Slashdot Mirror
Athlon 64 Debuts
SpinnerBait writes "AMD launches their Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX chips today and there is
a full analysis with benchmarks up at HotHardware. Interestingly
enough, Intel pulled a fast one (literally) and released a new breed of Pentium
4 chips with 2MB of on board L3 cache, just in time to boost their performance
in the benchmarks for this launch. Regardless, the performance levels for
AMD's new flagship look very strong." Tom's has a story, or Tech Report, or see info straight from AMD.
Remember when the P4 came out and it was slower than the P3 at the same clock speed? Like P4 was then, the Athlon64 is designed with the future in mind, not blowing away everybody on day one and having no room to scale from then on.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
...of both the new AMD-64 and the Pentium 4 Extreme is that the prices of the older chips should start dropping like a stone.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I couldn't care less about their silly-ass naming schemes - I'm much more irritated with their ridiculous lack of planning on socket formats & memory controllers. Single channel on that kind of processor (the non-FX) - what were they smoking? Maybe if they want to call that the new Duron, but otherwise, that's just idiotic. They should also have increased (doubled!) the L1.
:)
It's not like any of this _really_ concerns me, mind, as I'm now saving up for a G5. It's time to 'Switch'!
I'd say with CPU prices like that AMD & Intel are now charging, the whole 'PCs are cheaper than Macs' theory is gonna get a lot less credence.
I'm _really_ interested in seeing some real & comprehensive benchmarks between all the processors, now that they're all out. G5 vs P4 vs P4EE vs Xeon vs Athlon 64/FX.
AMD created the 3DNow! extensions to the 80x86 instruction set architecture (ISA), also known as IA-32. They were a significant improvement over the original set of MMX extensions. However, later, Intel created the SSE (and SSE2) extensions. Guess what? AMD was forced to incorporate them into its future chips in addition to the 3DNow! extensions. Ignoring the SSE extensions would have cost AMD dearly in terms of marketshare. The fact of the matter is that Intel sets the global standard for the IA-32 ISA.
Now, AMD has created its own x86-64 extensions to the IA-32. You can be sure that Intel has created a different set of 64-bit extensions (which we shall call "INTEL-64") to the IA-32. After all, why would Intel support AMD in any way? Once Intel activates the INTEL-64 extensions in the upcoming Prescott, AMD will be forced to go back to the drawing board to incorporate the INTEL-64 into all future chips. The current Athlon64 will be like the K-5 -- interesting but without a future.
AMD will probably take an additional 2 years to produce an INTEL-64-compatiable chip. By that time, Intel would have locked 90% of the 64-bit desktop market with Prescott.
The worst news is for Sun. With Prescott, Intel has a 64 bit chip that will be significantly faster than the UltraSPARC III/IV. Right now, the Pentium 4 crushes the UltraSPARC III in performance. Please review the performance characteristics of the Pentium 4 at the SPEC web site. Since Prescott (successor to the Pentium 4) will be faster than its predecessor, Prescott will clean UltraSPARC's clock. Moreover, the number of applications that will run on Prescott -- the heir to the software empire of the x86 -- far exceeds the number of applications that run on UltraSPARC III/IV. On the key TPC-C benchmark, Prescott will clearly deliver outstanding performance, compared to the UltraSPARC III/IV.
In short, when Intel activates the INTEL-64 extensions in Prescott, Intel will force (1) AMD back to its usual state of borderline bankruptcy and (2) Sun into being a software company.
I think we can all see the wisdom of releasing the new processor before the new OS.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Though I am a die hard AMD supporter, i have to admit Intel has really pulled one up on AMD this time. The 64bit 3200+ is just about 15-20% faster than the stock and barrel Intel 32bit 3.2 GHz. Bad news for AMD this is, considering the retail price of these babies is 450 & 800$ (Normal and FX).
Yeah. I can't believe that you can get a brand new CPU that's 15-20% faster than the previous champion for only 25% less! Oh, and that's in 32-bit mode. If 64-bit computing takes hold then Intel is SOL at the moment - despite the rumors flying around about Prescott and 64-bit instructions.
