Athlon 64 Series Flaw

[Hersh]

How much voltage is the default on your 64bit?
Why do they run so cool?

[Particle]

me Athlon 2800+ > A64

Hardly.  A64 > my 2600 XP-M.  You're forgetting that an A64 can overclock, too.  And 64-bit apps FLY on it.

only g** people overclock dude, it kills your processor's life spand, some of us are too poor to buy new processors and cooling devices for overclocking. it just like saying "OH CRAP IM OUT OF LIQUID NITROGEN FOR MY PROCESSOR, LEMMIE RUN TO THE STORE AND GET SOME MORE"

Hmm, Mr. XP2800+ running 2.4GHzâ€â€?do I detect some hypocrisy?  As far as the whole lower CPU life thing, big freakin deal.  These processors are under $100 and only need to last for a year, each.  The only CPU I’ve ever had die was an FCPGA Celeron, and that was due to the motherboard.  My machine runs on air cooling.  Total cost to cool my processor:  $0.15 per month…on the high side.  I run about 43C with no AC.  The processor is designed to take up to 100C.

So what’s the problem?  It runs cool, it runs fast, it doesn’t die from overclocking, it’s cheap to buy and coolâ€â€?it’s a winner.

[Lucid]

no but particle dont you see, processor life is everything, you know how valuable a 333 mhz is now! especially one that still runs great today!

[UnderGod]

How much voltage is the default on your 64bit?
Why do they run so cool?

1.5V

They run cooler because they don't use the old x86 architecture. They were designed in modern days with modern technology.

[sleeprae]

How much voltage is the default on your 64bit?
Why do they run so cool?

1.5V

They run cooler because they don't use the old x86 architecture. They were designed in modern days with modern technology.

Regarding your first sentence...
You know, that quite possibly is the most stupid (and technically inaccurate) reason I've heard as to why the hammer core runs cool. The K8 (hammer) core is an x86 core...essentially, it is just another variation of 32bit x86 with some 64bit extensions. That is why it is called an x86-64 chip, not something new. Really, x86 in general is something of a misnomer, as modern chips (starting with the Pentium, really) borrow many aspects that made RISC chips so great, such as a superscalar architecture, pipelining, etc, etc.

Regarding your second sentence...
My issue here isn't that what you say is inaccurate, but that the way in which you state it suggests that other cores are NOT designed modernly. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is just a matter of what specific design objectives the development team started out with. For AMD, it was high IPC. For Intel, it was high clock. Intel is perfectly capable of designing a high IPC, low power chip...look at the Pentium M--probably the most technically advanced processor out.

(Regarding my position..I'm neither a big AMD nor a big Intel fanboy. I buy whatever is best at the time for whatever I'm using it for. I run a dual AMD machine, and in the last 2 months have designed/built/bought both AMD and Intel machines. Both have their own special advantages and disadvantages that must be analyzed for each situation. I do believe the AMD 64bit chips are probably the superior desktop/workstation class chip on the market today.)

Now, the real reasons...

High IPC results in not needing to run as high of a clock to achieve levels of performance equivalent to other AMD and Intel chips

Utilization of SOI reduces transistor leakage dramatically (this is perhaps the biggest reason)

Use of the IHS facilitates better draw of heat away from the core itself in most circumstances (not all--there is room for a lot of discussion on this point)

A core that was laid out in a way to most effectively transfer heat away, and minimize the synergistic effect of high-heat-output pathways in close proximity

As for the 90nm parts, the fact that there is such a high IPC means that they don't have to run at 4GHz like the 30+ stage execution pipeline of the Pentium 4, at which point transistor leakage becomes such a huge factor. Insulator technology isn't to the point of being able to contain transistor leakage at such small process levels when running at such extreme speeds. Also, IIRC, AMD is using (or at least evaluating) strained silicon on their 90nm parts.

[Hersh]

Sheesh, I was just curious.

(...waits for Undergod's reply.)

[UnderGod]

How nice of you to make an idiot out of yourself and attack me. Hersh wanted something simple, and I gave it to him. If Hersh would have wanted an essay, he would have done the research himself.

As for my first statement beign incorrect, all I have to say is you probably don't even know there are other operating systems then Windows and Mac do you?

Windows is based around compatability. Mac, well aside from being the most used OS by tards can't really be compatable with anything else.

