Slashdot Mirror
The Chip That Changed the World: AMD's 64-bit FX-51, Ten Years Later
Dputiger writes "It's been a decade since AMD's Athlon 64 FX-51 debuted — and launched the 64-bit x86 extensions that power the desktop and laptop world today. After a year of being bludgeoned by the P4, AMD roared back with a vengeance, kicking off a brief golden age for its own products, and seizing significant market share in desktops and servers."
Although the Opteron was around before, it cost a pretty penny. I'm not sure it's fair to say that the P4 was really bludgeoning the Athlon XP though (higher clock speeds, but NetBurst is everyone's favorite Intel microarchitecture to hate). Check out the Athlon 64 FX review roundup from 2003.
Those were the good old days. How I miss when it took me one day at most to learn about all options I had to build a gaming computer, with enough detail to make an informed decision about what bits and pieces to built it with.
Nowadays just piercing the veil of lies, half truths, false reports and bought reviews, makes the entire process incredibly boring and frustrating.
It seems we've lost a lot of quality in the comment fields in the last 10 years. Lots of expertise modded up carefully; now we seemingly have opinion-pieces moderated up by whichever group happens to be awake at the time, and the real expertise is hidden in the +2 or below.
AMD is very competitive for many-cores workloads. To get an equivalent core count on Intel can be as much as a second AMD system. AMD has gone more wide, Intel has gone more deep. Both have their applications.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
10 years later and we're still running games and applications that are 32bit that only use a single core.
Tell that to Tomshardware and others who use x87 benchmarks and games like skyrim showing an AMD 8 core being handed a smackdown by an i3?
No one believes in AMD anymore
http://saveie6.com/
AMD still makes a better chip for many FP intensive applications, and the price is still superior to Intel to boot. Intel always made a big deal about clock speed, while AMD worked on actual performance. It is really a shame that people pay more attention to marketing than real performance.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
For games sure, but there are lots of workloads that are not games.
It probably wouldn't. But a dual-core Intel processor would be as good as (or better than) a quad-core AMD. And a quad-core Intel would be as good as, or better than, an 8-core AMD. Especially with Intel's Hyperthreading enabling 2 cores-worth of processing to be handled on a single core.
The spec benchmarks tell a different story, and tend to be more representative because each vendor does their best rather than intel/nvidia providing "free" performance enhancement advice for game companies.
So, from my own experience the Amd/Intel story is a lot closer than some of these benchmarks might lead you to believe. Especially for server applications.
Its pretty easy with modern CPU's to make fairly small tweaks that give advantage to one CPU or another. We have a bunch of microbenchmarks for our application, and things like memcpy performance can be swung 2x-4x. Or even the depth of loop unrolling for some things. In one loop the intel it may like 2x and the AMD like 4x unroll. With each one tuned to run best on the platform the bottom line performance is often quite similar, but run the AMD optimized one on the intel, or the reverse and suddenly one or the other CPU appears to be trouncing the other.
Ok, I'm a Java developer, working on Linux. 99% of benchmarks you see on-line are benchmarks of some stuff on Windows, which is immediately skewed towards intel because lots of Windows DLLs are built with Intel compiler which disables optimizations and advanced features on non-intel CPUs, even if those features are supported.
Also, most benchmarks are some synthetic benchmarks (compiled with Intel compiler), or some 3D games, or some video transcoding. I do none of that, and what I do I do not do it on Windows. I am yet to see a site that benchmarks Java compilers, Java IDEs, databases, application or Java web servers, etc. on Intel vs AMD vs ARM platforms on Linux. The only site that comes close is Phoronix. And if you look at their Linux benchmarks, difference between AMD and Intel CPUs is much less than on Anandtech or Toms Hardware. Intel is still making faster CPUs, but not that much faster.
--Coder