Yeah, the Athlon64 3200+ is $465 (note, look at the retail price w/ heatsink to be fair), but the P4 3.2GHz is $619.
The Athlon64 FX-51 is certainly overpriced, given how miniscule the performance differences are, but that's hardly a surprise.
What Intel did pull wasn't a price/performance coup (because it isn't, by any means) but a paper launch debacle. Every single review I've seen thus far includes benchmarks for the P4 3.2EE -- which isn't available until November, and at prices similar to the Ath64-FX (based on preliminary 1000 CPU lot prices). The P4EE is competitive with the Ath64, but it's a smokescreen. You can buy an Athlon64 right now, but the P4EE is non-existant.
And BTW windows released XP 64bit Beta1 today.
Unfortunately it appears that there's a severe lack in available drivers. All the sites are having to use nVidia 5900FX's and even then can't bench any DX9 apps in Win64 due to no 64-bit DX9 being available.
I would take your post seriously if you had mentioned what part you believed Microsoft would play in the world of competing 64-bit extensions.
WXP for the Althon 64 is well on its way, as seen in the linked HotHardware review. Will Microsoft and the driver writing departments at hardware firms put up with a stealth announcement of another set of 64-bit extensions?
If you actually want the industry (and 64-bit computing as a whole) to move forward -- then go out and buy a chip...if nobody buys these because no OS/Software manufacturer writes 64-bit code, then there will be big trouble for little AMD. The idea was to build a chip that runs 32 and 64 bit code very quickly. What it sounds like you're saying is that you're waiting for Intel to release a 64-bit chip so that everyone optimizes their code for that. I, for one would rather back the company who was innovative and was first to market with a pretty cool product than the biggest guy on the block (er...industry...whatever).
From the benchmarks I've seen -- it does a pretty damn good job at both 32 and 64 bit code (especially for a first release without a good 64-bit clean codebase). It manages to beat the existing 3.2 Ghz P4 for cheaper.
I hear what you're saying about waiting on at least one level though -- I can't remember ever spending $400 on a CPU, but I'm confident that in 6 months, those things will be selling for quite a bit less than they are now...they'll be a good bargain.
Finally, I have a 1.4Ghz Thunderbird as my primary desktop. At this point, it should be called a 1.4Ghz Shitbird. I intend to replace it -- the only questions are: when, and replace with what? I know that if I decide to get an Athlon64-ish chip, I won't be making that decision based on whether or not there are 64-bit apps/OS'es for it. For what you pay, it works great...I'll make my decision based on price:performance ratio on what's available now...and from what I can see, it already shines against a much more mature platform.
-Turkey
I read several of the reviews, and all stuck with 32 bit code for the comparition between the Intel P4 and the AMD Athalon 64. Linux runs on the Atahlon in 64 bit mode, wouldn't be hard to compile PovRay and Doom on a 64 bit compiler and see if anything changes. Thats just for an easy test.
Many real world (science?) applications benifit from 64 bit processors, find some (presumably running on UltraSparc, PPC, Alpha, or such) and port them over to see how the 64bit abilities of this chip compares to the other existing chips.
I run open source OSes, and open Source applications. I don't care about 32 bit performance because I'm fairly sure that if I did have an Athalon 64 I wouldn't run 32 bit code very often. I can choose between many chips, compatable instruction sets to me means gcc (or other compiler) has an output for them. 32 bit x86 compatiabily is nice for the few times I have to run something 32 bit (normally in Wine) and that doesn't happen very often.
Intel's chip is the better choice for the user who wants performance in apps that actually exist today.
Based on what?
The Athlon64 outperforms the P4 in virtually every benchmark, often by a hefty margin.
Ignore the results from the P4EE chip -- you said you wanted something that actually exists today. The P4EE will not be available until sometime in November.
On top of that the AMD Athlon64 3200+ costs ~$465, while the P4 3.2 costs ~$620. So you get slightly more power for considerably less cash. The motherboards appear to be roughly the same price for a Socket 754 board and a 865PE-based board (or you can drop more money for a 875-based board and get virtually no performance improvement -- your choice).
