HalfAHertz

filip007DDR 3 have higher latency and it will not run any better with only 200MHz BUS.

It's not a 200Mhz Bus. That's just the base frequentcy. Multyply that by the HT multi of 10 and you get 2000Mz (3,6GT/s) and then I think it's doubled again because of dual channel memory, for an end result of 4000 Mhz. (someone please correct me if I'm wrong)

Well not exactly this either.
AMD have their Memory Controller / Northbridge built into the cpu since K8 so the "FSB" have nothing to do with memory bandwidth.:p
DDR3 have higher timmings but that does not directly transfer to greater latencies, since the higher clock rate do allow more operations.
So unless you have some cheap DDR3 1066, DDR3 is not slower. It all depends on which DDR3 modules you are comparing to.

HyperTransport on the other hand, handles all the other communications for the CPU.

HalfAHertzIt's not a 200Mhz Bus. That's just the base frequentcy. Multyply that by the HT multi of 10 and you get 2000Mz (3,6GT/s) and then I think it's doubled again because of dual channel memory, for an end result of 4000 Mhz. (someone please correct me if I'm wrong)

Host frequency = 200 MHz. 200 x 13.5 = 2700 MHz (CPU clock speed). 200 x 9.0x (NB multiplier) = 1800 MHz (NB speed). HyperTransport effective speed = 1800 MHz x 2 = 3600 MHz (3.6 GT/s).

Now by playing with the host frequency, you end up playing with a lot of other speeds.

can this be possible? AMD-V? And so many of C2D do not have virtualization... man o' man this is shitty stuff Intel... get virtualization on all products able to support it (like PIV+ or so), not based on market niche...

AMD x2 3800+ EE Brisbane with Geforce 7 board
or
Intel E1400 with G31 board

Both cost the same...what is better for linux?

I don't want any driver problems with AMD...hell no!

yeh they did say this would have virtualisation

toyocan this be possible? AMD-V? And so many of C2D do not have virtualization... man o' man this is shitty stuff Intel... get virtualization on all products able to support it (like PIV+ or so), not based on market niche...

I dunno why people are so uptight about that. What exactly are you going to virtualize on such a low-end hardware? Why and how is this going to be beneficial. And do you expect any usefull levels of perfotmance from a 40-50$ component? Virtualization is usefull for cloud computing and enterprices.

For the life of me I just can't think of any scenario where you would need ADVANCED virtualization technology with such a low end hardware. Maybe just emulate an older os for backwards compatibility...

You can still use VMware even without AMD-V or intel VT, you won't have direct access to the advanced functions and it's going to have more overhead and perform sower but you still get the basics you would need for a compatibility perspective.

filip007AMD x2 3800+ EE Brisbane with Geforce 7 board
or
Intel E1400 with G31 board

Both cost the same...what is better for linux?

I don't want any driver problems with AMD...hell no!

so you think you will have driver problems with amd and with intel no ?

Ubuntu have problems on AMD740 boards.

I don't like Athlon X2 the old models are not that good and new are just junky Phenoms with big power eat up.

single core should die already. buy a single core now and in 1 years it wont be enought for some tasks.

mtosevsingle core should die already. buy a single core now and in 1 years it wont be enought for some tasks.

That's a very bold statement...

I see ACC will come to play, these are regor, with a core missing, so you may be able to ACC it back to a dual :)

jamesrt2004I see ACC will come to play, these are regor, with a core missing, so you may be able to ACC it back to a dual :)

good point.

Not intended to be a benchmark monster

This is the kind of chip you'd like to use in a low-power netbook, internet computer, music server...something on that level. For that application, a hefty-cache 45nm single-core...I'd probably even go and underclock/undervolt it. This would be great for that sort of thing.

you dont need a dual core to do basic tasks like office work, internet or that. basic machines right?

also for media you can let the graphics card do all the decoding

Seriously, with the E1400 going for $49, I'm not interested in this chip one bit. Single core processor need to die. They are only good for office use anymore, and the E1400 does those tasks with ease, and is better at other tasks, so why even consider the X1 140?

