Amd 3200+ 64

[enhanced08]

the new AMD 3200+ 64 cpu has the 1600mhz bus right? well, would it be worth it to buy the cpu and not be able to use the bus at that speed because no mobo is that fast yet, or would it be smarter to wait till they come out with a mobo that can support that kind of speed?

$400 is a lot for something you wont beable to use to its full potential (spelling?)

[Cricket]

I hope you know that the Athlon 64 has 754 "pins" and won't fit into any motherboard that supports the regular 462 pin Athlon XP's.

:) Cricket

[yellohut]

i believe the 1600 comes from ddr 400 "quad pumped" (or whatever amd is calling it.)
so it's normal pc3200 RAM.

kinda like how intel says it's an 800 mhz fsb, but uses ddr 400 as well.

[Sgt_Zeke]

Try this link. It may be what your looking for. Or go to the Amd site they list several.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/
http://usa.asus.com/products/mb/socket754/k8v-d/overview.htm

[enhanced08]

i believe the 1600 comes from ddr 400 "quad pumped" (or whatever amd is calling it.)

ok, now i'm lost. :confused: the bus speed (1600 mhz) comes from the speed of the RAM????i thought they were 2 totally different things

[s_layton]

They are on most MBs. But the point he was trying to make was that the FSB is actually only 400 but because it is "quadpumped", that makes it 400 x 4 = 1600 MHz. Much in the same was that the AMD Athlon 2500+ is actually 166 FSB, but the processor runs at 333 because it is doubled in the processor. Correct me if I'm wrong guys.

[Cricket]

Originally posted by enhanced08dotcom
ok, now i'm lost. :confused: the bus speed (1600 mhz) comes from the speed of the RAM????i thought they were 2 totally different things The speed of the CPU and RAM depend on the speed of the motherboard's Front Side Bus (FSB). If the FSB speed is 100MHz, because of the Double Data Rate technology (DDR) the RAM speed would be doubled internally to 200MHz and the CPU internal bus speed would be quadrupled to 400MHz because of the Quad Pumped technology.

If the FSB speed is 133MHz, the RAM speed would be 266MHz and the CPU internal bus speed would be 533MHz.

If the FSB is 166MHz, the RAM speed would be 333MHz and the CPU internal bus speed would be 666MHz.

Yeah, it's confusing, but go over this a few times and it'll start to make sense.

Oh, the internal bus speed of the CPU isn't the CPU's processing speed, it's the speed that data moves inside the CPU itself. The CPU's processing speed would be determined by taking the motherboard FSB speed and multiplying it by the CPU's multiplier ratio. Take a 2.4GHz P4 that runs on the 200MHz FSB for example...you would take that 200MHz and multiply it by a ratio of 12 to get 2400MHz or 2.4GHz.

:) Cricket

[EvErY_DaY]

Originally posted by Cricket
The speed of the CPU and RAM depend on the speed of the motherboard's Front Side Bus (FSB). If the FSB speed is 100MHz, because of the Double Data Rate technology (DDR) the RAM speed would be doubled internally to 200MHz and the CPU internal bus speed would be quadrupled to 400MHz because of the Quad Pumped technology.

If the FSB speed is 133MHz, the RAM speed would be 266MHz and the CPU internal bus speed would be 533MHz.

If the FSB is 166MHz, the RAM speed would be 333MHz and the CPU internal bus speed would be 666MHz.

Yeah, it's confusing, but go over this a few times and it'll start to make sense.

Oh, the internal bus speed of the CPU isn't the CPU's processing speed, it's the speed that data moves inside the CPU itself. The CPU's processing speed would be determined by taking the motherboard FSB speed and multiplying it by the CPU's multiplier ratio. Take a 2.4GHz P4 that runs on the 200MHz FSB for example...you would take that 200MHz and multiply it by a ratio of 12 to get 2400MHz or 2.4GHz.

:) Cricket
now thats confusing

[TwoRails]

Actually, I believe it's oranges and apples. The FSB we have come to love is not really present with the 64's (either the 745's or the 930's) as the controller is built into the chip itself. So, yes, using DDR400 is OK as the CPU does the quad pumping, not the mobo. Asus has a mobo for them, and I think it's the one used in a lot of the reviews (but don't quote me on that...)

HTH

TwoRails

[EvErY_DaY]

arn't their like 2 mobos that will fit the fx-64's?

[TwoRails]

don't know... haven't researched it. Once I found out that the 939 is just around the corner, I figured I'd wait until then to see how prices and the like are. In the mean time, my 2700+ is doing just fine :)

[HAL9000]

The new AMD has an internal memory controller which in a way, yes, gives it a 1600Mhz FSB... BUT the speed from the memory controller to the RAM itself is actually only 400Mhz. So to call it a 1600Mhz FSB isn't entirely accurate.

