Slashdot Mirror
First Looks at Athlon 64 4000+ & FX-55
CrzyP writes "AnandTech.com has benchmarked the new "Athlon 64 4000+ and the FX-55" in various areas including business application performance, audio/video, gaming, and much more in this first look at AMD's newest 64bit chips. Just after AMD's announcement, AnandTech posted this article to help consumers choose between Intel and AMD."
AnandTech posted this article to help consumers choose between Intel and AMD
...what article?
on Extremetech
Why should Anand get all the attention?
Feel free to also check http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Njc1
i am pretty sure it will do better than my old celeron(500 mhz), but who will need such an amount of computer power (except enterprises)? Of course new concepts will need more power(3d desktop?), but why are they deliviring this now?
A little stupidity is as unlikely as a little pregnancy
With Intel having recently backed off on the effort to push clock rates ever higher, is there a plateau in sight for AMD? Will we not see anything between 5 to 10 GHz with today's techniques?
Maybe it'll take optical computing to spur the next clock push.
another review on tom's hardware
h tm l
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/index.
Ignorance is the Agent of Fear; Fear Is the Agent of Violence - >1
Does anyone know of a resonably priced mobo with PCI express (more than one slot), dual channel, and SATA? onboard lan vido and sound not reguired. prefer socket 939.
You're gonna have to wait a bit longer...
No one ever got fired for buying Intel. That's a shame since AMD seem to have better products and more innovative ideas.
BLING BLING. Meet the architecture that's changing everything.
This is actually the last resort, as the cost of wafer real-estate versus speed increase is low. You rarely do this for raw speed rather for special needs like Servers and the like.
The increase in the speed for a workstation is probably one speed grade at a cost increase of 30% or so.
There is two good articles over on TheInquirer about Intels road map and why they have to go the Increase the cache route for 2005. Worth a read. Part One and Part Two
Help fight continental drift.
maybe it is just because AMD absolutely crushes Intel in every consumer arena.
cheaper, faster, no more heat problems
Another nForce 4 Review on Hardware Analysis.
yeah that's what I figured. how long until pci express is out en masse?
This is a major overhaul of the aging nforce3 chipset.. Check it out.
Expect a flurry of new advances by the end of the year.
I am ready to buy a new Linux system and am pulling hair out trying to make the best choice. Due to Linux compatibility issues (and mixed experiences with nforce2), I cannot really consider nforce4 so it will be Via for me. Though Nvidia will likely get the nod for graphics.
The 90nm chips are a mixed bag at the moment.
Well, you're the one who's deciding to run teh 'Doze, so don't bitch to us.
Article number two on Anandtech right now is a first look at nVidia's nForce4 chipset, which (in the more expensive version) will support dual PCI Express video (to support the GeForce 6 series SLI capabilities). Essentially, there is a 16-channel PCI Express slot which can be split into two 8-channel slots.
They also make a passing reference to a chipset from VIA which will support PCI Express for the Athlon 64.
Toward the end of the article, they mention that nForce 4 boards from Asus and MSI should be out soonish.
The power density at nm process (watts per square inch) has reached the nuclear reactors. See page 8. http://cnscenter.future.co.kr/resource/rsc-center/ presentation/intel/spring2003/S03USCQNS67_OS.pdf
It's intel's but I assume it is the same for AMD.
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.cfm?articl
http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q4/athlon64-fx5
http://www.bit-tech.net/review/364/
http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=266
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=
http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?id=331
http://www.amdreview.com/reviews.php?rev=fx-55-40
http://www.techwarelabs.com/reviews/processors/am
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Njc1
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athl
http://www.sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=614
Where's the damn motherboards that I've been wanting, namely ones supporting PCI-E with the AMD64? Stuff like the Abit AX8 with the Via K8T890 (ships when?), to say nothing of Nvidia's complete silence on the matter. I know there's an existing one for dual Opterons, but I don't feel like spending that extra $2000 for it just now...
let's add a few 64 bit PCI slots while we are at it.
if you're going to stand your ground with wintel and attack reviews from tomshardware & co. then i have to ask what you take issue with.
did you disagree with the test system?
the benchmarks used?
i've read tomshardware for years and have found them objective and informative. While their results disagree with your emotion you shouldn't make baseless remarks
"The more you know, the less sure you are." - Voltaire
You don't like biased sites and you still read slashdot?-D
I think the choice is clear regardless of this article. Intel announced last week that they are giving up a 4Ghz Pentium CPU, and even the 3.8 Ghz model is very scarce. Where as AMD's Athlon 3800+ can be easily found, With the announcement of the 4000+ CPU, AMD has a clear lead over intel, and will until the Dual-CPU wars begin sometime next year. I think now is a good time to own AMD stock. Their marketshare is going to slowly increase over the next 12 months. I'm not taking sides here, just stating the obvious.
