Very disturbing AMD article [Archive]

keto

23 Dec 2003, 7:08pm

Personally I am speculating that we are on the brink or front edge of a whole generation of processors from BOTH sides (AMD/Intel) that are going to be a) expensive b) relatively lousy overclockers. It happens from time to time, typically at both the beginning and end (less so, lower speed chips from the same silicon as the higher end chips are usually good 'clockers) of the life cycle of any given processor 'family'. It just happens we are at the end of both Northwood and XP, and the front end of A64 (now) and Prescott (very soon).

Given this, and I could be wrong, I would expect processor sales to be relatively flat or somewhat depressed over the next couple of quarters - maybe not overall but at least for the enthusiast market. Further contributing to this expectation is the fact that there are no new aps out currently requiring the added horsepower that new cpus are bringing to the marketplace. 64 bit Windows is a long ways off, we can point to HL2 and Doom3 but how much are those going to drive sales in the big picture?

/end opinion piece

Shorty

23 Dec 2003, 7:31pm

I share a similar view to Keto. I believe that processors will be hard locked, multi and FSB. It's all about economics folks. All about economics.

EyesOnly

23 Dec 2003, 7:42pm

But in a way who cares. Sure you guys who are used to overclocking fast cpu:s might, but someone like me who switches from a considerly slower cpu will be happy just to have a fast computer. I can understand that selling a cpu at a given frequency that can be changed to something much higher is giving away faster cpu:s for free.

I don't think AMD can do that because of their economy and if you really care for AMD like many on this site seems to do then why hate them for locking their cpu:s. I they don't then they might not be able to compete with Intel in the same way as they do now and that would be bad wouldn't it.

Templar

23 Dec 2003, 7:48pm

You've got to remember that AMD is here for profit. The OC'ers are the minority here. While I'd love to see AMD stick to OC friendly chips, even if they don't, they still make damn good chips, and I'd take a locked FX over a P4 "EE" any day.

Is this grim news for overclockers? Yes. If it's true. Our outcry may change this, so don't sell out to Intel yet. I'm not saying we should call jihad on AMD or anything... that's blasphemy :p But we should at least take part in something that lets AMD know that OCers love their products because of the fact they can OC well.

IF this does come true, I promise there will be some hardware site that makes a petition for it. My bet is on SM.com or [H].

Thrax

23 Dec 2003, 7:51pm

Amdroid. :wave:

keto

23 Dec 2003, 7:52pm

Eyes, I don't think it's about loving or hating AMD - tho some will certainly express one or the other of those opinions. The point of the originally linked article is that if they DO lock everything down, it's the enthusiasts who will vote with their dollars by NOT buying AMD products - this would be a shame because AMD is not in a financial position to turn away potential customers. This of course excepts their highest end FX models, but how many of those do they REALLY expect to sell? I bet the actual sales will be fewer than even their lowest expectations, unless they change their pricing model. I further note that not a single S-M forum member has an FX-51 yet, and we are a community made up of enthusiasts, many with the financial wherewithal to go out and buy one if we felt the need. Just look at the number of 9800Pro/XT's we own - it's not that we're scared to go spend big bux on hardware.

Your first point, about upgrading from slower, is 100% valid. I was making a point that there are fewer and fewer people who have computers now who are NEEDING to upgrade, there's nothing here or coming soon that's going to *require* a step up for anyone who's bought/upgraded to a reasonably current cpu any time in the past ~18-24 months. This is (again, beware of opinion here) going to drive a flat/somewhat depressed cpu market over at least a couple of financial quarters, if not a little longer.

Heck, for most people in the above boat, a video card upgrade is WAY better value than a cpu upgrade.

/end part II opinion piece

MediaMan

23 Dec 2003, 8:43pm

The mushroom effect

It�s time to upgrade the computer. Or is it? Everyday there is a barrage of advertising assaulting our sensibilities with reasons to replace that apparently tired and worn out beige box that sits under the desk. System builders would have you believe this in order to pull hard earned dollars from pocketbooks around the world. The power of a new PC holds promise to unleash a new world of learning and productivity and many believe in the power of the processor. Too many cling to the notion that more is better. They are dazzled by lofty processor speeds and misguided in their decisions.

For most the PC is a mysterious box that brings email, the internet, plays games, ingests and disgorges the occasional CD and allows printing of family photos from a digital camera. It doesn�t do much more than that. It�s not that it can�t do more. It�s just that a lot of users don�t do more with it. How many of us have really tapped the abilities of the office productivity suites from Microsoft or Corel? How many of us have truly explored the world of digital media be it touching up a still picture or editing video?

It�s unbelievable but we use our PCs like the myth about how we use our brains. The often quoted saying is �We use only 10 percent of our brains.� The truth of the matter is that we don�t actually use 10 percent of our brains while 90% lies dormant. We use certain portions of our brains with a given task such as walking or talking or recalling a memory. If we were to focus our minds on the task of being an Olympic Gold Medalist runner it would certainly be unlikely that we could instantly run like one. This is the way of the PC. The �brain� or the processor may be faster but it will not result in an ultimately faster game without the rest of the body to match its power. But let�s face it. The majority buy PCs like people buy cars; they buy, they use, they get rid of it.

The observation made in 1965 by Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, that the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits had doubled every year since the integrated circuit was invented. Moore predicted that this trend would continue for the foreseeable future. In subsequent years, the pace slowed down a bit, but data density has doubled approximately every 18 months, and this is the current definition of Moore's Law, which Moore himself has blessed. Most experts, including Moore himself, expect Moore's Law to hold for at least another two decades. Moore�s Law is a bit of an urban myth and is best described in terms of doubling computing power be it processor speed, hard drive space, memory, etc.

Enthusiasts will feel like AMD is turning their backs on them.

There is no doubt as enthusiasts are rather �thrifty� folk wanting more for less. Why pay the big bucks when you can overclock a less expensive processor to the same or near same level? This �bonus� is good for the savvy consumer but poor economics for the business. The cost of manufacturing the faster processors is not much different from the lesser not taking R&D into consideration. The larger profit margin is with the faster processors. Therefore by locking processors AMD will force the market into an upgrade. Remember that enthusiasts who overclock only represent a VERY small percentage of the buying public. When was the last time your mother or father overclocked the PC?

