Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 21:29:51 01/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2004 at 00:20:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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"? I'm not confused. Honda makes the Accord, Accord Coupe, Acura TSX, and Acura TL and they're all based on the Accord, yet somehow people manage... >>>>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. So? There are differences between most of the Athlon 64s and Opterons, and everyone considers Opterons "better" too. That's the point of AMD's branding. >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. How are they blending anything?? I don't even know what you mean by blending. >>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. You're just digging yourself a deeper stupidity hole. If you call it a 486/25, how do you tell the difference between that and a 486 with a 25MHz internal clock? According to your backwards notion, there would be half a dozen 800MHz Pentium 4s that all perform differently. >>>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? You're apparently the only person in the world who doesn't understand branding. -Tom
This page took 0.08 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.