Free Desk
I certainly don't see that.
;)
Well, in a way I do. They certainly are biased towards AMD, but only in the sense that AMD generally offers better value for the money, and is the only way to get 64 bits (right now). I bet if given the choice between a thousand dollars or a kick in the head, they would be biased toward the money
All Intel has given us lately is a new extra-fragile socket, and PCI express (but good luck finding a PCI express vid card). In short, ho-hum. In a year or two, PCI express will be a good thing, but I will pass on it for right now.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
"AnandTech and Tom's Hardware are so AMD-biased"
Given the current political climate there seems to be a lot of ignorance over the difference between "bias" and "fact". Indeed often people confuse a lack of bias with a counter bias.
For instance, if indeed AMD is the superior consumer chip, perhaps offering measurably better performance/value, then it is entirely reasonable that a site would say such, and it isn't a "bias" to pronounce the AMD the superior choice of the current candidates. Similarly if George W. Bush dines on kittens for dinner, and someone reports it, that doesn't mean that they are biased against Bush.
OK. I take back part my previous post. Intel HAS give the world hyper-threading. This is a good thing. Not as good as 64 bits, but significant.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Other then Sun, SGI, Alpha, Apple etc. Also, why do you need or even want 64 bit?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
AMD: 2 x 512MB OCZ PC3200 EL Dual Channel DIMMs 2-2-2-10
Intel P4: 2 x 512MB Crucial DDR-II 533 Dual Channel DIMMs 3-3-3-12
Why not keep the rest of the components exactly the same, so we can have a _real_ comparison?
I'm no Intel fanboy (or an AMD fanboy, for that matter), but when you're doing such benchmarking, some attention to details would help.
AnandTech and Tom's Hardware are so AMD-biased, I don't even bother reading them any more, especialy when it's related to the latest AMD or Intel chips.
Oh please, without any evidence or even anecdotes to back this up you're just making yourself sound like yet another disgruntled fanboy when reviews aren't going your way.
Almost all hardware sites agree that at the present, not only are AMD's chips providing the best performance, they also provide the most bang for the buck. That now even goes for media encoding, an area previously dominated by Intel. Who knows, no doubt the see-saw will swing back in Intel's favour in the future, but now it's clear that AMD will hold the lead throughout 2005.
For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
"Just after AMD's announcement, AnandTech posted this article to help consumers choose between Intel and AMD." So if by consumers, you mean people that read /. and hardware sites and not the general public, then yes?
Per Square Mile, a blog about density
But, if you ignore the fact that Kerry heats human fetuses, then you are biased! :)
The thing is, Anand has been accused of an Intel bias, don't you remember the Xeon Nocona being pitted against a slower desktop AMD chip?
The 4000+ isn't clocked any higher than the 3800+, it's just got a bigger cache. It's basically an FX-53; in fact, that's exactly what it is, sans the name. It would seem AMD is plateauing as well, but perhaps 90nm will get them out of the jam later on.
However, this is a wise move by AMD even if the rating isn't justified (hint: the benchmarks say it's not). Intel will never have a 4GHz CPU, and idiots who don't understand performance will see the 4000+ and want it because it breaks the 4000 barrier. It could backfire, but probably not, because even though 4000+ isn't justified, it's still faster than any of Intel's chips on 90% of applications.
-Dan
AnandTech and Tom's Hardware are so AMD-biased, I don't even bother reading them any more, especialy when it's related to the latest AMD or Intel chips.
This sounds so familiar to me... kind of like a MAC fan that won't even consider the competition as a viable option. Perhaps it is just you that is biased and not Anandtech and Tom's.
