Hi Super XP and All on this post......enjoying the discussion

Comfirming some my my thoughts ...and learning at the same time

http://www.goamd.com/

Regard to all
Take Care
Vic UK

Nice Link.

Well, then my Super XP 3000+ @ 2000MHz is one of the fastest CPU's to ever hit the Computer Industry.

Super XP 3000+ @ 2.00GHz (Socket 1685) (90nm) (64-Bit CPU)
15 Ultra High Speed Enhanced Stage Pipeline
512-Bit Quad Channel Integrated Memory Controller
4 Way 32-Bit Hyper Transport Technology Links
SXP03 (Ultra Enhanced Multi-Media Booster)
SSE3
3D Now(+)
MMX(+)
512k L1 Cache
1.5M L2 Cache
1.5M L3 Cache
etc.

Beats the Athlon 64 FX-57 by 100%.

FX-55 in Half Life 2 = 125 FPS
SXP 3000+ in Half Life 2 = 250 FPS
P4EE 3.70GHz w/ 1066FSB in Half Life 2 = 92 FPS

They will be available in Q2 to Q3 of 2006. Hopefully. It all depends how hard my engineers work.

Hmm just wondering what happened to Sean B.....the forums seem so peaceful now lol

Yes they do, but he did have pretty good information on various things...

Yes, Sean B kind of did, but GOD Forbid you tell him that he is wrong & even prove it, he will bite your head off.

Great post SuperXP i was wondering if anybody was going to bring up this topic... if you want proof of why we don't want to go to pure 64-bit yet you should check out the fall-out from the MAC G5 in recording studios.... Apple lost millions... and still trying to pull up there pants...

-HardToHit

Well, I think AMD has done a great thing introducing 64-Bit compatible CPU’s.
It is so evident that 32-Bitness is so exhausted & slow right now & that Games & Programs require more total bandwidth & speed.

Hi everyone,

New to the forums, and been reading this thread and the discussion thats being going on.

On the topic, yea i believe that emt64 and amd64 are not true 64-bit, but make the processors 64-bit compatible.

My point of view right now is that in terms of things being "copied", which i think someone said that intel copied the 64-bit instructions from amd, well u can say they copied it lol, but more like they shared it, i think someone said that in their post or another thread, under an licencing agreement. They reversed engineered the technology, and made their own, or so i've read. The basic point is that this has been going on with intel and amd "sharing" technology together for years.

At this point in time, i believe amd dominate the enthusist market atm with their HTT, due to their faster bus, and probably close the gap in other areas as well. But in 3 - 10 years time range, Intel will probably counter this gap made by the HTT with their CSI (Common Serial Interconnect) which is still under development. And from what i've read it could be better than HTT due to HTT parallel architecture (someone please correct me if i'm wrong if parallel interconnects are better than serial interconnects as i'm not very familiar with chip-to-chip interconnects), as CSI is serial based.

Heres some links if u need would like to read up. Or u can just put "Intel CSI" or "Common Serial Interconnect", in google.

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=60405584
http://eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=HBMS...tid=776042

But intel's CSI is planned for the enterprise server sector market. Although if it does migrate into the consumer desktop market, it might even the playing field in the enthusist market, or tip the scales in intels favour. Just have to wait and see the results.

Now off the topic lol, my view of amd and intel is that amd is catering to the markets demands kinda pre-maturely by releasing technology early, which is a good tactic to gain some market base as intel controls most of the market, whereas intel more so plans for technology releases when it is actually needed. And also i see intel always stays one step ahead over other microprocessor manufacturers, but thats just my view.

You can say i'm a fan of intel, as i prefer intels products over amd or other microprocessor manufacturers, but i usually go for the best parts at the current time. Recently i was considering buying the athlon64 FX-55 as i'm upgrading my PC, due to their better performance ratings and higher FSB to go with the asus amd sli-compatible motherboard. Probably in 3 - 5 years time i go back to intel if they have their CSI bus integrated into consumer-level processors.

Lysander !

Welcome to HWA !!! great post and you have a great view of how things are happening. It is great that the two companies take turns in being the best and seeing their own plans or strategies in the making and this is why we get the great products that we get.

Looking forward in your type of posts here at HWA.

Sander

is Lysander a relative or distant relative to you????????

Welcome to HWA.

Yes, I've read about Intel's CSI, it's too bad that there are no plans to bring it to the mobile & desktop platforms. Only workstation & server are going to be graced with this new technology.

AMD on the other hand is working on a modified HTT which should easily compete & probably beat Intel's CSI, but the future holds many questions which need answering

All we can do is watch the underdog beat the dog itself. Well, they have no choice of course

well....... let the whooppin begin and get us out of this rut were in. Bring on some new technology to us.

Yes, that would give AMD a nice challenge which I think they need.

Well done a little reading on high-speed parallel interconnects vs high-speed serial interconnects.

