PDA

View Full Version : Thoroughbred B... Thtptptptpt... Where's the Bartons?


TheTaz
08-21-02, 06:39 PM
:p :D :p

netviper13
08-21-02, 11:01 PM
Well we don't really know. The current hope is that the 2800+ will be on the Barton core, but you never know. They may try to save it for a rainy day.

TheTaz
08-21-02, 11:19 PM
Well I guess they had to have more than 1 processor (XP 2200) a T'bred...

Oh Well... Hopefully they will be out around X-mas

Then I can get an nForce 2, DDR 400 (I hope), a Barton (I hope), and an NV30 (I hope). :D

Taz

TheOneKEA
08-22-02, 09:35 AM
Perhaps if the 2400+ and the 2600+ did not exist wcould not be OC'ed with a 166MHz FSB past 2.53GHz, AMD would have rushed the release of Barton. But now that these processors DO exist and because they ARE so OCable, I think AMD has more breathing room for Barton and Hammer. Especially if Intel gets caught flat-footed.

TheTaz
08-22-02, 05:45 PM
Well... I don't see the 64-bit processors catching on right away...

I mean... nobody wants to buy ANOTHER version of Windows when all the apps will still be 32-bit. (Sorta like the transition from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95). It's gonna take a couple years for the average applications to make the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit.

Initial use for the 64-bit processors will only be Servers, and high end engineering workstations, where their applications will also be 64-bit.

So... I'm more excited about the Barton with the 512k L2 cache.

/shrug

StealthHawk
08-22-02, 09:34 PM
um, Hammer will be a mainstream consumer CPU next year which supports both 64/32bit. that is the next product line for AMD after Barton, which is also a consumer chip. i do agree that 64bit software won't catch on for quite some time, as Intel currently AFAIK has no consumer 64bit CPU planned. but yes, Hammer is 64bit, but it will also be faster in 32bit than any other AMD CPU, so it will certainly catch on.

SavagePaladin
08-23-02, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by TheTaz
Well... I don't see the 64-bit processors catching on right away...

I mean... nobody wants to buy ANOTHER version of Windows when all the apps will still be 32-bit. (Sorta like the transition from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95). It's gonna take a couple years for the average applications to make the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit.

Initial use for the 64-bit processors will only be Servers, and high end engineering workstations, where their applications will also be 64-bit.

So... I'm more excited about the Barton with the 512k L2 cache.

/shrug
what the last guy said. It'll be (probably a lot) faster than Barton in 32 bit, and have the ability to go 64 should I ever want to...
I'm told UT will do 64 bit someday...
I'm told WinXP 64 is great, and I don't even have XP yet...
so if thats cheap enough, the system would be well worth it.

SavagePaladin
08-24-02, 04:42 AM
I would assume they wanted to fix up the existing core and release that before adding to it.