AMD has come out with some very solid CPUs lately, and frankly I think they deserve the recognition. When Intel comes out with its next flagship processor that topples AMD you can be sure that you'll hear about it on these sites.
Actually, no, you really dont! TUL (AKA PowerColor) has released an AMD 64 939 board with PCI Express, based on the ATI chipset. Unfortunately, it doesnt seem to exist yet on their website, but i have some physical documentation that says otherwise:
A480A-VGF
Socket: 939
Chipset: ATI RS480+ULI M1573
Integrated VGA: ATI Radeon 9600
SYS bus: 2000MHZ
Memory: 4 DDR-400
PCI/PCIeSlot: 3PCI/2 PCIex1
PCIe16x: 1
Audio: Azalia 8 channel
PATA/SATA: 2/4
S/W RAID: 0,1,0+1
Ethernet: GB
IEEE1394: 2
USB2:8 ports
Form: ATX
Size: 305x245
There also exists a -VF, and a -V model:
-V: Same as -VGF, BUT Only 10/100 ethernet, and no 1394
-VF: Same as the -VGF, BUT only 10/100 ethernet
In the microwave?
Yeah, but this is part of the problem. It's not about who has the fastest chip, but who has the best package (chipset, price, etc.) overall.
If I want PCIe and PCIx (or any combination in-between), SMP or single, 64- bit extensions or not; I have SEVERAL different options with Intel. With AMD, none, nada, zip.
And looking at the new chipsets that are supposed to be coming out for the Opteron/Athlon, that situation isn't going to change for a while (the new nForce doesn't even support PCIx).
Add to that the glut of Intel chips (and most likely the price reductions to follow); well the Nocona is looking pretty tasty right now (and about $200 less than an Opteron per pricewatch).
The lack of range for quality boards is hurting AMD. If you had no alliance to either chipmaker, would you choose some promise for next quarter or something that is functional and cheaper right now?
In both cases I'd point out that it's possible that sometimes a more-or-less neutral group may look like it is supporting one side when, in reality, it is simply one side outperforming the other.
Is it really necessary to show both sides as equal when they aren't?
eats I meant.
but now it's clear that AMD will hold the lead throughout 2005.
That is getting a bit ahead of things. 2005 is just as long a year as any other, and both AMD and Intel may have surprises in their sleeves, and either one might make a critical mis-step.
2005 is the year that Intel is planning to release dual core Pentium Ms, dual core desktop & workstation chips and dual core Itaniums. I haven't looked at the AMD roadmap lately, but AMD has dual core plans for 2005 too, to my memory it is just dual core Opterons, nothing for desktops and laptops.
First, I am talking about x86 world here. Almost all games run on a Windows. Mapping software for my GPS runs on Windows. I am stuck with Windows (even if I dual-boot).
Second, a 32-bit processor is limited to 4GB of memory. I have 1/4 of that in my system right now. I can easily forsee that 4GB will be standard in about two to three years. To go further than that will REQUIRE 64 bits, unless you want to go to some goofy paging systems like we used to have to do back in the 80's.
Third, for some applications, 64 bits speeds things up a LOT. At the very least, the extra registers in 64-bit mode mean fewer loads and stores, which speeds things up.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Does anyone know of a resonably priced mobo with PCI express (more than one slot), dual channel, and SATA? onboard lan vido and sound not reguired. prefer socket 939.
No, mostly owing to the fact that there's no such thing.
They test with a lot of binary only pieces of software. Wouldn't the compiler and the compiler flags that these binaries were created with make a hell of a lot of difference? - I don't know - I'm asking.
----
I realize the Pentium 4 won't hit 4 GHz in its current incarnation, but is it really true that we'll never see a CPU above 4 GHz? Have we finally hit the limit?
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=22 49
In addition, 64 bit is slower then 32bit. The AMD systems run 32bit apps very fast, however this has nothing to do with them being 64bit. If everything else is equal, a 32bit system will out perform a 64bit system becuase it can address smaller memory blocks.
All that having been said, I ahve nothing against the AMD systems and in fact am planning on getting one. However I see nothing gained from it being 64bit rather then 32bit.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I bet Intel rethinks about releasing a 4ghz P4 after this news.
Republicans have better sex lives, maybe he does eat pussy.