The gigahertz wars will always be there as the public, for the moment, if firmly entrenched with the idea that bigger is better. So little the public understand about processors. Speed is no longer the determining factor in computing power. It now will become a battle behind the scenes with such concepts as PCI Express and HyperTransport. Devices, as we have seen already with GPU throughput doubling and tripling, will be able to transfer data in larger and faster quantities. AMD pushes into this technology to surround their processor with devices that benefit processor computing power rather than relying upon the processor to tow the line.

AMD is already testing the waters of locked processors with current models. But rest assured the enthusiast will find a way to unlock them and entrepreneurs will produce devices to make it easier. It has been done before and the cycle will continue.

keto

23 Dec 2003, 8:54pm

This is the kind of thing "editorial" that it would be cool to see on the front page once in a while, Doug. Yes, it would draw comment and critisism but also new membership.

Nice piece, well written.

MediaMan

23 Dec 2003, 8:59pm

It could be.

It will be.

It shall be done.

/me puts his controversial hat on.

Thrax

23 Dec 2003, 9:01pm

That's a fun hat to wear.

GHoosdum

23 Dec 2003, 10:59pm

This decision by AMD makes me feel like saying something that the swear filter will turn into ****.

Black Hawk

23 Dec 2003, 11:41pm

IMHO AMD basically screwed the hardcore user. The only they can actually do good in this situation is by lowering the prices considerably. Put them a good $25-75 lower than Intel, add some advertising and a OEM retailer and I bet alot of Joe Schmoes would buy them.

profdlp

23 Dec 2003, 11:59pm

Virtues of Evil had this to say
IMHO AMD basically screwed the hardcore user. The only they can actually do good in this situation is by lowering the prices considerably. Put them a good $25-75 lower than Intel, add some advertising and a OEM retailer and I bet alot of Joe Schmoes would buy them.
Their intent seems to be to try and end the practice that some crooked shops have of selling OC'd rigs as stock. If my old granny buys a 2500+, I want her to get a 2500+, not on OC'd 1900+. It's a shame that honest hobbyists will be affected, should they actually go through with this.

As far as price, AMD is already more than $25-75 lower than Intel for comparable CPU's. Also, adding advertising is hard to do while simultaneously dropping prices. Lastly, I'm sure AMD would love nothing more than to add a "name" OEM retailer. The trick is, how do you pry them away from Intel? Right now Intel has the attitude that if you want to carry a large AMD line, then fine. But we'll gouge you even more for our chips.

Enverex

24 Dec 2003, 12:33am

Actually, I dont think they will. When someone found a locked Barton in the UK, AMD asked if he could send it too them for inspection. From that makes me think that they don't infact want them to be locked...

pseudonym

24 Dec 2003, 12:36am

Don't be surprised to see different types of stuff out there. Enthusiast and regular..... They know where they have a large market share over Intel, they won't give that up.

GHoosdum

24 Dec 2003, 12:37am

Maybe they wanted to see how the locked Barton was locked, so that they could begin locking them?

danball1976

24 Dec 2003, 1:43am

Overclocking isn't all that important to me, so this wouldn't really bother me.

Thrax

24 Dec 2003, 1:46am

Says the man with a near-on 300MHz overclock.

lsevald

24 Dec 2003, 1:48am

I understand why AMD is doing this...I bought a faked 3000+ (turned out to be a 2500+) which was sent to AMD and replaced by them previous summer.

But I'm sure there must be a better way to do this. For instance they could make it possible to remove the lock in a way that is non reversible. Like snipping off a pin or something (serving both as an unlock feature and as a visual que that the CPU has in fact been OC'ed) . And they could make it into their specs (in much the same way as the PR rating was implemented) that every BIOS should display a warning during post if the pin is missing (making it harder to sell overclocked machines).

Just some ideas...but I'm sure there must be a way to please every crowd here :scratch:

Thrax

24 Dec 2003, 1:51am

That's pretty damn good, lse.

ginipig

24 Dec 2003, 1:52am

Eh, if you guys are right about the economics of the situation, I'll have more time to finance better cooling purchases. No sense in upgrading any crucial components- at least until AMD realizes the folly of their ways.

profdlp

24 Dec 2003, 1:57am

Thrax had this to say
That's pretty damn good, lse.
That sounds like the best of both worlds.

Someone ought to write a letter to AMD.

:respect: Isevald

ginipig

24 Dec 2003, 2:02am

I got around to reading Mediaman's post.

What's your point, Mediaman?!

I read < re-read > parsed through filters to no avail.

Rawrr!

Geeky1

24 Dec 2003, 2:03am

Oh HELL no. The best of both worlds is what it was before they started locking chips.

I don't want to do some irreversible mod to my chips to overclock them... then I wouldn't be able to get them replaced under warranty... :D

Straight_Man

24 Dec 2003, 2:20am

Actually, OC has never been officially supported, nor officially MADE OCable per se. Some of the OCable chips are those that were meade to be faster and never got labelled that fast-- rather they got labelled as slower, and were statistical aberrations from average on the GOOD side. Why??? The details of silicon wafer burning say that some areas of a wafer will be thinner than others, some will be thicker. Soem will be less dense, others more dense. Can and does happen at random-- happens with metal alloys, also. They do not fully bench EVERY CPU before deciding what to mark it, they bench random samples from different areas of a wafer. Those areas where the samples test bad, but run at slower rate, get marked at slower rate, for every core in that area.

By locking, or apparently locking (there have always been ways to override the "locks") the CPUs, only those who have firedns who know that this batch code was understated as to what it was, and works faster, and can figure out how to, will be able to, and those folks are more likely to take a risk on the chance that they might have gotten somewhat of a free lunch. Were AMD to advertise OCability, in the US they would be offering an implicit statement that the CPUS were underclocked and then they would have tons of burnt chips coming in for those that were statistically normal or those that were the oddball ones which were worse than normal-- because of this implicit warranty. So, offically, they cannot support this.

