Slashdot Mirror
AMD's Socket 939, Athlon 64 FX-54 amd 64 3800+
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."
Due to lack of commericial 64 bit code they run 32 bit code cause thats what evryone runs in the real world and it still kicks ass. AMD is not joking around anymore and comming out with good stuff like this.This is the first time I seen something "backwards compatible" thise good.
That is true, however the average consumer WILL NOT be running 64-bit until Windows does get its 64-bit edition running perfectly and shipping with it. Although I do think they should have at least benchmarked it with some type of *nix for 64-bit...
Since just about anything else avilable today (at least to general consumers) are running at 32 bit (disregarding the fact that it's still possible to get hold of 16 bit and 8 bit chips off course) it make damn good sence to compare the new AMD64 to other chips while running it in 32 bit mode. Otherwise, you would be comparing apples and oranges... since no other CPU runs in 64 bit mode.
Could be interesting to benchmark a AMD64 in 32 bit mode against a AMD64 in 64 bit mode thought... that would say a lot about how much there is to gain in going to 64 bit mode in the first place...
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
The AMD64 platform design was released several years late and amd had to honor obligation with manufacturers that had already invested time and effort in the r&d based on the specs it issued before the delays. Once most of these "proto-type" boards (or whatever you will call them) were reasonably sold out, they could go ahead with thier advancments they discovered along the line.
It sounds like the consumer got the raw end, but in reality it allowed the motherboard and chipset manufacturers to have a sence of confidence and time to develope working designs for the newer socket. It is a win-win type situation except for those that bought with the intention of upgrading. But then again most people in that situation (like me) would have been reading about the new socket when researching whether or not to get one and made a decision to live with it. Others would be just getting it for a system that would last a while bfore buying another.
Otherwise, you would be comparing apples and oranges... since no other CPU runs in 64 bit mode.
By that logic, when a processor comes out with a new multimedia extension, or an increased L1 cache size, or a deeper pipeline, or a more efficient instruction scheduler, we should do comparisons with the new feature turned off, because no other CPU has it.
The real reason these chips were tested in 32 bit mode is because the testers ran WinXP on them for the tests. This is reasonable in that it's what most potential purchasers of the processors would be running, not because it's a more valid comparison against other 32-bit chips. If the most common software were available in 64-bit versions, it would be unreasonable not to use that and let the AMD64 chips show their full capability. (Assuming the software would run faster in 64-bit mode, which isn't necessarily true).
Users of more flexible software would find it interesting to see how their favorite tools run in 64 bit mode, of course, but that's a smaller audience, so those tests will come later.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.