Windows is a 32 bit OS. OS X is a 64bit OS that is also Unix based. Go ahead and look Unix up so you know what I'm talking about. What does this mean? Macs don't use the x86 architecture. They never really have. They are Macs afterall. *nix (You also might want to look this up) is not ment to be compatable with every architecture. This is why if you were to ever try to install Linux (Another thing you might want to look up) you would see that you would need a version for your specific architecture. x86 will cover all your standard AMD and Intel chips. PPC Covers your Macs, and AMD64 covers the only 64bit microprocessor.

I'm not going to get into any more detail then that because I am lazy, and I don't have to explain myself to you.

[sleeprae]

How nice of you to make an idiot out of yourself and attack me. Hersh wanted something simple, and I gave it to him. If Hersh would have wanted an essay, he would have done the research himself.

As for my first statement beign incorrect, all I have to say is you probably don't even know there are other operating systems then Windows and Mac do you?

Wow. Hmm. I thought we were talking about why your Athlon 64 core ran cool, not anything to do with software. *looks* Yep, I was right. Unless you think that somehow a 64-bit compatible operating system makes a 64bit processor run cooler than a 32bit OS on the same core...which, of course, is just retarded.

Also, both of my linux machines are hurt that you would suggest such a thing. Strike 1.

Windows is based around compatability. Mac, well aside from being the most used OS by tards can't really be compatable with anything else.

Windows is a 32 bit OS. OS X is a 64bit OS that is also Unix based. Go ahead and look Unix up so you know what I'm talking about.

Actually, the Mac OS X is based not on Unix, but on BSD. This kernel is a derivative of AT&T's Unix, but according to the SCO Group, so is Linux.
Also, Windows 2003 Server has a 64bit edition (Itanium only) presently shipping, so there is a version of Windows that is 64 bit. Preview Editions of Windows 2003 Server x64  and Windows XP x64 (x86-64...AMD64 and EM64T) can be ordered, as well. Strike 2.

What does this mean? Macs don't use the x86 architecture. They never really have. They are Macs afterall.

Smacks of a certain amount of the "duh factor" here, methinks.

*nix (You also might want to look this up) is not ment to be compatable with every architecture. This is why if you were to ever try to install Linux (Another thing you might want to look up) you would see that you would need a version for your specific architecture.

Interestingly, *nix in aggregate supports MANY more architectures than all Windows and Mac OS versions combined. Strike 3.

x86 will cover all your standard AMD and Intel chips. PPC Covers your Macs, and AMD64 covers the only 64bit microprocessor.

Um...what? Do you mean to say that AMD64 (I'm not sure if you're talking about the x86-64 instruction set, which is the open standard that AMD developed, or AMD 64 bit chips in general. The term "AMD64" refers to AMD's implementation of their own x86-64 instruction set. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is what you're talking about) is the only 64bit microprocessor instruction set? Wow. Where to begin.

Intel makes the Itanium, which is IA-64...a radical departure from x86, utilizing VLIW and other key differences. While it is not a standard desktop chip, it is still pretty widespread. Other 64bit architectures include the Alpha, the IBM PPC 970, and Intel Xeons with EM64T--which, while very close to AMD's instruction set, isn't exact. Strike 4.

I'm not going to get into any more detail then that because I am lazy, and I don't have to explain myself to you.

Actually, I think you're not going to go into any more detail than that because you don't know any more detail than that (and what detail you did know was flawed). No, you don't have to explain yourself to me--to do so makes you look even more stupid.

Also, as far as personally attacking you--my first message did not. I stated that your statements were incorrect (actually, stupid), and then proceeded to factually state why they were, and some of the actual reasons why the core ran cool. This post, however, IS an attack, as you came out with both barrels blazing towards me. Unfortunately for you, you were only equipped with bubble gum instead of bullets. I come here every once in a while and browse the forums, and am just tired of seeing you post flat out incorrect information, or at the very least, misleading information and/or opinions. Research malarkey before you try to sound like you know it, that's the only point I'm trying to make. Well, that, and give Hersh some valid reasons why AMD's 64-bit cores run cool.

[UnderGod]

I never said OS-X was based off of BSD. I said Unix. I was showing a fact that the way the operating systems operate proves they are completely different architectures.

