Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
AMD

Athlon 64 Pushed Back to September 355

Orion writes "AMD confirmed today that their new Athlon 64 will indeed be pushed back to September. Originally planned to be released in April or May, AMD has decided to put all of its brainpower into the launch of the 64-bit Opteron, which is still scheduled to be released on April 22. This article explains that AMD is still going to try to get a few more Athlon XP processors out before the Athlon 64 hits stores. The 3000+ has a planned February 10 release date, and the 3200+ should be out by the middle of the year according to the article."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Athlon 64 Pushed Back to September

Comments Filter:
  • they Opteron to delay-IT-orn...

    At least this will give me more time to save more money...

    (must have new CPU.... drool =P~)

    cheers
  • Another... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by zoobaby ( 583075 )
    Just another delay in the release of the next cpu. The only news of item is that M$ is late with there 64bit OS for AMD. Also that AMD will not release until M$ is ready. The should release for Linux, but want to keep us hanging on as Intel's grip on the market tightens.
    • Re:Another... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dastardly ( 4204 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @12:41PM (#5197270)
      Also that AMD will not release until M$ is ready. The should release for Linux, but want to keep us hanging on as Intel's grip on the market tightens.

      Did you even read the article?? Opteron is still scheduled for April 22. It is the release for Linux.
    • Re:Another... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by zoobaby ( 583075 )
      Actually I read a slightly different article earlier.... http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7530
    • It will be out in the fall as well. Plus IBM is using it as a Linux platform as well (in addition to the new line of Apple computers).

      Mark my words (or not), the IBM PPC 970 will take over the market in the next 3-5 years (or not).

      The king is dead, long live the king.
  • So? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Salden ( 571264 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @12:36PM (#5197223)
    The server market needs the 64bit cpus before consumers do anyway. I am looking forward to the barton cores with their better cache performance. It's still impressive to see what their doing with a look less cycles than Intel. I hope they get a good share in the server market with the Opteron as it will build confidence in AMD across the board.
  • Duke Nukem! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Deflagro ( 187160 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @12:39PM (#5197256)
    Man i can't wait to play Duke Nukem Forever on my new Opteron system. I'm saving a penny a day and by the time i have enough money, i should be able to buy all i need.

    WOOT!@#
  • Tactically wise (Score:5, Interesting)

    by l33t-gu3lph1t3 ( 567059 ) <arch_angel16 AT hotmail DOT com> on Friday January 31, 2003 @12:40PM (#5197261) Homepage
    AMD's decision to delay it's Athlon64 CPU series release date until September (possibly timed to the release of a 64bit version of Windows) is pretty smart, actually. By delaying, AMD loses in the highend desktop arena, but is now able to spend those resources on the potentially far more lucrative Opteron systems. Why release a fast, inexpensive processor for the desktop market when you can release a slightly slower one, for a different market, for much, much more? By concentrating on the big iron of Opteron, AMD might be able to halt their financial bloodletting, and get back in the black in time for Athlon64...
    • Why release a fast, inexpensive processor for the desktop market when you can release a slightly slower one, for a different market, for much, much more?
      Simple, because AMD hasn't been embraced by the establishment. I know a few individuals willing to give them a shot at home, but I've never seen an AMD processor at work, ever.
      • A few months ago, Dell were indicating great interest in AMD's 64-bit processors. They were saying something like it's the first time that AMD have something to offer other than the price. They put it a lot more eloquently than that, but that was the gist of it.
        AFAIK, Intel has nothing to match this processor so Dell and friends have good reason to be interested.
    • by ryanvm ( 247662 )
      By delaying, AMD loses in the highend desktop arena, but is now able to spend those resources on the potentially far more lucrative Opteron systems.

      The only problem with your logic is that, as far as I'm aware, nobody is buying AMD servers. And so although potentially more lucrative, in reality they are not. AMD's domain is almost exclusively enthusiast desktops and budget systems. I have never in my life seen a server spec'ed with an AMD processor.

      The truth is that although their processors are as good as Intel's, the chipsets for AMD processors generally suck ass. Nobody can make a medium-level chipset like Intel. I think AMD would fare considerably better if they'd back up their processors with similar quality chipsets.
  • by dtjohnson ( 102237 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @12:42PM (#5197278)

    A story [theinquirer.net] in the inquirer
    says AMD is "waiting for the introduction of a suitable 64-bit operating
    system. This, The INQUIRER believes, is the Windows 64 bit version specifically
    for the Athlon64."

    How many companies have died while waiting for Microsoft
    to do something? (Note to AMD: Microsoft is *not* your friend.)

    • 90% of desktops out there run Windows. Releasing a 64-bit desktop processor now (or soon) means that OEMs will put 32-bit Windows on it. And as far as I know, there are still very few x86-64 apps out there as well. Since no one in the desktop world can take advantage of 64 bits, why release the processor (and spend the money marketing and supporting it) right now over a relatively cheap update to the current Athlon? I know that I won't buy an Athlon64 right now if it's only benefit over a P4 or AthlonXP is 64 bits.

      Once MS comes out with x86-64 Windows, people will start making apps for it. Athlon64 will look a little more attractive then.
      • by SN74S181 ( 581549 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @02:14PM (#5198036)
        You're forgetting how people sucked up the early Intel 32-bit processors like gummi bears at the movie theatre, all the while running a 16 bit OS from Microsoft.

        People love the idea that they're buying something expandable. It's what sells expensive cameras. Slap a 'Coming Soon! 64 bit Windows!' sticker on the side of the carton and they'll blow out the door. You think once the whiff of Win64 is in the air that anybody is going to want to buy another 32 bit box?? And look like their neighbor with the Celeron? No way!

      • by Vlad_the_Inhaler ( 32958 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @02:31PM (#5198186) Homepage
        C't, the German technical magazine, got hold of a 1.2GHz Hammer recently. They ran various 32-bit benchmarks on it against a 1.2GHz Athlon XP and a 2.2GHz P4s.
        The Hammer blew the Athlon out of the water and was only slightly slower that the P4 on most tests. For example, the Linux 2.4 kernel compile times were: 161s (Hammer) 222s (Athlon) and 166s (P4) [yup, I know the Hammer won that one].
        Two weeks later, they posted more benchmarks with software optimised for the P4. The Hammer benefitted more from the optimisations than the P4 did.
        Bottom line is, everything benefits with this processor. 64-Bit applications benefit even more. I bought shares in that company this week on the back of those results and wish they would release that baby as soon as possible to anyone who wants it.
    • Why wait. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Autistic ( 613287 )
      Athlon64 can run 32 bit operating systems and software. There's no need to wait.

      When the 286 was released, there were no protected mode operating systems for it. (Xenix came out a bit later, after the release).
      When the 386 came out, there were no 32 bit operating systems. OS/2 was 286 protected mode (actually wasn't even out yet, just developing). Xenix was 16 bit.

      Athlon64 has better support NOW than either of those did then. Waiting for MS to make them a custom operating system is just stuped. If they have a better reason, like internal timing or resources, fine. But don't let MS or XP-64 drive your product release. Let the customers use XP-32 or Linux-X8664.

    • They had an Athlon64 machine running RedHat and an Athlon64 optimized version of UT2k3 running on it at the AMD Reality Check show in Dallas- they made a very big deal out of it, in fact. This fact was verified by Ryan Gordon (icculus), one of Epic's contractors doing the Linux specific work. They're not waiting for MS because the workstation market that the Athlon64 is intended to go into can run MS' offerings rather well (better than an XP machine...) and Linux already runs on it- the two most likely workstation OSes already run on it anyway.

  • The press release *seemed* to indicate that only the Athlon64 (single-processer desktop version) would be delayed, and perhaps not the Opteron (multi-CPU server version). However, it wasn't entirely clear.

    I guess that all I can do is assume that they'll all be delayed unless I hear otherwise. As much as I've been a supporter of AMD (and been waiting quite anxiously for the Hammers!), I think that they've not only dropped the ball, the ball has broken their foot on the way down.

    steve
    • by BeBoxer ( 14448 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @12:55PM (#5197388)
      he press release *seemed* to indicate that only the Athlon64 (single-processer desktop version) would be delayed, and perhaps not the Opteron (multi-CPU server version). However, it wasn't entirely clear.