From what an article on CNet stated, the dual cpu wars won't begin until 2006, as Intel has pushed back its expected ship date for their product. The article stated that AMD was expecting to start shipping in 3rd quarter of next year.
On the contrary I think I was a little conservative. The latest Intel roadmaps show that we will see the dual-core Xeon out in Q1'06 while AMD's dual core solution is slated for mid 2005. You must consider that Intel's dual core plans were only recently conceived after they realised that they've hit the MHz ceiling. AMD's 64 bit chips were designed with dual-core in mind from the start.
However, never underestimate Intel. They have resources, especially in R&D, that AMD could only dream about. It's still possible that AMD screw up and hand the initiative back to their much larger competitor but I still think that as far as performance goes, 2005 will belong to AMD.
For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
Here's that link clickable and without the space:
m l
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041019/index.ht
Disappointing. Why doesn't nForce 4 support DDR2? It has every other conceivable bell and whistle...
Competition? /me sneers
What competition?
For some benchmarks that will help me decide whether I'm better off buying a low-end AMD 64 bit system or a high-end AMD 32-bit system. I've got about $300 to spend on a mobo/processor combination, and I see I can go either way at that price -- but as this system is only going to be used for playing video games (Half Life 2, specifically) I'm not sure there's any advantage to 64-bit. I see that it's got a better architecture even if you're only using it in 32-bit mode...
any hints?
Um, no, lets not....lets add PCI-E slots and get rid of PCI forever!
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
This very thorough article also includes a comparison of power usage of the various processors during idle and busy states. The numbers look HUGE - the 90 nm Athlon 64 3500+ does the best at 86 watts at idle, with the Intel P4 560 (3.6 Ghz) doing the worst at 124 watts. While under a workload, the range is 114 watts to 210 watts.
At first I couldn't believe my eyes - how can heat sinks keep up with these figures? But then I realized that only some of that wattage is being converted to waste heat - some of it is actually doing the useful work of the processor.
Just curious - does anyone have any idea what the likely waste heat dissipation, in watts, would be for these processors, given the total power consumption figures in the article?
The GP never said nor implied that
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
all these accusations of Tom's Hardware being AMD biased makes me laugh. Just be happy for once we dont have to moan about Intel biased websites anymore ;)
Forget it, the AGP band has not been close to filled.. It will take years before we even approach a performance boost from PCI-E.
--- "End Of Line" - MCP
Huh??? This makes absolutely no sense. I know a bit about processor architecture. Going to a 64 bit address does mean that your instruction set must now allow for longer addresses, which MIGHT impact performance, but I can think of tricks to overcome this.
True. But for Xeon, dump ALL of your existing software. Few apps, no games.
Your point about memory prices is well taken. In a sense, I agree. There is little to be gained RIGHT NOW from 64 bits. But RAM prices will fall, software will bloat, and in 5 years, 4GB will be an entry-level $399 system from eMachines.
Jumping up to 64 bits now adds very little to the cost of the system (performance-wise, compared to a similar system from Intel), and means that you are ready for 64-bit software when it arrives, instead of having to upgrade later.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Yes he did. He stated the Intel 3.8Ghz is scarce while the AMD 3800 is available. He stated Intel dropped the 4Ghz chip while AMD will be releaing the 4000+.
He was directly comparing the two models and thereby implying that 3.8 and 3800 are the same clock speed.
You claim to know about processor architecture but then claim that Xeon needs all new software. Xeon is x86. The current ones are based on the P4. Are you perhaps thinking of the short lived Intel 64bit CPUs?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I've always felt that there is a similar slant on technology debate as with political debate. However, we (/.ers) are to processor choice as a senior political analyst is to a presedential choice. Throw all the charts and graphs at us that you want, we know how to interpret the real numbers and what they mean.
So yes, the uninformed public may start thinking, hmmm AMD sounds like a good choice if these guys say it performed well, but in all likelihood they will just go with whatever the sales rep tells them will fill their needs.
I guess the real question is....who is the NO SPIN for technology?
Well thats not entirely correct, nvidia has an announcement on there web page about the new nforce4 boards that will handle the new fx-55, SLI, dual channel, and the rest of the goodies
I think the GGP poster was giving the slashdot audience the benefit of the doubt with regards to their ability to disseminate an idea/opinion/fact from a statement.
