Athlon 64 launched

[drewb99 0]

AMD

Various reviews and benchmarks:

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTI0

http://www.sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=434

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1884

http://techreport.com/reviews/2003q3/athlon64/index.x?pg=1

http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?ArticleID=1344

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

It never ends.

(I should of waited 3 years before buying my computer!   )

[Dauragon 0]

2.2 ghz? thats 1 ghz under my comp

[Frisbee 0]

2.2 ghz? thats 1 ghz under my comp

Ah yes,Ghz say it all.

For a better example,the new celeron 2.7's that came out will be wasted by any of the current low end XP's or P4's,who should perform better at everything,even with less ghz stamped on the box.

[hellfish6 7]

These suckers are gonna be expensive. Alienware is already offering a system for $3500... still... the benchmarks are impressive. God, I'm tempted.

[drewb99 0]

So am I, and at about $20 more than an Athlon XP 3200+ it's impossible to resist. Good thing I chose to get a system now rather than sooner

[denoir 0]

No sense in buying before the Win XP 64-bit edition comes out. If you are running the standard 32-bit version, you'll likely get slightly worse performance than with a 32 bit processor.

Then of course you'll have to wait to get software that is compiled for the 64-bit platform. I'd say that this will be worth buying in 2-3 years.

[Supah 0]

No sense in buying before the Win XP 64-bit edition comes out. If you are running the standard 32-bit version, you'll likely get slightly worse performance than with a 32 bit processor.

Then of course you'll have to wait to get software that is compiled for the 64-bit platform. I'd say that this will be worth buying in 2-3 years.

Agreeing 100%. Apart from that, sure there is a motherboard for it ... too bad its not going to be stable for a while

[toadlife 3]

No sense in buying before the Win XP 64-bit edition comes out. If you are running the standard 32-bit version, you'll likely get slightly worse performance than with a 32 bit processor.

No you wont. the Athlon64 runs 32bit code natively and has an improved core design over the current (or 'old' if you will) AthlonXP chips. In the benchmarks listed earlier the Athlon64 3200 give an average of 20% more performance than the AthonXP3200 - even though they carry the same 'performance rating'. The particular benchmark I looked at extensively was run on 32bit WindowsXP.

Quote[/b] ]Sandra's memory tests, however, are interesting. We see the expected AthlonXP 3200+ performance, (which Athlon 64 improves by about 10%) but the Athlon FX-51 memory scores are nothing short of astounding, more than doubling the 3200+ and blowing straight past the P4 3.2 in both EE and standard editions. This is undoubtedly the result of the CPU's integrated memory controller at work.

One other note: The Athlon64 trounces the even the 3.2ghz P4 in CPU intensive applications. This chip should run OFP like a champ.

[blackdog~ 0]

I'll probably build a new computer around Christmas time... I'm glad this came out when it did - I'm going to get one

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

No sense in buying before the Win XP 64-bit edition comes out. If you are running the standard 32-bit version, you'll likely get slightly worse performance than with a 32 bit processor.

Then of course you'll have to wait to get software that is compiled for the 64-bit platform. I'd say that this will be worth buying in 2-3 years.

Nope, its 32bit performance is significantly improved compared to what you could get a few weeks before, so not only is it beating everything in the 32bit area, but it also has lightning speed for 64bit applications (apparently).

The Intel solution, on the other hand, does not have native 32bit support, it merely simulates 32bit (not sure of the exact architecture) and thus runs 32bit applications worse than a native 32bit CPU. However, its 64bit performance is rumoured to be amazing.

EDIT: One more thing, it is NOT worth buying one yet for two reasons: price being one of them, and the other being that the Athlon64 requires ECC Ram! Once they switch over to normal ram, then its worth buying. Also, the PIN number (and thus the socket type) is going to change in the next few months as well, so wait until the ECC requirement is dropped and the new socket is released, THEN its worth buying IMO

[edc 0]

Quote[/b] ]ECC Ram

hehe, I've never even heard of that.

[toadlife 3]

One more thing, it is NOT worth buying one yet for two reasons: price being one of them, and the other being that the Athlon64 requires ECC Ram! Once they switch over to normal ram, then its worth buying. Also, the PIN number (and thus the socket type) is going to change in the next few months as well, so wait until the ECC requirement is dropped and the new socket is released, THEN its worth buying IMO

From one of the review sites...

