Slashdot Mirror
AMD Launches Athlon 64 FX-57
Kez writes "Today AMD release what could be the fastest x86 processor to date. The FX-57 is the first 90nm Athlon 64 FX from AMD, clocked to 2.8GHz, with 1MiB of L2 cache and support for SSE3. The memory controller has also been tweaked to support mismatched memory module sizes - something some enthusiasts have been crying out for. Hexus.net reviews the new processor, which, in gaming benchmarks, walks all over any of Intel's offerings." There's going to be plenty of reviews I'm sure - if you've found other links, please post them below.
Probably the best place to look for info:w s&file=article&sid=3165&mode=thread&order=0&thold= 0
http://amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Ne
No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
Toms Hardware Review
Coral Cache: http://www.hexus.net.nyud.net:8090/content/reviews /review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD0xMzE3
Why would I buy this instead of a dual core 4800+? Two is more than one! Even if the two cores are lower clock speeds.
http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review_print. php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD0xMzE3
This is filler. This is more filler. This is even more filler. This is a rant about the captcha.
-theGreater.
I can just hear Intel yawning and proceeding with what they do best; discussing large price-slashed processor deals for the industry and Apple.
This is the third link in recent memory, and their server always goes down. Also for the most part their reviews are pretty bad, can't we wait to post these stories for a reputable site to have a review up?
I know I can't wait to do spreadsheets in 2.8Ghz, 64-bit glory. >_> That aside, this is still a pretty awesome development.
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
I stopped caring about CPU advances when the Pentium II reached 233 MHz. I run Windows 98 on my machine wihtout a firewall and I have never had a problem with spyware or viruses. How about we focus research and development on somehting more important, like fuel cells to power my wireless mouse.
I've been looking to upgrade (just buying a new mb/cpu/ram combo), but which processor is which out of MANCHESTER, CLAWHAMMER, SAND DIEGO, VENICE, and WINCHESTER??
C:\>
Will a beowulf cluster of these run OSX?
(I honestly can't tell if I'm being +5 funny or -1 troll some days...)
Mac on Intel.com -> http://www.maconintel.com/
DLightman
REmember when Apple showed everyone a G5....the reaction was "That sucks...it's only 2ghz!"
...but NOW we have Apple going to Intel, and presumably a dual-core CPU. I'm imagining that it'll be the better play.
Now we have people saying "This is going to be great!"
But what do I know...I still can't type faster than a 486.
My
What is 1 MiB of L2 cache? 1 Million Bytes?
Isn't that what everybody wants to see?
For a definition of MiB see this wikipedia article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte
n 64/fx57/001.htm
And here is a random review that includes the actual cache numbers -- http://www.gdhardware.com/hardware/cpus/amd/athlo
I'm poor, yet I want to buy a new PC.
Therefore, if new CPUs come out, I can get an old one at a greatly reduced price.
I do hope I'll be able to afford a 64-bit CPU... otherwise my new computer will be even more outdated as soon as I buy it.
Ignore this signature. By order.
AMD only have about 15% of the market after beating Intel numerious of time tell you how smart the general public are.
Perhaps someone can explain to me (either from an engineering or economic background) why this new stuff costs so much?
Just this weekend I saw the new nVidia 7800 and said to myself "It's expensive, but I'd like to get one". Bought the card ($600). Since my current AMD ASUS board didn't support PCI Express, I picked up a new one ($150). The board said it supported Athlon 64 chips, but when I got it it was 939-pins. The chip I was using was 754-pins. Went back to Newegg and got a new San Diego AMD 939-pin chip ($350). Also decided to pick up 2 GB of memory ($250). Now I'm reading they moved to a 940-pin chip (does that extra pin really make a difference), but everything's already ordered.
This one upgrade that started at $600 ended up being $1350. I'd like to blame it on the video card, but this is probably the most expensive upgrade percentage-wise (almost 70% of the cost to originally make the rig) that I've done to date.
http://www.dvhardware.net/article5557.html
A list of all FX-57 reviews, more will be added when I spot them.
I've got a Socket 939 motherboard. Will any AMD 939 CPU always work perfectly with my MB (after bios flash)?
Or will there come a time when it may be a 939 cpu but won't work with my MB?
I wonder if it fixes the 2T memory timings when using 4 sticks of ram. I really want 2 gigs of ram without loosing my current 1 gig.
The price of this thing is high... what else can you buy for $1031 (when bought by 1000 pcs)
All the FX chips are Socket 939. The only chips that are socket 940 are Opterons. The Athlon-FX chips are basically Socket 939 Opterons.
Socket 939 is for the single CPU systems (including multiple cores).
Socket 940 is for multiple CPU systems (ie. Opteron).
