AMD set to introduce Athlon XP 4400 in '03

[GT98]

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,70286,tk,dn110801X,00.asp

Supposed to be on a .10 micron process..though its still using the rated speed intoduced with the Athlon XP...so I guess its gonna be a chip in the high 2Ghz or low 3Ghz range....Wonder if it will work with my ABIT Kg7-RAID .

Scott

[Gurm]

And in 2005 we'll have the P6 4,000,000Mhz.

What, praytell, is the point of this announcement? I love the fact that all the CPU companies tell us what amazing shit we're gonna have in 2 years, and then either it's way early or way late. Never on time, not even once in the past few years. So why even bother making the announcement?

(Not you, THEM. You can feel free to post whatever you want, it's the CPU companies I don't get...)

- Gurm

[Belwarrior]

*grin* They are most probably hinting to M$ that M$ can come up with a even bigger bloatware.

I cant think of what to do with that speed (i mean we put a man on the moon with a 286 or its equivalent). If no one else M$ can really come up with something to slow the Intel/AMD XXXXMHz.

[Gurm]

Belwarrior - you're confused. The lunar lander had a total of about 8 BYTES of memory. That's right, I said BYTES. Big ferrite rings that held a charge. Charged = 1, Not Charged = 0.

The processing power was about the same as your average "give this away for free" solar-powered calculator. Maybe less.

- Gurm

[KvHagedorn]

I don't hink it will be the Athlon XP by that time.. they are talking about Sledgehammer there. These guys always have to release roadmaps and then journalists get all hyper about it.. It's just to say "this is the plan anyhow.." I've never seen a roadmap that advanced that wasn't revised somewhere along the way..

Yep, I was about to say.. the 286 was light years ahead of what the Apollo spacecraft carried on board.. to this day a 486 is still running the hubble space telescope.. that's probably overkill too. I really don't know what such extremely advanced computers are for anyhow, unless it is to amplify the flawed assumptions of their user/programmers or to take over a la Terminator 2 or something. I guess we could have some really seriously realistic 3D gaming in the future, but they will need to address that in video cards first.

[GT98]

The other bad thing about faster processors (if there is one!) is that it still lets programmers make crappy unoptimitized programs. ....

Scott

[Dr Mordrid]

No kidding!!

Can you imagine if current systems used software as optimized as the Amiga's was? I had full shot 3D programs on the Amiga that ran all of 200k on the disk, and that was counting all the support files and libraries. Now I have MSWord documents larger than that

What makes it worse is that they would run fine on 2 megs of RAM.

Dr. Mordrid

[Wombat]

2 megs of unprotected, corruptible, insecure RAM. That was part of the trade-off. They traded security for speed, which is fine for certain things, but you certainly wouldn't want it on any multi-tasking or internet-connected machine.

[omegaRED]

And 7.14MHz Motorola 68000 CPU ... or if you were lucky, a 40-50MHz 68040 CPU ... and 16Megs of RAM. I`m pretty sure i could`ve done all the 3d Stuff i do now on my P3 500 with 256Mb RAM.

Its still my favorite computer. I gave my old A500 to my GF, and still play games when i go there ...

[Wombat]

There are a couple Amiga emulators for the PC. Also, you can get QNX for x86.

[omegaRED]

Yeah i know, the most popular being WinUAE ... tho i havent checked it for 6-7 months or so ...