Surely BS?

http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Ar...ages=A8&seq=45

--
Derek

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:30:55 -0000, "Derek Baker"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Surely BS?
>
>http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Ar...ages=A8&seq=45

Well Dirk did say AMD wasn't going to release faster MHz chips this year
but would tweak the K8 core, maybe these chips are based on the next
stepping (CG?) of the K8.

"Ed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:30:55 -0000, "Derek Baker"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Surely BS?
> >
>
>http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Ar...4/02/26&pages=
A8&seq=45
>
> Well Dirk did say AMD wasn't going to release faster MHz chips this year
> but would tweak the K8 core, maybe these chips are based on the next
> stepping (CG?) of the K8.
>

I can't really believe that AMD are rowing back the cache size like that. I
was going to buy an Athlon 64 when socket 939 came out, now I'm considering
waiting for the 90nm Winchesters.


Derek

"Derek Baker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Ed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:30:55 -0000, "Derek Baker"
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > >Surely BS?
> > >
> >
>
>http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Ar...4/02/26&pages=
> A8&seq=45
> >
> > Well Dirk did say AMD wasn't going to release faster MHz chips this year
> > but would tweak the K8 core, maybe these chips are based on the next
> > stepping (CG?) of the K8.
> >
>
> I can't really believe that AMD are rowing back the cache size like that.
I
> was going to buy an Athlon 64 when socket 939 came out, now I'm
considering
> waiting for the 90nm Winchesters.
>
>
> Derek
>
>

Second opinion on this:

"A number of you have written in about this Digitimes story on Newcastle.
They claim the L2 cache will be 256KB, but AMD has told me it has the same
features as the Athlon 64 3000+."

http://www.amdzone.com/#2

--
Derek

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:30:55 -0000, "Derek Baker"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Surely BS?
>
>http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Ar...ages=A8&seq=45

I think so..

"The new Athlon 64 FX processor, codenamed Newcastle, supports dual
channel DDR memory and will boast 256KB of L2 cache, instead of 512KB
as reported previously."

The Newcastle was NEVER planned to be sold as an Athlon64 FX
processor, and the FX line has always been listed as having 1MB of l2
cache. So at the very least they've got a type in their with the 'FX'
part, Newcastle has always been listed as a replacement for the
Athlon64 (none-FX model).

Now, will the regular Athlon64 have only 256KB of L2 cache vs. 512KB?
I highly doubt it myself, especially with Intel now having 1MB of
cache on their mainstream desktop chips.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

"Tony Hill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:30:55 -0000, "Derek Baker"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Surely BS?
> >
>
>http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Ar...4/02/26&pages=
A8&seq=45
>
> I think so..
>
> "The new Athlon 64 FX processor, codenamed Newcastle, supports dual
> channel DDR memory and will boast 256KB of L2 cache, instead of 512KB
> as reported previously."
>
> The Newcastle was NEVER planned to be sold as an Athlon64 FX
> processor, and the FX line has always been listed as having 1MB of l2
> cache. So at the very least they've got a type in their with the 'FX'
> part, Newcastle has always been listed as a replacement for the
> Athlon64 (none-FX model).
>
> Now, will the regular Athlon64 have only 256KB of L2 cache vs. 512KB?
> I highly doubt it myself, especially with Intel now having 1MB of
> cache on their mainstream desktop chips.
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

They've corrected it now:

"The new Athlon 64 processor, codenamed Newcastle, supports dual channel DDR
memory and will boast 512KB of L2 cache."

http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Ar...ages=A8&seq=45


Derek