AMD's 'Newcastle' Budget Athlon64 Chips Analyzed 266
Edward Scissorhands writes "CNET News.com reported on Thursday that AMD had released a new "budget" Athlon64 CPU. Appearing on the AMD roadmap under the codename of "Newcastle", these chips are identical to the 754-pin Athlon64 3200+ in every way except for the size of their L2 cache (512KB vs. 1MB). CNET suggests that some of these chips may be 3200's that don't pass QA as having full 1MB caches. Newcastle chips are about half the cost of their 1MB cached counterparts, though preliminary benchmarks from Anand indicate favourable performance/price."
Many companies do this... (Score:5, Informative)
cheers
Rick
Re:Many companies do this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not quite. They're on the roadmap for Q1, which would just miss christmas at the earliest.
Re:Many companies do this... (Score:5, Informative)
To be technical, Q1 would just miss this year at the earliest.
That said -- you didn't read the article, did you (feign shocked surprise)? The chips aren't supposed to be out yet according to the roadmap, but they are. You can order them at a reseller [newegg.com] near you (they're available cheaper elsewhere, but I like vendors that never, ever give me trouble, ship on time (or ahead of time), and have good return policies) right now and AMD added them to their pricing sheets on Dec 15. So it's an official product that got out ahead of time.
Of course, unless you have someone who stocks them locally you'll be hardpressed to actually get it before Christmas. There's always overnight shipping, but that'll eat a large chunk of the money you're saving over the 3200+.
Re:Many companies do this... (Score:2)
Well, my time-travelling webshop... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm perfectly happy with the PC I have though. Usually, whenever Christmas is nearing I get questions about whether I'd want something for my computer. This year, for the first time in as long as I can remember, the answer is "not really". No big itch to scratch... I have CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD enough, broadband, most everything really.
I must say, I'd still like to improve noise and style though. Performance, well it's not that critical anymore. But the noise is pretty bad, even after I replaced my WD disks with Seagate. And I admit a Shuttle XPC + LCD looks ten times better than my beige box. Maybe next PC, but that one is not now. Not for a while yet...
Kjella
Re: Quieter machines (Score:5, Informative)
(And of course, the other options like quieter CPU fans, quieter exhaust fans, quieter power supplies. For my home office, 2004 is the year of "quiet", my goal is to make a serious dent in the amount of PC noise going on in here.)
Re:Many companies do this... (Score:5, Informative)
Roadmap or not, you can buy 512K cache Athlon64s right now [newegg.com].
Re:Many companies do this... (Score:2)
Not for our Orthodox brothers and sisters, you insensitive clod!
bad bad bad (Score:5, Funny)
Re:bad bad bad (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I've got Newcastle with Pretzels. They're running with Guinness.
Presidents? (Score:2)
Be worried if they release CPU's named after presidents... and you have the 'Pretzel' motherboard edition and a certain CPU edition, things are bound to go wrong.
I suppose instead of "hello world", you could have "heimlich maneuver".
;-)
Re:bad bad bad (Score:3, Informative)
Re:bad bad bad (Score:3, Funny)
Crap, mine was served warm.
Re:bad bad bad (Score:2)
[H]ardOCP has had this story for a few days now (Score:5, Informative)
Kyle of HardOCP makes a bunch of speculations as to AMD's purpose for releasing these chips, and comes to basically the same conclusions that CNet does.
He sugguests that these chips are also just the ones that only had partial working cache (a portion of the cache was working, the other portion was not) and to save money they are selling these as a "budget" chip. Seems like a good idea to me!
Re:[H]ardOCP has had this story for a few days now (Score:5, Interesting)
That's pretty standard practice in hardware manufacturing. It also explains the reasons why some hardware (Radeon 9500, etc) can be "unlocked" and turned into the real thing. They don't actually test "every" part at first, just samples of a batch. If X% fail the full spec, the entire batch is remarked as reduced-spec parts. They they are individually tested at the lower spec. It stands to reason that a certain number of these part would have passed the more rigorous full-spec tests, thus us "cheap" buyers can sometimes get lucky and get a nice piece of hardware for a small price.
Re:[H]ardOCP has had this story for a few days now (Score:2, Informative)
Going back IIRC to the 386SX, which was a 386DX with a nonfunctioning (and hence deactivated) FPU....
