|
Intel vs. AMD
|
|
|
aabbccdd
Suspended permanently
|
16. March 2007 @ 20:26 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Deadrum33:
With my limited knowledge of BIOS and OCing, I've peaked at 2.6 where I think you are starting so it makes sense to upgrade, especially with Intel running away with things.
You think I could get mine sold for $200???
I still have the fan that came with it...
yeah maybe, the trick is to fine the right buyer of course . putting it on e-bay your probably going to get maybe 150.00 at best.
i OC(ed) my Opteron 185 to 3.00 GHz with no problems and the temps are fine
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
16. March 2007 @ 23:22 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by crowy:
PacMan777,
Computers using Valves
In a way, it is surprising that it took so long for the electronic computer to arrive The triode valve had been invented in 1906 by Lee de Forest, and in 1919 Eccles and Jordan had devised a circuit which allowed a pair of these valves to act as a bistable flip-flop. The first electronic, as opposed to electro mechanical, computer was designed and built by John Mauchly and I. Presper Eckert of the Moore School of Electrical Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania, Eckert being particularly responsible for the design of a ring counter. It was actually made for the US Government, and was completed in 1946, only 2 years after Aiken's. This new computer of Mauchly and Eckert was called ENIAC, standing for Electronic Numeric Integrator and Calculator. It was also a vast machine, 100 feet long, consuming 100kW of power and contain ing 18,000 valves!
100kw of power!!!!!!That would blow the budget!!ROFL!!!
And the wiring in the house!!!!!!!!!Double ROFL!!!!!!!!
http://www.geocities.com/Omegaman_UK/maplin1.html
LOL Thanks for the history refresher. But it was the use of the word "valve" by itself that threw me. I'm familiar with the triode valve or "vacuum tube" as it's often called when talking about the old radio and computer equipment.
Mauchly and Eckert's accomplishments were highlights in the old vacuum tube era, but
they weren't the first
Quote:
1937 - John V. Atanasoff designed the first digital electronic computer
1939 - Atanasoff and Clifford Berry demonstrate in Nov. the ABC prototype
1941 - Konrad Zuse in Germany developed in secret the Z3
1943 - In Britain, the Colossus was designed in secret at Bletchley Park to decode German messages
1944 - Howard Aiken developed the Harvard Mark I mechanical computer for the Navy
1945 - John W. Mauchly and J. Presper Eckert built ENIAC at U of PA for the U.S. Army
or the largest
The SAGE aircraft-warning system was the largest vacuum tube computer system ever built. It began in 1954 at MIT's Lincoln Lab with funding from the Air Force. The first of 23 Direction Centers went online in Nov. 1956, and the last in 1962. Each Center had two 55,000-tube computers built by IBM, MIT, AND Bell Labs. The 275-ton computers known as "Clyde" were based on Jay Forrester's Whirlwind I and had magnetic core memory, magnetic drum and magnetic tape storage. The Centers were connected by an early network, and pioneered development of the modem and graphics display.
Can you imagine the power consumption and the cooling system it took to keep all those tubes cooled? They sure didn't have to worry about getting cold in the winter. Prescotts had nothing on those old "heaters".
For anyone interested, here's a link to evolutionary highlights of computers:
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/recording/computer1.html
That's scifi for you. The computing power it took a building to house about 50 years ago can now be carried around in our pocket. What was a well guarded government installation is now outclassed by the calculator in a schoolboy's kit. What I find interesting is both the tube type and transistor type computers came from radio technology.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
17. March 2007 @ 00:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
And the "birthplace of radio" is supposedly 15 miles from where I live. Don't I feel humbled... :P
|
Senior Member
|
17. March 2007 @ 05:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
@pacman- the ENIAC was the first successful computer that was built; zuse came close but funding was cut by hitler after he thought that they would win the war without computers.
Intel C2D E8400|Asus P5Q Pro|Diamond Radeon HD 4850|WD 640GB SATA 2| Pioner DVR-215BK|2GB Corsair PC 6400| Corsair HX-520|Antec Three Hundred
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
17. March 2007 @ 06:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
sukhvail
ENIAC was the first capable of being reprogrammed to solve a full range of computing problems, but not the first successful computer. Limited function computers such as the Colossus (UK) were successful. Colossus was an early binary electronic digital computer used by the British during World War II for decryption of encoded German messages. Wonder how the British felt when they read Hitler was discontinuing computer funding? Don't know if that ever happened, but an interesting thought. Colossus was so successful there were 10 built by the end of the war.