Clearly you did not understand what I was saying about compatability. Let me give you a link that might make things clearer to you. http://www.linuxiso.org/distro.php?distro=45

*nix was designed for specific architectures for performance reasons. A single 'decent' version that supports all architectures is non-existant.

Don't even go into 64bit XP or 64bit Server 2003. They have more bugs than windows 95 and ME combined. I know for a fact of their flaws because I have used them both.

The Itanium microprocessor is a joke. It is Intel's way of trying to use the same technology as they do in 32bit chips for full backwards compatability.

The OS has nothing to do with the cooling factor, you are correct. Or maybe you are just pointing out the obvious and ignoring what I had said in my post about proving the difference in architecture.

Yes, that is all this is about. You are taking this much deeper than its purpose. I am proving that my statement about the architecture is true and served its needs as far as informing Hersh.

You might want to look up the word architecture in the dictionary as well. If redesigning all the bus technology in a motherboard to suit the needs of a microprocessor is not an architecture change, please tell me what is.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong like you are me. I have proved my point.

[sleeprae]

I know you didn't say OS-X was based on BSD. You said Unix. It actually, technically, is BSD.

And you think you can use the same Windows codebase on different platforms? That's retarded. Windows 2003 Server has 32bit versions, IA-64 versions, and x86-64 versions in process. NT4 supported Alpha, PPC, etc---all with different code bases. No different than the different versions of Gentoo that you posted.

I very much doubt that you've used Windows 2003 Server 64-bit Edition, as it works ONLY on Itanium machines. At best, you've used preview releases of Windows XP / 2003 Server x64--which are called BETA for a REASON.

Itanium is not a joke. I don't like it either, but it has some very distinct advantages. It is a number whore. PPC970/G5, Opteron, etc can't even come close. I don't get your statement about using the same technology as in 32bit chips---IA-64 is in no way, shape, or form even close to x86-32. Look it up. Itanium is here to stay--Intel demoed a dual-core Itanium at IDF a few weeks back, and in the next year or two it will be drop-in compatible with EM64T Xeons.

Yes, AMD's 64 bit chips are a physical architecture change. I never disputed that. But the instruction set itself is mostly the same, just with some 64bit extensions. If it was a radically different set, then it wouldn't be called x86-64. I think you need to look up what an instruction set is. You suggest that AMD's K8 chips are not x86, when they actually are.

Hersh asked about temperatures, you gave a bullsh*t response, I gave some reasons why they were cool chips, and then you went off on this operating system tangent--you haven't proven anything, aside from your inability to comprehend a question, and your inability to admit when you're wrong. I understand that many people here think you're quite knowledgeable about this stuff. I'm just trying to show them that you are misleading, at best.

[Particle]

I don't really see how this argument continues.  To me, it seems like it started with UG saying that the AMD64 chip wasn't x86.  It is, just with 64-bit instructions added to it.  That's pretty much the long and the short of it.  But, in regard to UG's strictest statement, he said the "old" x86 architecture.  While he did say "in modern days on modern technology", he never (technically) said it wasn't -a- form of x86.  Either way, I think we've covered the topic  

[Razore]

[Lidge Farkley]

Unless you think that somehow a 64-bit compatible operating system makes a 64bit processor run cooler than a 32bit OS on the same core...which, of course, is just retarded.

This scentence is "retarded".


As for calling some ones comment "stupid", that is an infammatory type of comment.  Saying it is incorrect; that is not inflamatory.


I agree with Particle... you guys need to settle down a  bit.

[Hersh]

Well the reason I asked was basic curousity, over something I have no expierence with. I was thinking about builind a 64bit system this Christmas, and wanted to know some basic things.

Atleast now I know where to come for help later about finding stuff out. (Yes, I will research on my own too, but its to early to start that.)

Thanks for the info.



(Sorry, Particle.)

[sleeprae]

As for calling some ones comment "stupid", that is an infammatory type of comment.  Saying it is incorrect; that is not inflamatory.

Inflammatory, yes...but a personal attack, I would say no...if for no other reason than "stupid" was the harshest word I chose. The rest of that specific post was completely factual. I only retaliated on a personal level when such an attack was directed at me.

As for me, I'm done with the thread...I feel I've sufficiently supported all of my original points, and will let them stand as such. If anyone would like more insight or information, please feel free to PM me.