Talk:Athlon 64

message: It's a alot better that the x2 has it's own page since the tech is different and people who are looking for information actually get a good digested form of what the x2 is all about.
JPN --68.22.204.205 23:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Click on Athlon 64 FX. I don't think it should be redirected to the basic article about the AMD Athlon. If you guys are re-directing that term, I think it should point directly to this article. Just my opinion. --Anonymous Cow 20:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked, it appears that it was a article before for about a year and it was redirected recently (Feb 14). I reverted the redirect. The Athlon 64 FX should have a seperate article because of the differences between the two proccessor types despite the similar names. Norman Rogers\talk 23:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is with the weird redirect for Athlon 64 FX?

message: I have made some changes.
For an article to have a subheading "Athlon 64" even though the article has a title "Athlon 64" seems a bit redundant.
I removed references to the Athlon 64 architecture (Athlon 64 is a product that implements the AMD64 architecture. There is no Athlon 64 architecture), and information abou the AMD64 architecture that is not specific to the Athlon 64 processor. This fits the pattern of the rest of wikipedia, where articles about processor products don't go into details about the processor's architecture, but instead just point out that they implement a certain architecture, and let the AMD64 article handle that information.
Samrolken 01:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some changes 

message: Can someone differentiate between "ClawHammer", "Newcastle" and "Winchester"? Thanks.
DanielVonEhren 23:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should say something about the different revisions of the Athlon 64. Clawhammer and Newcastle are basically the same processor, but with only 512 kB Cache in the latter case. Both can either be revision C0 or CG. CG has an improved memory controller and is more energy efficient. Then came revision D0 aka "Winchester" (90 nm with an even more improved memory controller and less power consumption). --Echoray 17:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences and distinctions, please 

message: "940: Opteron and old Athlon 64 FX, 128-bit memory interface - Requires registered DDR memory, but can use ECC"
: This wording is misleading, and possibly inaccurate: Registered DDR and ECC are far from mutually exclusive--they are usually paired—Trevor Caira 12:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, that's very misleading. Removed the ECC bit, as it was kind of pointless anyway. SVI 15:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing memory terminology 

message: As it was, the article referred to the Athlon 64 FX-60 as an unreleased CPU. I changed this to reflect its recent release date (today!) and placed emphasis on the dual-core nature of this CPU as opposed to the other models in the FX line. I also defined the analogy between it and the Athlon 64 FX-53, both of which saw/will see two versions for two different sockets (940 then 939 for FX-53 and 939 then AM2 for FX-60). Oh and it's fine and dandy that the Athlon 64 FX and Athlon 64 articles are merged now, but I think the FX series should at LEAST get its own section! Another user pointed out that modern FXes are just Socket 939 San Diego chips with a high clock rate... but let's not forget the architectural basis of the FX line! The Athlon 64 FX-51 was very similar to the Opteron when they both were released originally (even note they were both on Socket 940).  Because this gives it a clear distinction between it and the Athlon 64 line, and now the fact that the FX line has both single and dual core items, I think it is worthy of its own section in this article.  What do you think? pinky 06:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athlon 64 FX-60 released! 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Oppose - I don't see a need for more specificity (nobody else makes Athlons, as far as I know, and the Intel processor pages don't have "Intel"), and the other pages only acquired the extra "AMD" recently. Guy Harris 12:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: *Oppose - I don't think that this is necessary. Athlon 64 is not less or more specific than AMD Athlon 64. I will agree that if such a change is made, then more products should be changed too (e.g. Pentium 4 as Hahnchen stated). --kostas213 17:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further comments on moving

message: I just created a page for the K8L, would it be good to mention it? 
Pueywei 14:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: K8's sucessor, K8L

message: There should be a statement under the vencie cores, that some are infact manchesters with a cut HTT bridge between the cores.  These prossessors did not make the grade as a X2 but make great single cores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jthull (talk • contribs) .
:Thank you for your suggestion regarding :Athlon 64! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester core / single core 