The ratio of people to cake is too big
MB: Megabyte (1000*1000=10^6 bytes)
MiB: Mebibyte (1024*1024=2^20 bytes)
theefer
The memory controller has also been tweaked to support mismatched memory module sizes - something some enthusiasts have been crying out for
I wonder how AMD was able to translate fanboi-talk from
Wah Wah! Make it faster! Make it faster!
to
Please tweak your memory controller to support mismatched memory module sizes...
It boggles the mind!
Uh, well see there's a slight error there. There's a little clue in the name AMD 64.
A clue that may suggest it is in fact an x64 chip and not an x86. Go on, see if you can spot the clue there.
The only problem with it is it needs 1.21 gigawatts of electrical power to generate that kind of speed, and the only thing that can generate that much electricity... is...
A BOLT OF LIGHTNING!
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=Nzg3
I read fast through Tom's Hardware' and Xbitlabs' reviews, they dont say a word about overcloking.
6 4-FX-57-314/3/
6 67.html
Having read 3 franch-language tests this morning I can tell you the results are mixed.
1. 3050 MHz
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/576/page3.html
2. 3010 MHz with good air cooler
http://www.presence-pc.com/tests/Test-AMD-Athlon-
3. 2991 MHz
http://www.clubic.com/afficher-en-plein-ecran-134
The weather is hot here these days and they had just 2 days to do the testing under the NDA, so YMMV
Socket 940 is for Opterons, not Athlon64-FX chips. It allows additional HyperTransport links (IIRC 3 more than Socket 939) for connection to other CPUs. Thus, only the Socket 940 is suitable for multiprocessor machines. This comes at the expense of requiring a more expensive six-layer mainboard, while a four-layer mainboard will do for Socket 939.
Other differences are in supported memory. Socket 940 systems require registered RAM and will support ECC. Socket 939 systems use "normal" RAM and will not support ECC.
Bottom line:
Socket 940 systems are more expensive, but only Socket 940 will give you access to certain "high end" features.
C - the footgun of programming languages
grrr, thats what i'm waiting for, i may just buy a 3200+ venice instead.
I'm not exactly an Apple Fan boi. I understand that they have their flaws etc but the move to x86 still doesn't fit right in my head and this news just crystalizes it for me.
In the past, we could all group around the fact that it was impossible to really tell if PPC was actually any good when compared to x86. We knew games sucked, but were confident in the fact that the desktop apps we owned 'felt snappier' and that we were more productive as a result. Now we're being told that actually x86 is probably about as good as PPC, and in the future it will be better. Thats fine. As long as I'm running on the best hardware for my Mac and I don't have to start waiting for the x86 version of my favourite apps to become available I don't care. But the problem is that we all know that Intel isn't the best at making x86 chips. So when I buy my 'Intel inside' Mac, I'm going to know that Joe 'AMD' Linux, with his fancy new 128bit, 1024 core, $15 AMD can, and will, actually toast my Mac, no questions asked, with verifiable benchmarks to prove it and I'm powerless to do anything about it without breaking the EULA. That sucks.
Bottom line: Apples hardware should be the best platform to run OS X. If that means using AMD, I want AMD in my Mac - and at the moment boy do I want one of those suckers in my Mac!
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
Even the Apple dev kits have D's in them. M doesn't have enough processing grunt.
No no no! Nothing about socket 940 boards requires registered memory.
Old Opterons had terrible signal quality. It's the CPU that required registered memory to work reliably. Remember, the CPU has the memory controller logic.
AMD used this as propaganda to promote socket 939 and divide the market (to the detriment of 940 owners). The newer CPUs they put into all sockets (940, 754, 939) had better memory controllers and did not require registered memory, but AMD twisted this to present the illusion that "if you go 939 you'll not need expensive RAM".
The reality is "if you buy a newer K8 for any socket you don't need expensive RAM, but if you plan to fill every slot you really should use it anyway because our CPUs have a history of not being able to drive that many slots reliably".
AMD is screwing the socket 940 market left and right. You'll notice there isn't a 2.8 GHz Opteron to match this FX-57. Further, shithole companies like ASUS are further screwing 940 owners by not providing updated BIOSes to support revE/90nm chips or dual-core. ASUS hasn't updated the stable SK8V BIOS in over 1 year!
AMD Fab 36 is expected to be in volume production in 2006. The new facility is expected to require approximately 1,000 employees, most of them highly skilled engineers and technicians.
Source: http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_10023,00.html
Well, here's another review:
:-))
tweakers.net
It's in Dutch but it has some nice benchmarkresults which should be clear to anybody, benchmarked next to an AMD dual-core 4200+ and a AMD 3800+ (and I know for a fact those results are correct cause it's all been benchmarked on my own desk
Check it out. Anandtech has a review as well.
If only Apple went AMD...
and be done with it.
