AMD's Socket 939, Athlon 64 FX-54 amd 64 3800+

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD's Socket 939, Athlon 64 FX-54 amd 64 3800+

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday June 1, 2004 @12:53AM from the thats-a-lotta-digits dept.

BudKnight writes "It looks like AMD is launching four new desktop processors, a new core, and a new socket infrastructure today. HotHardware has tested AMD's two new flagship processors, the Athlon 64 FX-53 and the Athlon 64 3800+. The new FX-53 no longer needs registered memory to function and the 3800+ has only 512K of cache, but it gets an upgraded 128-bit memory controller. The usual suspects also have reviews posted as well - TechReport, Hard|OCP, Beyond3D - more are sure to follow."

7 of 160 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Anandtech review by Karamchand · 2004-06-01 01:10 · Score: 4, Informative

Review on Anandtech! (I like them for their print view:)
More review links by JaF893 · 2004-06-01 01:23 · Score: 5, Informative

Here are some more review links for those who are interested:
Tom's Hardware
Bit-Tech
Driver Heaven
AMD Zone
Hard Tecs 4U
PC Perspective
Ace's Hardware
Sudhian
Aceshardware Review by hattig · 2004-06-01 01:27 · Score: 5, Informative

AcesHardware found that disabling the 2T memory timing in the BIOS improved S939 performence by over 10%. The only limitation with this is one DIMM per memory channel.

A lot of reviews you read today will not be using this, and the results will therefore be significantly lower than what is possible.
Re:No 64bit scores by Rich0 · 2004-06-01 01:59 · Score: 3, Informative

Assuming the software would run faster in 64-bit mode, which isn't necessarily true.

Most likely it will - though not necessarily through the use of 64-bit math. The AMD64 adds several additional registers, and that alone can make for a huge performance boost when a complier knows how to use them...
Re:No 64bit scores by Jarnis · 2004-06-01 02:09 · Score: 3, Informative

What?

Have you been hibernating past few months?

Prescotts with Intel's version of x86-64 are coming out by early autumn. MS delaying the OS is partly because they don't want to piss Intel off. They also want to ensure the thing works perfectly on both versions, and while they are largerly compatible, there are couple of small differences.
Re:Compile performance! by HarvardAce · 2004-06-01 03:05 · Score: 4, Informative

From a previous guide, a brief description of their build process.
As introduced with our Athlon 64 article, we are looking at compile times for the Quake III Arena source code. In running this test, we compiled the source for both Q3A and Q3TA in both debug and release modes using the Batch Build feature of Visual C++ 6.0. The build was run three consecutive times for each processor (in order to try to reduce file read time impact), and we used the third compile time.

--
Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
Re:No 64bit scores (and CPU cost ...) by hobbs · 2004-06-01 05:07 · Score: 3, Informative

Out of curiosity, I tied these scores to CPU prices as listed at http://www.pricewatch.com/: CPU SCORE US$ Athlon64 3200 64: 523.70 $255 Athlon XP2700: 467.15 $ 80 Athlon64 3200 32: 449.07 $255 Athlon XP2600: 448.42 $ 71 Pentium4 3.0GHz: 387.57 $203 Athlon 1400: 305.26 $ 97 AMD Athlon 950: 209.51 $ 69 Sparc 500MHz: 52.21 ??? Sparc 440MHz: 51.89 ???