But, and I agree with MediaMan here, wholeheartedly, there are always ways to accomplish this unlocking, and the adventurous will find them and boast about them and the knowledge will spread. To truely lock, the mobo, CPU, chipset, RAM, video cards, and all major components would have to be locked, and statisitically this is impossible as a QC thing unless prices at least TREBLE to allow for 99% QC test before sorting-- not gonna happen, so we live with components that on normal average can be 7% variant, and this is center bell curve range and not second or third stat area of a normal bell curve distribution. There will be some that run 20% faster, some that run 20% slower than normal, this is production reality, simply by many components being less efficient (or many MORE efficient) in any one core of the many "in" (actually, mostly on) a wafer.

THAT is why, electronically speaking, REAL locking will never happen. Batch will vary from batch, and even on each wafer core will vary from core-- up to 20%+-. Those that are caught will be sold in better CPUs, because they ARE better CPU cores. Those that slip through, say 4-5%, WILL be capable of running faster inherently than rated speed. By up to 20%, randomly.

Art and luck, and knowledge of cooling, and knowledge of power manipulation, all play factors in this. Bell curve says that 1\3 to 1\2 of all production will be normal center group, rest will vary higher or lower. Always been so. Probably will be so into infinity, that electronics will vary some and there is no way to in fact remove that.

OC will live on. Period. And be unsupported officially, period. AMD, if anything will claim the OC actual results show very good ability to produce good quality and stability of CPU. And random sample driven core sorting will continue.

John-- Did I say 8K folding points by Christmas??? maybe 8.5K to 8.8K....

Geeky1

24 Dec 2003, 2:22am

Ageek... it doesn't have to be officially sanctioned to be under warranty... if you can get away with it... :D

muddocktor

24 Dec 2003, 2:49am

I'm kind of going with the same feelings as Ed of Overclockers.com who wrote that opinion piece myself. It looks like AMD might be getting more than a little tib greedy by just leaving the FX line as the only multi unlocked procs. Especially if AMD migrates everything to a 250 MHz fsb, because it just won't give you that much more room for higher fsb speeds unless the manufacturers can really tighten up their design work on their mobos to where you can good clean signals at very high fsb speeds. If I have to spend $700 to get an unlocked AMD or spend <$200 to get a locked but very overclockable P4, then the P4 looks better and better every day.

I know that AMD has to get their ASP up a bit from where it's at, but locking everything but the $700 chips ain't going to do it. In the overall scheme of things, us overclockers are just small potatoes with a small percentage of total processors sold, both AMD and Intel, but I imagine that with AMD's procs the percentage is much higher. There are presently no tier1 oems selling desktop AMD products but there are a bunch of independent people like us who build systems for sale or for friends which use AMD because of the price/performace ratio. I will even sell an overclocked rig, with the buyer knowing ahead of time that it is overclocked and stability and speeds can't be guarranteed. I'm not saying that I wouldn't buy AMD in the future for machines I build for someone, but face it, it's a lot easier to sell Intel to Grandma who checks her email with it because they see all those horrid Dell ads every day that play the Intel jingle.:rolleyes2 And another thing in Intel's favor is the fact that they also produce some pretty damn good chipsets to support their procs. AMD on the other hand, mainly uses 3rd party companies to produce their chipsets, with them producing chipset only at the start of a new product cycle to get it out the door.

As far as figuring a way around the processor multi lock, well people have been trying to do that with Intel procs since around 1998 and still haven't succeeded. If AMD is using a locking scheme similar to Intel's, then you can kiss unlocking the proc's multiplier goodbye, Ageek. And if AMD migrates all their K8 procs to a 250 fsb like Ed at O/C says it seems likely they wil do soon, then you can pretty much write off big overclocks with anything that has a locked multi. With present technology, I just don't see how the mobo manufacturers are going to get stable operation at 300+ MHz fsb speeds.

Thrax

24 Dec 2003, 3:03am

The only way to bypass the shortcomings of high-frequency FSBs is to bypass a memory controller that isn't integrated.

This is much the same principle that L2 cache enjoyed when moving from daughtercard on Slot 1/Slot A architecture, to socket-based architecture in late 1999. L2 once ran at half the frequency of the CPU, now on-die cache is 1:1 with the CPU frequency.

The process used was simply moving the cache as close as possible to the chip, and removing any sort of chip in the middle.. In this case the chips that negotiated between cache and core.

The same thing applies to memory.

AMD's taken a step in the right direction by putting the memory controller on the CPU. It's removed one bottleneck from the equation, which is the chip in between the memory and the CPU itself. It moved the memory physically closer to the socket, which is another step in the proper direction.

The same thing that happened with L2 cache is now happening with system memory.

DDR packaging needs to change as well. It needs to move away from TSOP packaging to BGA. As you'll well notice, video card manufacturers have already done this to achieve the near-GHz range on their video memory.. TSOP packaging has been eliminated in favor of BGA. Kingmax tried this, but their poor memory fabrication techniques squelched their execution. It could have been a whole lot better.

BGA memory adhesion allows for tighter timings, higher frequencies, lower interference, and lower electrical leakage. It has to happen. I wouldn't be surprised if DDR2 debuted at 533/667 (266.5/333.66MHz REAL frequencies) with BGA.. But I can't say that for certain.

But suffice it to say, the longer the run the signal must make, and the more chips in between origin and destination, the worse off you'll be. The optimal solution would be to set a gig of memory right on the CPU in the form of massive cache-like architecture, and run it at the CPU speed. But our fabrication techniques are a long way off from that. But in reiteration, eliminating the northbridge's memory controller function, and shortening the distance between CPU and memory is a sure step toward high FSB speeds.

ginipig

24 Dec 2003, 3:05am

[ list ] summary [ / list]

Thrax

24 Dec 2003, 3:16am

1. DDR needs BGA packaging
2. Memory controllers need to be on the CPU die
3. Traces from memory to CPU need to be as short as possible
4. DDR2 might be BGA
5. System memory would ideally be on the CPU die
6. TSOP needs to go away
7. Removing off-die memory controllers is a good thing

Straight_Man

24 Dec 2003, 3:17am

Um, maybe what they are doing is labelling the best CORES as FXs. That is more likely. And takes more intense QC.

