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."
on Extremetech
Why should Anand get all the attention?
Feel free to also check http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Njc1
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.
Who is going to develop software that can't be run yet?
You need the power first.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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 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
If you had read the article you would have noticed it prominently linked to a partner article on the Nvidia nForce 4 chipset, in fact they went as far as using an nForce 4 benchmark system:
Socket-939 Athlon 64 CPUs
2 x 512MB OCZ PC3200 EL Dual Channel DIMMs 2-2-2-10
NVIDIA nForce4 Reference Motherboard
ATI Radeon X800 XT PCI Express
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?
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 ;)
I think the real question is will you be upgrading just your CPU next or doing another CPU + Motherboard upgrade?
;) My thought on the matter was 2 fold in regards to 32bit vs 64bit. ;)
If you are going to wait 2 or 3 years and go for a full MB+CPU then you can get the best bang for you buck on a high end Athlon or the "old" AMD64 chips. If you are going to upgrade your cpu again in a year then go for a 939 Motherboard and lowend 939 CPU like the 3500+ since you will be able to pop in a current FX chip a year and a half from now for the price of a current Athlon.
The other thing to take into consideration is will you need new RAM and Power Supply to go along with your new MB and CPU. Build that into your cost when you are comparing things.
I just recently spec'd my own systems and I went with the 939 AMD3500+ But I went with a whole new system since just about all my other hardware is 7+ years old
1. I wanted to experiment with 64bit linux
2. I figured I would be getting a "free" upgrade when win64 comes out and 64bit games start becoming available.
2.5 Since I only do this once in a blue moon for my personal system, I wanted that warm glow of knowing I'll have a "little god" for a month or 2
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.
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.
Your best bang for you buck is a good NForce2 motherboard, a mobile AthlonXP 2500+, and a Zalman 7000a cooler. All together, that will cost barely more than $200, and it's highly unlikely that you'd get less than 2.3 GHz out of the chip - with 2.5GHz not unheard of. Not at all bad for a $200 setup! The Athlon64 chips are, indeed, faster - but the marginal increase in speed can cost you quite a bit.
Of course, if you want more future-proofing, wait until a good board with PCI-E is available, which will mean A64. Even though the extra bandwidth of PCI-E isn't a big factor now, the way in which video cards are able to interface with memory and the CPU are mroe intelligent than with AGP, and most all cards are going to move to it. Shoot, the 6600-series cards are enough to make you wish you had PCI-E.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.