All of that said, if you want to buy the best x86 chip right now and money's no object -- buy Intel. Not because it's faster (it isn't), but because it's probably going to be more stable. We're talking about a 1st generation CPU on 1st generation motherboards. Not a great prescription for stability there. If money is an issue, but you still have to have the fastest thing out there, then buy an AthlonXP -- the 3200+ is about the same price as the Athlon64, but the MB's are cheaper and more stable (just as stable as P4 chips/mobo's).
If you want to be a realist and get the best bang for your buck then stop looking at the fastest chips available and start looking at the best price point -- a P42.6C or AthlonXP 2800+.
FUD, lack of evidence, and outright lies - they call this journalism? They dismiss the Apple's claims about the G5's performance without a) including it in their later benchmark or b) citing any references.
Because sane, savvy people in the technology industry should know better.
We have had 64bit AMD systems running here before the Apple G5 announcement, additionally, we have had Itanium with Windows XP 64 edition running here for over a year.
Considering we ACTUALLY have these 'shipping' systems already in our office and labs for quite some time, do we need a reference from the article's author to know that Apple was lying out their ass?
Where in the hell have you been?
Apple was NOT the first 64bit desktop PC, their performance numbers were 'admittedly' pulled from a comparison of slower 32bit Xeon CPUs, and only showed the specific few tests that the G5 actually outperformed even the older Xeon chips.
And the last nail in this Apple shenanigan is that Mac OSX (even the new release for the G5s) is NOT a 64bit OS, and has no plans to be a 64bit OS in the near future.
I don't dislike Apple or their products, but their marketing department needs to be whacked up side the head. Instead of billing the G5 for what it IS and its TRUE good points, they go out on this hyperbole that is false and make a fool of themselves.
I'm sorry you and other people buy into it. If you are so worried about facts and citing references, why haven't you checked the facts that Apple has been purporting? You would have found they are false which is what the rest of the industry already knew.
You claim to have been using 64 bit x86 CPUs for over a year (Itanium) as well as from AMD (Opteron), but what you fail to realize is that Apple is claiming first 64 bit DESKTOP. The Itanium and Opteron chips are not desktop CPUs, but server and workstation chips. This is just silly semantics, and anyone who believes marketing drivel should have their head examined. But to simply dismiss a whole platform for these stupid marketing claims is ridiculous. The 1.6 and 1.8 GHz G5s have been in the marketplace with a final version of MacOS X 10.2.7 for over a month, making them the first viable 64 bit DESKTOP solution available in my book, since they run a final, stable version of MacOS X which is as tuned as it needs to be for 64 bit operation (mostly 42 bit memory address space support and a few 64 bit math libs), and a good consumer user experience. Someone trying to use Windows XP 64 right now had better be an expert user, to deal with all the problems with missing drivers. If you want to argue that the opteron was a desktop CPU or had desktop solutions (since it can run Win32), that might be a valid argument, but you can't fault Apple's marketing department for trying to cash in on the 64bit buzz, especially since most people who watch those commercials have never heard of an opteron.
As for benchmarks, it's silly to omit the G5s from the comparison for religious reasons, and people want to see how they stack up. The only way to counter Apple's marketing drivel is to do actual real-world benchmarking using cross platform apps and benches. The 'slow' Xeon chips Apple compared the G5 to were the fastest available at the time from Intel. I don't know why they didn't compare themselves to the Opterons, but them's the breaks. What we need now is for all these PC tech sites to get some dual G5s and compare them to what they think is the top of the line on the x86 platform. FUD and hostility will only make people see these sources as biased and unprofessional. Objective comparisons between G5s, Athlon64 FX and P4 EE will drive lots of page hits, since people are starved for this info right now (due in part to Apple's excessive marketing claims). So, either put up or shut up, and be happy that Apple's marketing claims drove so much interest in G5 comparisons w/ x86 offerings.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)