      So when the posted article said in the second paragraph:

      Opteron, in keeping with the company's original launch date, is set to officially debut on April 22 in New York City.


      That wasn't clear enough for you? Only the desktop and mobile versions are being delayed. Which makes sense. The market for a 64-bit laptop right now is pretty slim. But I think AMD will probably make the April release date. Opteron servers are actually shipping now in limited quantities to beta evaluators. And I actually touched a Linux-running, working, Opteron server at a conference last November. These things are a long way from being vapor. I'm betting that AMD just wants to be super careful since the server market is not very tolerant of crappy hardware.
    • Here [amdzone.com] is a article from AMDZone.

      SUNNYVALE, CA-JANUARY 31, 2003-AMD (NYSE:AMD) today announced that the worldwide introduction of its next-generation, 64-bit AMD Opteron(tm) processor for servers and workstations will take place on April 22 in New York City. AMD plans to follow up with the introduction of the AMD Athlon(tm) 64 processor for the desktop and mobile markets in September 2003
  • by Some Bitch ( 645438 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @12:45PM (#5197309)
    The current MS desktop is XP, the current AMD desktop ship series is the XP. The next big MS release keeps getting put back. The next big AMD release just got put back. There is, however, no link between these facts and you'd be a fool and a communist to think so ;)
  • by clevelandguru ( 612010 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @12:45PM (#5197316)
    Other than for encryption, there are not many common desktop application that needs a 64 bit processor. Why this rush for 64 bit processor?
    • Because then I can buy it and then I'll have more bits than you. Nyah-nyah.
    • by binaryDigit ( 557647 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @12:54PM (#5197380)
      For AMD it's simple, product differentation and market prestige. AMD is in a position that they always look like they are feeding off of Intels table scraps. This is an opportunity for them to establish themselves as a tech. leader and not simply a me-too company.

      That and the fact that the margins on the new processors will be significantly higher than existing chips, a much needed boost in revenues.
    • by SWPadnos ( 191329 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @01:06PM (#5197468)
      Actually, there are several applications, albeit specialized ones:

      1) Databases - a lot of databases are too big for a pointer offset to fit into 32 bits. Ever notice that the 120Gig hard drive you just bought has more than 2^32 bytes on it? (yes - I know that the hard drive is split into 512-byte sectors, and that you won't overflow 32 bits until you get drives larger than 2 TB, but how long will that take :)

      2) Video (editing, encoding, etc) - a single layer of a single side of a DVD is more than can be addressed by a 32-bit pointer. The amount of source data used to create the highly compressed DVD data is mind-boggling. (A high quality transfer from film is about 100M per frame. A 2-hour film has 172800 frames [assuming it's not IMax - that's higer resolution and more frames per second] - that's 17 terabytes of raw data!)

      3) High dynamic range images (including photographs and extrme high color video games) - the data types being used by the GeForce FX (similar to the EXR format released by ILM) have 16 bits of data per channel - this totals 64 bits for each RGBA pixel.

      I'm sure there are more - these few just jumped into mind quickly.

      Of course, for those who use Windows, you'll need 64-bit CPU's to be able to load those Word XP-2004.Net documents :)
    • 1) Cool stuff at the kernel level. No more high-mem (to address memory beyond the 1-2GB that can be mapped into the kernel. Single address space OSs. Persistant object model OSs (which go well with the new database FSs coming out). Finally making mmap() useful again for 2GB+ files.

      2) 2GB (pretty much the max for a 32-bit machine) of PC2700 is $300. How long before desktop machines are coming equiped with that much, feeling the hurt for more memory?
      • 2GB is not pretty much the max for a 32-bit machine 4GB is the normal limit and MS has had the 36 bit address extensions in since the PPro, of course a single process is still limited to 4GB max this way so it only helps a little.
        • 2 GB is the usual max because you use a signed integer. You can specify negative offset values afterall.

