When will the AMD ClawHammer be available?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
H

Hit

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
21
0
18,510
I have been lead to believe that the ClawHammer will be the consumer/PC line of the Hammer family of processors. I have also read that the SledgeHammer is AMD's answer to the Intel P4 where by implementing SSE2.

I would like to upgrade to the latest and greatest, and SSE2 is the latest. How long will I have to wait for AMD's ClawHammer? I currently have a PII 300 on an old LX chip set, and I will be able to use less and less available software. I fear that I will not be able to wait for more than a year to upgrade.

I have been disappointed in the performance of the P4, even with SSE2 optimization, compared to the Athlon. I longingly anticipate an alternative to the P4 so that I can have the best SSE2 solution. I don't care if it comes from Intel or AMD.

If you could hit me with some additional sights and info, I would greatly appreciate it.
 
Dunno what kind of socket the Clawhammer or Sledgehammer will use, however, we can always hope it'll be the same Socket A! In which case I would say just go ahead and get a good new mobo (like a KT133A chipset or hold out for the dual if that's your flavor) and then get a Duron (as they're pretty cheap). Then you'll have something MUCH faster than your current setup and it won't set you back too much. Problem is you never know what kind of new mobo's, RAM and options they'll have. So it's always a gamble. Though I think going with a new mobo (with DDR) and a reasonably fast AMD processor is good because it won't cost as much as the latest and greatest from AMD or Intel and it should really last a while.

Charles
 
You might be waiting a while for the clawhammer. I'd suggest a low cost duron system while you wait. It will be SO much faster than your setup, and if you shop around, it won't set you back much. The duron 700 is only about 50-60 bucks, and a good OCing mobo will be about $130 depending on which one you want. $200 will get you goin just fine until the next generation CPU comes out. I wouldn't put too much faith in clawhammer using socket A though. I think it will be a new socket and use DDR ram, but who knows.

Jon
"Water-Cooled CPU Runner"
 
According to AMD's last roadmap, The Clawhammer will be released Q4 this year and the Sledgehammer will be released Q1 2002. The Sledgehammer is AMD's answer to IA-64/Itanium-not the P4. The Clawhammer is really AMD's answer to the P4. And considering how crappy the P4 is right now I have a pretty good feeling that clawhammer will run over the high clocked northwoods (2Ghz and up). I think all Intel cares about in the consumer PC is clock speeds.

-MP Jesse
 
Umm, I Highly doubt that it will use socket A, considering that AMD chose to ditch the EV6 bus on the hammer line of chips.
 
I can wait till Q4 of this year. That would be perfect timing. I guess my next question is, will HyperTransport high-speed bus technology be part of the ClawHammer chipset? I know it's intended for the SledgeHammer but I would so like to have it.
 
I would like to point out a couple minor flaws in your portrayal. Please don't take this as an argument or anything.

1) Every CPU manufacturer cares about clock speed. Intel is no exception.

2) When Intel was readying the production model of the P4 they had to make some hard decisions. Their chip was a higher clock speed than any previous chip because that was the whole point of the P4 architecture. It was to extend the possabilities of clock speeds. Any chip that they would have produced at that point in time would have had to have had the same clock speed because anything less would have been pointless to produce.

However, their number one priority was die size, not clock speed. Because of that, they had to hack off half of the intended FPU just to keep the die size standards that they wanted to use.

So the end result of this was a high clock speed chip with not so great performance. Had Intel's priority not been on die size, then they would have had a high clock speed chip with great performance ... but it'd have cost a bloody fortune. Of course, it already does, so I'm not so sure Intel's decision made any sense there.

But the point is that Intel wasn't obsessed with clock speed. The P4 chip would have been the same speeds no matter which direction they could have taken. They were however obessed with die size to such an extreme that they cut off half of the FPU.

3) When the Northwood takes over as the primary P4 architecture, Intel will more than likely restore the FPU to the original P4 design specifications as the smaller etching process will allow for more to be put onto the same die size. If this is the case, then the Northwood will be an excellent processor and will undoubtedly compete well against AMD's Clawhammer.

If however Intel decides to leave the FPU reduced in the Northwood, then their management is full of idiots as the Clawhammer will indeed kick the Northwood's butt. But it is for this very reason that I just can't see anyone at Intel deciding to leave the FPU at half of the original design specifications when they will have the opportunity to correct this.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
 
Clawhammer is AMD's answer to P4, Sledgehammer is AMD's answer to IA-64. Anyone see the specs on Hypertransport? Ooooooohh, it's going to be awefully easy to connect many, many Hammers together making extremely powerful servers or workstations for a lot less money than Intels solutions.

<A HREF="http://www.computer-stuff.co.uk/articles/200102/001.html" target="_new">http://www.computer-stuff.co.uk/articles/200102/001.html</A>
 
Aren't you kind of saying that they were both clock speed and die size obsessed and that is why the fpu was cut? Presumbably, although I'm no compsyssie, that they could have reduced clock speed and kept the FPU while keeping the die size constant. Or is that not really possible? (A little bit o' talking out my arse.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom