AMD to ship Athlon 64s as Athlon XPs
Spinner
Birmingham, UK
Xbit Labs claim that after having a look at AMD's latest roadmaps, they think that the chipmaker will release the Athlon 64's low-end variants, codenamed 'Paris' and 'Victoria' as only 32-bit upgrades to the current Athlon XP line, instead of them being the expected 64bit supporting CPU's.
Those two core types were unveiled earlier in the year as simple cut down versions of the Athlon 64, with only a smaller L2 cache size to mark a difference from them and the other AMD 64bit based CPU's. However it now appears that those particular chips will not operate in any of the two 64bit modes the Athlon 64's are capable of, but will simply just run in the standard 32bit 'legacy' mode.
So it seems the Athlon XP has still some life left in it yet. If of course Xbit Labs has interpreted AMD's roadmap correctly.
Those two core types were unveiled earlier in the year as simple cut down versions of the Athlon 64, with only a smaller L2 cache size to mark a difference from them and the other AMD 64bit based CPU's. However it now appears that those particular chips will not operate in any of the two 64bit modes the Athlon 64's are capable of, but will simply just run in the standard 32bit 'legacy' mode.
So it seems the Athlon XP has still some life left in it yet. If of course Xbit Labs has interpreted AMD's roadmap correctly.
Source - The RegisterAMD has always touted Athlon 64's full 32-bit compatibility, partly to make it easy for users to migrate from the 32-bit domain to the 64-bit world, but mostly because it allows it to use one chip to target both domains, rather develop, market and manufacture two products, which is Intel's approach.
For now, AMD will continue to offer Athlon XP as a lower-cost alternative to Athlon 64 for OEMs and users who feel the latter has yet to prove itself. It might seem logical to just kill off the XP and drive punters toward the 64 - whether they use the 64-bit mode or not - but there would likely be some resistance to such a move. And some buyers will still assume - incorrectly - that the Athlon 64 is somehow not-quite-compatible with or unsuitable for 32-bit apps. Sure, the fanboys appreciate the difference, but AMD has and wants to target plenty of other buyers, many of whom don't.
So Athlon XP has a role for the immediate future. Yet it makes sense for AMD to kill off the XP and switch production to 64. The only way to reconcile those two forces, one marketing and one financial, is to brand some 64s and XPs. Hence, presumably, Paris and Victoria. Such a plan also allows AMD to offer better XPs than today's generation of the chip without having to commit resources to extending the current XP architecture.
It also allows AMD to eliminate Socket A without killing off XP - Paris and Victoria are said to be Socket 754 parts.
At some point, the market will accept that Athlon 64 is fully 32-bit compatible, and is faster in that mode than 'pure' 32-bit chips like Athlon XP, and AMD can rebrand the last few XP as a Duron, and focus its attentions on 64-bit CPUs. But if the Xbit Labs report is accurate, it doesn't look like that's going to happen until well into 2004, and possibly further off.
The downside with this tactic is that it ultimately reduces the number of shipping 64-bit systems in the field - by allowing buyers who might choose an Athlon 64 to stick with XP - and thus make it harder for software developers to justify porting their 32-bit apps to AMD64. But presumably AMD feels that those whose apps will see a real benefit from the 64-bit domain will make the move in any case - just look at Tim Sweeney's eagerness to do so, even when there are no Athlon 64 machines on sale yet - and the rest won't, no matter what the mix of 32-bit and 64-bit CPUs it offers. What software support it does lose by pursuing such a strategy is far out weighted by the sales it loses from customers who refuse to be forced down the Athlon 64 path.
0
Comments
Okay, so I just quoted it because everyone else did... but I say "ditto" here as well.
And I hope XBit is wrong!
We know that in 32 bit mode, an Athlon 64 is approximately 20-30% faster than the current Athlon XP. This makes it so an Athlon 64 at 2.2GHz is faster than a Pentium 4 3.2GHz with hyper-threading and the 800MHz bus.
These are the top of market chips from each company. The Athlon 64 (Opteron) 2.2 and the 3.2GHz Pentium 4.
Now what happens if we start slipping into the value range? 2.4GHz p4Bs, Celerons, Durons?
You throw an Athlon 64 in there as an Athlon XP with a lowered clock speed, half the l2 cache, and the 754 pin packaging, it's still faster than any Duron, faster than any AXP, and faster than any chip Intel intends for the "Value" market.
So what happens if they turn off 64 bit processing?
Pure 32 bit will be extremely valuable for a few years yet. The benefits of 64 bit only become evident to people doing tasks that just don't happen on a budget machine. High-end gaming, media manipulation, kernel compiling. Tasks that require large address sets. The regular user gets email, microsoft office, and some digital pictures for his "Budget box." He/she doesn't need 64 bit, and 64 bit doesn't need them. The values of 64bit, to <i>them</i> is absolutely irrelevant, and just tacks on an additional cost that they won't need.
AMD knows that an A64 in the budget circle, rebranded with a proven name will run rings around any other processor in that market.
And have any of you forgotten the very first pieces of information we learned about the Clawhammer/Sledgehammer? Icrontic covered this extensively:
Athlon XP: Budget Clawhammer (Socket 754)
Clawhammer HT: SMP-capable (Athlon64 940 pin)
Clawhammer: Non-SMP (Athlon64 939 pin)
Sledgehammer: 1, 2, 4, and 8 way chips (1xx, 2xx, 4xx, and 8xx)
It seems the initial speculations were true this many months later.
Additionally:
This allows AMD to keep a premium price on their premium CPUs - they NEED the profits to stay in the horribly expensive R&D race.
This allows us to upgrade a while longer without new motherboard purchases.
This allows AMD good press to pit the XP line against P4, all the while being able to claim, "and that isn't even our top of the line" processor.
It is also good for name recognition. The majority of computer end users scarcely know what AMD is. Eradicating the 'XP' brand as soon as that name gains some familiarity would just bolster the strong brand identity that Intel already commands.
This is a smart move by AMD. I would imagine though, that we will not see much mass-market advertising for the new series of chips. Sigh. :sad2:
AMD needs to get on the TV.
The A64 based XP would still be socket 754... so we'd still need to make new motherboard purchases. And aside from your first "premium price premium CPUs" comment, all the rest would apply just as well if they didn't disable the 64 bit capabilities...
My mate said to me once "I want to build a new PC, I'd love a P4 in it!", I then responded with "why?", being the wise ass my friend is he then replied "Because I want to pay through the roof to be in second place". I just smiled and walked away.
Unfortunate; but such is life. The Socket A platform has had a very long life. It had to end some time.
Not ready to grant that to you yet. You could make a good argument, though.
For a value level processor you need the chip to be as cheap as possible to manufacture. If your not going to use the 64bit capabilties, you might as well remove them, and make the chip itself smaller.
Smaller chip > More chips per wafer > per chip cost drops
And since your using the same 754pin mobo, you have an upgrade path if in the future you decide your computer needs more OOMPH!
It's the Duron - Athlon XP - same Socket A - all over again, (with the Sledgehammer now sitting at the top.)