Sammorriss,
There's a first for you. The first computer decryption. Now doing backups will engender thoughts of spys and international intrigue. ;) That reminds me, you guys had Bond and now Casino Royale is causing encryption havoc. LOL
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. March 2007 @ 06:52
|
Senior Member
|
17. March 2007 @ 08:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
@pacman- i just looked back at my computer science notes now and you're right, the eniac wasn't first.
Intel C2D E8400|Asus P5Q Pro|Diamond Radeon HD 4850|WD 640GB SATA 2| Pioner DVR-215BK|2GB Corsair PC 6400| Corsair HX-520|Antec Three Hundred
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
17. March 2007 @ 08:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
sukhvail, re-arrange your user bars so that they are stacked 1 above the other as they are when doing a reply post because right now they are side by side which is a forum rule no no.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
17. March 2007 @ 08:40 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sukhvail:
@pacman- i just looked back at my computer science notes now and you're right, the eniac wasn't first.
Computer Science... about the only place you have to remember names like Colossus, ENIAC, UNIVAC, Clyde, SABRE, and Big Blue. LOL When you're done with the class, it only comes in handy for trivia unless you go into education. ;) I enjoy learning the history of things, so I'm definitely not putting down the development of computers. I suspect it's probably the defining element (or curse) given us by the "Baby Boomers" (though the "seeds" were sewn earlier).
On a more serious note, ENIAC was involved with a first, the first reprogrammable computer for a full range of computations. It may not have been the first successful tube type computer, but ENIAC was one of the important developments in the evolution of computers.
From your notes, which was the first successful electronic computer? I'm thinking ABC.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. March 2007 @ 08:51
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
17. March 2007 @ 13:34 |
Link to this message
|
PackMan777,
Quote:
AMD caught Intel napping and later didn't realize Intel was busy in the skunkworks with the C2D. Intel repaid AMD in kind, last year no one thought the C2D would dethrone the King of the Hill.
Actually I'm pretty sure that AMD knew what was coming but they just aren't a large enough company to be able to do anything about it all that fast. AMD had been saying all along that the Conroe would be at least 15-20% faster than the 64x2. I just don't think that they had the resources to keep up.
I've used a lot af AMD chips over the years and they were always a better choice that the Intel and usually exceeded a comparable Intel's performance. Back in those days all of this was designed by reverse engineering. Today both intel and AMD's CPUs are completely different other than the necessary instruction sets. AMD no longer has to reverse engineer anything. They gave us some very good processors and will more than likely continue to do so in the future. Today most people have more computing power sitting on thier desk than what was used on the Appolo Moon missions, and for a fraction of the cost!
I love progress! Helps keep me poor!LOL!! Still it's way better than the $1500-$1800 it used to cost to build a decent 486 complete system!
Happy computering,
theone
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
 |
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
17. March 2007 @ 18:20 |
Link to this message
|
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. March 2007 @ 18:21
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
17. March 2007 @ 22:02 |
Link to this message
|
Estuansis,
Unless you are upgrading and existing Intel system, this is a much better buy!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103037R
Mine runs right at FX-57 speeds for 1/4 of the cost! You can even get a T-Force MB and the CPU for under 150 and use all your existing stuff and come away with a much better single core machine!
Happy Computering,
theone
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
|
crowy
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
17. March 2007 @ 23:42 |
Link to this message
|
If the facts dont fit the theory, change the facts." -- Albert Einstein |
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. March 2007 @ 02:31 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
PackMan777,
[quote]AMD caught Intel napping and later didn't realize Intel was busy in the skunkworks with the C2D. Intel repaid AMD in kind, last year no one thought the C2D would dethrone the King of the Hill.
Quote:
Actually I'm pretty sure that AMD knew what was coming but they just aren't a large enough company to be able to do anything about it all that fast. AMD had been saying all along that the Conroe would be at least 15-20% faster than the 64x2. I just don't think that they had the resources to keep up.
