dwchang wrote:Pwolf wrote:>.> actually my next system is gona be a dual athlon 64 >.> intel can kiss my ass.. unless i end up working for them again >.>
Not to burst your bubble, but technically there is no such thing as a dual athlon-64. There are dual 64-bit AMD chips, but they are called "Opterons" and are mainly for servers and workstations. By no means am I saying you can't buy one and use it for editing (I plan on it)...just sayin'.
Z3r01 wrote:This image shows us that the Athlon64 3400+ (Clocked at stock 2200MHz) is just a little bit faster than a
hyperthreaded Pentium 4 clocked at 3400MHz.
Also note that in this screenshot the Athlon64 isn't using any of it's 64bit registers, so any advantage given by 64 bit is not used here!
See? I see a lot of people saying, "Why get an Athlon 64 when there aren't any 64bit Operating Systems?" (Well there is Windows 64 Beta and Linux has some 64bit versions)
Just look! Even it's 32bit performance is awesome, on a level, in fact better than a Pentium 4. Of course Whetstone MIPS isn't as high, but that's just a measure of consumer stupidity
Yeah a lot of people don't realize that the current benchmark numbers (where AMD is ahead slightly) are without 64-bit capability turned "on" Well unless you're running Linux and in that case you've had 64-bit for awhile
.
I imagine once the entire register space is addressable, things would be better. Too bad Microsoft is dragging their feet on Windows XP 64. I won't at all say why *cough* Intel *cough*
.
At the same time, you still get access to the NX bit (virus protection) and Hypertransport. I'm guessing HT is the reason Athlon-64's are doing so well.
HT has definately made a positive impact. Just using Windows is a lot smoother than before, and it's not smoother in the sense that it's just a raw speed increase. I'm starting to see what they mean when they said "cinematic computing" but using Windows, that's a bit farfetched isn't it?!
If you plan on dual opterons Pwolf, do a bit of research, I originally wanted to, but it requires "special" registered RAM, which differs from the standard DDR RAM and as expected costs more.
As for Athlon 64's and their sockets, I might as well point a few things out that confused me at first.
Athlon 64's come in 754 and 939 pins
Athlon FX's come in 939 and 940 pins
Opteron's come in 940 pins only.
The 754 pin Athlon 64's are single channel DDR with a 1MB L2 cache (Clawhammer core)
With the exception of the Newcastle core which is 512KB and clocked higher, I guess this might intrude on would be overclockers. I think this is an attempt at cutting production costs, seems like a step backwards to me
The 939 pin Athlon 64's are dual channel DDR with a 512KB L2 cache
(Clawhammer core?)
The 939 pin Athlon FX are dual channel DDR with a 1MB L2 cache
(Sledgehammer core)
The 940 pin Athlon FX are dual channel DDR with a 1MB L2 cache
(Sledgehammer core)
These are the first generation of Athlon FX. They require a special "registered" memory module, which as you'd expect costs more than the regular modules. Basically it has a check bit which prevents memory errors - I'd guess that means less BSOD? 
) Registered memory is also slower, and in benchmarks the 939 pin Athlon FX was reasonably faster. AMD are now phasing out the 940 pin Athlon FX to make the Opteron the only 940 pin AMD CPU
The 940 pin Opteron are dual channel(?) DDR with a 1MB L2 cache
(Claw/Sledgehammer core?)
I don't know a great deal about these, but from what I know and what I'd expect, I'm guessing these are "modded Athlon FX's", similar difference between the Athlon XP and Athlon MP, perhaps dwchang can clarify? Again these require that expensive registered DDR RAM, and obviously a dual processor or greater board (which I had a hell of a time locating)
The Opterons are rated by the series number, you get the 100 series for 1 processor, 200 series for 2 processors and 800 series for up to 8 processors.
I wonder if you can buy 2x 800 series CPUs and run it in a dual board, or if it would specifically have to be a 200 series?
To sum it up:
Athlon 64 in 754 pins = single channel, large cache (check the core though)
Athlon 64 in 939 pins = dual channel, smaller cache
Athlon FX in 939 pins = dual channel, large cache
Athlon FX in 940 pins = dual channel, large cache, requires registered memory
Opteron in 940 pins = dual channel(?), large cache, requires registered ram, check the series number, limited OS support (XP Home only supports a single processor)
Thats about it for now, hope it confuses you as much as it did me at first
There are probably minor errors, but I hear dwchang is "in the know"
So feel free to correct me
*
