good enough that it doesn't _need_ to be compared to the >>Intel MHZ rating... Every time they use 3200+ they are referencing Intel, >>and that seems bad for _this_ particular chip. > >Again, you're confused about AMD's product line. The Opteron isn't "compared to >the Intel MHZ rating." Opteron chip names don't even include clock speeds. >They're numbered, e.g., 240, 242, 844, etc. It's only the regular Athlon 64, >intended for Average Joe's consumpion, that has these performance ratings. And the athlon-64 has what "core"? IE is it an athlon through-and-through. Or is it an opteron in an athlon's clothing? > >-Tom
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.