          And MS didn't put in the 36-bit addressing, Intel did. But utilizing the extended address mode is a significant performance hit, plus it's annoying to utilize. Which is why virtually nobody actually uses it.
    • by Atomizer ( 25193 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @01:32PM (#5197688)
      When we need that extra little processing kick, we just turn it up to 64.

      Why don't you just get a faster 32 bit processor?

      Uhh...but ours goes to 64.
    • Other than for encryption, there are not many common desktop application that needs a 64 bit processor. Why this rush for 64 bit processor?

      So that mainstream media will never be able to harp on the "Y2K+38" crisis. I'd love to see that solved with three decades to spare. :)

      • The 2038 "crisis" isn't magically solved by 64-bit CPUs.

        Until every vendor changes the #define of time_t from a 32-bit int (usually "int" or "long") to a 64-bit int (int64_t) it will still be there.

        And a 32-bit CPU can handle a 64-bit int just fine... it just takes longer to process. Most systems offer 64-bit file systems on 32-bit CPUs right now, because a 2 GB file size limit is really, really inadequate.
        • And a 32-bit CPU can handle a 64-bit int just fine... it just takes longer to process.

          I know; I was being ironic. I even included a smiley. :)

          Moving to 64-bit native processors will speed up our overall systems; it'll make it infinitely easier for vendors to implement 64-bit instructions without having to emulate, or make multiple calls. It should bolster an overall efficiency increase in systems utilizing a lot of large memory/storage, as well as people using 64-bit storage even in lowered capacity. It will also pave the way for 128-bit calls to be made, since they'll only require two, opposed to three (or four) calls on existing 32-bit hardware.

          The x86 architecture has been flawed basically from day one; this is a really good step in the right direction.

    • "Other than for encryption, there are not many common desktop application that needs a 64 bit processor. Why this rush for 64 bit processor?"

      If Newtek releases a 64-bit version of Lightwave, I'll probably rush to get a 64-bit machine. Otherwise, blah. I'd rather get a dual Athlon.
  • Cool (Score:4, Funny)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @12:51PM (#5197359) Journal
    Should be out just in time for World Of Warcraft. This must be why Blizzard is dragging their feet, they're gonna wow us with a 64 bit MMORPG!
  • Q3 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS- ( 624050 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @12:55PM (#5197387) Journal
    Amd said that the clawhammers would be released in q3 2003 some time ago. Last time I checked September was Q3...
  • It means I won't be upgrading my PC for longer, hence saving money!
  • Paper Releases.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Neophytus ( 642863 )
    The 3000+ has a planned February 10 release date, and the 3200+ should be out by the middle of the year according to the article."
    Keeping in mind AMD's record with paper releases I recon that these should be out to the retail audiance around November. Rather irritating having CPUs that we wont have for 6 months benchmarked on tech websites :(
  • Intel's x86-64? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Boone^ ( 151057 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @01:03PM (#5197448)
    I know Intel adopted AMD's 64-bit x86 extensions and are working on a chip (Yamhill?) as well. I'm wondering if Yamhill will sneak into the market at the same time as WinXP-64, totally undermining AMD's launch?
    • Actually that's not likely since the main reason Athlon64 won't be out till September is the lack of a Windows 64 to go along with it.

      the inquirer [theinquirer.net] has another article on the same subject.
  • Athlon MP (Score:3, Informative)

    by brer_rabbit ( 195413 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @01:10PM (#5197498) Journal
    what's the skinny on the Athlon MP procesors? The MP's appear to be stuck in the water compared to XP -- I mean, the MP were always slower to come out but what's the last MP we've seen, 2400? I'm trying to replace an aging SMP desktop machine. The P4 hyperthreading stuff won't do it for me, give me physical processors baby. Xeon would be a contender if I win the lottery. So get with it AMD! Get some new Athlon MP devices out there and soon. Slap on the faster bus speed that the recent XP's have and you've made a sale.
    • Slap on the faster bus speed that the recent XP's have and you've made a sale.

      There are *no* chips and so *no* dual motherboards designed to support that speed nor 333Hz (PC 2700 memory). Validating chipsets and motherboards for a server environment is extremely expensve.