Re:[H]ardOCP has had this story for a few days now (Score:5, Informative)
The 386SX was a completely and utterly different chip from the 386DX. The SX only had a 16-bit data path while the DX had a full 32-bit data path. This is not a minor change in the chip or board layout -- in fact, one of the major reasons that Intel released the 386SX was to reduce transition costs from 286 motherboards -- there's considerably less difference between 286 and 386SX than 286 and 386. The 386SX had no feature differences -- it was just slower.
I believe what you're thinking of is 486DX vs 486SX. The 486DX was the first Intel chip (in the 80x86 line) to integrate the FPU onboard. The 486SX didn't have the FPU, or the FPU was disabled post-manufacture (most likely due to failures in the FPU module, while the rest of the chip was fine). This is something that can be done during product test.
The funny thing about that was the poor schmucks who bought a 486SX and then decided they wanted the FPU after all... there was a second processor socket onboard, and when the "FPU" was plugged in it simply disabled the primary CPU completely -- the "FPU" chip was a full fledged 486DX. IIRC, there was another varient where the second CPU sat on top of the first CPU (and disabled it), but I can't recall for sure.
Re:[H]ardOCP has had this story for a few days now (Score:2, Informative)
Such a chip existed, but it was for upgrading older systems, like the 286 to a 486. Obviously because other parts of the chipset weren't as fast, the performance wasn't the same as a true mobo swap, but it was good enough for some people. Such upgrades usually used the 486slc2 chip. Information on these chips, much like the chips themselves, is a bit hard to find, but I remember
Re:[H]ardOCP has had this story for a few days now (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:[H]ardOCP has had this story for a few days now (Score:3, Informative)
On a totally pointless side note, I find it annoying that the plural for pentium isn't pentia as it should be.
Re:[H]ardOCP has had this story for a few days now (Score:2)
If i'm not sadly mistaken, the 386sx could only address up to 16megs of memory (24 address lines), where the 386DX could address a bit more (32 address lines) 4gigs of ram if i'm remembering correctly..
Let's not forget the 486slc and dlc as well. Unlike the 486 sx/dx, this was more like the 286 / 386sx in the fact that it only had a 16-bit data path and could only address 16megs of memory. This was most annoying for largish companies who bought
Re:[H]ardOCP has had this story for a few days now (Score:2)
Ah... right you are!
Of course, that was a complete non-issue at the time. I mean, who could possibly need more than 16 MB of memory?!?!?
I do recall getting my 486DX up to 20MB of memory in the early 90s... there were very few people with more memory at the time, and I only got that much because my MB had 8 DIMM slots (4x4M, 4x512k).
Re:[H]ardOCP has had this story for a few days now (Score:2)
Well, it was sorta a non-issue... when I got my first 386sx-16 somewhere between 1989 or 1990 till web browsers started to hit the scene circa 1994/1995 or so. This was the main reason I upgraded to a true 386dx that took simms, rather then my old sx-16 board that took both chips and sipps.
I also remember trying to argue with the nice folks at the local computer shop. They basicly kept
Re:[H]ardOCP has had this story for a few days now (Score:2)
OT, but what the hell... I just wish Intel had released a 286 bus/pincompatible version of the 386SX. At the time, I wouldn't have cared about the performance loss of clocking at 10MHz, I wanted the instruction set!
Re:[H]ardOCP has had this story for a few days now (Score:2)
Re:[H]ardOCP has had this story for a few days now (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, until you are... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sure, until you are... (Score:3, Insightful)
While I understand that sometimes there really is a marketing reason for makers to down-mark their chips, I pretty much refuse to overclock anything because sometimes the silicon engineering reason to downmark is very real too, I really can't afford to junk p
Looks like AMD.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Looks like AMD.. (Score:2)
Re:Looks like AMD.. (Score:2)
Except when Apple were telling the "Mhz myth", a) the intel CPU was twice the clock speed, not half again as much and b) the apples-to-apples benchmarks demonstrated the CPUs *weren't* "neck-and-neck" - the x86 CPUs were (generally) faster.
Also, as Moore's Law seems to be finally bending--"faster" chips aren't coming out with steady increases as befor
Re:Looks like AMD.. (Score:2)
There is no such thing as an apples-to-apples benchmark unless you happen to be weighing apples. Every chip architecture is different and will perform in different ways. A 64-bit apple PowerPC chip isn't the same as those that go into an IBM pSeries. A 64-bit Sun workstation UltraSPARCIII chip isn't the
Re:Looks like AMD.. (Score:5, Insightful)
=P Well, like it or not, everyone knows it's Windows that currently drives the consumer market. The release of a Microsoft 64-bit OS is what will determine if/when the 64-bit desktop market takes off. The release of XP 64, followed by 64-bit aware device drivers will start the snowball. I would love to see some applications written to take advantage of those extra registers! (Linux apps aside.)