I wouldn't even hesitate to use an overclocked E1400 for gaming, it actually does quite well once you get it past 3.0GHz, but even at 4.0GHz I wouldn't want to use a single core for gaming...

HalfAHertzI dunno why people are so uptight about that. What exactly are you going to virtualize on such a low-end hardware? Why and how is this going to be beneficial. And do you expect any usefull levels of perfotmance from a 40-50$ component? Virtualization is usefull for cloud computing and enterprises.

You'll not be able to use Windows 7's "XP mode" feature, which requires AMD-V or Intel VT. And yes, that feature does seem to have many takers.

btarunrYou'll not be able to use Windows 7's "XP mode" feature, which requires AMD-V or Intel VT. And yes, that feature does seem to have many takers.

Most of the computers that come with this processor will likely come with Win7 Home Premium, which won't have XP mode anyway...

The people that are going to shell out the change for Business or Ultimate Edition, probably aren't going to be looking to run it on the lowest end hardware available.

Though I do wish Intel would enable Virtualization on it's lower end processors, currently the cheapest processor you can get from Intel that supports it is the E6300. Though I don't think Intel expected Microsoft to release XP Mode and require Virtualization. Which is why the E6300, which is one of the latest processors to be released, supports it while the E7200-E7500 doesn't(the new E7600 does though).

filip007Ubuntu have problems on AMD740 boards.

I don't like Athlon X2 the old models are not that good and new are just junky Phenoms with big power eat up.

first anybody who takes noobiebuntu as a good example/distro of linux should shoot themselves, I have used vector linux,desktop bsd, nexenta and wolvix on 740 chipset based boards and guess what, no more problems then i ran across with any of the many intel based linux installs i have done.

as to the "junky phenoms" comment, these are phenom2 based chips not phenom 1 based.

its true and at the same time its not, newtekie.

The people most interested in using XP's virtualisation inst your mum 'n dad situation - its enthusiasts or tech support at small businesses who are going to be running this. In that situation, it wouldnt be surprising to find high end CPU's, low end CPU's overclocked, or 50 machines running celerons.

While i agree its not as bad as it sounds, many chips DO support it - it WILL cause problems for budget intel users, thats guaranteed. AFter 7 is out I expect no less than one thread a month about it here on TPU, even after we put up a damned sticky.

newtekie1Most of the computers that come with this processor will likely come with Win7 Home Premium, which won't have XP mode anyway...

The people that are going to shell out the change for Business or Ultimate Edition, probably aren't going to be looking to run it on the lowest end hardware available.

you are quite WRONG on this account, alot of large companies buy whatever is cheapist that can do what they want, One company around here recently bought a bunch of atom based mini desktops, singel core models, they wanted them for the reception staff and people who just use office and such, alot of companies do that kinda thing, its suprising how many infact, school districts do that as well, if dell/gateway/exct offers systems with these in them at a low price, alot of companies will buy them for systems that really dont need alot of power.

Hell I went in to our local DSHS office a few weeks back with a friend and found out they now have dual monitor dell thin client systems, pentium-d based, they are around 1 year old now from what the lady said, they have dual screens because they where cheaper then buying one large screen for each system, Im quite sure the p-d was chosen because thats what dell was trying to dump on govt agencys and gave them a killer price on them, they do the job, they arent fast, but really, they dont need to be they are office machiens.

and if you think this is bad, I know of a company in oregon thats slowly replacing their older desktop systems with eeepc's *shudders*

Musselsits true and at the same time its not, newtekie.

The people most interested in using XP's virtualisation inst your mum 'n dad situation - its enthusiasts or tech support at small businesses who are going to be running this. In that situation, it wouldnt be surprising to find high end CPU's, low end CPU's overclocked, or 50 machines running celerons.

While i agree its not as bad as it sounds, many chips DO support it - it WILL cause problems for budget intel users, thats guaranteed. AFter 7 is out I expect no less than one thread a month about it here on TPU, even after we put up a damned sticky.

true dat, but also alot of companies will be interested(large ones) that have 2k and xp(from what i read, they will also allow 2k mode not just xp mode) because alot of companies run OLD ASS apps that they dont want to pay to update, apps the REQUIRE a specific windows version and/or a specific IE version, by allowing it on low end hardware they effectively allow the company to cheap out and get their employees a setup that can let them run those old apps on a modern os.

and you WILL see people posting questions/complaints because they where to stupid/lazy to make sure the hardware they bought will do what they want before they bought it......(damn stupid noobs!!!)

i love windows 2K :D its my backup OS. 64MB of ram, and it works fine. If you found a way to have sex with 2K and got it pregnant, it would still be lighter than XP.

All i can see, is either businesses using thin clients continuing to use XP, small businesses upgrading their CPUs (probably to AMD), and home users ranting on TPU trying to blame everyone but themselves.

Since its been announced in advance that it requires hardware support, i'm sure any businesses with long term plans will upgrade in advance - its not like they'll leap on 7 the moment it comes out. They'll do it around SP1/SP2, and after they convince the boss some new PC's are neccesary.

QTF about 2k, and the fact is, as long as you got a clue what your doing, it can game as well or better then xp, and it dosnt hate dual core cpu's, it hates HT tho, those virtual(fake)cores throw it for a loop, it thinks they are real and tries to use them as such :S

I can see some companies jumping on win7, not most but some, mainly due to the fact that alot of them are going to be upgrading 2k boxes so they can support stuff like office 2k7 that wont run on anything older then xp(at least not without haxing the installer)

Meecrob
AMD x2 7750 is not Phenom II based and it eat power like Phenom X4 core...OK

Some said that on forum last time...what is true than ???

Musselsits true and at the same time its not, newtekie.

The people most interested in using XP's virtualisation inst your mum 'n dad situation - its enthusiasts or tech support at small businesses who are going to be running this. In that situation, it wouldnt be surprising to find high end CPU's, low end CPU's overclocked, or 50 machines running celerons.

While i agree its not as bad as it sounds, many chips DO support it - it WILL cause problems for budget intel users, thats guaranteed. AFter 7 is out I expect no less than one thread a month about it here on TPU, even after we put up a damned sticky.

That is true, but I find it hard to believe that people that are willing to shell out the extra cash for Win7 Business or Ultimate are going to be running it on extreme low end hardware like this.

I agree, it will be a problem when it comes to some of the people running on E5000 and E7000 processor, as those are rather mid-range. Though I think Intel has realized their mistake in disabling Virtualization with those processors, which is why the latest E7600 and E6300 both have it enabled again.

XP Mode is only being implemented in the higher end versions of Win7, because those versions tend to be run on higher end hardware. I know this isn't always the case, as there are always a small few that don't fall into the trend.

Meecrobyou are quite WRONG on this account, alot of large companies buy whatever is cheapist that can do what they want, One company around here recently bought a bunch of atom based mini desktops, singel core models, they wanted them for the reception staff and people who just use office and such, alot of companies do that kinda thing, its suprising how many infact, school districts do that as well, if dell/gateway/exct offers systems with these in them at a low price, alot of companies will buy them for systems that really dont need alot of power.

Hell I went in to our local DSHS office a few weeks back with a friend and found out they now have dual monitor dell thin client systems, pentium-d based, they are around 1 year old now from what the lady said, they have dual screens because they where cheaper then buying one large screen for each system, Im quite sure the p-d was chosen because thats what dell was trying to dump on govt agencys and gave them a killer price on them, they do the job, they arent fast, but really, they dont need to be they are office machiens.

and if you think this is bad, I know of a company in oregon thats slowly replacing their older desktop systems with eeepc's *shudders*

I never said companies don't use weak hardware, so I'm certainly not wrong, I completely understand that there are plenty of business that use lackluster hardware like this Sempron.

However, my point was that the companies running cheaper hardware, are cheap in the software side also. Most of them will probably either stick with XP to avoid the costs of upgrading to Win7, or if they do upgrade, will likely do so to a lower version that doesn't even have XP Mode. And if they are upgrading with the expectation of using XP Mode, they would be stupid to not make sure their cheap hardware supports it first.

How many of these same companies that buy the cheapest machines possible are also going to say "it doesn't need anything more than Win7 Basic, they are office machines"?