amd socket news

unklerosco

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/12/16/new_amd_socket_am2/

youcancallmeal

FX-62

multiple operating systems simultaneously :eek:

Khannie

Looks very impressive.

Capt'n Midnight

youcancallme>al wrote:

FX-62

multiple operating systems simultaneously :eek:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28367

All of the Sempr0ns are 64-bit capable and feature new security technologies, while virtualization technology is of course, reserved for dual-core CPUs.

So the other OS can use the other core

BadCharlie

You know when they say "support DDR 2 memory" im guesing that means our normaly ram of DDR is not going to work what so ever with the new 940motherboards ?

And i know im not the only person who has spent a small fortune on ram.

Praetorian

I wouldn't go for one of the new processors and new mobos until a few boards have been released

The FX62 dual core @ 2.67 ghz @ 333mhz hypertransport should be a match for the best Intel chip when they release their new cpu next year

astrofool

The entire and only reason for the socket change is to support DDR2.

As the A64 has the memory controller on board, its the only way to ensure that it gets matched to the correct memory.

Gotta wonder how long DDR2 is gonna be around for now, at the least though, it should mean larger capacity DIMM's, and when Vista 64bit hits, 4gb+ should be able to become a bit more commonplace (XP pro, 32bit, only supports 2.5gb).

Atlas_IRL

does anyone know the market share amd have on intel now? surely they must be catching up there destroying them in performance atm...

Praetorian

I'd take a guess at less than 20% overall in cpu's worldwide. Although in the elite power users (overclockers?) it's gotta be 80%.

commited

There was a thread somewhere on here stating that AMD now have the majority share!

Laguna

commited wrote:

There was a thread somewhere on here stating that AMD now have the majority share!

I hope so, Intel are complacent.

SolarNexus

I would say AMD have the market share, they're cheaper, they do essentially exactly the same as their competitor (speed vs price), all this means system builders would choose them over intel; unless of course, your idiotic and think the brand name intel is better for no reason at all (*cough* Dell *cough*).

The new dual-core chips will support AMD's virtualization technology, allowing users to run multiple operating systems simultaneously.

Oh yeah, that'll be useful. I can imagine all the times I've thought to myself.. "if only I could be running Linux AND Windows XP on the same computer, at the same time, with the same keyboard, mouse, and monitor... pfft" I see this turning out as either A) vapourware - nothing but hype marketing jargon to get the jarheads with more money than sense to buy this processor 'cause its better... no, ignore the price, its because its 'better' C) yet another feature, like 64bit which will be useful in enterprise, but completely unused in home computing (unless you count the 1 in a million games or apps that use it, even then you really got to work to care)

bah, I hate christmas. err.. yeah.

irishshogun

Ignoring the techy bells and whistles of this new mobo, would you recommend it as an upgrade? I've building a new machine Jan/Feb and was intending using the 939 mobo cos I assumed it'd be upgrade safe for a couple of years at least, should I forget it nowe and go with the 940?
Thanks

art

astrofool wrote:

... (XP pro, 32bit, only supports 2.5gb).

btw: a 32 bit system like XP can use 4GB memory, not 2.5GB, but in XP each application only accesses 2GB directly - not sure if that was what you meant there.

Khannie

SolarNexus wrote:

Oh yeah, that'll be useful.

I'd like it.

I prefer doing work stuff on linux, but I've little choice but to use windows for most games (god I hope UT2007 runs on linux).

Stephen

I'd say it will, given epic's record of providing linux binaries for previous versions of UT.

MrPinK

SolarNexus wrote:

Oh yeah, that'll be useful. I can imagine all the times I've thought to myself.. "if only I could be running Linux AND Windows XP on the same computer, at the same time, with the same keyboard, mouse, and monitor... pfft" I see this turning out as either A) vapourware - nothing but hype marketing jargon to get the jarheads with more money than sense to buy this processor 'cause its better... no, ignore the price, its because its 'better' C) yet another feature, like 64bit which will be useful in enterprise, but completely unused in home computing (unless you count the 1 in a million games or apps that use it, even then you really got to work to care)

Certainly won't be A or B. This is a feature that is definitely not aimed home users, a nice plus to some people but usless to most. However it is something that the commerical industry has been crying out for for years. Every place I've ever worked has been using both Windows and Linux environments (sometimes even with Solaris, AIX and HP-UX thrown in too). Being able to run windows and unix servers on the same box is a big money saver.

SolarNexus

the real quesiton is, how are you going to use two systems at once? with two monitors, two keyboards, two mice? or do you switch between them, and if you have to alternate, then whats the advantage over normal cpus where you have to reboot? --only takes a min or two.

_Kaiser_

SolarNexus wrote:

the real quesiton is, how are you going to use two systems at once? with two monitors, two keyboards, two mice? or do you switch between them, and if you have to alternate, then whats the advantage over normal cpus where you have to reboot? --only takes a min or two.

Not on a server where reboots can take 5-10 mins upwards, and that's before the impact of the downtime considerations

It'll be something like an combination onboard hardware/software KVM I'd say (just as now you can connect a KVM switch and use multiple computers with the one keyboard/mouse/monitor) but definitely something targeted at the Enterprise market alright.

EDIT: I suppose lower-end Enterprise market really. Most larger companies will still prefer individual boxes for their mail, firewall etc for the security/independence of things like PSU's, disks etc

gobby

Another thing dual os's would be used for is live updating of office pc's. A system admin could update all pc's on a network without anyone even knowing its happening.

astrofool

art wrote:

btw: a 32 bit system like XP can use 4GB memory, not 2.5GB, but in XP each application only accesses 2GB directly - not sure if that was what you meant there.

u're half right actually. XP supports 4gb, but as far as I remember, will only actually show up as 3.5gb (not sure where I got 2.5 from...:)). We found out when we were setting up a server for testing with 7gb of RAM, so ended up having to install win2k3 Enterprise edition.

Xp x64 supports 16gb of RAM straight off.

gline

is ddr2 anygood? (for all you intel heads out there):D

Capt'n Midnight

MrPinK wrote:

Being able to run windows and unix servers on the same box is a big money saver.

Not really, Windows means you should run on redundant hardware Dual PSU, RAID 5 etc.
Unix can in many cases use redundant software and mirror two cheaper boxes.
Windows can do this too with clustering, but the licenses can cost more than redundant Hardware so you can't save money on hardware this way.

Being able to run two copies of windows on the same hardware might save money, but Microsoft claim that windows is more reliable so you can run more services on one box that previously were recommended to be shared out over several serers.

christophicus

gline wrote:

is ddr2 anygood? (for all you intel heads out there):D

you only really get any benefit in 3D games apperently.

astrofool

christophicus wrote:

you only really get any benefit in 3D games apperently.

ddr2 doesn't really make a difference. The best performing gaming processor is the athlon64, which can only use ddr1.

what ddr2 should add is higher capacities and lower power consumption and voltage (which is good if overclocking). But that probably won't happen till next year when the athlon goes to ddr2 as well, meaning all the memory manufacturers will switch to ddr2.

masteroftherealm

astrofool wrote:

ddr2 doesn't really make a difference. The best performing gaming processor is the athlon64, which can only use ddr1.

what ddr2 should add is higher capacities and lower power consumption and voltage (which is good if overclocking). But that probably won't happen till next year when the athlon goes to ddr2 as well, meaning all the memory manufacturers will switch to ddr2.

But I 3> putting 3.6v through BH-5!! It so much fun!!

art

astrofool wrote:

u're half right actually. XP supports 4gb, but as far as I remember, will only actually show up as 3.5gb (not sure where I got 2.5 from...:)). We found out when we were setting up a server for testing with 7gb of RAM, so ended up having to install win2k3 Enterprise edition.

Xp x64 supports 16gb of RAM straight off.

Hmmmm... Getting tetchy now. How am I half right? XP can support 4GB is exactly what I said :mad:

Amount of Physical memory reported by the system may appear less where the system reads virtual memory as Physical memory; the addition of virtual memory is greater than the supported max of 4GB (which always happens obviously where 4GB installed RAM exists). Some systems will show even lower amounts than 3.5, depending on config. etc., however the 4GB is actually always accessible.

conzy

DDR2 timings are very loose at the minute, they will probably tighten up in the next year or so......

I sound like Eddie hobbs "tighten the belt...............":D

Why is ram still so slow. the ddr3 ram in a 7800gtx 512mb can run at 800mhz, why not drop the multipliers and raise fsb to 800mhz that would have massive performance increases?????:eek:

Dempsey

commited wrote:

There was a thread somewhere on here stating that AMD now have the majority share!

And its aload of bull****

djmarkus

It probably is, for the €399 cheapo dell systems, but for the performance, custom built systems im 100% sure amd has the upper hand.

Dempsey

And if you where selling CPU's which would you rather have the lions share in?

AMD make really great stuff but they need to focus just as hard on the marketing if they want to catch intel

gline

Dempsey wrote:

And if you where selling CPU's which would you rather have the lions share in?

AMD make really great stuff but they need to focus just as hard on the marketing if they want to catch intel

well with dell gonna be sticking in amd's soon im sure amd will out do intel soon

Dempsey

Dell are suppose to be doing that since 2002. Most people will pick intel over AMD because of brand recognition anyway

commited

Dempsey wrote:

And its aload of bull****

Calm down.
It isnt - I cant be bothered to search for it on here, but it was posted a while back.
If you look at non-dell manufacturers a HELL of alot of them are using AMD now.

Dempsey

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/10/q1_x86_cpu_market/

Q1 05
Intel x86 Market 81.7%
AMD x86 Market 16.9%

Balfa

fergodsake, why are you bickering over this?

http://www.google.com/search?q=market+share+amd+intel

First match reveals that in May, intel held over 80% of the x86 market and I'm sure it hasn't changed drastically since then.

Now, back on topic...


edit: yeah, what he ^^ said.

art

All depends how extensively you Google of course though... particularly if you want to focus on the US market as opposed to Worldwide market?

... for the first time, AMD has outdone Intel in desktop processor sales. In June of this year, AMD had a remarkable comeback (between June and July timeframe) when its market share shot up from just above 20 percent to somewhere around 50 percent. As AMD gained market share, Intel dropped from approximately 80 percent to nearly 50 percent.

http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1893
or
http://news.com.com/AMD+surpassed+Intel+in+U.S.+retail+stores/2100-1006_3-5939522.html?tag=html.alert

Dempsey

I thin Worldwide market share is far more important that US RETAIL market share

You can try and twist the figures until your AMD fanboyism comes out your ears but the fact remains Intel have 80%, AMD 17%. AMD wont pass Intel for years to come because of two simple facts. 1) Intel's Marketing 2) Intel have far more fabs and are building several more

art

Dempsey wrote:

I thin Worldwide market share is far more important that US RETAIL market share

You can try and twist the figures until your AMD fanboyism comes out your ears but the fact remains Intel have 80%, AMD 17%. AMD wont pass Intel for years to come because of two simple facts. 1) Intel's Marketing 2) Intel have far more fabs and are building several more

Well, not wanting to thrash an argument to within an inch of its life, the facts are that Intel had 80%, by your own quoted link, but no longer do...

The fact that things changed after the first quarter in 2005 has nothing at all to do with fanboys of anything, or a "twist" of figures and everything to do with simply keeping abreast of current facts.

As the links point out, the increase in sales of HP desktops has increased AMD's market share since Q1 - your source is almost a year out of date. And that's straight up!

Dempsey

Its probably about 70% now i reckon but I cant get a more up to date reliable report. But its nowhere near 50% or less like some dillusional people think it is.

People are twisting figures by focusing on a small section of the market e.g US Retail Market Share which isnt a proper indicator of whats happening worldwide.

WhiteWashMan

Atlas_IRL wrote:

does anyone know the market share amd have on intel now? surely they must be catching up there destroying them in performance atm...

it really depends on what market you are talking about.

i worked with AMD pretty closely in my last job, and in the research and scientific community, they were king. the vast majority of supercomputers were being built on the opteron.
however, in the mass market and every day business systems, Intel are ahead by friggin miles, and the scientific community isnt that big.

they are there, they are making lots of money and they have great chips, but intel are still king.

besides, i got my amd64 3700 2 weeks ago, and it is stonkingly quick!

astrofool

In installed base Intel will of course be beating AMD for many years to come, due to past processor success.

AMD has however matched Intel's market share of new processors, but it would (obviously) take many years of greater market share for AMD to surpass Intel's install base.

Just, for example, in the monitor market, LCD may be selling more than CRT now, but CRT's install base would be far larger.

Dempsey

The reason AMD make better chips goes back to when Intel bought Digital Supercomputers. They had some of the best designers in the world, they didn't like the takeover, quit and joined AMD. Intel got digital's designs but not the designers which is what they were really after. They were the ones behind the Athlon, Duron and now Opterons

Are you trying to say that intel dropped a 30% market share in less that a year? Dont be daft

art

Dempsey wrote:

Are you trying to say that intel dropped a 30% market share in less that a year? Dont be daft

Apparently they have done just that in US retail sales though. In four months. As the figures clearly state. So what's to say it won't happen in other areas? You can't say that just because Intel make more chips than AMD, the market will absorb them, simply because they are there. AMD have been clear winner's in 2005 on a number of market fronts in terms of quality of product so it may mean 2006 will see wider adoption of their chips at the expense on Intel and a consequent worldwide drop in Intel's market share. Nothing is set in stone.

tba

So setting aside the market share which I dont really care about, would it be wise to invest in a 939 socket PC at this stage or hold out until some AM2 based boards become available?

Dooom

tba wrote:

So setting aside the market share which I dont really care about, would it be wise to invest in a 939 socket PC at this stage or hold out until some AM2 based boards become available?

It's the same old song really - if you hold out till the M2's arrive, then a few weeks after it's released a new form will be announced. Well that's more or less it anyway.

It's the price you pay for using a pc (course it does depend on whether you want to keep it up to date or not).

astrofool

i'd say DDR3 will start emerging in about 18 months time (2H 07), so M2 should be ok till around then.

Don't forget, motherboards don't always get bios updates for the latest chips anyway. I don't think alot of nforce3 boards could take the X2 (anyone notice otherwise?)

Laguna

tba wrote:

So setting aside the market share which I dont really care about, would it be wise to invest in a 939 socket PC at this stage or hold out until some AM2 based boards become available?

Well I did, what'll it cost to buy a new motherboard and processor at the time the new AMD range comes out?, €500 max. Socket 939 is no slouch, lets face it, the FX-57 will be good enough to hold its own for the coming years even in the face of the FX-62, plus the fact the FX-57 will be far cheaper in a years time as production for 939 pin processors slows down...