AMD's new 64 Bit Chip Reviewed in PC World Magazine

[Mr. Anderson]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/09/24/amd.athlon.ap/index.html


The high-end Athlon 64, the FX-51, runs at 2.2 gigahertz. The Model 3200+ for desktops and notebooks boasts 2 gigahertz, while the Model 3000+ for notebooks runs at 1.8 gigahertz.

there's no mention of Apple in the article at CNN. Also the fact that they're ready for laptops immediately is going to put some serious pressure on Apple to get the G5's in the PowerBooks.

I'd love to see a bench mark comparison with the G5....

D

 

[edesignuk]

Yup, for the first time in a long time, it seems Intel actually have some catching up to do.

 

[Ambrose Chapel]

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
there's no mention of Apple in the article at CNN.

i've read a couple of articles on this chip, one in the NY Times and one somewhere else, neither of which mentioned Apple, IMB, or the G5. They both had a lot of info about Intel's 64-bit efforts...

 

[Mav451]

lol CNN is not the most technology aware news station--actually most cable stations have no clue what is going on.

People on forums, like here, are already much more knowledgeable than those cable stations could ever hope to be

Actually, some good sites to go to would be:
http://www.aceshardware.com/
http://www.hardocp.com
http://www.amdzone.com
http://www.anandtech.com
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/

 

[stoid]

bye-bye Mhz myth

hmmmm.....

1.8 to 2.2 Ghz?

That sounds very close to the processor speeds of a new line of 64-bit processors from everyone's favorite fruit company!

It'll be hard to believe the MHz myth after this!

 

[tomf87]

You can also find a good article at:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/index.html

Check out the conclusion:

http://wwwtomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-53.html

I doubt the AMD chip is that far ahead but that may be due to nVidia's poor chipset. They mention the G5 in this article as well.

As for this pressuring Apple, I doubt it seriously. Is there really a laptop user that is going to require the high bandwidth of the bus, > 4GB of memory, and 64-bit apps? Today's laptops are limited at 2GB, more than likely because nobody with a laptop needs more than that. People who do graphic design, video editing, etc, would rather have a desktop with a huge display. 17" screen size just doesn't cut it for the professionals it seems. That's why the 23" is so popular in that arena. I guess these pro's would use a laptop with a 23" HD screen, however I think the portability would most certainly be an issue.

I have asked before and never received an answer. Is there a laptop user out there that needs more than 4GB and 64-bit processing power in a laptop currently?

 

[Counterfit]

Not really. There are probably few people that have a real need for that kind of portable power. The rest of us have a perceived need for it. I mean really, who WOULDN'T want >4GB and 64-bit processing in a laptop? I would kill for that in my PB

 

[G4scott]

I don't think this thing is going to be going in any truly mobile laptops anytime soon. The fastest one runs at something like 78 watts, and the mobile one is down to 60-something watts, I think, and somewhere above 30 watts on its lowest power mode. I don't remember what the specs are exactly, but this thing is a power hungry chip. And it's 1.6x bigger than the G5. It also has almost twice as many transistors.

You can put it in a laptop, but it'll be big, hot, and won't last that long on a charge...

 

[Counterfit]

Heh, when I said I would kill for that kind of power, I never said what I'd kill, I guess I meant the battery life