Options
Athlon 64 3000+ Rumors (2.0ghz 512K or 1.8ghz 1MB???)
Those who have been waiting for cheaper Athlon 64 processors may finally get their wish next week. The Inquirer [link=http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13153]is reporting[/link] that AMD is close to releasing the Athlon 64 3000+ at 1.8GHz. The chip will apparently retain a full 1MB of L2 cache and retail for less than $225. Considering that the 2.0GHz Athlon 64 3200+ sells for just under $400 online, a sub-$225 3000+ could certainly speed the adoption of AMD's new 64-bit processors in mid-range markets. Keep your fingers crossed for this one, folks.
Update - AMDZone has [link=http://www.amdzone.com/#6]information[/link] suggesting the Athlon 64 3000+ may be a 2.0GHz chip with 512KB of L2 cache. It seems a little odd that AMD would go through the trouble of disabling half the Athlon 64's cache rather than simply lowering the chip's multiplier, but AMD may be binning chips more due to cache defects than clock speed deficiencies.
Sources: [link=http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13153]The Inquirer[/link] - [link=http://www.amdzone.com/#6]AMDZone[/link] - [link=http://www.tech-report.com/onearticle.x/5980]The Tech Report[/link]
Update - AMDZone has [link=http://www.amdzone.com/#6]information[/link] suggesting the Athlon 64 3000+ may be a 2.0GHz chip with 512KB of L2 cache. It seems a little odd that AMD would go through the trouble of disabling half the Athlon 64's cache rather than simply lowering the chip's multiplier, but AMD may be binning chips more due to cache defects than clock speed deficiencies.
Sources: [link=http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13153]The Inquirer[/link] - [link=http://www.amdzone.com/#6]AMDZone[/link] - [link=http://www.tech-report.com/onearticle.x/5980]The Tech Report[/link]
0
Comments
939 is where the magic is going to happen. Finally unbuffered Dual Channel DDR and the new 0.09 micron A64 FX's.
Can't wait until Spring 2004
FX51's will have to wait for a time when I have the money to burn on a new mobo/video card/proc.
Bad thing is though that Intel doesn't know if they can make Socket 478 Prescott's.
As well, most i875 motherboards may not be able to support the Prescott. It depends on their power regulation circuitry and the ability of the motherboard to deliver the appropriate stable, reliable voltage levels for use with the Prescott.
I know of only 4 motherboards that are "supposodly" certified for use with the Prescott:
The Asus P4C800, P4C800-E, ABIT IC7 and IC7-MAX3, all because of their VRM quality and specific setup.
Believe me, you aren't the only Canterwood owner who's pissed at the possibility of Intel screwing us over yet again with another socket change...
If Prescott's don't surface, even the low-end 2.8 - 3.4, on MGPA478, I'm through with Intel. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who has voiced these opinions worldwide...
As the board is under warranty if it turns out that it won't run the Prescott I just think it might be so embarassed it'll just up and die and need to be replaced.
You damn right you can. Intel revamped their MPGA478 power regulation design specifications during the development of the i875.
Hence why late-model Canterwood boards should support Prescott, while earlier revisions won't, all because Intel changed their power regulation design specs during the development of a product.
Either way, there's no definitive way to really know until we actually see MPGA478 Prescott's.
Intel will upgrade its flagship PC chip in the beginning of the year, but it will keep the current name.
"Prescott," the code name for an optimized version of the Pentium 4, will continue to be sold under the Pentium 4 name, according to sources close to the company. Prescott chips will contain 13 new instructions to improve multimedia performance and run at higher speeds than existing Pentium 4s.
In the past, Intel has used the introduction of new instructions to come out with a new processor name. The Pentium III, which came out in 1999, contained 70 new instructions but was otherwise nearly identical to the Pentium II when it launched.
Later, Intel changed the Pentium III package and integrated the cache, a reservoir of memory for rapid data access, into the same silicon as the processor.
"It is always a fine line, but I think they will promote Hyper-Threading more," said Nathan Brookwood, an analyst at Insight 64. Hyper-Threading allows a chip to do more tasks simultaneously. It made its debut on servers and workstations but came to desktops a little over a year ago. "If they called it Pentium 5, they would have to tell people why it's better than a Pentium 4."
Keeping the name also helps Intel avoid a marketing muddle with the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. This chip, which was added to the company's product road map this summer, comes with 2MB of cache. Current Pentium 4s have a 512KB cache and Prescott will have a 1MB cache.
With the extra-large cache, the Extreme Edition will outperform Prescott, Brookwood said, and will likely sell for more. It would look odd if Prescott were given a new, higher-numbered name but was slower than a chip already on the market. Current Extreme Edition chips now sell for over $900 while standard desktop chips generally come out at $637.
Intel has said it will come out with more Extreme Edition chips, but a Prescott version with a large cache won't come out for months.
Originally expected at the end of this year, Prescott will now likely come out in February, according to sources. The delay occurred so that Intel could increase the chip's clock speed within a given thermal envelope, a maximum temperature level. Prescott will consume quite a bit of energy, analysts say, which means it will dissipate a lot of heat inside PCs, which has the potential to be damaging.
"The need to compete with a resurgent (Advanced Micro Devices) may have led Intel to rework the Prescott die...to scale to higher frequencies at launch. While many expected Prescott to launch at 3.4GHz, it's possible that Intel ran into speed problems or wanted to reach 3.6GHz at launch," Ashok Kumar, an analyst with U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, wrote in an Oct. 13 report.
Prescott, and Dothan, an upcoming notebook processor, will both be made on the 90-nanometer process, which means that the average feature size on these chips will measure 90 nanometers. A nanometer is a billionth of a meter. Not only will 90-nanometer chips be smaller than 130-nanometer chips, but they should also cost less to
The power regulation aside, taking into account Intel's history, the ability to force consumers to fork over some extra money to purchase both board AND chip on LGA775 may be a little too tempting for them to ignore.
Intel customers are good at getting screwed: On both price and performance..
Let's hope they atleast work on the former.