AMD: "Dual-Core Opteron Will Shock the Hell Out of Everyone"
Posted by malebolgia on 29 April 2004 - 19:41 · 21 comments & 2499 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgiaContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(2 replies)
#1 Posted by NeoSoft on 29 Apr 2004 - 19:47
- Can a mod fix the name of this post ... it doesn't fix right
Thanks! -
#1.1 Posted by malebolgia on 29 Apr 2004 - 19:50
- Somewhat fixed now.
-
#2 Posted by Mav Phoenix on 29 Apr 2004 - 20:41
- We'll see.
-
(1 reply)
#3 Posted by Beast_4thHM on 29 Apr 2004 - 20:52
- LAME... Int3l are coming for j00!
yeah I'm a fanboy... SUE ME -
#3.1 Posted by aristotle-dude on 29 Apr 2004 - 20:54
- Yeah with those blazing fast 3.6Ghz 90nm chips that are actually slower than the 133nm 3.4Ghz chips. Oh yeah I think AMD and IBM are quaking in their boots right now.
Maybe if you need a space heater, you should stick with intel.
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by hardgiant on 29 Apr 2004 - 20:53
- What kind of boost we talking about ?
-
#4.1 Posted by Surr3al on 30 Apr 2004 - 20:05
- RTFA (A = Article) the dual processor in one processor capability. If you have a dual processor motherboard, you can eseentially run 4 processors on it because of the dual core processors amd plans to release next year. So, a significant boost, I would expect.
-
(1 reply)
#5 Posted by divertom15 on 29 Apr 2004 - 21:46
- i want to know how hyper transport works in a multi-processor box with dual cores
-
#6 Posted by joker999 on 30 Apr 2004 - 02:32
- dual P4 (ps im not fan on which cpu)
-
(7 replies)
#7 Posted by mswarts on 30 Apr 2004 - 02:59
- Why is Intel better than AMD?
Why is AMD better than Intel?
I'm so confused when I look at the numbers.
Seems to me the Apple G5 performs the most clever...
-
#7.1 Posted by threedaysdwn on 30 Apr 2004 - 04:49
- If by most clever, you mean the slowest at the highest price...
-
#7.2 Posted by ubugmetoo on 30 Apr 2004 - 06:05
- I wish AMD and Intel started to rate CPU by there true speed instead of the Ghz speed. Then you wouldn't be confused. But you still might be on drugs that make you think the G5 is clever.
-
#7.3 Posted by qwertyuiop1 on 30 Apr 2004 - 07:22
- Reply to 7.2
This is not possible because there are too many factors in actual speed of a
computer.
Memory speed and size
Hard drive speed and size
Systemboard used
OS used
...
I think AMD tried to do this a few years ago, but I have not heard anything since. -
#7.4 Posted by Smeg on 30 Apr 2004 - 09:27
- AMDs arn't based on GHz, but on PR, which is supposadly based in comparison to the original Athlon (Thunderbird?) but we all know that its really based on Intel's GHz system
-
#7.5 Posted by alister on 30 Apr 2004 - 13:36
- Reply to 7.4
No, because Intel is switching to a PR rating also. Intel just keeps copying AMD, first with the x86-64 and now with the PR ratings.
Alister -
#7.6 Posted by slapnuts_ox on 30 Apr 2004 - 15:56
- ok im personally a big AMD fan but its just plain dumb to say that Intel just keeps copying AMD. They copy from eachother. Intel created SSE, SSE2 and SSE3.....all of which AMD has copied. In fact x86 was designed by Intel. I just personally feel that AMD makes a better product than Intel does right now.
-
#7.7 Posted by edweb on 01 May 2004 - 00:24
- Agreed. They both have licensing with each other for that very reason.. Hell, everyone cries "make some standards" but then moans when one CPU gets what another one has.. Well? Isn't that standardizing?
Personally, I think AMD made a much better product this round. I've always liked AMD as an underdog, but the Athlon line was lucky to survive with it's heat issues (a CPU fan dieing won't kill a P4, but will smoke an Athlon in seconds).
Now that they FINALLY made a CPU that can run even without a heatsink, they will finally take the lead, and a well-deserved one at that.
-
#8 Posted by Karendar on 01 May 2004 - 16:31
- In reply to #7.6
The x86 architecture was created because of RISC being too expensive, thus CISC was born (Cheap, clonable solution) which was originally manufactured as IBM CPUs. Intel copied IBM, AMD copied intel who copied IBM. heh
-
#9 Posted by BOOGSoftball on 01 May 2004 - 19:06
- Hehe...do they mean shock people literally? It would follow with the current standard, then.
AMD’s Strong Roadmap
“We have roadmap that when you look 12 months out, it is pretty firm. You look 12 to 24 months, and it is almost firm. And then you look beyond that, and it is always subject to modifications of the market. When we look out to, say, the end of 2005, we are enabling customers to really create a tremendous breadth of product lines,” AMD’s CEO Hector Ruiz said in an interview to eWeek.
AMD sold around 40 thousand of AMD Opteron processors in 2003, according to Smith Barney's estimations, but the vast majority of such chips were intended for 2-way systems. The company managed to supply approximately 3200 processors for 4-way systems to power some 800 servers. While 4P, 8P and higher-end machines are not sold in massive quantities, they represent the most lucrative part of the market. But the customers who adopt enterprise-class machines with four or more CPUs have to be absolutely confident in technology they acquire and deploy.
pulled, rude comments, shit story. Not worth the hassle.