Re:Looks like AMD.. (Score:2)
Re:When I was your age... (Score:2)
AMD changing pin # anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:AMD changing pin # anyway (Score:5, Informative)
Re:AMD changing pin # anyway (Score:5, Informative)
Re:AMD changing pin # anyway (Score:5, Informative)
The only reason to get a 9xx pin chip is to get multiprocessing in the form of Opteron.
Re:AMD changing pin # anyway (Score:2)
Athlon 64 (mid to high-end consumer CPU): Socket 754 now, possibly Socket 939 in the future.
Athlon 64 FX-51 (high-end consumer to mid-end enthusiast/professional CPU): Socket 940 now, next version of the 64 FX will be Socket 939
Opteron 1xx (mid-end professional or server CPU), 2xx (mid to high-end professional or server CPU), 8xx (high-end server CPU): Socket 940
Just what I was waiting for (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just what I was waiting for (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it makes you reconsider that Athlon XP 2500+ purchase. 64-bit is temping, but you have to keep in mind that the 754-pinout on the chip is doomed. AMD already announced that they will move to a 939-pinout for most future 64s (Opterons are 940, so I assume they are just removing the "multiple-cpu" pin.) If that's the case, you may not have a very long upgrade path (3700?)
Re:Just what I was waiting for (Score:5, Insightful)
Usually by the time a processor drops in price enough that I think it'd be worth replacing an older CPU there is a new FSB or something that makes me want a new motherboard + ram to go with it.
Lately when I've been buying computers I've came to the conclusion that Motherboard, Processor, and Ram are pretty much a package that will never be upgraded independantly (Short of adding more Ram). Unless I have a processor die I'm really not worried about changing it.
Re:Just what I was waiting for (Score:2)
Considering that the average MB+CPU is only $200, this isn't a bad deal.
Re:Just what I was waiting for (Score:2)
Re:Just what I was waiting for (Score:2)
I run Linux so finding a 64 bit flavor to run shouldn't be hard, and with a short recompile, the few CPU-bound things I do will get faster.
And yes, mp3 (ogg now) encoding is something I wait on. My Barton 2500+ encodes at about 4x realtime for oggs, but I can rip CDs at 12x, so my temp directory fills up. When I run two simultaneous copies of Grip it gets even worse
We reviewed this days ago (Score:5, Insightful)
In conclusion the Athlon 64 3000+ is one of the best CPUs AMD has never announced. It makes a sub $1,000 system that is 64 bit capable easy to reach, and is able to perform quite admirably even with half of the cache of the other AMD64 CPUs. Will AMD make more 512kb cache Athlon 64s in the near future? How long will Socket 754 continue? Is this 3000+ an overclocker of merit? Stay tuned. For now if you have been craving for a powerful and cheap system with 64 bit onboard then the Athlon 64 3000+ is your CPU. It has no competition in its class, and likely will not for months to come.
Let's see, 1 year since Slashdot has approved a story I've submitted. Let's keep the streak alive! ;) HP shipping Mandrake biz PCs. Who cares!
price? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.pricewatch.com/1/3/5867-1.htm [pricewatch.com]
It's all Bush's fault (Score:5, Funny)
Ha ha ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ha ha ... (Score:3, Funny)
:-) ... hehe .... I know ...
Re:It's all Bush's fault (Score:4, Funny)
Cheap CPU's get cheaper. (Score:3, Interesting)
If it didn't pass QA (Score:2)
The cache is allocated physically. It isn't a question of it having 1023 Kbytes instead of 1024 so then being sold as a 512K model...
Re:If it didn't pass QA (Score:2, Insightful)
They can't actually tell you how much of the cache works because OEMs like to sell identical machines, i.e. all with 512k cache, not 512k cache or more.
Re:If it didn't pass QA (Score:3, Insightful)
ASS HAT Moderators too.