Very true, Geeky1, you can get away with stuff, but if you do it a lot, their data mining will catch you. That is why I had one heck of a hard time with an Intel rep forcing third mobo RMA crossship for same customer on same model and same rev board, and why the rep, when I totally flummoxed him and his supervisor, did a next-day-air crossship of a newer REV of same model Intel baord, which was flawless.

The mfrs do not like me when they ship me something not to spec, and software pubs do not like that either, not one whit do they like it. I hold them to literal warranties, plus implicit warranty of fitness. And THAT, my customers like a lot.

Many times it is what you do NOT tell them, if you have enough info to tell them exactly what went wrong and why. you know that, so do I. And mfrs do not like logical presentations of where they messed up (statistically, they cannot help doing so sometime and know this) hitting the press and the web (which the press uses as feedback base in part).

I had to tell one friend how to get a 1\2 refund on a mobo purchase, turned out the seller did not have what he advertised, and my friend had done one thing-- he emailled Asus tech support and asked what the serial number was as far as rev, and included a copy of email and reply in demand for refund. MY FRIEND had gotten the wrong board for what he wanted to do. He got a decent board, never run, at about 1\4 retail after the refund and will be getting an NF7-S version 2.0 board and selling the board he got locally.

The tricks are persuasion, persistance, and key evidence (all the above together) that is true and conclusive enough to make an engineer cringe-- or an engineering student, which is what some of the RMA supervisors ARE in reality, these days. By policy, knowing it is possible, the best rollover and RMA the part to keep their rep high. This has been true for over 4 decades of IT, and I will pay a bit more to get things from such mfrs over others.

Statistically, the best will play more fair overall--and a lot of the idea of best is goodwill of customers. That is why you drive a Benz, right, while Mom drives a Chevy branded Toyota Corolla that cost a grand less on average than the Corollas coming off the same assembly line, and takes it to the Toyota dealer for all work, and I own a Nissan which statistically and by VIN trace had a very good life and a repairable issue for which I got 2 times the best repair bid off purchase price??? True for all mfring.

THAT is one core reason half my income comes from other local techs with boxes they have no idea how to fix.

John.

MediaMan

24 Dec 2003, 8:10am

Some good comments in this thread people. :)

Meanwhile I have come. I have babbled.

http://www.short-media.com/article.php?127.0

Thrax

24 Dec 2003, 8:19am

I assume scuttlebutt is a trained journalist's prized phrase? :tongue:

MediaMan

24 Dec 2003, 8:27am

Thrax had this to say
I assume scuttlebutt is a trained journalist's prized phrase? :tongue:

I read that in the INTEL dictionary...right after SCSI.

Templar

24 Dec 2003, 8:55am

Remember that 64bit processing is AMD's next big step. Consider the early XP's as PR scratch. Now that the PC market has bloomed and matured, it's time for companies to start moving up, and when that happens, they want everything to be perfect. These are AMD's new cashcows. This is what'll keep AMD afloat 2, 3 years down the road when 32bit begins to move out of the scene, because AMD and Intel (and Apple...) are the big players. When one pushes for something big, 1/3rd of that market is taking a new direction. That's astonishing when you think about all these other larger industries, like cars, that try something new. You've got around 30 something MAJOR car companies, or subsidies of larger conglomerates, but each are doing something different. If one company tries something, they're only pushing 1/30th of the entire industry weight around.

When you put it on paper, you think "Wow, AMD is pushing 64bit processors. Intel is still doing 32bit, and Apple is doing their thing", and that decision is where companies beg and plead for you to choose them over competitors. Now you have two (or three) choices, compared to the 10 more popular car manufacturers (BMW, Audi, Chevy, Honda, etc.). It's easier to decide between two choices, and ten isn't it? Now do a lot of math and you'll come up with a big number that usually translates to money. :eek3:

madmat

24 Dec 2003, 9:14am

I seem to have stirred up a proverbial hornets nest, yay for me.
That said I'm glad to see that everyone got behind this thread because I think that what I was concerned about is on the minds of several of the others that read that article, AMD might not depend on the enthusiast community to survive but I think that a good number of the CPu's that AMD sells go to the people that are represented by the fine folks here at SM, the AMD loyal overclocking enthusiast community.
I know I am bucking the trend by running a P4 (oddly enough the 4 on a U.S. keyboard is also a dollar sign :)) but I have overclocked my fair share of AMD CPUs as well and I guess I fall into the camp of "I like them both" but I think AMD is doing a very big disservice to the people that have kept the faith and bided their time waiting for the next big thing by A: pricing the hottest desktop CPU ever out of the reach of their core user base and B: dismissing the core user base both verbally (at least the language of the quotes seemed dismissive) and in planned action by making the future CPUs that are in reach of the masses pretty much non-user modifiable which really chaps me.
The whole reason I went with Intel on my last build was my blooming disillusionment with the tactics I had been percieving coming from the AMD corporate camp, such as the delays on the 64's and the pricing that was unveiled when they were finally set to come out, I figured, what the hell, if I'm going to spend that much I might as well go P4 and save a few bucks and not have to wait any longer.
I just couldn't justify building a new AMD box around a CPU that I had been using for a while but just upgrading chipsets yet again so I went with a whole new architecture. Not because I thought it was better, just for a change of pace.
You'll never see me take sides in an AMD vs. Intel debate or slam either one but it's begining to look like AMD is trying to emulate Intel and that's kinda sad.

dak125

27 Dec 2003, 8:55am

Great article/response MediaMan.

