AMD's 'Newcastle' Budget Athlon64 Chips Analyzed

Edward Scissorhands writes "CNET News.com reported on Thursday that AMD had released a new "budget" Athlon64 CPU. Appearing on the AMD roadmap under the codename of "Newcastle", these chips are identical to the 754-pin Athlon64 3200+ in every way except for the size of their L2 cache (512KB vs. 1MB). CNET suggests that some of these chips may be 3200's that don't pass QA as having full 1MB caches. Newcastle chips are about half the cost of their 1MB cached counterparts, though preliminary benchmarks from Anand indicate favourable performance/price."

Comments

Many companies do this...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what many companies do. If certain chips cannot pass Q&A then remark them down and you do not lose your inventory.

cheers
Rick

Re:Many companies do this...

[Zathrus]

They're on the roadmap for Q1, which would just miss christmas at the earliest.

To be technical, Q1 would just miss this year at the earliest.

That said -- you didn't read the article, did you (feign shocked surprise)? The chips aren't supposed to be out yet according to the roadmap, but they are. You can order them at a reseller near you (they're available cheaper elsewhere, but I like vendors that never, ever give me trouble, ship on time (or ahead of time), and have good return policies) right now and AMD added them to their pricing sheets on Dec 15. So it's an official product that got out ahead of time.

Of course, unless you have someone who stocks them locally you'll be hardpressed to actually get it before Christmas. There's always overnight shipping, but that'll eat a large chunk of the money you're saving over the 3200+.

Re:Many companies do this...

[Sivar]

Not quite. They're on the roadmap for Q1, which would just miss christmas at the earliest.

Roadmap or not, you can buy 512K cache Athlon64s right now.

bad bad bad

[Anonymous Coward]

a processor named after a beer?

Re:bad bad bad

[UnknowingFool]

Why not? They already a version of Linux is named after a beer (Redhat 7.0=Guinness). So all they need is motherboard named after a snack, then you've got a whole party:
Yes, I've got Newcastle with Pretzels. They're running with Guinness.

[H]ardOCP has had this story for a few days now

[unborracho]

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTYw

Kyle of HardOCP makes a bunch of speculations as to AMD's purpose for releasing these chips, and comes to basically the same conclusions that CNet does.

He sugguests that these chips are also just the ones that only had partial working cache (a portion of the cache was working, the other portion was not) and to save money they are selling these as a "budget" chip. Seems like a good idea to me!

Re:[H]ardOCP has had this story for a few days now

[cK-Gunslinger]

That's pretty standard practice in hardware manufacturing. It also explains the reasons why some hardware (Radeon 9500, etc) can be "unlocked" and turned into the real thing. They don't actually test "every" part at first, just samples of a batch. If X% fail the full spec, the entire batch is remarked as reduced-spec parts. They they are individually tested at the lower spec. It stands to reason that a certain number of these part would have passed the more rigorous full-spec tests, thus us "cheap" buyers can sometimes get lucky and get a nice piece of hardware for a small price.

Re:[H]ardOCP has had this story for a few days now

[Zathrus]

Argh. No.

The 386SX was a completely and utterly different chip from the 386DX. The SX only had a 16-bit data path while the DX had a full 32-bit data path. This is not a minor change in the chip or board layout -- in fact, one of the major reasons that Intel released the 386SX was to reduce transition costs from 286 motherboards -- there's considerably less difference between 286 and 386SX than 286 and 386. The 386SX had no feature differences -- it was just slower.

I believe what you're thinking of is 486DX vs 486SX. The 486DX was the first Intel chip (in the 80x86 line) to integrate the FPU onboard. The 486SX didn't have the FPU, or the FPU was disabled post-manufacture (most likely due to failures in the FPU module, while the rest of the chip was fine). This is something that can be done during product test.

