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
What is 1 MiB of L2 cache? 1 Million Bytes?
It's the binary count of bytes, 2^n, instead of the decimal *10^n
Let the commencement BEGINULATE!
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
If you are confused, This guide is pretty good at explaining the differences between the current AMD offerings.
The reason it costs so much is you just outfitted your rig with some seriously serious hardware. You went close to top of the line of your own volition. The top-shelf stuff will always cost you a premium - one that doesn't usually scale to the increase in performance - because you're going for best of the best.
Well AMD's production capacity isn't as big as Intel's - that's one of the big issues. AMD has an agreement with Intel to use x86, but this means that AMD may only outsource a limited amount of its production to foundries. But the new fab in Dresden, Germany will soon be opened to boost AMD's production capacity.
Intel also has big deals with huge system builders such as Dell and HP.
Venice.
The venice core is the new one. It's a few unimportant percent faster than the others. It's got a few not-terribly-important new features. It's rather more than a few percent less power-hungry. AMD doggedly sticks to its 89W max figure, but Venice maxes out at more like 50W, according to measurements / approximations.
So, to recap:
Faster
Better
Lower power
Nicely overclockable
Buy from a respectable retailer and they'll tell you not only which core you're buying, but the clockspeed, cache size, etc. rather than just the model number.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
It has nothing to do with the smarts (or lack of) of the market. It has to do with their capacity and with marketing.
99% of the users out there don't even need a 2ghz P4, let alone a 2.8ghz FX-57. AMD has long been catering to the enthusiast market which is a very, very small fraction of the overall market.
Pull up task manager and look at how much CPU usage you have when your machine is just sitting 'idle', not running a game or other CPU intensive app. If you have a higher end CPU, it's probably maybe averaging 1-2%. That's not a lot of stuff to toss on the other CPU. The FX chip will run at much more than 2% faster than the dual-core chips available now, so it's the better option for games (99.9% of which won't take advantage of 2 CPUs). In a couple years when more games are written for SMP systems, then the dual-core will be the way to go.
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
Also, the 940 boards have to be 6-layer (costs more), and they have to have ECC (IIRC), whereas 939 can be 4-layer, and use cheaper, faster non-ECC memory.
Then Intel will need two bolt of lightning.
Check it out. Anandtech has a review as well.