I skimmed over the overclockers article, concentrating on the "AMD Exec"'s responses and this thread, I must say I'm rather dissapointed. I'm one of those people that likes seeing big numbers whether or not it results in any positive effects. I also like little 'do dads' that don't necessarily do anything but sound cool (IE Hyper Threading). I was/am an Intel guy to an extent. I honestly have no good definitive answer as to why I am, just something that happened. I was tainted several times to step into unexplored waters. Mainly when a site was selling the super-duper-overclocking machine 1700+'s and when the 2500+'s were king of the AMD overclocking hill. But, unfortunately I've never used an AMD for any extended period of time. This was all going to change when I felt it was time for my next main rig cpu. There were a couple must have's for the next "Dakillac" 1) I was going to try out AMD 2) It had to be the uber overclocker. After reading that article it looks like I might be sticking with my current PC for awhile.

I was also impressed with Keto's response. His theory makes a lot of sense IMO and it also gives me some hope as to switching to AMD. I might wind up thanking AMD for doing this, looks like they'll be saving me quite a bit of money ;D. -DaK

muddocktor

9 Jun 2004, 4:08am

Since this is old news and no one has posted in this thread since last year, I'm un-stuicking this thread and will let it die a dignified death. ;)

Omega65

9 Jun 2004, 5:47pm

In the Final Anaylsis, FX Series CPUs are Completely multiplier unlocked (& very expensive) and on Athlon 64 series CPUs (939 & 754 pin) the multiplier can be adjusted downwards but not increased (provided your motherboard supports multiplier adjustments).

OCWorkbench (http://www.ocworkbench.com/2004/epox/8kda3+/8kda3+-1.htm) Epox 8KDA3+ NF3-250GB S754 mobo review (AMD A64 3200+ 2.0GHz 10x Multi 1MB L2 Cache)

Page 8 (http://www.ocworkbench.com/2004/epox/8kda3+/8kda3+-8.htm)

Tex

9 Jun 2004, 6:00pm

If AMD does do that I'll be very disapointed in them for turning their backs on the market that pretty much keeps them afloat.

Your joking right? The overclocking guys are a very minor niche market. Its one no chipmaker cares about. You just cost them money.

And when you guys are smoking $500 FX chips jacking around and not $70 XP chips you don't see this as a problem?

They want to sell those chips into workstattions and be the value leader for CORPORATE AMERICA.

For god sakes more PC's are sold every day to grandma's and grandpa's then all the OC guys combined. Just because YOUR into the OC game does not make it a big deal overall in the volume of cpu's produced and sold daily. Corporate America buys 1000's of computers each DAY for every single CPU sold to hardcore overclocker guys and you guys screwup more chips by frying them, installing them wrong and overheating them also. YOU GUYS DON'T EVEN SHOW UP AS A PERCENTAGE ON THEIR PIE CHARTS when they discuss marketing strategy. You do when they show charts of profit and loss as a loss leader and a problem they want to curb.

Lets see..... If I made chips and suddenly after years of struggle had a chip costing hundreds of dollars not $50 to $90 bucks do I want to make that a play toy for kids to fry? Or try and position it for corporate america?

Easy answer.

I have sold single networks with over 1200 PC's on it. In a single day.

Tex

Leonardo

9 Jun 2004, 6:30pm

I hate to admit it, but Tex is absolutely right. AMD was/is sympathetic to overclockers when it was in their financial interest. I assume they valued us (maybe still do) as banner carriers of the AMD flag, free public relations. As AMD's corporate sales rise, and as their market share increases, we overclockers will be of less value to them. Business is business.

Look at the flip side: if and when overclocking eventually becomes impossible, I'm sure we'll concentrate our efforts into other areas - cooling, more efficient PC architecture, better balanced performance. There is always room for modification and tweaking.

profdlp

9 Jun 2004, 6:51pm

I'll probably be strung up in the S-M Town Square for saying this, but I think overclocking has been overrated for some time now.

In the days when you could turn a Celeron 300a into a 450MHz machine it was an extraordinary value. We don't see too many 50% OC's these days, at least not without extreme - and expensive - cooling measures. A jump of 150MHz is peanuts.

Any Athlon XP CPU is going to be fast enough for nearly all common computer tasks. The emphasis now should be on stability.

Tex

9 Jun 2004, 7:09pm

It's fun as a hobby. I have done watercooling. And used a chest freezer to chill the water to -20 etc... but today you can get a new MB and 2500+ XP at Fry's for 59 bucks. It's easier to pay an extra $25 for a faster CPU then hang a $40 heatsink fan that sounds like a blow dryer on it and its cooler, quieter and more stable at stock speeds with stock cooler.

OC'ing is a fun hobby. but thats all really. And its a miniscule market share in the over all realm of things. A lot of folks lose site of what a tiny niche market this really is. Hp sells more printers every 5 minutes worldwide then swftech does waterblocks in 5 years.

Tex

Omega65

9 Jun 2004, 7:15pm

;D ;D ;D Old Article guys, from when AMD's position on A64/Opteron multiplier adjustments was unknown. I was just putting a capstone on it.

You can still OC AMD CPUs via multiplier, you just have to pay for it (or grab a Mobile DTR CPU)

I have sold single networks with over 1200 PC's on it. In a single day. Tex

THIS Story needs to be told!

Gobbles

9 Jun 2004, 8:53pm

Ill keep my post short...

Mobile processors will be the overclockers processor in the future as they have to be unlocked for the power scalability...

Gobbles...

Gobbles

9 Jun 2004, 9:01pm

Your joking right? The overclocking guys are a very minor niche market. Its one no chipmaker cares about. You just cost them money.

And when you guys are smoking $500 FX chips jacking around and not $70 XP chips you don't see this as a problem?

They want to sell those chips into workstattions and be the value leader for CORPORATE AMERICA.

For god sakes more PC's are sold every day to grandma's and grandpa's then all the OC guys combined. Just because YOUR into the OC game does not make it a big deal overall in the volume of cpu's produced and sold daily. Corporate America buys 1000's of computers each DAY for every single CPU sold to hardcore overclocker guys and you guys screwup more chips by frying them, installing them wrong and overheating them also. YOU GUYS DON'T EVEN SHOW UP AS A PERCENTAGE ON THEIR PIE CHARTS when they discuss marketing strategy. You do when they show charts of profit and loss as a loss leader and a problem they want to curb.

Lets see..... If I made chips and suddenly after years of struggle had a chip costing hundreds of dollars not $50 to $90 bucks do I want to make that a play toy for kids to fry? Or try and position it for corporate america?

Easy answer.

I have sold single networks with over 1200 PC's on it. In a single day.

Tex

Yep.. The number of corporate pc sales in a day is probably a 10000 to 1 vs the home overclocker. You mean nothing to them peons.. :buck: :nudge:

Companies like Dell, hp/compaq and the rest are their real customers. Hence processor prices being quoted as say $799 based on 1000 ct. cuz Companies like dell buy them in the 1000's at a time. your 80 dollars means jack.. except the truth, move on and be happy. :D

Gobbles

muddocktor

9 Jun 2004, 10:59pm

Exactly, guys. That's why I dropped this off the sticky list; it's old news now. And socket A still has an unlocked choice and what a good choice it is; the mobile XP series.

Also, since there are finally chipsets out there for A64 that support a locked pci and agp bus, the upward locked multis on A64 aren't any kind of big hurdle to get past in overclocking. They will overclock just like an Inel now.

And Tex is dead right about the overclocking community and AMD. We are barely a pimple on the real target of oem sales. You can thank the unscrupulous chip remarkers for the present state of affairs with the locked multipliers too as they were stealing real revenue from AMD when they really needed it. Who really knows how bad the remarking problem had gotten before AMD started hard locking all those procs. I'm sure that AMD won't release how bad the problem really got either.

Leonardo

9 Jun 2004, 11:44pm

I'll probably be strung up in the S-M Town Square for saying this, but I think overclocking has been overrated for some time now. As far as utility goes - yes. But as a hobby, it's certainly fun. Kinda of like making a hotrod out of a Chevy Chevelle - looks cool and has tons of horsepower, but really doesn't get you to work and the grocery store any faster.

For the sake of discussion, say that CPU overclocking does go away. There will still be plenty of other mods and performance tweaks to do. And that's the fun of it - not megahertz boost per se, but in improving performance of a stock piece of hardware.

Tex

10 Jun 2004, 2:32am

;D ;D ;D THIS Story needs to be told!

Not really. I have argued with co-workers from years ago and they insist the number of PC's I built myself years ago has to be over ten thousand and I bet it's half that. I sold that way way over that but didn't build them. And the majority were mind killing yucky basic no-frills PC's. Built assembly line style in a huge room like auto's are bult now. Sucks the fun out working 20 hours a day unpacking and installing parts for 600 pc's lets say... one after another as fast as you possibly can..... with electric screwdrivers one after another. It's not fun. It's work and nothing more. So tired you can barely stagger around.

Not like a dressed out enthusiast box. This was one boring PC after another.

Building the servers was fun and writing and installing the custom software was fun. I loved writing the custom software and the system design. Building was simply a evil that had to be endured.

I was the "snake killer" I got all the weird goofy repair crap no one else would fix.

Tex

madmat

10 Jun 2004, 3:26pm

Your joking right? The overclocking guys are a very minor niche market. Its one no chipmaker cares about. You just cost them money.

And when you guys are smoking $500 FX chips jacking around and not $70 XP chips you don't see this as a problem?

They want to sell those chips into workstattions and be the value leader for CORPORATE AMERICA.

For god sakes more PC's are sold every day to grandma's and grandpa's then all the OC guys combined. Just because YOUR into the OC game does not make it a big deal overall in the volume of cpu's produced and sold daily. Corporate America buys 1000's of computers each DAY for every single CPU sold to hardcore overclocker guys and you guys screwup more chips by frying them, installing them wrong and overheating them also. YOU GUYS DON'T EVEN SHOW UP AS A PERCENTAGE ON THEIR PIE CHARTS when they discuss marketing strategy. You do when they show charts of profit and loss as a loss leader and a problem they want to curb.

Lets see..... If I made chips and suddenly after years of struggle had a chip costing hundreds of dollars not $50 to $90 bucks do I want to make that a play toy for kids to fry? Or try and position it for corporate america?

Easy answer.

I have sold single networks with over 1200 PC's on it. In a single day.

Tex
No I'm not fsking joking...when you stop and take a look at it who buys AMD based desktop systems? Enthusiasts...they are either bought by the same class of enthusiasts that buy a pre-built hot-rod from someone like Boyd Coddington (boutique vendors) or they are bought as parts by guys like us that "roll our own" so to speak so, yeah, they are turning their backs on the guys that are their core audience.
I've sold AMD systems in a smaller mom and pop computer store and I've been in others and AMD systems are always marketed as "performance" systems...we sold P4's to grandma and grandpa and sold XP's to their grandkids for gaming on.
So I still stand by my earlier statement...I'm disapointed that AMd is cutting off the enthusiast consumer unless they want to buy a $700 chip instead of a $175-250 chip.
Even by your reckoning that's asstastic on their part, why invite someone to smoke the most expensive product you produce?
Think about it.

mmonnin

10 Jun 2004, 3:30pm

They dont make their money off of us. They make their money from the workstations and opteron sales. Thats where teh big money is.

Shorty

10 Jun 2004, 3:44pm

No I'm not fsking joking...when you stop and take a look at it who buys AMD based desktop systems? Enthusiasts...they are either bought by the same class of enthusiasts that buy a pre-built hot-rod from someone like Boyd Coddington (boutique vendors) or they are bought as parts by guys like us that "roll our own" so to speak so, yeah, they are turning their backs on the guys that are their core audience.
I've sold AMD systems in a smaller mom and pop computer store and I've been in others and AMD systems are always marketed as "performance" systems...we sold P4's to grandma and grandpa and sold XP's to their grandkids for gaming on.
So I still stand by my earlier statement...I'm disapointed that AMd is cutting off the enthusiast consumer unless they want to buy a $700 chip instead of a $175-250 chip.
Even by your reckoning that's asstastic on their part, why invite someone to smoke the most expensive product you produce?
Think about it.
Sadly, you have a slightly accured vision of what AMD is obviously attempting to do.