I've used a lot af AMD chips over the years and they were always a better choice that the Intel and usually exceeded a comparable Intel's performance. Back in those days all of this was designed by reverse engineering. Today both intel and AMD's CPUs are completely different other than the necessary instruction sets. AMD no longer has to reverse engineer anything. They gave us some very good processors and will more than likely continue to do so in the future. Today most people have more computing power sitting on thier desk than what was used on the Appolo Moon missions, and for a fraction of the cost!
I love progress! Helps keep me poor!LOL!! Still it's way better than the $1500-$1800 it used to cost to build a decent 486 complete system!
Happy computering,
theone
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you. AMD is a rich international company and well able to fund R&D. Q4 earnings for 2006 were about $1,800,000,000.00 (1.8 billion, hope I got all the zeroes in). They've boasted about their ability for quick change and adaptability. I've even noticed you mentioned that was why they stepped ahead of Intel. You make is sound as though AMD has been ahead of Intel for a long time. Intel didn't lose the performance lead till they came out with the P4 Prescott and AMD came up with Hypertransport. Intel never lost the sales lead. Till Hypertransport and AMD creating a performance sector, AMD's niche in the market was a well priced processor to compete with Intel, not a better chip. AMD was more a budget item till they created the performance processors a few years ago. 2 or 3 years is a long time in the computer business, but not exactly a long time in human terms. Now Intel has gotten the lead back and has held it for about a year and we're still waiting for a response. As I mentioned, it doesn't appear to be a matter of money. AMD has been in the business a long time and has factories in several countries and not long ago built a high tech facility in Germany. They were rolling in the dough pre-C2D and still probably not feeling the pinch. The old days of thinking about AMD as the poor little guy are over.
Until release few had any idea how good the C2D was going to be. AMD execs were making fun of Intel publicly and saying they doubted Intel's new chip being much competition to their product. I guess if AMD knew, they forgot to send out a memo. If AMD was quoting the facts as you say before the C2D release, do you have some of their comments from dated press releases, online or trades will be sufficient? I just don't remember it the same way you do.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. March 2007 @ 03:25 |
Link to this message
|
PackMan777,
Quote:
Till Hypertransport and AMD creating a performance sector, AMD's niche in the market was a well priced processor to compete with Intel, not a better chip.
With all due respect thier chips from the first 386, which came as a 40MHz compared to Intels 33MHz. Over the years AMD has had a better variety of speeds, hit several milestones before Intel and was always a bit more cost effective. My first 486 100 ran on a double pumped 50 MHz buss instead of Intels Quad pumped 25MHz buss. It was a much faster machine because of the higher buss speed! AMD's 50MHz chip ran almost as fast as the Intel 100 because it also ran on a 50 MHz buss while the Intel was stuck with 25MHz.
I'm not trying to split hairs or anything but the bottom line is we are where we are now because of all this competition. I know that AMD's problems as far as R&D go is not money. Thier biggest problem is manufacturing facilities. They are in the process of building more plants and they are supposed to open some this year. It also looks like the present production facilities will be used for newer stuff now that someone else is going to produce the entire A64 line up.
Quote:
AMD execs were making fun of Intel publicly and saying they doubted Intel's new chip being much competition to their product.
AMD stated at a press confrence when asked about the Conroe that the Conroe would be at least 15-20% faster than AMD's current chips. This was a couple of months before it's introduction! I know this for a fact because I posted it because I thought it was interesting news. I read all the AMD and Intel press confrences and I never saw AMD making fun of anything Intel was doing.
BTW! That 18 Billion dollars sure tells us just how much it costs to make CPUs. Considering the fire sale AMD has been running for almost a year now and yet they made all that money! Hmmm..... They'll be back and we'll all be the better for it!
Happy Computering,
theone
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
Senior Member
3 product reviews
|
18. March 2007 @ 05:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Have I tuned into the History Channel?
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. March 2007 @ 06:15 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by BigDK:
Have I tuned into the History Channel?
Looks like it. LOL
@Theonejrs
Well... glad you at least concede AMD is no longer the poor little CPU manufacturer. 1.8 billion was the amount, 18 billion for quarterly earnings would have been more than spectacular. I'd have been buying stock.
Until C2D Intel wasn't competing on the same level with AMD. Intel had faster chips and AMD had chips that did more per cycle. Since Intel was the measure for so many years, AMD named their processors in comparison to the Intels. For Instance an AMD 2800 (2250MHZ) would compare to an Intel 2800MHz processor. So, there's no need to say the slower AMD compared to the faster Intel; as BigDK said, that's history.
