main

AMD paints Opteron chips by the numbers

Daniel Fleshbourne   on 13 March 2003 - 15:49 · 18 comments & 811 views

Advertisement (Why?)
The chipmaker on Thursday announced a new matrix of model numbers for its forthcoming 64-bit chips for workstations and servers. Instead of using a four-digit model number, similar to the scheme for its Athlon XP processor for PCs, the company chose to identify the new chips with a three-digit model number--resulting in models such as the AMD Opteron 140 Series--as a way to depict each particular chip's capabilities.

Opteron, AMD's next generation of high-end chips, is set to debut on April 22. The chips will be a key part of the company's efforts in 2003 to gain new business customers and also to return to profitability. AMD said that before finalizing the new Opteron model numbers, it consulted with its computer manufacturer customers and also its business customers and got favorable responses.

The chip is expected to start at speeds of about 2GHz. But the new model numbers don't reflect clock speed. Instead, they show whether a given chip is designed for single- or multiple-processor servers and then point to its performance relative to other chips in the same family, the company said. The new Opteron lines will include the 100 Series, for single-processor machines; the 200 Series, for dual-processor systems; and the 800 Series, for computers using up to eight processors. The individual chips will start their numbering at 40, so under the new nomenclature there would be a model 140, a model 240 and a model 840. As chip speed increases, so would the model number--a model 142, for instance, would be faster than a model 140, and a model 144 would be faster still.

View: The full story
News source: c|net


Shipments of flat panel monitors has been approximately doubling every year since 2000, leading to shortages in early 2002. Toward the middle of that year, however, supplies began to creep up and prices began to drop again.

The shift from CRTs to LCDs will likely benefit the established companies, like Samsung, NEC and Mitsubishi, who participate in both markets, she added. Monitor sizes will on average also increase. The most common LCD monitors today come with 15-inch screens. In 2005, 17-inch screens will become the norm.


Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 18 additional comments
(1 reply) #1 Tom Servo on 13 Mar 2003 - 16:45
What? Why were people says that it starts at 1.4ghz? Now it's 2ghz or what?
#1.1 username on 13 Mar 2003 - 18:21
[neoquote=#1.0 by Tom Servo]What? Why were people says that it starts at 1.4ghz? Now it's 2ghz or what?[/neoquote] the later engineering samples were at 1.4ghz, it may be one of the speeds the chip is relased at too
#2 leebobs on 13 Mar 2003 - 17:32
Now that is a good idea . Dump the megahertz myth by dumping relation to speed (execpt in your own product line) and hoping that end users will understand it.... What is the betting that this idea does not servive till the consumer processors.
#3 paulhaskew on 13 Mar 2003 - 18:09
they keep hyping it, release it already....
#4 Cube on 13 Mar 2003 - 18:23
thats alot of numbers
(3 replies) #5 Danrarbc641 on 13 Mar 2003 - 18:40
This might end up hurting AMD. At least the XP ratings told you something about the how the speed would compare to an Intel chip to even the novice computer user. Now only those of us who know what we're doing will know how they compare because we read reviews. Is AMD that stupid, people won't buy something with a 140 on it if they see the number 3000 on another.

Last edited by 4597 on 13 Mar 2003 - 21:55
#5.1 Skyfrog on 13 Mar 2003 - 21:22
I think most people who are buying processors or other individual components usually know what they are doing. The novice users who don't understand it are going to be buying pre-built OEM systems instead of building or upgrading their own. I like this idea myself, and I hope Intel follows their lead. Look at video cards for example; they aren't named by how fast the GPU is. They have names like Radeon 9800 and GeForce FX, and people seem to have no problems figuring out which is better. If someone just buys something because of a number on the box, without reading any reviews or other information about the product, well I just feel sorry for them.
#5.2 Danrarbc641 on 13 Mar 2003 - 21:54
[neoquote=#5.1 by Skyfrog]I think most people who are buying processors or other individual components usually know what they are doing. The novice users who don't understand it are going to be buying pre-built OEM systems instead of building or upgrading their own.[/neoquote] OEM systems still tell you what processor is in it, and yes I know many novices just buy the higest number they can afford. I agree that it's not a bad idea for those of use who actually research our hardware before buying, but my point is it could end up biting AMD on the arse with the layman when these chips take over.
#5.3 PeterTHX on 14 Mar 2003 - 11:23
[neoquote=#5.0 by Danrarbc641]This might end up hurting AMD. At least the XP ratings told you something about the how the speed would compare to an Intel chip to even the novice computer user. Now only those of us who know what we're doing will know how they compare because we read reviews. Is AMD that stupid, people won't buy something with a 140 on it if they see the number 3000 on another.[/neoquote] Well, AMD was BSing all along when they said it was compared to the "original" Athlon, and NOT INtel, when it was really Intel Willemette-class P4s. Then they kept upping their numbers for a mere 66MHz speed increment. Nevermind that when the Northwood P4s came out that the numbers were losing their credibility, and then the 533MHz bus P4s were faster still, then the Hyper-Threading P4s. AMD is a joke. Can't be trusted.
#6 username on 13 Mar 2003 - 19:26
i like it really, and i think Intel is going to do something similar, have you seen the Centrino benmarks... the 1.6ghz Centrino hangs with the 2.6ghz P4...
#7 g33kb0y on 13 Mar 2003 - 19:58
Hmm...this is an interesting scheme. Definitely something that peaks my interest.
(1 reply) #8 fizik3 on 13 Mar 2003 - 20:22
Yea i like the numbering scheme as well. it isnt really meant for the novice to compare speeds with intel anyway. it is a 64bit processor, what are novices doing with a 64bit architecture anyway? And there really is someone out there buying a processor because one number is significantly higher than the other, then they are plain stupid anyway, if the number is SIGNIFICANTLY higher on one processor, then they SHOULD know there is a drastic difference and might as well inquire about it. just my two cent rambling.
#8.1 Danrarbc641 on 13 Mar 2003 - 22:03
[neoquote=#8.0 by fizik3]Yea i like the numbering scheme as well. it isnt really meant for the novice to compare speeds with intel anyway. it is a 64bit processor, what are novices doing with a 64bit architecture anyway? And there really is someone out there buying a processor because one number is significantly higher than the other, then they are plain stupid anyway, if the number is SIGNIFICANTLY higher on one processor, then they SHOULD know there is a drastic difference and might as well inquire about it. just my two cent rambling.[/neoquote] You don't think AMD wants their entire line to be based on the same architecture eventually? My point is this could hurt AMD in the future. And yes, there will be many people out there who will buy the significantly higher number without questioning why the difference is that big. There are a lot of idiots in the world.
#9 fizik3 on 13 Mar 2003 - 20:25
now... doesnt that make a lot of sense to you, Danrarbc641?
#10 Darkness2k on 14 Mar 2003 - 01:23
Looks promising... Unfortunately I will not be using 64 bit architecture until doing so would actually improve things... Afterall, its hardly for the home user At least people can't say AMD are just trying to confuse people with the "XP 2000 not running at 2000mhz" etc criticism.. I guess some people might assume it runs at 140mhz lol
#11 Hills420 on 14 Mar 2003 - 02:20
Hasn't AMD given up yet????
#12 hardgiant on 14 Mar 2003 - 03:31
It's a server cpu which usually means the person recommending the server is smarter then the average Joe ( I hope ). This person would want to look at the benchmarks and NOT the clock speed.
#13 vyper on 14 Mar 2003 - 10:51
You know, they really irked me when they used a different MHz rate from Intel in the XP range, now they're actually starting to p*** me off. :disappoin

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)