Tex is 100% accurate in this statement. It's about the corporates. The "enthuiasts" just happen to have stumbled across the wonderful playability of the AMD processor family. It wasn't by design. Sorry but it definitely wasn't.

I used to work for the biggest optical component manufacturer in the world: Nortel Networks. You want to see the number of DELL machines they got through.. they employed (at peak).. over 250,000 staff. That's 250,000+ PC's (not including servers and so on) carrying over 250,000 processors. If you were a chip manufacturer, wouldn't you want to get a slice of that kind of action. That's just ONE corporate, just one, there are thousands of multi-national corporations spanning the globe. You do the math at what that markets worth. Alot more than the $60 a pop bargain basement processor game.

AMD want in on that share, who can blame them? Watching Intel kick away billions of dollars from DELL, HP and others must bite hard.

As I have previously stated, the enthuiasts picked up on the movement with AMD's processors. At no stage did AMD wave a flag saying "Oh this is for you overclocker enthuiasts".. and then are now suddenly waving the "no sorry, not for you anymore". That's not how it works.

Sorry but that's the way it is. AMD haven't turned their backs on anyone.

Thrax

10 Jun 2004, 3:53pm

madmat

10 Jun 2004, 5:08pm

Oddly enough though we aren't talkinh about enterprise class CPU's here...we are talking about CPU's that are being marketed to home users.
I never once mentioned Opterons in this post which would be more along the lines of what AMD would like to sell to multi national clients...they are geared and marketed towards them.
If you think I'm full of crap then why do they make 1XX-2XX-8XX series Opterons if not for desktop, workstation and server applications and why sell a higher end aimed home use geared CPU at all?
The 754's and 940 as well as 939's will not do smtp and the simple fact that 754's and 939's don't support ECC ram should point out that they are designed and marketed towards the home user as well.
When it comes straight down to who the home user market is it's still going to be enthusiasts like us just like I keep stating regardless of whether or not anyone chooses to believe it.
I could give a whit what AMD does with enterprise hardware as I'll probably never be in the market for that kind of gear but I'll be an enthusiast until the day they pack my body into the ground.
And for those of you that don't think that we as enthusiasts matter, stop to ponder this for a moment, we keep how many companies afloat? Dozens? More? All I know is that without the "fringe" element that we are accused of being companies like D-Tek, Innovatech, Zalman, Danger Den, Koolance, Thermaltake, Thermalright and more would cease to exist or be operating on a much smaller scale than they are now.
We make a much greater impact than you stop to consider.

Geeky1

10 Jun 2004, 5:11pm

Thermalright etc. are very small companies compared to AMD.

Thrax

10 Jun 2004, 5:14pm

What do corporations buy for their employees? Not Xeons.. Pentium 4s and Celerons.

What will they eventually buy for their employees if they went to AMD? Athlon 3x00 chips, not Opterons. The 3x00 chip is the regular desktop workhorse chip of the A64 line.. The FX-53 is for the enthusiasts (Smells like.. P4EE!), and the Opteron is for enterprise workstations (Media development boxes, anyone?) and servers.

We're not talking about Opterons, and all those companies you just mentioned are a fraction of the size of AMD alone.

muddocktor

10 Jun 2004, 5:25pm

I'm perfectly happy with the downward multipliers on the 3x00 class of chips being unlocked. That makes it easier to ramp the FSB sky high.

Nor am I offended by the new pricing scheme. It, as Agent Smith would say, was inevitable. AMD isn't expected to operate in the black by selling CPUs in the red.

I agree with most of what you are saying, Thrax, but AMD has definitely screwed the pooch with socket 939 IMO. Sure they have some procs being released for socket 939 but the cheapest one is $500. What about lower speed socket 939 procs that are more affordable in the lower speed classes. BTW, I'm not talking about $50 procs, I'm referring to procs in the $200-300 range. That way, the major oems don't have to stock but 2 lines of motherboards instead of 3 different lines to put out a complete hammer offering. You will presently have to have socket 940 for servers/workstation setups, socket 939 for gaming/high end rigs and socket 754 for the el cheapo boxes and there is no upgrade path between el cheapo and high end without changing the mobo and cpu. Not releasing some more affordable socket 939 procs is a stupid decision on AMD's part. Look at the last several releases of new procs by Intel; they covered not only the high end but also the value end too with only one mobo platform needed to cover both. I just hope AMD wakes up to this fact sooner than later.

Thrax

10 Jun 2004, 5:34pm

You have to realize that socket 939 is soon going to encompass both the 3x00 series and the FX-5x series. It takes time to transition, Mud.. They <i>just</i> released it. It took them 4 months to debut low-end socket 754 chips based on the Newcastle core. By the time the transition completes <i>all Athlon64 chips excepting the Opteron will be on socket 939</i>.

Like Intel, it really is a wise move for them to keep Opteron on the 940.

You missed AMD's statement on moving 754 to 939, I guess.

Tex

10 Jun 2004, 6:02pm

Omega65

10 Jun 2004, 7:48pm

It should be mentioned that in the Business/enterprise world Price=Value. AMD has historicly been seen as the low price/low value competitor to Inel. Now they are trying to change that with the Opteron/Athlon 64 series.

AMD is trying hard to upgrade it's image. It too would like to make a billion+ quarterly profit like Intel. They can't do that selling Sub $200 CPUs to us OC enthusiasts. But they can selling boatloads of $500+ Workstation and server CPUs to businesses and corporations.

However in time there will be >$200 OCable A64s.

***You know Mudd, if you had just unsticked the thread without comment, this discussioned would have never been revived :)

muddocktor

10 Jun 2004, 8:19pm

That's OK, everyone is having fun with the thread again and when we are finished with this thread, it will just fade away. ;D

Gobbles

10 Jun 2004, 8:19pm

Omega65

10 Jun 2004, 8:32pm

muddocktor

10 Jun 2004, 8:50pm

There has never been an unstable Athlon (original, XP, MP) Chipset. Load the proper drivers and you wont have any problems.

