PDA

View Full Version : WORLD EXCLUSIVE! AMD dual core desktop Toledo will be name...


Pages : [1] 2

AthlonXP1800
04-14-05, 12:44 AM
AMD dual core desktop Toledo will be named as Athlon 64 X2 confirmed by HEXUS (http://forums.hexus.net/showthread.php?t=43048):

HEXUS.beans - World Exclusive AMD Dual-Core desktop processor details revealed
Posted on Wednesday, 13 April, 2005 by PD
the power of X...

It's no big secret that AMD is scheduled to launch its dual-core Server and professional workstation Opteron processors later in the year.

However details of what's set to be let loose to hunt down Intel's recently announced Pentium Extreme Edition 840 have, up till now, been well hidden...

HEXUS can exclusively reveal that the CPU is to be named the AMD Athlon 64 X2

It will be available at least in the following models:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+

Our source in Greenbriar also confirms that AMD currently has no plans to introduce 'FX' variants of its dual-core desktop processors.

The flagship AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ will have both its cores operating at 2.4GHz, the same frequency as the AMD Athlon 64 4000+, and we'll be surprised if this doesn't rape the already impressive Pentium Extreme Edition 840 we reviewed here.

I thought dual core desktop Toledo was high end Athlon FX version but I was turned to be completed wrong, this news took me completed by big surprises that dual core Athlon 64 X2 will coming to near your desktops in June, I believe this will caught Intel off guard like Nvidia did with Geforce 6800 GT caught ATI off guard last year.

Athlon 64 X2 core clock speed will look like below:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ (2.2GHz)
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (2.3GHz)
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (2.4GHz)

Maybe later this year will see 2 extra new CPUs:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (2.5GHz)
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (2.6GHz)

Wow the PR rating number are exciting me. :D Also someone from XtremeSystems forum has AMD Toledo up and running with CPUZ picture (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=59344), they think maybe here will be 2 versions of Athlon 64 X2 with cheaper 512k and expensive 1Mb L2 cache on each core, it will be very interesting to see how it perform and the pricing soon. :angel:

AMD RULE!!!!!!!!!!!! :afro2:

jAkUp
04-14-05, 12:48 AM
Those are definetely alot higher clockspeeds than I expected. What are the intel's gonna be clocked at?

Either way this is great news :)

Hex
04-14-05, 12:49 AM
Grr but when WHEN??

marqmajere
04-14-05, 02:01 AM
AMD just refuses to hit 3.0 dont they? haha They should just drop the hammer and be done with it.

jAkUp
04-14-05, 02:13 AM
AMD just refuses to hit 3.0 dont they? haha They should just drop the hammer and be done with it.

If they don't hit 3.0ghz, I will do it for them :D

AthlonXP1800
04-14-05, 03:29 AM
AMD just refuses to hit 3.0 dont they? haha They should just drop the hammer and be done with it.

Why? AMD can hit it with 3GHz now so AMD can sell Athlon 64 X2 6000+ now for $3000 but the price is too high and not everybody will buy it until next year when the cost coming down to the right price when AMD will launch it. Pentium XE 840 will hit retail price of 650/$1,226.92 accord to HEXUS.

rohit
04-14-05, 06:31 AM
is it gonna be s939, and compatible with current s939 boards.?

Filibuster
04-14-05, 07:20 AM
Based on the fact that they've said dual-core Opteron will be backwards compatible, I'm assuming the Athlon 64 will be also (with bios update). Its a huge selling point they have over Intel right now.

wEEt
04-14-05, 08:27 AM
http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/Athlon64.gif

Coming June 2005. YES :D

brady
04-14-05, 09:29 AM
and we'll be surprised if this doesn't rape the already impressive Pentium Extreme Edition 840 we reviewed here

thats my favorite line :D

JoKeRr
04-14-05, 09:44 AM
AMD got mobile as well (hot chick too)

http://img57.echo.cx/img57/5411/17um.jpg

MUYA
04-14-05, 09:46 AM
Anyone know in simple english why Tim Sweeney wasn't impressed with Intel's dual core approach and how or why AMD's maybe better?

six_storm
04-14-05, 09:52 AM
Wow, that is very impressive. I hope and pray that it won't be over $1,000 for one of these things. That's way too much money. AMD kicks some serious arse and I plan on buying one of these within the next year and a half.