message: The newly filled-in History section (by the way, nice work BorgHunter) states that the main benefit of socket 939 was its 1GHz hypertransport. Surely the dual channel memory controller did more? It has been shown that even a Hypertransport speed of 600MHz is fine, by lowering the HT multiplier, so a small 200MHz bump hardly made the difference. The near-doubling of memory bandwith did, however. I edited the section but it has been reverted because the citation is incorrect, but the citation was a Toms Hardware review of the first 939 parts, and it clearly states that 754 has a single channel memory controller.
Just thought it would be best to put something in the talk page rather than start a revert war.AthlonBoy 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, that last edit was made in a rush so I wouldn't be late to work. :-P I've added the dual channel mention and included a citation. —BorgHunter  (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main 939 benefit 

message: Should that list be on the main article, or should we make a subarticle List of Athlon 64 models? I don't much like having it there, but I want some input before I go about moving it. —BorgHunter  (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might get some objections when (and not if, but when) you nominate this for FA. Also, 47 references is insufficient. There should always be at least 200 references in an article, including a reference to WP:EL for the heading "external links". :-) — Deckiller 05:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There's already a List of AMD Athlon 64 microprocessors page, so there's no need for a "List of Athlon 64 models" page.  One could argue that the list on the Athlon 64 can shrink (or disappear), with the details going on the "List of AMD Athlon 64 microprocessors" page.  (The same probably applies to other x86 processor pages, whether Intel or AMD; there are already "List of" pages for several of them.) Guy Harris 07:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of models 

message: I've been all over the Net trying to get some more information on this "Hardware-set permission levels" business, and unless it's part of Presidio or that virtualisation thing (Pacifica?) can't find anything! Where did this bit of info come from and which 64s is this feature in?
:(Unless that was just a reference to the NX-bit)
:It sounds like you're reading about Data Execution Prevention.  DigitalEnthusiast 21:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hardware-set permission levels" 

message: Huh? Which of these models is the FX-60, FX-64, FX-70, FX-72 etc? This should be more layman friendly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.129.215.244 (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you're looking for: this section? ;) --202.40.137.202 06:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which is which? 

message: I have added the "update" box tag because this article is in need of some serious revision work. As of today (March 2009), the Athlon 64 processor line is no longer produced, but there are passages in the article text mentioning things that "will" happen in 2006 or 2007... We all know that 2 or 3 years are aeons in processor technology. Yet there are still many computers with Athlon 64 processors working very well out there (I am writing this from a 3800+ Venice myself, have no complaints and no need to change to a more recent or faster processor), and the processor series will always have historical value (there are articles on the Zilog Z-80, Motorola 6502 and Intel 8080, after all), so the article is and will remain important.
I am not qualified to make the necessary revisions (I came here to consult the article in the first place) but in addition to the verb tenses and factual updates, there are also two things that, in my opinion, are missing from the article and I would suggest to be added. The first one is a clarification on exactly to what degree is the K10 architecture derived from the AMD64 one used on Athlon 64s, and to what degree one can consider a current Phenom to be a direct descendant of the Athlon 64 series. I suppose this should be more properly explained in the K10 article (it is not, either, at this point - at least not clearly), but I believe it should be at least outlined here.
The second point - perhaps of more interest to some readers - would be the role of each series in the AMD vs. Intel race. As far as I know, the Athlon 64 was the last line of processors that put AMD ahead of Intel in terms of performance. Athlon 64s were faster than Pentium 4s, but Core 2 gave Intel the lead again and K10 has been unable to catch up (at least so far). I think this gives an additional degree of importance to this article, because it also documents an important moment in the history of personal computing.
--UrsoBR (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added "update" tag, some suggestions 