[EvErY_DaY]

so what would u call it hal? more like 1200fsb? hoplly crow that is still insain lol

[HAL9000]

Not sure what I would call it... what would be fair? 1200Mhz as you stated, or an average which would bring it down to 800Mhz... had to say.

[bigandy]

Like Every_Day said, there aren't very many MB's that support this new CPU, and I believe that the MB's that do are at least $200. Also, it wouldn't be a great advantage to have one of these new 64bit CPU's because there is no OS to support them (OS's now are 32bit).

[TwoRails]

Just like fatter "pipes" and a higher FSB helps Intel, so does it help the AMD 64. So, yes, all current benchmarking is done in 32 bit, and the 64 is still very fast because of it.

[Computec]

Front side bus is supported by the motherboard. Many Boards support this bus now here are a few.

ASUS K8V DELUXE KT800 K8 800MHz 3DDR400/ 8X/ LAN/ SATA/ WIFI/ ATX
$158.95

GIGABYTE VIA-K8T800 SKT754/ RAID/ DDR400 DPS/ FSB800/ AC97/ USB2
$193.60

MSI K8T-NEO-FIS2R KT800 K8 800MHz DDR400/ 8X/ GB-L/ SATA-R/ 1394
$157.80

GIGABYTE nForce3150 SKT754/ ATX/ RAID/ LAN/ 1394/ AC97/ DDR400/ USB
$141.60

And My Favorite
MSI K8T-MASTER2-FAR KT800 K8 DUAL-940 4DDR/ GB-LAN/ SATA/ ATX
$235.30

[TwoRails]

Nice list, Computec. Note there is a mix of 745 & 940 mobos in the batch. Also note that you won't find a "FSB" spec on the spec sheets for them, however as the controller is built into the CPU not the mobo (I only double checked the Asus and MSI boards). Maybe we're splitting syntax hairs, but what we're use to is now controlled by the CPU.

[Computec]

True but if the notherboard supports the 800fsb wont the doubledata rate run the 1600fsb?
If not than im still in the dark. I thought that one of the posts here said thet the memory ran the fsb not true is it.
x that i see that he meant the path to the and from the mem controler.

[LiGhTBoY]

Originally posted by bigandy
Like Every_Day said, there aren't very many MB's that support this new CPU, and I believe that the MB's that do are at least $200. Also, it wouldn't be a great advantage to have one of these new 64bit CPU's because there is no OS to support them (OS's now are 32bit).

http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/amd64/ (netbsd)
http://www.x86-64.org/

Actually , 64bit is NOT something new, it's been around for some time, *cough* alpha in 90s *cough*

[TwoRails]

To help clear things up a little, here some quotes from a couple of sites:

Besides adding 64-bit capabilities, AMD has made other improvements to its newest CPUs. They include a 1MB L2 cache (up from 512KB), a faster speed system bus based on Hypertransport technology, and new SSE 2 instructions. Probably the most important change, however, is AMD's move to an on-chip memory controller. Integrated DDR memory controller
As processor microarchitecture capabilities have advanced, one of the greatest performance limitations has become the system architecture’s ability to provide sufficient low-latency memory bandwidth to the processor core.

The AMD Athlon™ 64 processor and the AMD Opteron™ processor directly addresses this bottleneck by integrating a DDR memory controller into the processor, revolutionizing the way x86-based processors access main memory.


For a good overall review, you can check out:

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1469&page=1

and the page about memory controllers at:

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1469&page=5

HtH

TwoRails

[bigandy]

Lightboy, I didn't mean to say that 64bit is new as in, never been seen before. The way I meant it here was that these specific processors are new. Sorry for any confusion.

[MichaelMcK]

This months issue of PC Upgrade has a couple articles on the "64".

They built an extreme machine with the 64 FX-51 on an Asus SK8N mobo and 1 gig of PC3200 DDR-SDRAM. Then added 2 WD Raptors in Raid 0 and Radeon 9800 Pro..

Can you say suhweeeet!

Mike

[bigandy]

Yeah sure it's sweet, but I believe that for the stuff that you mention, the PC already costs over $1500.

I looked at prices at newegg to come up with a rough idea.
They're selling that CPU at over $700! Crazy.

[Cricket]

Originally posted by bigandy
I looked at prices at newegg to come up with a rough idea.
They're selling that CPU at over $700! Crazy. That's cheap. Try getting a 64 bit Itanium or a 64 bit Alpha processor...you're looking at a couple of thousand dollars each.

:) Cricket

[imbest123]

Whoah I didnt know that those processors cost so much!!!

[TwoRails]

Well, the low end 64's (754 pin, 3200+) is only about $400...

[MichaelMcK]

Yes, TwoRails, that's what I've seen in the price comparos...

Unless you have mega $$ to blow or a very serious need for that kind of power I'd find it very difficult to justify spending that kind of dough.