Since you posted about AMD conceding the C2D being better than the comparable AMD, will you give us a link to that. I'm still a little mixed up on the time line. Also just before C2D was released, there was AMD management making comments to Anandtech that C2D wouldn't outclass the AMD processors. Maybe "make fun of" was a bit strong, lets just say AMD staff was being sarcastic, even at that late date.
I wasn't splitting hairs either, it was just that I thought what you were saying was a bit far from the history that I've been taught. I was just wanting to see some corroborating information to support your claims. If you talk to enthusiasts and look at the old articles, the early P4 Northwoods were the leading processors to OC, not the AMDs at that time. Much of the earlier enthusiast articles and builds had Intel winning on the performance levels, though Intel wasn't competing with AMD on a performance basis at the time. That was about the time AMD created the performance category (and held it for a few years).
We've always had the political oriented enthusiasts that liked AMD because they were an alternative to the big blue "bully". Lets just say Intel controlled the market and AMD didn't become a serious competitor until the past few years. And it's been an exciting time where the competition has given a lot of rewards to the consumer, that I'll agree with you on. Now it's just 2 big companies duking it out. Hopefully we consumers will continue to reap a rich harvest of new tech advancements. Intel has kept on a roll the past year. It's time for AMD to give them another poke. ;)
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
18. March 2007 @ 12:08 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by theonejrs:
Estuansis,
Unless you are upgrading and existing Intel system, this is a much better buy!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103037R
Mine runs right at FX-57 speeds for 1/4 of the cost! You can even get a T-Force MB and the CPU for under 150 and use all your existing stuff and come away with a much better single core machine!
Happy Computering,
theone
I'm upgrading my intel with the 541. I got the Gigabyte 965P S3 you showed me, remember?
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. March 2007 @ 12:12 |
Link to this message
|
PackMan777,
Quote:
If you talk to enthusiasts and look at the old articles, the early P4 Northwoods were the leading processors to OC, not the AMDs at that time.
I guess I was going back a little too far in computer history, but the 386, 486 and the then so-called 586 were every bit the equal of the Intels of the day performance wise. I've owned both PIIs and K6-IIs and the K6-II was the better, faster chip. Interesting you mention the Northwood as I recently worked on a computer with a 2.2 Northwood and even with the 533MHz buss it was still as fast as a 2.8/800 Prescot!
I actually don't know very much about overclocking any of these as the only people who were doing any overclocking in those days were a small group of hard core enthusiasts and most Linux users. It was just too much of a pain as everything was done on the MB with jumpers. I didn't really start to get into overclocking until about 3 years ago.
As far as the link goes I'll have to poke around DVD Hounds and see if I can find it as it's been so long ago that I posted it. As I said I just thought it was interesting news at the time and we were all waiting for the Conroe to get here (very impatiently, I might add!). I wonder if you can get older press releases from AMD? I do remember it was before both Anandtech's and Tom's Hardware's benchmarks from the pre-release versions. I'll do my level best to find it. I gotta start saving that stuff! LOL!!!
Happy Computering,
theone
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. March 2007 @ 13:54 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I gotta start saving that stuff!
Yes, that's one of the things a person has to do if they're going to use past info to support current statements.
Since you mentioned the Northwood and Prescott situation, I'll go on record with others in saying Intel shot themself in the foot. I noticed with some of the posts by Mort81 and others that their Northwoods easily outperformed the Prescotts when OCing. They even had better benches at lower speeds. But going even farther back the Intels were usually as good or better than the AMDs. If the processors had been better AMD would have been cutting more into Intel's market share a lot sooner. I mentioned the P4 Northwood because that was the last CPU Intel had that could outperform the comparable AMD until the C2D won back the crown. Intel thought they could get more out of the architecture they had and they couldn't. By the time Intel saw the writing on the wall AMD was pulling ahead with hypertransport. The new architecture of the C2D proved Intel can still get the job done. AMD still makes some excellent processors. The problem is, Intel is making some better at competitive prices. That's what it's all about, value for the dollar, yen, pound or whatever.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. March 2007 @ 15:22 |
Link to this message
|
PackMan777,
Quote:
Yes, that's one of the things a person has to do if they're going to use past info to support current statements.
