AMD Goes Intel Route?

BlackHawkBlackHawk Bible music connoisseurThere's no place like 127.0.0.1 Icrontian
edited September 2003 in Science & Tech
Advanced Micro Devices Incorporated goes Intel route these days when it obliges end-users to acquire expensive registered PC3200 DDR SDRAM memory modules for AMD Athlon FX-51 microprocessors. The company, however, does not pin any illusions on registered memory modules, as next year it plans to launch another version of its chips with integrated memory controller supporting ordinary DDR SDRAM memory modules even in dual-channel mode.

In Fall 1999 Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, California, unveiled its Pentium III “Coppermine” processors with i820 (Camino) chipsets with RDRAM memory controller. It was clear, PC600, PC800 RDRAM memory was not necessary for Intel Pentium III CPUs and very few users utilized Intel’s RDRAM supporting P6 platform. One year later, in November 2000, the Santa Clara, California-based chip-maker launched its Pentium 4 processor and i850 chipset with only RDRAM support. RIMMs have always been the most expensive memory modules and even enthusiasts did not want to adopt them. Furthermore, RDRAM and supporting platforms were not able to show tangible performance increase over the less expensive AMD Athlon as well as Intel Pentium III with PC100 or PC133 SDRAM. What is happening now? AMD tries to go the same route by forcing to use expensive PC3200 registered DIMMs with its desktop AMD Athlon FX-51 processors.
Source: X-bit Labs

Comments

  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Silly relationist theories.

    There had to be a high-end consumer chip. To deliver such a chip, they had to work with what they had. That's the Opteron. They added 3200 support to the memory controller and fired it off. If they don't want to pay for that memory, they can get 754 or wait for 939.

    The biggest difference between AMD and Intel, and x-bit admitted this indirectly in their own article, was the fact that AMD already announced to update their architecture for unregistered DDR support by the middle of next year at the absolute latest. Intel didn't drop RDRAM for almost two years.
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited September 2003
    They are comparing 2 totally different memory types with the Intel cpus but for AMD its only the case of registered or not. You cant compare things like that. Totally different situations.
  • CammanCamman NEW! England Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    I'm prolly gonna sound like a newb, but I never looked into P4s at all until I found out a crazy deal I could get on one. Am I going to have to buy special memory for a P4 HT? I'm getting a 3.0ghz P4 with Hyperthreading and an Intel "Desktop" motherboard
    http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/bf/index.htm?iid=ipp_browse+motherbd_d865gbf&

    am I going to have to buy new memory? or will my PC2100 and PC2700 DDR modules work?
  • qparadoxqparadox Vancouver, BC
    edited September 2003
    You wouldn't want to run that intel chip with that slow of memeory, I believe (might be wrong) that the 865 supports asynchronous memory frequencies, but the p4 would perform soooo bad that it's not even funny. You'll want to spend some $$ on some good quality PC3200 or better if you want to get good performance out of that beast.
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited September 2003
    For the new P4 C CPUs get the fastest memory you can afford.
  • edcentricedcentric near Milwaukee, Wisconsin Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    You need fast yes, but it is still standard DDR.
    The rdram days are over.
  • GobblesGobbles Ventura California
    edited September 2003
    On a side note I read that the 64 fx51 is unlocked...

    must have, will sell an internal organ to have. I should be able to get the cash to build several machines if I sell a kidney.

    Gob
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited September 2003
    If the chip is unlocked then it sure would be nice if those mobos could push the high FSBs that some of the p4 mobos can push (300MHz anyone?) I wonder how an Athlon FX would perform on a 300MHz bus with RAM running @ 250MHz. Oh yeah! :D
  • GobblesGobbles Ventura California
    edited September 2003
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    a2jfreak said
    If the chip is unlocked then it sure would be nice if those mobos could push the high FSBs that some of the p4 mobos can push (300MHz anyone?) I wonder how an Athlon FX would perform on a 300MHz bus with RAM running @ 250MHz. Oh yeah! :D

    Even on a Via chipset, at 220 fsb 1:1, the memory score in sandra is way over 6000/6000 with ECC memory(!). It takes around 245-250 1:1 or 290 5:4 for an Intel setup with DDR ram to do that numbers. We are talking bandwidth effective stuff here. Goddayum i want that stuff to play with. The 939 chip with dual ,non ecc, unbuffered DDRII....10,000/10,000 in sandra perhaps?
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    220 x 2 x 16 =7040/6400 = 91% efficiency on the Athlon 64 IMC.

    Now featuring DDR 667..

    333 x 2 x 16 = 10667*91% = 9706MB/s of bandwidth on Dual Channel DDR667. Tack on another 150MB/s for it not being registered, it's around 9806. Tack on another 200MB/s from some mild overclocking, there's the 10GB barrier.
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Thrax said

    Now featuring DDR 667..

    333 x 2 x 16 = 10667*91% = 9706MB/s of bandwidth on Dual Channel DDR667. Tack on another 150MB/s for it not being registered, it's around 9806. Tack on another 2000MB/s from some hardcore overclocking, there's the 12GB barrier.

    I edited it a little ;)

    This stuff looks good. I have seen what is supposed to be the first test of a prescott and i can say it sucked monkey-arse.

    Unless Intel have something else up in their sleeve, buying amd stocks NOW might be a winnar in 1 year.
  • a2jfreaka2jfreak Houston, TX Member
    edited September 2003
    tack on another 200MBps for a bit less mild overclocking.
    tack on another 120MBps to correct for an increase in efficiency due to a slightly more optimized memory controller.
    tack on another 100MBps for by running CAS 1.5 2-2-2.
    take on . . . oh forget it.
Sign In or Register to comment.