message: I have a bit of a hard time believing that the ORIGINAL Athlon 64 is truly consumer-oriented. I mean, here are my issues:
1. The article says that the Athlon 64 was the "first 64-bit processor to be targeted at the average consumer", and yet EXTREMELY FEW of the original Athlon 64 PCs (around 2004) were aimed at the "average consumer". Almost all of them were essentially high-end workstations, aimed at power users (including the "hardcore gaming" crowd) and obviously at businesses. In nearly every case, they cost over $1000 dollars (in many cases over $1500 dollars, and in either case, the price is higher when adjusted for inflation), and very few of them were aimed at "typical home users".
A typical Intel-based consumer-oriented PC in 2004 had a 32-bit Pentium 4 processor (or Celeron equivalent), whereas a comparable AMD-based PC generally had an Athlon XP (which of course, is 32-bit). And given the extremely small number of consumer-oriented 64-bit programs that were available at the time, this is no surprise to me.
Virtually all of the articles that I have seen from the time period have said that the Sempron was intended for servers, and the Athlon 64 for desktops, but nothing about the Athlon 64 being intended for the "average consumer".
2. If the Athlon 64 was really all that consumer-oriented as such, then why were there so few consumer-oriented PCs that shipped with that processor? And why were there almost no mid-range PCs (in any sense) that shipped with it, especially ones that cost under $1000 dollars?
3. Another issue that I see here is the fact that the 64-bit processors that were available at the time (including the Athlon 64) did not come in a low-end to mid-range version. All of the 64-bit processors available at the time came only in high-end versions, making it even more impractical for nearly all consumers.
4. Unmistakably, the Athlon 64 introduced many new features to the industry. But what use did they have back in around 2004 or 2005? Remember that back then, almost all consumer systems being produced at the time only had about 256 MB of RAM to 512 MB of RAM, and very few consumer-oriented programs used even that much, and many people got on quite fine with 192 MB of RAM, 128 MB of RAM, or even as little as 64 MB of RAM.
Pretty much all programs that really needed the extra performance and RAM upgradability were programs that made heavy use of 3D graphics (such as 3D professional design/CAD software or games aimed at "hardcore gamers"). And technology was also a lot simpler back then also - technologies that we take for granted today such as DVD, video recording (DVD-RW/Blu-Ray), and other such technologies were still catching on, and many people still got on quite fine without them. Even a CD-RW drive was still something that people could live without because of how recent it was at the time.
And there was also no consumer-oriented 64-bit OS available at the time, almost certainly due to the exceptionally small number of home users who had a 64-bit PC at the time. Likewise, the 64-bit version of Windows that was available at the time (Windows XP Professional x64 Edition for workstations and Windows Server 2003 for servers) reflected this by not offering a "Home Edition".
I firmly believe that if there were large numbers of 64-bit PCs aimed at average consumers, as well as relatively inexpensive 64-bit PCs, low-end to mid-range 64-bit processors, and a large amount of people willing to move up to those systems, then Microsoft would have almost certainly included a Home Edition.
But the way it turned out, very few (probably less than 1%) of home users even had a 64-bit PC at all, and so from what I can see, Microsoft likewise reflected this by leaving out the Home Edition in its 64-bit operating system, which in turn meant no 64-bit consumer OS.
5. It is also worth mentioning that even if the Athlon 64 WAS intended to be a consumer-oriented processor, the vast majority of PCs that shipped with it were not aimed at the average consumer as such. The closest that I can think of, personally, is Alienware, and their systems were essentially high-end workstations, but aimed at hardcore gamers and possibly overclockers, with 3D game-style graphics emblazoned over all of their cases.
The only exception to this would be eMachines's systems, since they offered Athlon 64-based PCs that were aimed at typical home users. But they knew how to make a value-oriented PC with much more computing power back then, and that was where they stand out.
So it can be reasoned in this case (if there is any valid evidence for the processor's supposed consumer focus), that the Athlon 64 by itself was a consumer-oriented processor, but that the vast majority of systems that shipped with it were not aimed at the average consumer, and that 64-bit as a whole was not aimed at general consumers.
And again, the problem here was that the 64-bit processors didn't come in a low-end to mid-range version - they were all high-end processors. If a processor only came in a high-end version, is it really aimed at average consumers?
6. If the Athlon 64 was really so "average consumer-oriented" as the pages claim, then why did AMD even have to release the 64-bit Semprons just to extend the market of the 64-bit x86 platform from being a "niche" market to being a mass market for consumers? Wouldn't this be a massive contradiction of terms?
Think about it: If someone supposedly invented a particular model of car to give consumers the ability to drive on diesel fuel rather than gasoline, then why would the same company invent ANOTHER model of car to promote diesel among consumers? Isn't there something a bit inconsistent here?
And the 64-bit Sempron processor actually came in a low-end to mid-range version because that's exactly what the Sempron was, yet no Athlon 64 processor came in a low-end to mid-range version - prior to this, 64-bit processors were only available in a high-end version, whereas almost all home users use low-end to mid-range chips in their computers.
7. The fact that the early 64-bit chips were only available in a high-end version greatly hurt 64-bit's growth, and the lack of mid-range consumer-oriented 64-bit PCs during that time period hurt growth even more. It was not until the Core 2 Duo was introduced that large numbers of people started moving up to 64-bit PCs, and it wasn't even until Windows Vista that it started seeing widespread adoption on the software side (and even wider adoption on the hardware side). Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 were aimed at businesses and power users, whereas Windows Vista was everyone's operating system.
Even as late as 2009, I knew quite a lot of people who still did not have a 64-bit PC at home. It was still quite common not to have a 64-bit PC as late as the late 2000s, and even as recently as 2010, 64-bit was still catching on. It was really with the Core 2 Duo and later Windows Vista (2006/2007 to 2009) that large numbers of people started moving up to 64-bit PCs (both hardware and software), and it was with Windows 7 (2009-2012) that having a 64-bit home PC became ubiquitous (both hardware and software).
Yet I believe that most of this delay could have simply been avoided, had there been a low-end to mid-range 64-bit processor all along, as well as a large enough amount of 64-bit consumer-oriented PCs being produced and distributed during that time period. Just as people could have very similarly adopted Windows NT earlier, had there been a consumer-oriented version prior to Whistler (later Windows XP).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WindowsUser2 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athlon 64 - consumer-oriented? 