Some Mobo manufactures however may have a spotty record building mobos based on those chipsets (PCChips anyone). But that's the mobo not the chipset.

It might be now, but when KT133 and KT133A came out, there were a whole slew of problems encountered, which Via finally stabilized with updated drivers but gave quite a few folks a bad taste in their mouth about Via. Nvidia has also had their share of problems too, but they weren't as bad as Via's initial problems. I think that the cpu manufacturer should be the one designing the high end chipsets anyways, leading the way for the third party chipset makers. That in my mind is the biggest real advantage that Intel has over AMD. As far as the processors go, both companies make some real good, stable procs (and some not as good too ;) ).

Thrax

10 Jun 2004, 8:54pm

/me hums

AMD8000.

That is all.

Omega65

11 Jun 2004, 12:49am

It might be now, but when KT133 and KT133A came out, there were a whole slew of problems encountered, which Via finally stabilized with updated drivers but gave quite a few folks a bad taste in their mouth about Via.

Disounting Overclockability....

The KT133A was a great sucess for VIA. Many of us had the Abit KT7A and some of us still do (One running in my Moms computer right now with a Tbred) As I said - load the proper drivers. There were many arguments here about Athlon stability vs Intel stability which all boiled down to - Load proper drivers, use a quality PSU, Heatsink & Memory. The chipsets were fine.

VIA owned the Athlon chipset Market until the NF2 offered better performance. And there wasn't anything wrong with the NF1 except that the VIA KT266A was a faster solution.

Tyan Dual Opteron Mobo K8W (http://www.tyan.com/products/html/tigerk8w.html) AMD8000 chipset

If Tyan builds a mobo with a chipset It's stable - Period. (although performance may vary)

Stock stability is one thing, OC'd stability is another.

muddocktor

11 Jun 2004, 1:19am

* Thrax hums

AMD8000.

That is all.

Yes, that's something you can go to the bank with. AMD has done their dually chipsets but much prefers that a third party do their chipsets instead. I know that AMD has limited resources but I still think that they need to take a more active part in the chipsets supporting their cpu's.

Omega, I've seen that mobo before and it's kick ass. That's exactly what I mean too; AMD chipset for an AMD processor. Too bad AMD didn't make a version for socket 939 and 754 too.

Omega65

11 Jun 2004, 1:24am

The AMD8000 should support every A64 socket, The only difference between the sockets is the number of memory channels (& ECC/REG support) and thats controlled by the CPU.

I also believe that every A64 chipset is also dual capable. (that would be cooler if there was only ONE Socket instead of 3 - no more XP -> MP mods)

Komete

19 Jun 2004, 4:55pm

What really helps intel at this point is the people with in companies that decide what machines get ordered and what goes in them, generally the CTO or Director of IT have been working with intel for years, the count on a certain level of stability and consistancy, for AMD to truely take this from intel they need to produce and tightly control the chipsets being made. Intel is known for producing a solid chipset with a huge range of compatiblitly.

There is a lot of truth to this. I work for a rather large insurance company that is on the leading edge IT wise compared to other insurance companies. We have won all sorts of awards with the way we use technology. For some reason though all the IT and Networking guys all have the same thing for their personel PC's. Dellp4's and nvidia 5600's and lower nvidia cards lol

For some reason IT dunno why but they Love Pentium. I have a networking guy trying to brag to me about his Dell p4 2.6 system and how awsome the 5600 is blah blah blah.

I just want to grab the dude, hog tie him infront of my Moniter, and run 20 hours of benchmarks and say NOW say something Mother %^$#@&!

Again and again Networking, code writers, IT guys in general all say Pentium and Nvidia are the best. I don't know what they teach these people in school but it's like they are stuck in the late 90's. MY CIO just ordered a little over 300 p4 1.6's with 1 gig of pc 2100 mem systems from Dell. I can't complain about the 20inch lcd moniters though.

AMD needs to focus on these guys. They need to get involoved with IT schools etc. The higher ups are not going to change so they need start from the bottom.

Leonardo

20 Jun 2004, 2:20am

Even though my job doesn't directly deal with IT, I rub shoulders with a lot of those guys at all levels. I haven't met one that is well-versed in PC hardware. They can configure networks with their eyes closed, but don't know squat about PC performance. Networking and PC/workstation hardware tech are really two different disciplines. The networking gurus who are members here at Short-Media are for the most part the exception to the sys-admin/network manager world.

Komete

20 Jun 2004, 2:24am

Even though my job doesn't directly deal with IT, I rub shoulders with a lot of those guys, at all levels. I haven't met one that is well-versed in PC hardware. They can configure networks with their eyes closed, but don't know squat about PC performance.

Truer words were never said

Straight_Man

20 Jun 2004, 2:40am

Well, even Folding is TESTING an Opteron server (they put it in production, but whether or not they will buy more will be dependent in part on the servers' performance versus Intel servers they have or have performance figures for), but so are at least two government research labs (although their rigs are large clusters of Opteron boxes).

AMD has traditionally had to fight for more market share, but they are getting some of the market in educational and institutional markets. Funny thing, where the scientists and educators have boxes of Intel or AMD kind, they promote them, and students and techs listen to that some. Traditionally, kids were taught Intel (and many of the kids became business owners or managers at some level and carried their education with them into business practices), that is what the schools had, but as the shift happens, longer term prospects for AMD are starting to look brighter and not dimmer. People say "how could AMD survive the German FAB build cost if revenues are not great" BUT, a chunk of the FAB build cost came from GRANTS and some of the running costs were offset with Tax limitation agreements. GERMANY WANTED THAT FAB BUILT THERE, AND HELPED FUND IT!

Then there is a new-to-be kid on the system architecture block, the CELL processor, an IBM\Sony partnership gen of CPU and new O\S to boot (publisher, Sony, in the FUTURE... !!!).