      Most of the gain from 2400+ to 2800+ is because of the synch between memory and FSB (333MHz = 2x166MHz). The gain just isn't big enough to justify it, AMD is putting all their effort into making Hammer MP servers. And if they show up in April, I call that a smart business decision.

      Kjella
  • Why change? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by avandesande ( 143899 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @01:18PM (#5197550) Journal
    Why pull the rug out from under the Barton Athlons when they are still making money and relatively competitive with Intel's cpu? Technology releas dates have as much to do with marketing as engineering...
  • Athlon64 != Opteron (Score:5, Informative)

    by asv108 ( 141455 ) <`alex' `at' `phataudio.org'> on Friday January 31, 2003 @01:25PM (#5197602) Homepage Journal
    Judging by the current posts, there seems to be a lot of confusion. The Athlon64 is AMD's 64 bit desktop offering, which will now be coming out in the early fall instead late spring.

    The Opteron's debut is set for April 22nd [tomshardware.com].

  • Maybe it was the rumor-mongering of TheInquirer.net and The Register and all those other sites that had our hopes up, but this just seems like more bad news from a company that is losing further ground to Intel.

    The way I see it, AMD has been the weasel ever since adopting the XP rating format. Suddenly a 2800+ is a 2083 MHz part instead of a 2250 MHz part?..because of 256K more L2? Where is that 2800+ anyway? I tried to get one at NewEgg and they didn't have any...

    Now Athlon 64 gets delayed...and they still think they can compete with Intel, who has a huge headstart in the 64-bit race. AMD's put all their eggs in one basket and it's looking more and more like IA-64 will win by a TKO.

    Hopefully AMD will miraculously survive. I hope good things come with IBM's desktop POWER4 derivative as well.
  • This will be a marketing disaster for various sectors of the Desktop PC component business.

    Namely, heat sink and cooling fan vendors are bound to see a substantial revenue drop.

    Blue LED vendors and tricked-out-case-part vendors will likewise see a slump in the market.

    Let's hope they can make it through to the Fall on continued sales of 'Yay! It's overcloxored!' stickers and decals. Word on the street is that the sticky adhesive on the present install base of stickers doesn't hold up to the humidity in a 'dank mom's-basement' environment so second and third sales will probably continue to roll in.
  • Has anybody stopped to think about their memory controller here? The current design of the desktop version of their 64 bit chip, whatever it's being called these days, has a built in memory controller on the chip itself, eliminating the need for one in a north bridge. Great idea right? Wrong. Intel will soon be moving to a 800 mhz FSB, while AMD's brand spanking new chip will be stuck at 333. Not so good. So, my money says that they are holding off the chip until they can come out with a 400 or even 533 FSB/memory controller on chip. Until they can do that, Intel will kick their butts all over the place on the desktop.
    • [snip: about the limitations of the built in memory controller holdning the Athlon64 back]

      AFAIK the Athlon64 memory controller can easely be bypassed by chipset manufactures. So Athlon64 and Opteron motherboards with RDRAM or 400MHz DDR are possible (though unlikely). Besides that 333MHz DDR memory is standard, the SIS 755 chipset support 800MHz FSB speeds. The "Athens" version of the Opteron will include onboard 400MHz DDR II support.

      The biggest problem with the Athlon64 cpu is, that I can't buy one until september.
      In the meantime I will drool over the system from www.newisys.com : dual Opteron, onboard PPC cpu running Linux; http, ssh, ssl for management, dual channel u320 scsi w/mirroring (LSI logic with ARM cpu?) hotswap drives, all packed in a 2U casing.

  • AMD confirmed today that their new Athlon 64 will indeed be pushed back to September. Originally planned to be released in April or May, AMD has decided to include new technology to succeed their acclaimed 3DNOW! Instruction Set which at this time is being termed only as "NUKE'EMNOW!". Dirk Meyer, senior vice president of computational products at AMD stated that "upon consulting with 3DRealms we feel this move will ensure that the next generation of AMD processors will be able to run Duke Nukem Forever with far superior performance to any other product currently on the drawing boards". A spokesman for the Acme Toothpick company commented "Gee.... that's too bad"
  • to come up with a better name than "Opteron".

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. -- Winston Churchill

Working...