Will most of the NF4 borads support X2 CPU's when available?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wookie
  • Start date Start date
Current information from AMD is that most recent vintage 939 Pin
motherboards that are capable of supporting the FX chip can also support X2
with a BIOS upgrade (provided the manufacturer releases one).

Bobby
 
NoNoBadDog! got up from the bar and shouted: :
Current information from AMD is that most recent vintage 939 Pin
motherboards that are capable of supporting the FX chip can also support X2
with a BIOS upgrade (provided the manufacturer releases one).

Bobby
Click to expand...

Dunno, but my Asus A8V Deluxe is now listed as being supported, with a
new BIOS already availble with support for upto 4.8Ghz X2 CPU's Can't
wait to get one.....
 
Black said:
NoNoBadDog! got up from the bar and shouted: :


Dunno, but my Asus A8V Deluxe is now listed as being supported, with a
new BIOS already availble with support for upto 4.8Ghz X2 CPU's Can't
wait to get one.....
Click to expand...

Now 4.8GHz I would love!! :o)

JW
 
Jill said:
Yeah 4.8ghz :) were kicking intells butts now BAHAHAHAHAH.
Click to expand...

In speed or market share?

Speedwise perhaps, marketshare, absolutly not. Intel still have 85% of
the processor market......

I only went AMD, because I could not wait any longer for Intel to sort
the EMT64T stuff out.. When I shop next time, it's very likely to be
Intel again...
 
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 17:29:38 +0100, Black Shuck

..
I only went AMD, because I could not wait any longer for Intel to sort
the EMT64T stuff out.. When I shop next time, it's very likely to be
Intel again...
Click to expand...

I went with AMD because I thought the pentium 4 was marketing inspired
junk from day one. Intel has clearly lost whatever expertise they
once had in designing decent microprocessors. Funny how they crashed
and burned when andy grove stepped aside.

Don't expect Ottellini to do anything to save the company.

Econ degree from USF ? bwahahah. Ooooh MBA from Cal.

That'll fly in the liars club that's the marketing department, but you
need to bring a lot more if you're going to run a company like Intel.

Check the guy who runs AMD, Engineering degree ? Try PHD.

Ottellini couldn't even carry on a decent conversation with him.
 
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 17:29:38 +0100, Black Shuck

.

I went with AMD because I thought the pentium 4 was marketing inspired
junk from day one. Intel has clearly lost whatever expertise they
once had in designing decent microprocessors. Funny how they crashed
and burned when andy grove stepped aside.

Don't expect Ottellini to do anything to save the company.

Econ degree from USF ? bwahahah. Ooooh MBA from Cal.

That'll fly in the liars club that's the marketing department, but you
need to bring a lot more if you're going to run a company like Intel.

Check the guy who runs AMD, Engineering degree ? Try PHD.

Ottellini couldn't even carry on a decent conversation with him.
Click to expand...

Let's see....Intel chose to continue to hobble their EM64T chips to a 533MHz
FSB.
AMD chose to use a 2GHz Hypertransport bus. Winner: AMD.

Intel chose to continue to add hyperthreading to the EM64T and dual core
line. Result; an even greater degredation of system performance because
there are now twice as many pipelines and 97% of the software in existence
won't recognize it or use it efficiently. AMD does not support
hyperthreading (which has no relation to Hypertransport). Winner: AMD.

Intel's implementation of memory addressing under EM64T is 36 bits; AMD uses
the standard 40 bit implementation adopted from it's Opteron line. This
means that the prcessor can handle larger intergers for complex
calculations, the very types of calculations that one would be buying a 64
bit machine for. Winner: AMD

One other note; Microsoft is using AMD Athlon64 in it's Irvine and Redmond
campuses where they developed Windows XP Professional x64 and are developing
Longhorn. That should have a fair amount of weight for anyone tring to chose
between Intel and AMD if the computer is going to run Windows.

AMD has been making comsumer 64 bit chips for nearly more than 18 months.
Intel just started making EM64T chips in March of this year. Winner: AMD.

In most cases, EM64T enabled processors are slower than the equivalent
non-EM64T cousins.

AMD dual core processors will drop into most 939 pin motherboards that can
support the FX chip. Intel's dual core processors can only be used with a
new motherboard, and one that is very expensive at that. WInner: AMD

Alomost every head to head review will show that in the majority of tests,
AMD will beat the equivalent Intel CPU. Intel may grab a high mark here and
ther, but AMD processors are consistently faster, cooler and sore better
than the Intel chips. This is true in both single and dual core. Winner:
AMD.

I have been building computers for many years. For several of those years I
would only use Intel. Then, somewhere along the line, Intel sopped been an
innovator. AMD found that it could win some market share by simply
delivering what Intel could not: a fast modern processor that did not need a
cryogenic cooler to keep it from going molten.

AMD set the standard for what is now the x86-64 consumer market.