Quote[/b] ]

The Memory Question:

One of the major quoted differences between Athlon FX-51 / Opteron and Athlon 64 is that the former requires registered RAM while the latter does not. There's an important point to clear up here. Typically the Opteron / Athlon FX-51 is said to "Require Registered ECC DDR RAM", but in fact it is only registered memory that is required. Since the only type of registered RAM typically is ECC RAM, this has never been an issue, but as of today Kingston is launching a new line of non-ECC, registered RAM that should be of great interest to Opteron / Athlon FX-51 users. At the moment the RAM is shipping mainly to system builders, but as market penetration of the FX increases, availability should improve. Mushkin is also shipping registered (non-ECC) DIMMs, currently in stock at NewEgg.

I think the chip will allways require 'registered' RAM, but as the quote says above, it will become available at lower prices than ECC memory.

Still I'd have to agree the AthlonFX is kinda expensive at the moment. Of course it is arguably the fastest consumer CPU on the planet at the moment. You get what you pay for.

[EiZei 0]

Nah, my 1800+ is good enough for playing ofp.

[toadlife 3]

The Intel solution, on the other hand, does not have native 32bit support, it merely simulates 32bit (not sure of the exact architecture) and thus runs 32bit applications worse than a native 32bit CPU. However, its 64bit performance is rumoured to be amazing.

Not to mention the Intel's solution isn't designed, nor priced for your typical consumer/gaming enthusiast. A single processor, 1.3Ghz itanuim 2 system will run you around $7,000.00(US). AMD did the smart thing by making the chip both 32/64 bit. Intel is taking the "our way or the highway" road.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Still I'd have to agree the AthlonFX is kinda expensive at the moment. Of course it is arguably the fastest consumer CPU on the planet at the moment. You get what you pay for.

Yeah, I would like to argue actually

[toadlife 3]

Come now. Let's be reaslistic.

[toadlife 3]

One thing I've noticed is that all of the different sites that did benchmarks have strikingly different results - even when they are running the exact same tests. Very fishy.

[kegetys 2]

I wonder if it will finally have at least some kind of internal overheat protection that intel has had since the P2's... Would suck to burn a 733 dollar processor :P

[toadlife 3]

I wonder if it will finally have at least some kind of internal overheat protection that intel has had since the P2's... Would suck to burn a 733 dollar processor :P

It does.

[denoir 0]

No sense in buying before the Win XP 64-bit edition comes out. If you are running the standard 32-bit version, you'll likely get slightly worse performance than with a 32 bit processor.

No you wont. the Athlon64 runs 32bit code natively and has an improved core design over the current (or 'old' if you will) AthlonXP chips. In the benchmarks listed earlier the Athlon64 3200 give an average of 20% more performance than the AthonXP3200 - even though they carry the same 'performance rating'. The particular benchmark I looked at extensively was run on 32bit WindowsXP.

After looking more carefuly at the issue, I can only conclude that you're right. Very elegant solution too: It has a one bit switch for 32/64 operating mode. I think that Intel is fairly fucked as they don't have anything that has this dual capability

One thing that would have been cool if they instead of just limiting the addressing when in 32 bit mode that they instead piped it in parallell (as 32 + 32). I mean, you have a 64 bit bus, why only use half of it? Now that would have been astounding performance!

[kegetys 2]

I wonder if it...

It does.  

What kind of?

[toadlife 3]

From this page:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-fx51_4.html

Quote[/b] ]Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX have also acquired a few long awaited changes of the package design and anti-burn protection. First of all, I would like to mention a special lid that protects the CPU die against physical damage during cooler installation and removing. Moreover, besides the built-in thermal diode, Athlon 64 FX and Athlon 64 have finally got their own anti-overheating protection circuit. Although, it doesn’t bring anything brand new to the idea behind it: if the CPU reaches certain critical temperature, it simply shuts down.

In other words, it's exactly the same an Intel's solution. I've had a few XEON servers at work freeze up like icecubes after their CPU fan failed. Not all that elegant, but it works.

Edit: Arent intel chips supposed to scale down instead of shut down upon overheating?

[kegetys 2]

Edit: Arent intel chips supposed to scale down instead of shut down upon overheating?

P4 core should and does... I have tried that myself with my 2Ghz celeron, I removed the heatsink with the system running and it kept running fine, though very slow.

[toadlife 3]

Thats what I thought. I guess those Xeon servers we had where the fan failed were just too damn hot for the scaling-down method to work - ot they scaled theselves down 99% and only appeared to be forzen solid.