The funny thing about that was the poor schmucks who bought a 486SX and then decided they wanted the FPU after all... there was a second processor socket onboard, and when the "FPU" was plugged in it simply disabled the primary CPU completely -- the "FPU" chip was a full fledged 486DX. IIRC, there was another varient where the second CPU sat on top of the first CPU (and disabled it), but I can't recall for sure.

Looks like AMD..

[cK-Gunslinger]

.. has another winner on their hands. Excellent performance at a fraction of the price. 2 GHz, 64-bit performance for about $200 is nothing to sneeze at. Bring on the 64-bit apps/drivers! (And, of course, the MS OS.)

Re:Looks like AMD..

[cK-Gunslinger]

=P Well, like it or not, everyone knows it's Windows that currently drives the consumer market. The release of a Microsoft 64-bit OS is what will determine if/when the 64-bit desktop market takes off. The release of XP 64, followed by 64-bit aware device drivers will start the snowball. I would love to see some applications written to take advantage of those extra registers! (Linux apps aside.)

AMD changing pin # anyway

[3DKnight]

after 2004, the 754-pin sockets will make way for their new 939-pin sockets. AMD has said that they will continue upgrades for 754-pin 64-bit chips up to i think 3700+ After that you will need to buy a 939 pin motherboards. Though I wonder what the shelf life for the 754 pins are, since not that many programs can even make use of 64bit cpus yet.

Re:AMD changing pin # anyway

[unborracho]

There haven't been any official statements that their new processors are going 939-pin.. that is a speculation by a few highly-voiced individuals and off-the-record statements

Re:AMD changing pin # anyway

[the_2nd_coming]

well since they run 32 bit code natively and FASTER than the top of the line P4, I would say the shelf life is good.

Re:AMD changing pin # anyway

[Jeff DeMaagd]

As it is the 9xx pin FX jobs don't really have that much of a reason to exist yet because the performance increase is marginal, maybe 5%. Sometimes dual channel actually slows things down by a percent or two. I hope that this changes before the 7xx pin version goes away. I imagine that at a higher clock the difference becomes more noticable.

The only reason to get a 9xx pin chip is to get multiprocessing in the form of Opteron.

Just what I was waiting for

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a very good incentive to go 64 bit. I was thinking of getting a 2500 Barton, since my 1800 finally kicked it last week when the cooling fan gave out (this was right after a re-format, so the temperature monitoring system was not installed yet). However, since this came out, it might be a good time to go 64 bit. The chip still packs punch, so its not really what we would tend to think of when the term "budget" comes up (AMD Duron...Intel Celly). Plus, it won't be that expensive to replace if you take the OC too far.

Re:Just what I was waiting for

[cK-Gunslinger]

Yeah, it makes you reconsider that Athlon XP 2500+ purchase. 64-bit is temping, but you have to keep in mind that the 754-pinout on the chip is doomed. AMD already announced that they will move to a 939-pinout for most future 64s (Opterons are 940, so I assume they are just removing the "multiple-cpu" pin.) If that's the case, you may not have a very long upgrade path (3700?)

Re:Just what I was waiting for

[Coaster-Sj]

I know some people are conecerned about having large upgrade paths but I find that I'm really not one of them any more.

Usually by the time a processor drops in price enough that I think it'd be worth replacing an older CPU there is a new FSB or something that makes me want a new motherboard + ram to go with it.

Lately when I've been buying computers I've came to the conclusion that Motherboard, Processor, and Ram are pretty much a package that will never be upgraded independantly (Short of adding more Ram). Unless I have a processor die I'm really not worried about changing it.

We reviewed this days ago

[ruiner5000]

Didn't we? Athlon 64 3000+ review.

In conclusion the Athlon 64 3000+ is one of the best CPUs AMD has never announced. It makes a sub $1,000 system that is 64 bit capable easy to reach, and is able to perform quite admirably even with half of the cache of the other AMD64 CPUs. Will AMD make more 512kb cache Athlon 64s in the near future? How long will Socket 754 continue? Is this 3000+ an overclocker of merit? Stay tuned. For now if you have been craving for a powerful and cheap system with 64 bit onboard then the Athlon 64 3000+ is your CPU. It has no competition in its class, and likely will not for months to come.