You are absolutely right, I just never forsaw that I would ever need it as it was just some sort of news with the goings on at AMD, and the pickins were slim on the thread at the time while everyone was waiting for the Conroe to appear!
Quote:
Maybe "make fun of" was a bit strong, lets just say AMD staff was being sarcastic, even at that late date.
More like AMD was whistling in the dark!LOL!! I would highly doubt that AMD didn't know what was coming as there are so many corporate spies out there these days. At 1.8 Billion dollars profit (gotta watch those decimal places), it makes you wonder just how much they would have made over the same period had the Conroe not been introduced!
Best Regards,
theone
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. March 2007 @ 21:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
Much more I'm sure. They would not have dropped prices, at least not as drastically.
I think C2D even had the spies fooled. Everyone was saying the test processors making the rounds were special samples. It appears the newer stock is better or as least as good. Intel wasn't trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes as many suspected. Other than a few sites giving legitimate reviews for what they saw with C2D samples, the popular support was for AMD, at least around the forums and by many enthusiasts.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. March 2007 @ 21:45
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. March 2007 @ 23:02 |
Link to this message
|
PackMan777,
Quote:
Much more I'm sure. They would not have dropped prices, at least not as drastically.
You know it's interesting. I was looking at the prices of all the Athlon 64x2/AM2s and the most expensive chip at Newegg is the 64x2 6000+ at $459. After that comes the 64x2 5600+ at $329. The rest of the lineup is priced between $85 and $259 which is a price range that the average person can handle. I think at 3.0GHz the 6000+ is the fastest clocked chip AMD has ever made. At the moment Newegg only has one socket 939 in stock, the 64x2 4600+ for $135 so I think that socket 939 is finally dead, or at least being given the last rites! LOL!!
You are absolutely right in the popular support for AMD. I guess everyone loves the underdog (wasn't that a cartoon character). The funniest thing is that even when AMD was on top, people still always considered them the underdog! Strange!
I think that with someone else building all the A64s under license to AMD bodes well for thier future by freeing up production facilities for newer and more inovative products. I don't think that they would have considered such a bold move unless they had something up thier sleeve. They flexed thier muscles a bit with the addition of faster 64x2s and the revamping they did on some of the older ones. It sure looks to me like the next 6 to 12 months could get very interesting indeed!
Just to whet those appetites, this is from a press conference demonstration, Feb. 28, 1907.
Quote:
San Francisco -- February 28, 2007 --AMD (NYSE: AMD) today showcased a single-system, Accelerated Computing platform that breaks the teraflop computing barrier. Organizations are ultimately expected to be able to apply this technology to a wide range of scientific, medical, business and consumer computing applications. At a press event in San Francisco, AMD demonstrated a ?Teraflop in a Box? system running a standard version of Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional that harnessed the power of AMD Opteron? dual-core processor technology and two next-generation AMD R600 Stream Processors capable of performing more than 1 trillion floating-point calculations per second using a general ?multiply-add? (MADD) calculation. This achievement represents a ten-fold performance increase over today?s high-performance server platforms, which deliver approximately 100 billion calculations per second.
While I realize this is server technology, it will eventually trickle down to mainstream computing. More importantly, the technology has been demonstrated and it works!
Happy Computering,
theone
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. March 2007 @ 23:21
|
|
crowy
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. March 2007 @ 01:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
AMD have been busy little bees haven't they!!!
Has anyone seen a review of the x2 6000+ processor??
If the facts dont fit the theory, change the facts." -- Albert Einstein
|
|
crowy
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. March 2007 @ 01:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
edited due to wrong forum!
If the facts dont fit the theory, change the facts." -- Albert Einstein
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. March 2007 @ 12:14
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
19. March 2007 @ 02:28 |
Link to this message
|
Crowy,
Quote:
Has anyone seen a review of the x2 6000+ processor??
This is all I could find but I haven't been at it long.
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=929&cid=1
I wonder if you can overclock it?
Get this! Newegg has it for $459, while Tiger Direct is selling the same exact thing for over $200 more at $669. That's a good bit over the retail price which is $464! Update on that! I went to make sure of the price and Tiger Direct dropped the price to $499.99. I'll bet they got some nasty e-mails and phone calls. The price came down in less than 5 hours! It's still $35 more than retail! So "Up Your's too", Tiger Direct!
Happy Compuyering,
theone
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
