Next Generation Processor

WERA49 · 08-10-2004, 07:04

About a year ago, I heard that Intel would soon unveil their newest chip. It was supposed to be a new way of computing, not just a continuation of current technology.

What is it called? When will it arrive? I'm just starting research for my next computer. I'll probably buy a new computer around Christmas or early next year.

sandboy6184 · 08-10-2004, 10:18

Quote:

Originally posted by WERA49
About a year ago, I heard that Intel would soon unveil their newest chip. It was supposed to be a new way of computing, not just a continuation of current technology.

What is it called? When will it arrive? I'm just starting research for my next computer. I'll probably buy a new computer around Christmas or early next year.

There are a lot of new ones I have seen by intel, I have read about more than 5 different ones.....

NetNinja · 08-10-2004, 12:37

Well might as well buy it now. Since the new processors won't be out until late 4th quarter or early 1st quarter 2005.

Also why spend so much money on ableeding edge while you can get a capable procssor now.

David_G17 · 08-10-2004, 12:40

i believe what you are looking for are the 64bit processors.

fastvfr · 08-11-2004, 22:12

If you are referring to the NexGen Prescott 64-bit proc, some words of warning are in order...

The LGA775 socket (Land Grid Array) has been reviewed several times online...and several of the testers managed to fatally break their MOBO's just by placing the proc into the ZIF!!.

Seems that the processor no longer has any pins in this form factor! Intel somehow decided that it might be fun to put the pins into the socket itself.

So now you have nearly 800 little slivers of metal sticking up at your proc's backside. Can anyone guess what happens if just one of those tiny pins gets bent even a little bit, or if the manufacturing tolerances aren't held just perfectly?!

Why, that pin no longer makes contact with the processor, since the other 774 or so pins are holding it up, THAT's what happens! And since this results in total system failure, you then have no choice but to pony up another $200-$300 for a new MOBO!

Oh, I think not. Nope, nope, nope. Uh-uh.

Until Intel finally succeeds in getting their heads removed from their rectums somewhat, I will be purchasing only Socket 939 boards and Sledgehammer (Athlon 64 FX-53) procs if I want to use a faster FSB or take advantage of 64-bit computations.

I know there are Socket 940 boards all over the place, but I really don't want to spend all the extra cash on Registered server memory, especially after dumping $1000 on a proc/mobo combo! So I will wait for the 939.

And since the driver support for XP 64-bit is at its weakest now, it'll be awhile before Windows 64 bit is useful, anyway.

And me a die-hard Intel man! What's this PC world comin' to?!

Best regards,

FastVFR

PS. OTOH, if you referred to the Socket 478 Prescott, they work very well, but show no real benefit over the older 'C' variant until you OC the bejeezus out of them...

hwyhobo · 08-12-2004, 00:22

Quote:

Originally posted by WERA49
About a year ago, I heard that Intel would soon unveil their newest chip. It was supposed to be a new way of computing, not just a continuation of current technology. What is it called? When will it arrive?

It's here already, it's called Athlon 64, but it is not from Intel. Don't wait for a pie in the sky, go for a proven technology that's here now.

Quote:

Originally posted by fastvfr
I will be purchasing only Socket 939 boards and Sledgehammer (Athlon 64 FX-53) procs if I want to use a faster FSB or take advantage of 64-bit computations. I know there are Socket 940 boards all over the place, but I really don't want to spend all the extra cash on Registered server memory, especially after dumping $1000 on a proc/mobo combo!

Do you feel socket 754 is obsolete? It's certainly much cheaper than either 940 or 939. Isn't the lack of dual channel memory the only obvious shortcoming compared to 939? I admit I am not up to speed on the technical advantages of the 9xx-series sockets.

grenadier · 08-12-2004, 09:30

Quote:

Originally posted by hwyhobo
It's here already, it's called Athlon 64, but it is not from Intel. Don't wait for a pie in the sky, go for a proven technology that's here now.Do you feel socket 754 is obsolete? It's certainly much cheaper than either 940 or 939. Isn't the lack of dual channel memory the only obvious shortcoming compared to 939? I admit I am not up to speed on the technical advantages of the 9xx-series sockets.

At this time, I don't see much of an advantage in going from Socket 754 to 939, unless you were working exclusively with workstation applications that were heavily memory bandwidth dependent. The dual memory channel performance boosts don't seem too significant for the vast majority of applications.

Right now, the Athlon 64 3000+ (Socket 754) is a great bang for the buck at about $170 for a retail boxed CPU, and probably the best bang / buck, unless you look at the 70-80 dollar Athlon XP-Mobility CPU's that everyone's been overclocking to impressive levels.

hwyhobo · 08-12-2004, 11:26

Quote:

Originally posted by grenadier
Right now, the Athlon 64 3000+ (Socket 754) is a great bang for the buck at about $170 for a retail boxed CPU, and probably the best bang / buck, unless you look at the 70-80 dollar Athlon XP-Mobility CPU's that everyone's been overclocking to impressive levels.

You mean the Barton core, right? I've heard about that, but I am not much into overclocking since my primary objective is rock-solid stability.

Thanks for your comments on the differences between 754 and 939 sockets. Do you know of any application-specific gain measurements by switching to dual-channel memory? I am most interested in Photoshop. I wonder if real-life gains would exceed 10% (real-life use is not like benchmarks, and the patterns of use - time spent on tasks - must be considered).

grenadier · 08-16-2004, 13:07

Quote:

Originally posted by hwyhobo
You mean the Barton core, right? I've heard about that, but I am not much into overclocking since my primary objective is rock-solid stability.

Thanks for your comments on the differences between 754 and 939 sockets. Do you know of any application-specific gain measurements by switching to dual-channel memory? I am most interested in Photoshop. I wonder if real-life gains would exceed 10% (real-life use is not like benchmarks, and the patterns of use - time spent on tasks - must be considered).

At this time, unless you are using workstation applications, you probably won't see any significant differences when comparing single and dual channel modes.