Let's see, 1 year since Slashdot has approved a story I've submitted. Let's keep the streak alive! ;) HP shipping Mandrake biz PCs. Who cares!

price?

[Nate Fox]

$213USD seems to be the lowest on pricewatch, for those who are wondering
http://www.pricewatch.com/1/3/5867-1.htm

It's all Bush's fault

[Luscious868]

This move by AMD is clearly the result of Intel not contributing enough to Bush's reelection fund. Bush and his evil neo-con allies have it in for Intel and are using AMD as a front to destroy it. No blood for processor preformance!

Re:It's all Bush's fault

[ed__]

uhhh, maybe a little blood. i can always use a faster processor

Re:Does 512k vs 1 meg cache make much diff?

[Anonymous Coward]

If an application is frequently accessing a reasonably small set of code and data, and the total size of the accessed code and data is less than the size of the L2 cache, then the application can run from within the cache, which is much faster than main memory. The size of the L2 cache directly affects the point at which this speed benefit can be realized.

Re:Not quite fresh news...

[Kazymyr]

Link for the above.

Re:If it didn't pass QA

[Kazymyr]

The cache is allocated in blocks. There are 2 512k blocks, and if there are bad cells in just one of them, it is disabled and the chip is sold with only 1 512k block enabled. If there are bad cells in both, they throw it away.

The origin of the name Newcastle

[andy666]

In Moby Dick, Newcastle is an assistant to the navigator who does all the computations.

Low-priced alternative

[dorlthed]

I like this idea, and from a product-line standpoint, it's a good one. After the Athlon XP line started, I sort of missed the situation with the Thunderbird/Duron, where there was always a low-priced alternative for budget systems.

Perhaps now they will create a sort of "64-bit Duron," a lower-priced and less-powerful version of the Athlon 64. This way, in the future, if I want to create a bargain version of a AMD64 computer for a family member or friend, or buy one, there is a cheaper processor available for such a system.

I sort of missed having that alternative available; this creates a bit of processor nostalgia for me :p

hmmm....

[theMerovingian]

These 'reject' chips might be the reason Emachines offers such a cheap 64 bit computer.

"32bit computing is dead"

[Space cowboy]

... or so claimed AMD. Maybe this is why - they are releasing 64-bit chips at prices comparable to mid-range 32-bit ones! Way to go AMD :-)

I have no particular beef with Intel, btw, it's just that AMD always seem to aim more at value for money. I like that :-)

Simon.

Re:"32bit computing is dead"

[raodin]

Ah yes, good ol' fud. CURRENT top of the line Intel processors run hotter and consume more power than top of the line AMD processors. You're a good 4 major revisions behind on your info. The Thunderbird was the last really hot Athlon (and it really wasn't THAT bad) They cooled off considerably with the release of the Palamino, and again with the Thoroughbred. Barton is basically the same as the Tbred, and the A64 chips don't seem to be running too hot, either.

Who cares how good the retail "hintsinks" are. They're pretty decent, these days, but anyone who cares will replace it with a better performing model. No different than with Intel CPUs.

You're entitled your opinion, but your post is pretty much just 3 year old FUD.

Well, my time-travelling webshop...

[Kjella]

Not quite. They're on the roadmap for Q1, which would just miss christmas at the earliest.

...has 5 in stock, and that's here in Norway even. So it might not arrive before Christmas, but if you hurry you'll probably still go 64 bit in 2003 :)

I'm perfectly happy with the PC I have though. Usually, whenever Christmas is nearing I get questions about whether I'd want something for my computer. This year, for the first time in as long as I can remember, the answer is "not really". No big itch to scratch... I have CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD enough, broadband, most everything really.