Think. And while you're at it, assume others do too.
I'm looking to get rich. I've got steps #2 (????) and #3 (PROFIT!) planned out, but am having trouble coming up with #1.
AMD has their 'opteron' 8 way system.
8 x single core or 4 x dual core (mid next year), as I read it.
I'm gonna hold on to the old 533 celeron box and the 2 x 500 p3 box until the dual socket opteron mboards have 24 bit sound interated. Then 2 x 1 core and later 2 x dual core opterons (the fit the same board with firmware upgrade, according to AMD). I have no need for a single thread at 5GHz but aggregate 5GHz is appealing and this will get it, cheap. 2 x dual opteron is benching out at 26 or so for specfp.
This should be a great box for messing with DSP on desktop.
Curious. Other than possible cost savings, what is benefit of 5GHz single CPU with small cache over 4 x 1.2 GHz, each with lager cache and good switching/memory management?
Sorry. Brain fade. I was thinking Itanium.
Xeon is VERY expensive.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
No problem, happens to me all the time.
"Xeon is VERY expensive."
Wouldn't call them "VERY" expensive, but they do cost more. Starting price is 155$ for a 2Ghz with 533Mhz bus, the upper end is 459$ for a 3.2Ghz with 800Mhz buss, compare this to 179-585 for an AMD 64 3000 to 3800. Huh, seems the Xeon costs less, granted for most home uses its not going to be quite as fast. However most people dont need it. By the time 99% of the people would need or even want more then 4GB any system you buy today will be obsolete.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
All of the energy going into the processor is going to come out as heat. It's similar to what would happen if you put a lightbulb in a box, and then measured how much heat was being produced outside.
Some of the power going to the lightbulb makes waste heat directly, and some of it makes light. But since it's all closed up in a box, all of the light ends up making heat, too.
So yes, some of the power going into the processor does useful work. But from the point of view outside the processor at the heatsink, even the useful work creates heat.
AnandTech and Tom's Hardware are so AMD-biased, I don't even bother reading them any more, especialy when it's related to the latest AMD or Intel chips.
Man, Tom's Hardware is the site that did the comparison of intel and amd cpus playing quake3, while the heatsink was removed. The point being that the pentium3 froze, the athlons caught fire, and the pentium 4 kept going (though slower). People called them intel-biased then. More likely, they call it like it is. Amds did have serious heat problems, and now intels have serious performance problems.
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose
*yawn* RTFA: At the end of the article there's a few pages dedicated to the bang-for-your-buck of each chip.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
Those benchmarks were in 32-bit mode, so there's nothing to get alarmed about.
Note that simple 64-bitness buys you no performance increase, or even a slight decrease. Moving to the x86-64 64-bit instruction set, however, does provide an increase, but it's from the greater number of available registers.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
http://shit.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/19/1 519249
performance = Frequency X Instructions per Cycle
Granted, if you keep the IPC the same, increasing frequency will help linearly. The problems with keeping IPC are: 1. complexity, which negatively impacts clock speed. 2. memory, which increases at a much slower pace (so if you miss out of the L2 a lot, increasing CPU frequency won't do much)
So, Intel said - people can't comprehend IPC, let's just ramp up the frequency. Their processors work ok for applications which are not memory intensive and don't have many branch mispredictions. AMD said - we can get better performance by improving the IPC (e.g. have a considerably better design for the memory system than Intel's). AMD processors would thus crush Intel processors working at the same frequency, but people don't really see that, because there's no aggregate performance number associated with the processor.
I personally like AMD's approach better, because higher frequency means higher power.
The Raven
Too late. 0wned.
Erm... DEC was first.
And besides... AMD has SMP. Same difference.
Isn't AMD's current superiority to Intel somewhat obvious?
Spoken like a true AMD fair weather fan script kiddie.
Intel and AMD both make products other than desktop processors, where Intel has some advantages. And let's not forget the whole SP2/AMD64 conflict thingy... Besides, most people dont't take statements like "AMD is better!!!!" at face value, they want to see pretty graphs and charts so they can try to make their own decisions. And that's why this is here....
II
You are right, i stand corrected. I should not have been so generalized in my comment. I should have in cluded a phrase including something like "in the realm of processors". I thank you for pointing this mistake out to me