Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 20:22:16 12/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 2003 at 20:15:26, K. Burcham wrote: > >the Athlon 64 FX-51 uses a 940-pin package, similar to AMD's Opteron, while the >Athlon 64 3200+ uses a 754-pin package. The Athlon 64 FX-51 also has a memory >controller that is twice as "wide" as the 3200+; 128-bits vs. 64-bits >respectively. The Athlon 64 FX-51 also requires registered memory to function, >whereas the Athlon 64 3200+ can use standard unbuffered DDR memory. > >the FX-51 is housed is ceramic packaging material, ala the Thunderbird. The >Athlon 64 3200+ is using organic packaging like the current generation of Athlon >XPs. > > >http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/CCAM/a64fx_51_launch.shtml That is a good article, and it answers some of the questions, but it is still unclear which processor would be best for different circumstances. It doesn't really address Opteron vs. Athlon 64. We have: Opteron for servers Opteron for desktops Athlon 64 Athlon 64 FX It seems clear that the Athlon 64 FX is better than the Athlon 64, but whether or not it is worth the significant price increase, I don't know (it doesn't seem THAT much better). Also, the main improvements seem to be memory bandwidth, which hasn't been very important for chess programs. Some of the lower end Opterons can be had pretty cheap, if someone wanted to just test one out. I don't know if it would be better to get a cheap one to play with, to get an expensive one now, or to put the whole thing off and wait until newer ones are available. Surely 2.2 GHz is not as high as they will go.
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.