wEEt
04-14-05, 09:59 AM
Those A64 X2 will cost something between the current A64 and A64FX. I really hope one can afford such processor because Intel sells its fast 3.0GHz DC for 300$.

jAkUp
04-14-05, 10:03 AM
Anyone know in simple english why Tim Sweeney wasn't impressed with Intel's dual core approach and how or why AMD's maybe better?

where did you read this??

|JuiceZ|
04-14-05, 10:52 AM
Anyone know in simple english why Tim Sweeney wasn't impressed with Intel's dual core approach and how or why AMD's maybe better?

Got an EARL to that article? Would like to read it...

retsam
04-14-05, 11:28 AM
Anyone know in simple english why Tim Sweeney wasn't impressed with Intel's dual core approach and how or why AMD's maybe better?

because amd paid him more :D

ViN86
04-14-05, 03:04 PM
is it gonna be s939, and compatible with current s939 boards.?
yes ... and yes.

should merely require a simple BIOS upgrade (based on your personal definition of simple).

as to why AMD dual cores are expected to outperform Intel's, id look at it in terms of clock speeds. AMD single core cpu's at 2.4GHz outperform Intel cpu's that are 1+GHz faster. Intel lowers core speeds for their dual core cpu's and AMD leaves them the same, if not faster? that spells disaster to intel for me as well.

Rakeesh
04-14-05, 03:41 PM
I can imagine people who know little about computers eventually confusing a toledo chip with a dorito chip :D

zoomy942
04-14-05, 04:07 PM
Anyone know in simple english why Tim Sweeney wasn't impressed with Intel's dual core approach and how or why AMD's maybe better?

part of it is the clock speeds and all that jazz.. but the big thing is this...

(keep in mind that I AM NOT A FANBOY)

amd designed their x2 from the ground up as a dual core piece.. what that means is that it has 2 seperate caches and it understands, and was created, to be happy with 2 cores. it wont have one core waiting on an internal resource while the first core does something.

intel took a different approach. They noticed that they were behind amd in design, so they basiclly took the core (without the cache) of a prescott, fused it to a complete prescott, and that is there dual core. it was a rush job cause they couldnt stand to be second. the dual cpu shares the cache and still has the on-mobo memory controller.

so, sure they have HT, which is grounds for 4 logical cpu's (2 physical), but they all have to share resources, which isnt a big deal but the performance hit adds up as lots a little slowdowns pile up.

moshpit
04-14-05, 04:11 PM
Tim Sweeny isn't the only one unimpressed with Intel's implementation of dual core, alot of people think that simply "glueing" two cores together the way Intel did is far less efficient then the approach AMD took by designing K8 with dual cores in mind and having the approriate internal busses in place long before moving to it actually. This is one major reason that dual core AMD CPU's will be drop in replacements with a simple bios update as opposed to Intel's CPU requiring a whole new chipset to support thiers.

Another MAJOR issue with Intel dual core is the off-die memory controller having the exact same issues that it causes dual proc Intel rigs, terrible latency when used in SMP due to being restricted to the FSB speeds. Since the memory controller is integrated into the CPU on AMD64's, even with both processing cores sharing the same controller, the AMD64 has a MUCH shorter path from CPU cores to mem controller, which is also running the same speed as the cores themselves.

I'm sure there's even more indepth reasons why the Intel dual core is little more then a marketing attempt to keep AMD at bay, but I'm not really knowledgable as yet to what they are other then the reason I cited already.

zoomy942
04-14-05, 04:16 PM
awesome :)... 2 good explanations! :)

bkswaney
04-15-05, 04:18 AM
awesome :)... 2 good explanations! :)



Yep. :D

AthlonXP1800
04-17-05, 04:35 PM
Athlon 64 X2 are very impressive dual core CPU, here are the first benchmark of Athlon 64 X2 4800+, it beaten more expensive Pentium EE 840!!! :D

It now seem that AMD's dual core design are much better than Intel's dual core.

AMD rule!!! :afro2:

http://www.elitebastards.com/hanners/misc/cinebench.jpg

Viral
04-17-05, 09:22 PM
Wait, where are the benchmarks?