Personally, I would not ever buy any Intel product at this point of the
game. Maybe, when they get their collective act together and perhaps get a
clue as to what the consumer really wants, they may once again find
themselves the "800 pound gorilla".

Bobby
 
NoNoBadDog! said:
Let's see....Intel chose to continue to hobble their EM64T chips to a 533MHz
FSB.
AMD chose to use a 2GHz Hypertransport bus. Winner: AMD.

Intel chose to continue to add hyperthreading to the EM64T and dual core
line. Result; an even greater degredation of system performance because
there are now twice as many pipelines and 97% of the software in existence
won't recognize it or use it efficiently. AMD does not support
hyperthreading (which has no relation to Hypertransport). Winner: AMD.

Intel's implementation of memory addressing under EM64T is 36 bits; AMD uses
the standard 40 bit implementation adopted from it's Opteron line. This
means that the prcessor can handle larger intergers for complex
calculations, the very types of calculations that one would be buying a 64
bit machine for. Winner: AMD

One other note; Microsoft is using AMD Athlon64 in it's Irvine and Redmond
campuses where they developed Windows XP Professional x64 and are developing
Longhorn. That should have a fair amount of weight for anyone tring to chose
between Intel and AMD if the computer is going to run Windows.

AMD has been making comsumer 64 bit chips for nearly more than 18 months.
Intel just started making EM64T chips in March of this year. Winner: AMD.

In most cases, EM64T enabled processors are slower than the equivalent
non-EM64T cousins.

AMD dual core processors will drop into most 939 pin motherboards that can
support the FX chip. Intel's dual core processors can only be used with a
new motherboard, and one that is very expensive at that. WInner: AMD

Alomost every head to head review will show that in the majority of tests,
AMD will beat the equivalent Intel CPU. Intel may grab a high mark here and
ther, but AMD processors are consistently faster, cooler and sore better
than the Intel chips. This is true in both single and dual core. Winner:
AMD.

I have been building computers for many years. For several of those years I
would only use Intel. Then, somewhere along the line, Intel sopped been an
innovator. AMD found that it could win some market share by simply
delivering what Intel could not: a fast modern processor that did not need a
cryogenic cooler to keep it from going molten.

AMD set the standard for what is now the x86-64 consumer market.

Personally, I would not ever buy any Intel product at this point of the
game. Maybe, when they get their collective act together and perhaps get a
clue as to what the consumer really wants, they may once again find
themselves the "800 pound gorilla".

Bobby
Click to expand...

Sure, AMD do win on all those counts mentioned, and that's WHY I bought
my AMD64 3500 Winchester, but Intel still rule the root when it comes to
selling CPU's and that's not likely to change any time soon. A few
times in the past, Intel have been caught with their trousers down so to
speek, they have always bounced back with something special, I have no
reason to doubt that will not happen again..

It's far too easy to write off Intel, becuase the AMD64 chip is soo
good, but there are many important factors when buying CPU's beside
outright speed. Stability, supply chain, and others.. Not every puts
speed at the top of their requirments list...
 
It's far too easy to write off Intel, becuase the AMD64 chip is soo
good, but there are many important factors when buying CPU's beside
outright speed. Stability, supply chain, and others.. Not every puts
speed at the top of their requirments list...
Click to expand...

A quick price check shows the Pentium D 820 selling for $275 and The
Athlon 64 X2 4200 selling for $575. Now which do you think is going to
sell? Amd is shooting itself in the foot. At more than twice the price of
the cheapest Intel dual core, they aren't going to sell many dual cores
for the desktop. Now I haven't owned an Intel CPU since my 486SX20, but If
I were looking at dual cores today....
 
Sure, AMD do win on all those counts mentioned, and that's WHY I bought
my AMD64 3500 Winchester, but Intel still rule the root when it comes to
selling CPU's and that's not likely to change any time soon. A few
times in the past, Intel have been caught with their trousers down so to
speek, they have always bounced back with something special, I have no
reason to doubt that will not happen again..
Click to expand...

Sure, but most of those Intel bounced back specials are nothing more
then new buzz words (marketing) and usually require the newest and more
expensive parts that do very little for end user overall performance,
and their upgrades pretty much suck, always changing sockets and CPU
specs so they can sell more boards/chipsets. if Intel had any vision at
all they would of have at least made the first version of their dual
core P4's compatible with their last single core boards.
It's far too easy to write off Intel, becuase the AMD64 chip is soo
good, but there are many important factors when buying CPU's beside
outright speed. Stability, supply chain, and others.. Not every puts
speed at the top of their requirments list...
Click to expand...

As far as stability goes I'd say the CPU itself has very little to do
with it, badly made board/chipset/hardware/drivers is why most systems
crash, not the CPU.