message: To IP 104.238.169.127 - processor bears a name, not bares it. I reverted your edit. Please discuss here if you disagree. Cmpxchg8b (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bear, not bare 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Athlon 64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060427091322/http://techgage.com:80/review.php?id=2790 to http://www.techgage.com/review.php?id=2790
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: WTF 2405:204:5687:795E:10DB:2A8F:56ED:52F1 (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's going on!!??? 

message: I was disassembling an older computer for maintenance and I found the following writings on my AMD chip:
AMD AthlonTM 64
ADA3200DAA4BP
LBBLE 0538APBW
Z810346J51626
(space)
some QR code (didn't scan it)
(a bit less space)
ASSEMBLED IN MALAYSIA
(turning the CPU 90° now)
(at the bottom)
AMD (logo for AMD)
(M) (C) 2001 AMD  (the paranthesis for (M) and (C) stand for the circle around them)
Spotted some more lads with same conclusions and some other sites that mention that the chip was released in 2001
here are some:
 - https://technical.city/en/cpu/Athlon-64-3200-plus
  -> "AMD started Athlon 64 3200+ sales on January 2001 at a recommended price of $150. Based on a Clawhammer architecture, this desktop processor is primarily aimed at home systems. It has 1 core and 1 thread, and is based on 130 nm manufacturing technology, with a maximum frequency of 2000 MHz and a locked multiplier. Compatibility-wise, this is AMD Socket 754 processor with a TDP of 89 Watt."
 - https://linustechtips.com/topic/1377710-2001-amd-athlon-64-x2-pc/
  -> Title of the thread
 - https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/possible-amd-athlon-64-prototype-from-2001.2984590/
  -> Dedicated thread
  -> Mentions the same model, the year and the assembler country, different identifiable numbers though (individual product ID?)
Personal assumptions:
 - This might be a Mandela effect, similar to that baseball (commercial?) with the blonde, white skinned female reporter being changed by the black haired, dark brown skinned female reporter (a couple of internet users showed how this specific Mandela effect actually happens via changing rooms and/or using older technology - as in old Nokia phones)
 - This might be a prototype that came with prebuilt computers so AMD could create a dedicated AMD64 CPU manufacturing process, gaining a significant technological advantage against adversary companies when it comes to the production volume of such chips
 - This might be a manufacturing error via laziness of reusing the preexisting stamps for saving costs (unlikely due to the fact that different chips have different IDs, from what I've seen) or they haven't updated their copyright licenses or something like that
The lads that know more about this, good luck digging up info on this topic as I'm quite curious about this one
A note to be made, the CPU is on a MSI MS-7025 motherboard, which I found a quick mention that it was released in 2005
Thank you for your time! 79.115.35.161 (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've found that AMD Athlon 64 might've been actually made in 2001