This url kinda swayed me that in general serial interconnects are faster than parallel interconnects due to their reduced pin count per connection, Higher Speeds, Improved EMI, Dedicated Bandwidth, Extensible, Switched Architecture. e.g. PCI (parallel) vs. PCIe (serial)

http://direct.xilinx.com/bvdocs/whitepapers/wp175.pdf

Most of it i can understand what they are saying in the pdf, but if someone who has more knowledge depth about parallel and serial interconnects, please correct me.

In terms of HTT vs. CSI, as Super XP said, we will have to wait and time will tell. My view atm is that in my theory, CSI might be 2x, 4x or even 10x faster [lol i'm just guessing here, so don't quote me on that it will be 10x faster] than HTT due to their serial based architechture. I formulate this basis from the pdf above and how interfaces from many components have migrated to serial based technologies, like pci to pcie, parallel ata to serial ata, and how the data transfers are usually more than 2x faster than the parallel interfaces. And since serial interconnects reduce pin counts, will allow vendors like amd and intel, even 1st tier suppliers to reduce their costs in making those components, and hopefully the price will drop to production is more efficient.

As i said before if my knowledge of parallel and serial wrong then please tell me, then at least i have a clearer understanding.

I dont think that resonable consideration can be made for such a distant future. AMD are using dual 32 Bit to make there 64, I dont really care for Intel but will be looking into them more in the future.
At the start of the topic, some one mentioned that the EMT64 wasnt so good with 64 bit apps and OS, this isnt true, I read a review based on the 3500 and the 3.4Ghz Xeon processor using a linux 64 OS. It happens that the Intel processor was alot better in many application tests.

There was some info abouts the NEW intel chips which were one a totally different structure ( non silicon) which both seam to be looking at. AMD has reached it end on its current technology and the New FX57 will allow their new technology to work that little bit faster, BUT its not a real solution more of what they have learnt from overclockers and the technology to provide better and cooler cores. This is only a re clarification on older technology and nothing new.

There will be some time that Intel will bring out there chip and it seams as if AMD will take some times to develop new technology to bring into effect true 64bit and above processors.

It would seam that the benefits of the processors are in the sever chips from both AMD and Intel.

Rory Witham, regarding EMT64 vs. AMD64, they are both the same with minor differences not worth mentioning.

This tread is a little old, so I do believe that they both perform great with those added 64-Bit extensions. And there is no need for "PURE 64-Bit CPU's" right now, because if AMD took that route, than they would of failed just like Intel & there 64-Bit Itanium 1 & 2.

AMD only did this for 32-Bit & 64-Bit compatibility, until you & I are ready for 64-Bit computing. Then when we are, AMD will release there already designed Pure 64-Bit CPU

Plus, AMD's CPU architecture is already new (2003) & is quite expandable. AMD has no problem with upping there CPU clock speed, but there is no need for that right now, they are already the fastest CPU's with there lower clocks.

Take Care,

My point was that they cant really go higher than they are, the AMD will find much trouble to go over 3.0Ghz the newer cores, may hit 3.8 Ghz on the strained silicon, Intel will are are finding it hard to run @4.0Ghz
Based on the simple point on the data pipes, AMD will run faster than the Intel chips...


You will find that soon they will not be using silicon to make chips as they have been playing with its limits but not the new "stuff" that will be like making a whole new chip and making it easy to produce true 64 bit Plus CPU's

I was just given some data on a 64 bit encypted hard drive thats becomming or is, I havent viewed the tech data as it arrived earlyer not the data connection that it will use ( sata, sata2 scsi or what ever)

I my self would perfer to see 128 and 256Bit processors as then they will be catching up with the rest of the computer technology.

I was refering to this information, I had had a quick look, but not a detailed look into it, But it sounds like its going alond the same line.
http://www.billswrite.com/bwrite/wocp2.html

http://www.eet.com/news/latest/index.jhtml;jsessionid=UIHK2XDC...tid=232069

http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20040712_102754.html

http://www.ccwu.edu/Thesis_Moynihan/Chapter3.htm

Intel's new CPU's can easily hit well over 5.0GHz, but the reason they stopped @ 3.80GHz is because of heat problems. And if they used SOI as AMD is using right now, then they can achieve that speed with less power loss which will result in less heat.

AMD's new Venice Core is wisely designed due to the fact that it has an extra layer of copper interconnects, 90nm, SOI & DSL Technology.

They will easily be able to OC quite nice with tweaking after say 3.20GHz

Great Links, Rory

Im not talking about over clocked CPUs but production, Hell if they pulled the finger out, they would have already got processor sent out with decent water cooling on them..

How hard would it really be to put a 80MM RAD and fan on pipe and make a water block instead? OK the price would go up bt lets think about the clock setting they could then have.

I think AMD have got the technology alot more correct than intel, if only you couldnt cook food on your system when you were gaming, AKA every time you game the shorter the life span on the processor

Yes, when I say OC I also mean Production.