I must say, I'd still like to improve noise and style though. Performance, well it's not that critical anymore. But the noise is pretty bad, even after I replaced my WD disks with Seagate. And I admit a Shuttle XPC + LCD looks ten times better than my beige box. Maybe next PC, but that one is not now. Not for a while yet...

Kjella

Re:Is it not an extra bonus that it's 64 Bit

[The One KEA]

Yes, but conversely Linux can take advantage of it - SuSE, Mandrake, Red Hat and Gentoo all have functioning offerings available for purchase or download.

The only game I know of off the top of my head is Epic's Unreal Tournament 2003.

Either way, the Athlon 64 3000+, IMO, might just be what AMD is looking for to really break into the market. If the price goes below $200, then things will definitely start to get interesting for Intel.

Re: Quieter machines

[WuphonsReach]

Have you considered the Antec Sonata case?

(And of course, the other options like quieter CPU fans, quieter exhaust fans, quieter power supplies. For my home office, 2004 is the year of "quiet", my goal is to make a serious dent in the amount of PC noise going on in here.)

Its safe to innovate again

[steveoc]

Dont you just love the way that AMD dropped this 64bit chip on the market - WITHOUT WAITING FOR MICROSOFT TO CATCH UP - Like, trust that Linux support alone will be enough to push this thing into the low-end 64bit market.

And its selling like hot cakes - so the market is proving them right.

Maybe it is a sign of things to come - hardware vendors pushing forward and bringing real innovation back into PeeCees, knowing that Linux alone will be there to support the innovations, and that Linux support is enough to drive sales.

Remember how back in the good old days, Hardware makers (Commodore, Atari, Apple, etc) were free to introduce radical new hardware every 12 months, with no regard to operating software portability - they knew that the software guys were capable of keeping up back then.

The current situation, with Microsoft being the sole supplier of OS's means that any new hardware has to conform to some horrid, and aging 'standard' invented back in the 80's, simply because Microsoft seems to be incapable of keeping pace with innovations in hardware.

Well done AMD - for daring to break the status Quo, and for sticking one up Microsoft at the same time.

sample buildouts

[erikdotla]

Here's example systems you could build, with the best possible motherboards. Each assumes you need to buy some DDR400 RAM so that is not included, since it's all the same:

My Athlon XP system:
Athlon XP 2800+: $150
Abit NF7: $100
Total: $250
I'm quite happy with it. Best price/performance choice (last week, anyway.)

Top-End Athlon XP system:
Athlon XP 3200+: $289
Abit NF7: $100
Total: $389
A complete waste of money, especially after today.

P4 3.2 system for comparison:
P4 3.2 CPU: $366
Asus P4C800-E: $164
Total: $530
Better than both of the above, but only by a few percent for most things.

That was the situation last week. Including an Athlon 64, Athlon 64 FX, or P4Extreme in the examples would have been useless since they're insanely expensive.

However:

Athlon 64 system you can build now:
Athlon 64 3000+ 512k cache: $230
Gigabyte GAK8VT800M: $106
Total: $336
Yowza.

So, to jump from the top-end Athlon XP to an entry level Athlon 64 actually saves you $53. I could have spent an extra $86 and got all this. The Athlon 64 system will now save you $194 over the best P4 Intel has to offer, and it will beat it (for virtually all applications.) Of course, if $336 is too much, you can still build a good Athlon XP system and cut costs dramatically, but $336 is very reasonable for building a brand new system. It'll be interesting when Intel gets it's P4Extreme down to a reasonable price, and AMD starts ratcheting up the Athlon 64 speeds.

Proves it's always better to wait just one more week. I should have known that there would be major cuts in the 64-bit world soon after the processor debut.

Hope all this is useful to anyone considering building a system. Keep in mind that 1gb of dual-channel DDR400 RAM is gonna run at least $150.

All prices are PriceWatch.com and the Athlon 64 CPU price is from a link on AnandTech. I know PriceWatch prices are hard to get and you have to deal with shipping and all that.