Posted on 12/18/2003 1:11:51 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Advanced Micro Devices has quietly trotted out a version of its Athlon 64 chip that provides a little less performance than earlier models but only costs about half as much.
The new Athlon 64 3000+ runs at 2GHz, the same as the existing Athlon 64 3200+, but it only comes with a 512KB secondary cache, according to an AMD spokesman. The 3200+ features a 1MB cache. A cache is a pool of memory integrated into the processor for rapid data access. In general, large caches lead to better performance.
AMD, however, prices the Athlon 64 3000+ at $218 in quantities of 1,000 while the 3200+ sells for $418. At AMD, the new chip is known as the "A-Rod," a reference to baseball player Alex Rodriguez. The chip was released earlier this week.
Despite the lower price, the chip likely costs about the same to manufacture as the version with the larger cache because it is about the same size, analysts said. AMD declined to comment on the manufacturing cost. Company executives have said that a version of the Athlon 64 with a smaller die, the piece of silicon itself, won't appear until the 90-nanometer manufacturing process kicks off in the second half of next year.
"They have disabled half of the cache," said Nathan Brookwood, an analyst at Insight 64. Still, the new chip could help the company improve its output. Some chips in the testing process get thrown out because the full 1MB cache doesn't work. However, many of these chips can be resold as 512KB chips and will not show any flaws.
Although it was delayed for around two years, the Athlon 64 has managed to gain a following in the market. Anecdotal reports from smaller PC companies that cater to gamers and hobbyists, such as Falcon Northwest, indicate that computers containing the Athlon 64 3200+ chip, which debuted in September, are selling well.
Hewlett-Packard, meanwhile, has started to sell a PC under its Compaq Presario brand that incorporates the chip. Budget PC specialist eMachines came out with a PC that uses the 3200+ Athlon 64 earlier this month.
The performance rating AMD gives its chips, however, has begun to overlap, so consumers need to pay close attention to figure out which chips meet their needs. AMD also sells an Athlon XP 3000+. While it shares the same performance rating number as the new Athlon 64 3000+, there are substantial differences.
The Athlon XP 3000+ is based around the older "Barton" processor core. It cannot run 64-bit software, according to AMD. A small amount of 64-bit software exists now, but it is expected to start to trickle into the market next year. The Athlon XP 3000+ also does not feature an integrated memory controller or HyperTransport, two features of the Athlon 64 family that boost performance by around 10 percent to 15 percent if all other factors remain equal, according to AMD engineers.
As a result, the new Athlon 64 3000+ will provide better performance than the Athlon XP 3000 +, said an AMD spokesman, even though the numbers are the same. Interestingly, the Athlon XP 3000+ runs at 2.1GHz.
AMD and Intel are once again locked in a battle for performance supremacy. Intel has come out with an Extreme Edition of the Pentium 4 to counter the Athlon 64 and plans to introduce a spiffed-up version of the Pentium 4, code-named Prescott, in February. The chip will likely run at 3.4GHz or higher at its debut, according to sources.
All AMD processors blow celerons out of the water. Check out this article. You can just skip to the end. Basically, it compared a bunch of processors under 100 bucks each, so these are some of the lower end Athlon XPs, the Durons, and the Celeron. They also threw in the cheapest P4 they could find which weighed in at something like 110 dollars. The Athlon XPs were far and away the best. I would seriously recommend getting something with an AMD Athlon XP 1900+ to 2600+. You won't be able to find something from Dell with an AMD processor, and I can't recommend an HP. You could try to build it yourself, but unless you are willing to learn a bit and have someone who can help you, I would recommend trying to find a white-box supplier. There are plenty online; you can check pricewatch but I'm not to sure about the suppliers there.
If you want a computer with longevity, the 2500 or 2600 should last for a bit. The best part is that they are cheap right now, so they can't get devalued that much. Really, it looks like you aren't a power user, so I would recommend one of the two processors mentioned, an NForce II motherboard with integrated video, at least 256 mb RAM (with the integrated graphics, I recommend more), around 60-80 gb hard drive, DVD, CD-RW, floppy and the rest. The motherboard has all the other stuff you will possibly need on it (audio, graphics, ethernet, modem, firewire, USB).
And your post shows why it's too fast for most people! Heck, who could keep up with the keyboard repeat speed?
I agree. I had XP2100+ till it fried. Solid performance for the $$$.
http://www.emachines.com/products/products.html?prod=eMachines_T2865
It seems pretty decent: DVD+/-RW, a card-reader built in, so you can transfer pictures from your camera, a huge software bundle, slightly faster processor (2800+), half a gig of ram, 160 gb hard drive. The actual hardware inside it might be sub-par (i.e. the motherboard is nForce 2, but it might be by a company I've never heard of). However, Dell does the same thing, so I wouldn't worry too much. You can pick these up at Best Buy I believe. Otherwise, you can look on the internet for something better/cheaper (I think it should be possible).
Thanks for the picture...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.