Most of us 'regular' folks can do just fine with CPUs that cost well under $400.

Mike

[bigandy]

Cricket, THAT is crazy! A couple thousand bucks for the CPU, wow. As you said MichaelMcK, most of us are getting along fine with our "regular" old CPU's.

[Antistupid]

I don't know...
I use it and it runs super fast! (I don't overclock). INSTALLING XP TOOK 45 minutes!!!:D

[TwoRails]

Originally posted by MichaelMcK
Most of us 'regular' folks can do just fine with CPUs that cost well under $400. Amen to that! I broke the proverbial bank when I spent a little over $200 when I got my 2700+. (on "plastic," too!) I hope it will last a while! Maybe the "128s" will be out by then! LOL ;)

TwoRails

[Cricket]

Okay...I don't know if this is right or not, but I found this 1GHz Intanium 2 CPU (http://www.globalcomputer.com/products/product_details.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=5194561) with 256 L2 cache and 3MB L3 cache...and it costs $7892.94. I'm pretty sure this is the price for just the processor. Of course, this isn't a desktop computer processor, it's specifically for servers...so don't go rushing to the store to buy one for your home computer.

:) Cricket

[LiGhTBoY]

It takes 45 mins on my rig also and it's a single 1700+ :)

[jimmyrules712]

i wouldnt mind spending 400 on a cpu, if i had the money. I meen thats what people spend on the p4 3.2c. but 700 is a bit pricey

[imbest123]

Originally posted by Antistupid
I don't know...
I use it and it runs super fast! (I don't overclock). INSTALLING XP TOOK 45 minutes!!!:D
Takes me 45 min on my 2.4Ghz P4.

[Antistupid]

Originally posted by imbest123
Takes me 45 min on my 2.4Ghz P4.

but... I was playing games part of the time, and 3200+ is 2 ghz.

[HAL9000]

Ok, 1, how do you play games while installing XP? 2, the fact that it installed at the same speed as a 2.4Ghz when it's rated as a 3200+ is far from impressive.

[Antistupid]

Originally posted by HAL9000
Ok, 1, how do you play games while installing XP? 2, the fact that it installed at the same speed as a 2.4Ghz when it's rated as a 3200+ is far from impressive.

after installing, before downloading updates. rated as 3200+ is (I agree) missleading, but it runs at clock speed rated as 2 ghz (though it feels like 3 ghz)

[imbest123]

Well the installation to Windows XP is different from getting the updates and the updates vary in time depending on your processor speed but mostly your internet connection.

[Antistupid]

ok, I consider installing XP as installing, downloading and installing the downloads. until then, you don't have XP compleat, do you. I used a 100 MB/S fiber opitcal connection

[imbest123]

I dont want to start an argument in a thread aboot the Athlon 64 but it was mostly your internet connection that sped up the process. Someone with a Pentium 1,000 that operates at 1,000,000Thz can wait hours for updates if they only have 56k. Other than that th Athlon 64's are not worth getting just yet. Wait aboot a year to get one.

[Antistupid]

you might be right, but I already have one!

[imbest123]

Im not denying you of anything Antistupid. The Athlon 64's are great amazing processors. I would love to have one, I am jsut saying that the world is not ready for them yet.

[sri2000_uk]

I do some video editing.
Would an AMD 64 BIT Processor render the video's quicker than the normal Athlon 3000+ I use now.
The rendering takes an age at the moment.

SRI

[imbest123]

It would but I wouldnt recomend an upgrade from a 3000+. Its an adequate upgrade but it wont save you an unbelievable amount of time.

[sri2000_uk]

Thank you for the prompt reply/


SRI

[jimmyrules712]

for those who dont know... athlons do more per clock cycle then P4's do, for example take a 1.5 gighz P4 and 1.5 gighz athlon (what is that, an XP 1600?) and the athlon will show a huge performance level over the P4. Thats why the athlons would be ranked for example "XP 2500" but its not 2.5 gig, but that cpu which is 1.83 gighz will run faster then a P4 with the same clock speed. Im not saying the 3200 will compete with a P4 3.2, just saying that you cant compare clock speeds alone.

[Antistupid]

Originally posted by jimmyrules712
for those who dont know... athlons do more per clock cycle then P4's do, for example take a 1.5 gighz P4 and 1.5 gighz athlon (what is that, an XP 1600?) and the athlon will show a huge performance level over the P4. Thats why the athlons would be ranked for example "XP 2500" but its not 2.5 gig, but that cpu which is 1.83 gighz will run faster then a P4 with the same clock speed. Im not saying the 3200 will compete with a P4 3.2, just saying that you cant compare clock speeds alone.

Actually, you're right. I use the 64 3200+, and my dad uses P4 3.2Ghz. Windows XP runs at basically the same speed.