Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (103434)	10/21/2003 6:35:02 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Interesting post (and responses) from Aces: <i.That is consequence of Intel's new PAT latency cuting improvement ! ! ! By Perdo on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:10 AM EDT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you get the feeling that PAT is not a "memory bypass" or latency reduction by itself, but simply agressive memory timings when the chipset detects that only two dimms are installed? I feel pretty scammed by 875 already. This is just the last damn straw. There is not a difference in the chipset at all between 875 and 865. Using the bypass with an 865 is not even an "overclock" as intel was claiming it was. It's all just a scam. To find out that the EE's max performance memory configuration is 1 gig while FX can pull full speed at 8 gig one hell of a slap in the face. Intel has made a serious error in judgement with this. It would have never come up if they had set the limit to 2 GB, with a bit less agressive timings. who the hell is using more than 2 GB? Did they expect that with the price of memory dropping all the time that PAT was not going to to be exposed as fraud? Fraud. $50 extra for nothing but a memory size limitation. Fraudulent. "Workstation". Chipset. Class. Action. Suit. Say it with me. i820, 875P. in a "class" by themselves. aceshardware.com

To: Joe NYC who wrote (103434)	10/21/2003 6:52:55 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Athlon 64 3200 beats FX51 in Tomb Raider. xbitlabs.com Joe

To: Joe NYC who wrote (103434)	10/21/2003 6:53:10 PM
From: dougSF30	Respond to of 275872

Joe, Interesting article. I was a bit put off by this: Later on AMD will also release a faster modification of its Athlon 64 CPU with 3400+ performance rating and 2.2GHz actual core clock frequency. However, this can hardly be expected to happen soon. Why so, you will understand later on. until I read this: I have to say that the performance of Athlon 64 3200+ is slightly lower than that of Athlon 64 FX-51. Mostly it is not because of the memory controller with lower bandwidth, but because of the lower core clock frequency. Since the memory subsystem latency of Athlon 64 3200+ is considerably lower than that of Athlon 64 FX/Opteron processors, the performance of the two is about the same on average. That is exactly why AMD hasn’t yet released Athlon 64 with 2.2GHz core clock. For the same reason AMD will not roll out faster Athlon 64 models that soon, because Athlon 64 FX family positioned as High-End stuff, will have to be faster than Athlon 64. So it's just market segmentation-based speculation based on relative performance on most applications. But an FX-53, even on Socket 940, would outperform, and you're right, the Socket 939 FX's are going to be truly awesome performers. Doug