Dual Core Athlon 64 Preview

Daniel Pass 13 Mar, 2005 at 8:30am ET Article published in Tech

Comments

1. 
   13 Mar 2005 ~ 2:04pm TheBaron saw that, very impressive
2. 
   13 Mar 2005 ~ 6:49pm RWB When are these due out BTW? I think they are supposed to work in current mothers as well right? If you have the right socket?
3. 
   13 Mar 2005 ~ 8:59pm Armo are they the equivalant of hyperthreading?
4. 
   13 Mar 2005 ~ 9:13pm Thrax Superior to HT.
5. 
   13 Mar 2005 ~ 9:16pm Armo are they for servers or home users?
6. 
   13 Mar 2005 ~ 9:28pm Thrax Both.
7. 
   13 Mar 2005 ~ 9:28pm RWB

   Armo wrote:

   are they for servers or home users?

   
   Anyone who wants the power of dual processing.... I had HEARD that you can put it in any single socket motherboard but I am not sure about that. Of course it has to be the same socket. It's just like having two processors, but it's on one chip instead. Unlike HT which only pretends... it's more like 1.2 processors
8. 
   13 Mar 2005 ~ 9:35pm Armo lol 1.2, so its actuall dual core, not emulation? thats seems cool, i like HT for folding, cuz i run it 24/7, cept when i have a UT match i cant have any lag, i might have to shoot at some 1 but it runs 50% of my cpu power indefinitly and i can turn 2 instances on, an AMD 64 is most definitly my next CPU to purchase, maybe this could be somthing to look into further, unless they are like a million-billion dollars
9. 
   13 Mar 2005 ~ 10:39pm RWB

   Armo wrote:

   lol 1.2, so its actuall dual core, not emulation? thats seems cool, i like HT for folding, cuz i run it 24/7, cept when i have a UT match i cant have any lag, i might have to shoot at some 1 but it runs 50% of my cpu power indefinitly and i can turn 2 instances on, an AMD 64 is most definitly my next CPU to purchase, maybe this could be somthing to look into further, unless they are like a million-billion dollars

   
   My rule of thumb is... if ANY component costs more than $300 it's not worth it. In this case, it's two processors, I dunno what I would consider. But if each core has a decent speed, I might be willing up bump it up to $400, but definitly no more than that.
10. 
    14 Mar 2005 ~ 1:08am csimon

    RWB wrote:

    When are these due out BTW? I think they are supposed to work in current mothers as well right? If you have the right socket?

    same socket new bios.
11. 
    14 Mar 2005 ~ 12:37pm celcho current mobos with only a new bios will support a dual-core processor? that's damn cool, though i guess there is no direct connection between the second core and anything on the motherboard, everything will just go through the hypertransport link in the first core. the same principle that has dashed my dreams of dual a64's. dual-core will be better and easier, though, so i'm just going to do that i guess.
12. 
    14 Mar 2005 ~ 1:38pm Thrax And microsoft is being nice, staying that their OS prices will still relate to physical, instead of logical CPUs.
13. 
    14 Mar 2005 ~ 4:10pm Armo oh, how kind of them
    
    it must be against the law then, but when has that stopped them
14. 
    14 Mar 2005 ~ 4:20pm Gobbles

    Thrax wrote:

    And microsoft is being nice, staying that their OS prices will still relate to physical, instead of logical CPUs.

    
    Thats because XP, 2000 pro and 2000 server all come 1-2 cpu licensed with retail and oem copies, if you want more you have to buy it, 2003 packaging does not mention number of cpu's it will support but im sure its 5 or under.
15. 
    14 Mar 2005 ~ 10:34pm Komete Love it and I want one But I'm sure they will be around 1k when they first coem out
16. 
    14 Mar 2005 ~ 10:34pm Thrax

    Gobbles wrote:

    Thats because XP, 2000 pro and 2000 server all come 1-2 cpu licensed with retail and oem copies, if you want more you have to buy it, 2003 packaging does not mention number of cpu's it will support but im sure its 5 or under.

    
    I know why they're doing it. I'm stating that it's a nice change of pace for Microsoft not changing their licensing agreements.