Re:If it didn't pass QA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If it didn't pass QA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:If it didn't pass QA (Score:3, Informative)
So long as the number of busted cells is 4 or less (just using my example numbers here), you can sell the processor with 1024KB of cache enabled. Obviously, if there are no cells that are bad you still disable 4 of them to keep the parts consistant (OEMs don't wan
The new 'dual celeron'? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The new 'dual celeron'? (Score:2)
BTW, I like my dual Celeron machine. Abit BP6 may be a crappy, unstable board, but I still like it.
Not quite fresh news... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not quite fresh news... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not quite fresh news... (Score:2)
Ed Stroligo is a moron. (Score:2, Insightful)
This CPU is a good deal, Athlon 64 at Athlon XP prices. Some of us actually need to buy machines now, not in the next 6 months. Oh, wait to find a socket 939 processor at $200 like that jackass Ed is saying. With luck, it will only take until Xmas next year.
Re:Ed Stroligo is a moron. (Score:2)
How many pins is too many??? (Score:3, Interesting)
The origin of the name Newcastle (Score:5, Interesting)
Low-priced alternative (Score:4, Interesting)
I like this idea, and from a product-line standpoint, it's a good one. After the Athlon XP line started, I sort of missed the situation with the Thunderbird/Duron, where there was always a low-priced alternative for budget systems.
Perhaps now they will create a sort of "64-bit Duron," a lower-priced and less-powerful version of the Athlon 64. This way, in the future, if I want to create a bargain version of a AMD64 computer for a family member or friend, or buy one, there is a cheaper processor available for such a system.
I sort of missed having that alternative available; this creates a bit of processor nostalgia for me :p
hmmm.... (Score:4, Interesting)
These 'reject' chips might be the reason Emachines offers such a cheap 64 bit computer. [com.com]
Nope (Score:2)
"32bit computing is dead" (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no particular beef with Intel, btw, it's just that AMD always seem to aim more at value for money. I like that
Simon.
Re:"32bit computing is dead" (Score:2)
More importantly, AMD has provided real competition for Intel, which has helped greatly reduce the price of non-bleeding-edge CPUs.
Cheers for AMD (in general... and cheers for AMD for surviving this long
Re:"32bit computing is dead" (Score:2, Interesting)
The 64-bit thing is a bragging rights gimmick and doesn't do anything for the vast, vast majority of desktop users out there, who don't even have 1G of memory much less 3-4G. What's funny is people are actually buying into it.
Re:"32bit computing is dead" (Score:3, Insightful)
The most harped upon example is the increase in the number of registers available, which in and of itself should increase processing power - something that's not being taken advantage of yet since there's not really any 64 bit native software available yet.
The fact that the chip is already efficient
Re:"32bit computing is dead" (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously though, 2GB+ RAM can be very useful if you are using virtual machines. Opening a suspect attachment/file in a quarantine virtual machine (then rollback to pristine condition) etc. Once you start doing this sort of thing the RAM and disk space can start being used up pretty quickly.
Pity AMD doesn't seem to have added better support for virtualization to their AMD64 chips.
Apparently the PowerPC supports full virtualization - you can run a VM in
Re:"32bit computing is dead" (Score:4, Informative)
Who cares how good the retail "hintsinks" are. They're pretty decent, these days, but anyone who cares will replace it with a better performing model. No different than with Intel CPUs.
You're entitled your opinion, but your post is pretty much just 3 year old FUD.
Why Aye Man! (Score:4, Funny)
Crocodile shooooes!
Its safe to innovate again (Score:5, Interesting)
And its selling like hot cakes - so the market is proving them right.
Maybe it is a sign of things to come - hardware vendors pushing forward and bringing real innovation back into PeeCees, knowing that Linux alone will be there to support the innovations, and that Linux support is enough to drive sales.
Remember how back in the good old days, Hardware makers (Commodore, Atari, Apple, etc) were free to introduce radical new hardware every 12 months, with no regard to operating software portability - they knew that the software guys were capable of keeping up back then.
The current situation, with Microsoft being the sole supplier of OS's means that any new hardware has to conform to some horrid, and aging 'standard' invented back in the 80's, simply because Microsoft seems to be incapable of keeping pace with innovations in hardware.
Well done AMD - for daring to break the status Quo, and for sticking one up Microsoft at the same time.
Re:Its safe to innovate again (Score:2)
Re:Its safe to innovate again (Score:2, Interesting)
1) The 32 bit mode performance is pretty impressive anyway (so AMD were clever to hedge their bets here)
2) The performance of Win32 code on Win64 base is WORSE than Win32 code on Win32 base using this processor.