AMD has limited production facilities. These "fabs" produce all of their semiconductor products. The FX57 is currently the fastest chip they produce, and typically yields on faster processors are lower than slower chips. AMD already has commitments to clients to supply certain quantities of slower chips as well. Additionally AMD doesn't want to devalue their slower processors by flooding the market with the fastest chips. These factors all boil down to the single fact that AMD can only produce a limited number of FX57 processors.
The basic laws of supply and demand dictate that there is an inverse relationship between price and demand. If we assume that AMD has a fixed supply then their goal is to set a price that will match demand to supply as closely as possible. If the price is too high then some of their chips will go unsold, and AMD will either have to stockpile or cut the price. If the price is too low then AMD will lose profit and have a backlog of buyers.
Bottom line: Apples hardware should be the best platform to run OS X. If that means using AMD, I want AMD in my Mac - and at the moment boy do I want one of those suckers in my Mac!
And that's why I don't run a mac; so I can have choices.
Apple's transition will start the LAPTOPS, where Intel is strongest. Centrino/Pentium-M is generally equal to AMD's stuff and has lower power consumption.
On the desktop, G5 will stick around until 2007. Let's wait and see what Intel has to offer at that point before you get so stressed about it.
AMD, with such exceptions as the 750 and 760MP, does not make chipsets.
Apple needs a chipset for their powerbook line. They need something that will run at low power, with whatever CPU they choose. Intel makes both a low-power, portable friendly CPU, and a chipset for that CPU. AMD makes the Turion, a good CPU, but they rely on VIA (and SiS, nVidia) for their chipsets. They do not produce them in-house.
That is why Apple chose Intel.
Then the competetion will be tight again.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
That's a totally ridiculous assumtion. If AMD thought for a moment that all you have to do is increase capacity to create marketshare they would have done it long ago.
No, the parent poster was closer to the truth. People buy Intel due to ignorance of processors and slick marketing by Intel and OEMs. Also, bear in mind for light weight laptops Intel actually have a superior product.
Most have managed to get this to overclock stably to 3GHz, which opens up the possibility of an FX-59 later on.
I'd really like to see the following come out for AMD:
FX-59
FX2-59
FX2 would be the dual-core equivalent of the FX, hopefully giving as big a boost to multimedia, as to single-threaded applications. And I'd like to see both offer 2MB of L2 Cache per core... and if they can add another 2MB of L3 Cache (shared on the Dual-core chip), that'd be kick-ass.
~The TwoTailedFox posts again....
So right now, most users only have 1 processor intensive application running, so two symetric cores are not overly useful.
I wonder if the motherboard companies can make MBs that have 2 sockets, one for the current generation of processors and one for the last generation. That way, when you upgrade PCs, you can move your old processor and ram into the computer to act as a background slave.
This Apple is small is a bit excessive. It is 2%-3% of new computer sales worldwide. That's the eighth largest computer manufacturer. In other-words, there are only 7 accounts larger than Apple to fight over.
AMD supplies what, 20%-30% of the CPU market? Meaning grabbing Apple's share would be a 10% increase in market-share. Given the high fixed-cost, low variable costs of chip manufacturing, that could be HUGE for AMD.
In the OS Market, Microsoft TROUNCES Apple. In the hardware market, only real Dell and HP TROUNCE Apple, making them a viable customer.
Alex
Hmmm "2.8GHz on a 90nm chip, SSE3 enabled" for... $1031!! My Venice 3000+ runs at 2.8GHz on a 90nm chip, SSE3 enabled for....$147. You do the math. Thanks AMD! :)
On stock retail cooling too, absolutely beautiful..
the PM is out in full force. its doing quite well. although, i still think the turion (25W/35W) is better. remember that turion integrates the memory controller into the core, so that adds extra power to the core. intel still has a memory controller but its in the chipset, so they get away without using its power in their wattage calculations. to be fair, you should compare the wattage of a turion to teh wattage of the PM and its memory controller on the chipest. the turion also has some other features, blocks buffer overflow viruses, and 64 bit. the pentium D sucks bad compared to AMD's dual core chip. AMD's dual core lead is much bigger than its single core lead. i hesitate to even call teh PD dual core, its two cores, but all they do is share a socket and packaging. amd has real dual core, all in one piece of silicon. much more elegant solution.
Multimedia editing.
With the proliferation of cheap digital still cameras and MiniDV/MicroDV camcorders, people are now increasingly editing their still pictures and home movies on a desktop computer. Problem is, both of these require substantial increases in computing power with lots of RAM available, so getting a faster computer is a MUST.
Programs like Corel's Paint Shop Pro and Adobe Premiere take advantage of the multimedia extensions provided by today's latest CPU's, so using the latest CPU's means less time spending waiting for the computer to do your image/movie edits.
The 'k' in "kilo" is still not capitalized!
FRA: STFU GTFO