Only an idiot would write Intel off, for one they are about 10x bigger
then AMD and have a hell of lot more money to play with, but it's sort
of funny that they aren't anywhere near 10x faster or 10x cheaper. ;p

$0.02
Ed
 
Ed said:
As far as stability goes I'd say the CPU itself has very little to do
with it, badly made board/chipset/hardware/drivers is why most systems
crash, not the CPU.
Click to expand...

Sure, but going for AMD entails all sorts of crappy chipsets. That is
my number 1 reason for previously only buying Intel, at least you get a
top notch Intel chipset, without the random gremlins that affect
AMD/VIA/SiS/Nforce chipsets.
 
Sure, but going for AMD entails all sorts of crappy chipsets. That is
my number 1 reason for previously only buying Intel, at least you get a
top notch Intel chipset, without the random gremlins that affect
AMD/VIA/SiS/Nforce chipsets.
Click to expand...

Well Intel's solutions are not flawless either, I doubt we will ever see
the cpu/chipset errata sheets go away. Personally I haven't had one
problem with my AMD/Nvidia systems and don't see myself going back to
Intel anytime soon if ever. ;p

Cheers,
Ed
 
UMM you do have to buy a New mobo as well and i thinknew ram ???


OHH dont forget the NEW PSU and Also NEW NEW heatsink and FAN. Also
the power bill will bE HUGE if you run one of these a few hours a day.

It all evens out. You thhink you will be getting a good deal but it
will cost you LOTS LOTS more in th End if you Go Intell.

BAhahahaha.


But the Sad Truth many people will go intel :(
 
Jill said:
OHH dont forget the NEW PSU and Also NEW NEW heatsink and FAN. Also
the power bill will bE HUGE if you run one of these a few hours a day.

It all evens out. You thhink you will be getting a good deal but it
will cost you LOTS LOTS more in th End if you Go Intell.
Click to expand...


I love the article on Toms Hardware where he shows that the Pentium D
consumes more power when IDLE than the Athlon X2 does at FULL LOAD!!!
And into the bargain, the X2 smokes the D, big time. And some people
still want to buy an Intel?

I've been running an Athlon64 3700 Clawhammer here for a few weeks on an
MSI K8N Neo Platinum with 1Gb Crucial memory and it has been 100%
stable. Thoughout that entire period it has been running BOINC and the
ProteinPredictorAtHome program which has pegged the processor at 100%.
Totally stable and never a glitch. Put quality components around the
CPU (quality memory in particular) and you won't have a problem with
stability. Cut corners.... well, you're on your own!
 
Wes Newell said:
A quick price check shows the Pentium D 820 selling for $275 and The
Athlon 64 X2 4200 selling for $575. Now which do you think is going to
sell? Amd is shooting itself in the foot. At more than twice the price of
the cheapest Intel dual core, they aren't going to sell many dual cores
for the desktop. Now I haven't owned an Intel CPU since my 486SX20, but If
I were looking at dual cores today....
Click to expand...

PentiumD 820, 2.8GHx dual core chip, no hyperthreading, very cheap, low
performance?

Against an AMD-64 X2 4200?

Well, the AMD does win but as you say the price is excessive. But then you
have to consider other costs, such as the need to get a new board for the
Intel chip as opposed to the need for a BIOS update for the AMD chip for
most people. Some of the Intel board users may have to get new RAM as well.
After that, how do the costs compare (don't use new egg, et. al, useless to
me, not in USA).

Makes you think that AMD are pushing an Intel like price hike.

Damn, I'll have to stick to the Barton 2800+ a bit longer.

Dave
 
Black Shuck said:
In speed or market share?

Speedwise perhaps, marketshare, absolutly not. Intel still have 85% of
the processor market......

I only went AMD, because I could not wait any longer for Intel to sort the
EMT64T stuff out.. When I shop next time, it's very likely to be Intel
again...
Click to expand...

Why go with Intel? Because more people buy them? People only but them
because it used to be all there was, brand recognition!

That's the way I read your post anyway. "I'm going to but Intel because
everyone else is."
 
Earl said:
Why go with Intel? Because more people buy them?
Click to expand...

There is a saying, nobody got fired for buying IBM. Same saying also
applies to Intel...

Buy Intel CPU/Intel Chipset, and things will almost certainly work
straight away, no messing with driver CD's, messing with BIOS settings,
or putting cards in specific slots or any of that rubbish, peripihals
will simply work, system will be stable.

Buy AMD CPU/ some other chipset, and chances are things will be the same
as above, but chances are they may not.

Things certainly are better today than 10 years ago, when buying
non-Intel pretty much guarenteed you will have problems.

My current AMD64 system runs well, but other combinations may not be so
lucky....
 
People will buy intel chips because they are WAY cheaper. 95% of the
people dont know a Cpu from a sheep :)

YOu can make a CPU go BAAAA so that confuses trhem even more.

Bye.
 
Back
Top