I dont trust Microsoft to fully support x86-64 till Intel comes to the party as well.
Keep in mind, that if Linux never existed, then Microsoft would hold all the cards, and would be in a position to sink this chip if they wanted to. Microsof
Re:Its safe to innovate again (Score:2)
What do you think VirtualPC is meant to be used for?
As a side note, a 64bit version of WinXP should (in theory) be released in '04 (probably the 1st quarter of it). It's release will probably be fairly close to the release of
Re:Its safe to innovate again (Score:2)
Examples??? Not on the Atari end. The Atari 400 and 800 were released in 1979. After that, you had the 1200XL, then the 600XL and 800XL, the "unreleased" 1400XL and 1450XLD, and the 65XE, 130XE, and the XE game system. The newer models
Re:Its safe to innovate again (Score:3, Insightful)
sample buildouts (Score:5, Informative)
My Athlon XP system:
Athlon XP 2800+: $150
Abit NF7: $100
Total: $250
I'm quite happy with it. Best price/performance choice (last week, anyway.)
Top-End Athlon XP system:
Athlon XP 3200+: $289
Abit NF7: $100
Total: $389
A complete waste of money, especially after today.
P4 3.2 system for comparison:
P4 3.2 CPU: $366
Asus P4C800-E: $164
Total: $530
Better than both of the above, but only by a few percent for most things.
That was the situation last week. Including an Athlon 64, Athlon 64 FX, or P4Extreme in the examples would have been useless since they're insanely expensive.
However:
Athlon 64 system you can build now:
Athlon 64 3000+ 512k cache: $230
Gigabyte GAK8VT800M: $106
Total: $336
Yowza.
So, to jump from the top-end Athlon XP to an entry level Athlon 64 actually saves you $53. I could have spent an extra $86 and got all this. The Athlon 64 system will now save you $194 over the best P4 Intel has to offer, and it will beat it (for virtually all applications.) Of course, if $336 is too much, you can still build a good Athlon XP system and cut costs dramatically, but $336 is very reasonable for building a brand new system. It'll be interesting when Intel gets it's P4Extreme down to a reasonable price, and AMD starts ratcheting up the Athlon 64 speeds.
Proves it's always better to wait just one more week. I should have known that there would be major cuts in the 64-bit world soon after the processor debut.
Hope all this is useful to anyone considering building a system. Keep in mind that 1gb of dual-channel DDR400 RAM is gonna run at least $150.
All prices are PriceWatch.com and the Athlon 64 CPU price is from a link on AnandTech. I know PriceWatch prices are hard to get and you have to deal with shipping and all that.
Re:sample buildouts (Score:2)
Abit NF7: $100 (I'd use an A7N8X Deluxe here, but...)
A multiplier adjustment to up it to 2800+ speeds (I've heard the 2500+ is an underclocked 2800+): $0
Total: $183
I'm sure... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'm sure (Score:2)
Re:Does 512k vs 1 meg cache make much diff? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Anandtech and other review sites (Score:2)
Re:Anandtech and other review sites (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously, to keep other sites and everyone else from "stealing" their charts. I know it's a pain in the ass, but Anand is a pretty large and profitable review site. If their charts were just JPGs, what's to stop some unscrupulous site from snatching their pics, changing the colors in a batch job, and reposting the results as their own? Granted, they could probably just screen-cap their pics now, but that involves a little more work.
Re:Anandtech and other review sites (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Anandtech and other review sites (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, it sucks for the user who has to download whatever version of flash they use - and it sucks even more if the version they require is so new it isn't avail on all platforms, but they Do have a good reason.
Re:AMD is overpriced (Score:4, Interesting)
Your testing programs with intel optimized drivers (Score:2)
Re:AMD is overpriced (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is it not an extra bonus that it's 64 Bit (Score:5, Interesting)
The only game I know of off the top of my head is Epic's Unreal Tournament 2003.
Either way, the Athlon 64 3000+, IMO, might just be what AMD is looking for to really break into the market. If the price goes below $200, then things will definitely start to get interesting for Intel.
Re:Really? (Score:2)
I get a CPU upgrade nearly every year, but I don't like to be more on the value-edge of the proce/technology curve rather than on the bleeding (wallet hemhorage) edge.
Re:You always disable half the cache! (Score:3, Informative)