AMD Athlon XP

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

FatBurger

Illustrious
Jun 1, 2001
13,625
0
40,780
0
Overclocking is running your components faster than they were intended. Although this voids your warranty, if done right it does not pose any risk to your components.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
 

Quetzacoatl

Distinguished
Jan 30, 2002
1,790
0
19,780
0
Hey, but if he gets an AMD system, he can upgrade to a soon to be Athlon Thouroughbred. Can't with Intel! Better off waiting till 133Mhz FSB and the PivB...and I guess PC-1066 RDR unless Intel feels like gunning for a dual-channel DDR which would absolutely finish off Rambus's pitiful existance. Remember the i820? It's time for revenge for Intel :)

"When there's a will, there's a way."
 

FatBurger

Illustrious
Jun 1, 2001
13,625
0
40,780
0
You're right, I forgot you couldn't upgrade to Thoroughbred on a P4 board.

BTW, if we allowed RDRAM the same space on the motherboard as DDR takes up in it's current form, we'd have 12.8GB/s of bandwidth.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
 

Quetzacoatl

Distinguished
Jan 30, 2002
1,790
0
19,780
0
Do you mean a serial arrangement of 8 sticks of PC-800 RDR??? That isn't very practical...unless you meant something else =/

"When there's a will, there's a way."
 

ath0mps0

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2002
579
0
18,980
0
BTW, if we allowed RDRAM the same space on the motherboard as DDR takes up in it's current form, we'd have 12.8GB/s of bandwidth.
Actually, you would need at least 8 RIMM slots that would take up significantly more space - far more than is used up by a 128bit bus. To have a truly competing platform with that bandwidth you would really need 16 RIMM slots with today's technology (so you could add RAM later). If you had 32bit RIMMs you would "only" need 8. The bus traces, while important, are not really a huge factor in today's DDR environment - it adds only $5 to $15 at most to the cost of the motherboard.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
 

eden

Champion
Yes but he wants now, if he can wait, he can get the 533MHZ FSB version. He CAN use the next P4s until the next P4 change, most likely Prescott, and obviously a socket change with Intel's trademark!
As for the AMD system, I also feel odd for recommending against my own favorite mark, but I have to face it, Intel has done great with the 2.4GHZ and upwards, so AMD HAS GOT to hurry the Tbred and up it fast to compete. THEN and only THEN can I possibly regain some confidence on their side!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
 

FatBurger

Illustrious
Jun 1, 2001
13,625
0
40,780
0
Dual-channel with 64-bit RIMMs would then put DDR and RDRAM on equal footing, which would give RDRAM 12.8GB/s of bandwidth.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
 

ath0mps0

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2002
579
0
18,980
0
Like I said, Fatburger, with today's technology...dual-channel DDR is fait-accomplit - already here - 64-bit RIMMs are still a while down the road - we don't even have 32-bit RIMMs yet. Plus, no single processor really needs that much bandwidth yet. In addition, It would be extremely difficult for motherboard manus to run traces for 128bits at 400MHz (800Mhz effective). They had a hard enough time when they were trying to get 32bits working. Even DDR400 only has to run at half that speed.

The trade-off Rambus made with RDRAM was bus width for clock speed - just like Intel traded IPC for clock speed.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY