Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AMD Hardware Technology

AMD's Socket 939, Athlon 64 FX-54 amd 64 3800+ 160

Posted by CmdrTaco from the thats-a-lotta-digits dept.
BudKnight writes "It looks like AMD is launching four new desktop processors, a new core, and a new socket infrastructure today. HotHardware has tested AMD's two new flagship processors, the Athlon 64 FX-53 and the Athlon 64 3800+. The new FX-53 no longer needs registered memory to function and the 3800+ has only 512K of cache, but it gets an upgraded 128-bit memory controller. The usual suspects also have reviews posted as well - TechReport, Hard|OCP, Beyond3D - more are sure to follow."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD's Socket 939, Athlon 64 FX-54 amd 64 3800+ More

AMD's Socket 939, Athlon 64 FX-54 amd 64 3800+

Comments Filter:

  • No 64bit scores (Score:5, Interesting)

    by brejc8 ( 223089 ) * on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @07:54AM (#9302350) Homepage Journal
    One silly thing about review sites comparing AMD64 to anything else is that they are still running them in 32bit mode. I found running in 64 bit mode gives you about 20% improvement in general code.
    When running guile working on very long integer operations we got a _6_ times improvement. Our simulations dropped from taking an 66 minutes to just over 11 minutes.

    • Re:No 64bit scores (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MrRuslan ( 767128 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @07:59AM (#9302372)
      Due to lack of commericial 64 bit code they run 32 bit code cause thats what evryone runs in the real world and it still kicks ass. AMD is not joking around anymore and comming out with good stuff like this.This is the first time I seen something "backwards compatible" thise good.
      • No kidding. I went to the TechReport review because it was the first one that's not running slow, and my jaw dropped. AMD's really taking the lead with their recent offerings.
      • Not everyone will be running 32 bit code on these chips. Some maybe a lot of the first people to use them will at least recompile if not port to 64 bit code. Thinks like renderfarms and clusters could be some of the first to use them. Now on the desktop you are most likly right.

    • Re:No 64bit scores (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Piranhaa ( 672441 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:00AM (#9302376)
      That is true, however the average consumer WILL NOT be running 64-bit until Windows does get its 64-bit edition running perfectly and shipping with it. Although I do think they should have at least benchmarked it with some type of *nix for 64-bit...

      • Re:No 64bit scores (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The average consumer don't even know how many bits its CPU has.
        • People who read hardware reviews are not average consumers who get a dell.
      • I agree with you. I think they need to take sometime and benchmark suse 32 bit and 64 bit or any other distro for that matter and compare on the same computer to see the advantage of 64 bit code.
      • the average consumer WILL NOT be running 64-bit until Windows does get its 64-bit edition running perfectly

        Being that microsfoft's current history with 16 and 32, and 64bit versions of their OSes, I would put "perfectly" as an unreasonable expectation.

        I'll buy the "shipping with it" part. That is 100% correct.

        Although I do think they should have at least benchmarked it with some type of *nix for 64-bit...

        Yes they should, there is a big market for these things, and the 64bit arena has been dominated

    • Re:No 64bit scores (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rice_web ( 604109 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:02AM (#9302384)
      Hopefully you understand that not many programs are optimized, as of yet, for 64-bit processors. When the more software makes the transition, you can bet that AMD will inch further ahead of Intel in the CPU-speed game (barring an Intel processor with 64-bit extensions anytime soon).

      • Re:No 64bit scores (Score:3, Interesting)

        by lachlan76 ( 770870 )
        I wouldn't bet on an Intel x86-64 processor in the near future. The Yamhill extensions have probably been scrapped along with the Tejas and the rest of the P4 R&D.
        Moving the extensions back to the P6 architecture will probably extend the time before any Pentium-64 processors are made by a few years at least.

        • Re:No 64bit scores (Score:4, Informative)

          by Jarnis ( 266190 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:09AM (#9302799)
          What?

          Have you been hibernating past few months?

          Prescotts with Intel's version of x86-64 are coming out by early autumn. MS delaying the OS is partly because they don't want to piss Intel off. They also want to ensure the thing works perfectly on both versions, and while they are largerly compatible, there are couple of small differences.

    • Re:No 64bit scores (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WegianWarrior ( 649800 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:06AM (#9302393) Journal

      Since just about anything else avilable today (at least to general consumers) are running at 32 bit (disregarding the fact that it's still possible to get hold of 16 bit and 8 bit chips off course) it make damn good sence to compare the new AMD64 to other chips while running it in 32 bit mode. Otherwise, you would be comparing apples and oranges... since no other CPU runs in 64 bit mode.

      Could be interesting to benchmark a AMD64 in 32 bit mode against a AMD64 in 64 bit mode thought... that would say a lot about how much there is to gain in going to 64 bit mode in the first place...

      • Otherwise, you would be comparing apples and oranges... since no other CPU runs in 64 bit mode.

        I take it you mean no other CPU runs in x86-64 mode.
        Just remember, Itanium 2s do exist, but they are hardly something to benchmark a lot...I would assume with a starting price of about 3 grand a chip, which is meant to be used in up to an 8-way configuration, probably about 3 people have them.
        And they can't run 32 bit code natively, it must be done in emulation.
        However, when the Itanium 2 is used in it's native
        • SGI's Origin supercomputer's are essentially clusters of Itanium 2 boxes in a NUMA architecture...And they're still supporting them.

        • Re:No 64bit scores (Score:4, Insightful)

          by BlowChunx ( 168122 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:17AM (#9302859)
          ...probably about 3 people have them.

          We have an 8 way SGI Altix 350 down the hall. I didn't know I would be in such refined company.

          And they can't run 32 bit code natively, it must be done in emulation.

          Intel's original purpose was to put these chips in servers and high end workstations, places where 32-bit compatibility was not its main purpose.

          For CFD on the codes that I run (full Navier-Stokes equations with LES), an Itanium2 at 1.5 Ghz is twice as fast as a 3.0Ghz P4. (According to SGI these are $10k/chip, the lowly 1.4 Ghz are $3k/chip)
          • Itanium2 @ 1.5ghz : ~5500
            P4 @ 3.0ghz : ~$200

            If your Itanium2 is only getting 2x the performance of the P4, its not exactly cost effective is it? You could build a cluster of ~20 P4s and get ~10x the performance of that Itanium2 for the same price.
            • Define cost effective.

              If you can write OpenMP/MPI code that runs on the cluster, then yes, the cluster of P4's would probably get you better performance. But the way to code is written, it's horribly non-parallelizable...and of course, rewriting it takes money (or time, and they are equivalent).

              If you can't and just need speed from serial code, then the Itanium might be the better choice.

        • Just remember, Itanium 2s do exist, but they are hardly something to benchmark a lot.

          Itaniums actually are benchmarked quite a bit, probably more than their sales figures would justify. They are, of course, also not the only 64-bit chips out there. IBM's got their PowerPC 64-bit chips, SUN and Fujisu have their SPARC chips, HP's got PA-RISC, Alpha and even some old servers running 64-bit MIPS chips (their Non-Stop line)... just to name a few.

          I would assume with a starting price of about 3 grand a c

      • Re:No 64bit scores (Score:5, Insightful)

        by swillden ( 191260 ) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:40AM (#9302604) Journal

        Otherwise, you would be comparing apples and oranges... since no other CPU runs in 64 bit mode.

        By that logic, when a processor comes out with a new multimedia extension, or an increased L1 cache size, or a deeper pipeline, or a more efficient instruction scheduler, we should do comparisons with the new feature turned off, because no other CPU has it.

        The real reason these chips were tested in 32 bit mode is because the testers ran WinXP on them for the tests. This is reasonable in that it's what most potential purchasers of the processors would be running, not because it's a more valid comparison against other 32-bit chips. If the most common software were available in 64-bit versions, it would be unreasonable not to use that and let the AMD64 chips show their full capability. (Assuming the software would run faster in 64-bit mode, which isn't necessarily true).

        Users of more flexible software would find it interesting to see how their favorite tools run in 64 bit mode, of course, but that's a smaller audience, so those tests will come later.

        • Re:No 64bit scores (Score:4, Informative)

          by Rich0 ( 548339 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:59AM (#9302732) Homepage
          Assuming the software would run faster in 64-bit mode, which isn't necessarily true.

          Most likely it will - though not necessarily through the use of 64-bit math. The AMD64 adds several additional registers, and that alone can make for a huge performance boost when a complier knows how to use them...

          • Most likely it will - though not necessarily through the use of 64-bit math. The AMD64 adds several additional registers, and that alone can make for a huge performance boost when a complier knows how to use them...

            That's a positive factor, certainly, but there are other factors as well. In particular, I understand that 64-bit code has larger parameter fields, increasing the size of the code. If the code size happens to increase enough that, for example, a loop that used to fit in the instruction cache

      • Soon this should be remedied (sorta) with FarCry for AMD64 [amd.com]

        Won't be much variety, but could be a good starting point for benchmarking.

    • Re:No 64bit scores (Score:5, Interesting)

      by brejc8 ( 223089 ) * on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:17AM (#9302451) Homepage Journal
      Incase people are intrested here are the scores of scibench2 for a load of machines in our office.

      Athlon64 3200 64: 523.70
      Athlon XP2700: 467.15
      Athlon64 3200 32: 449.07
      Athlon XP2600: 448.42
      Pentium4 3.0GHz: 387.57
      Athlon 1400: 305.26
      AMD Athlon 950: 209.51
      Sparc 500MHz: 52.21
      Sparc 440MHz: 51.89
      • Athlon XP2700: 467.15
        Athlon64 3200 32: 449.07

        Interesting. So the XP actually outperforms a higher-rated 64 processor, when the 64 is running in 32-bit mode? Seems rather odd... What are the actual clock-rates of these things?

      • Re:No 64bit scores (Score:3, Informative)

        by hackstraw ( 262471 ) *
        Be aware that this is a benchmark for jvm's, and has little to do with machine performance. According to the benchmarks results page [nist.gov]. A PIV 3.0 GHz computer can score anywhere between 228 and 557. This benchark also seems biased towards 32bit machines. One thing that is essential for any test is for it to at least be internally reliable.

      • Re:No 64bit scores (and CPU cost ...) (Score:4, Informative)

        by hobbs ( 82453 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @12:07PM (#9304895)
        Out of curiosity, I tied these scores to CPU prices as listed at http://www.pricewatch.com/:

        CPU SCORE US$
        Athlon64 3200 64: 523.70 $255
        Athlon XP2700: 467.15 $ 80
        Athlon64 3200 32: 449.07 $255
        Athlon XP2600: 448.42 $ 71
        Pentium4 3.0GHz: 387.57 $203
        Athlon 1400: 305.26 $ 97
        AMD Athlon 950: 209.51 $ 69
        Sparc 500MHz: 52.21 ???
        Sparc 440MHz: 51.89 ???

  • Too long. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Piranhaa ( 672441 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @07:58AM (#9302370)
    It's a really good idea AMD is finally making the transition to dual-channel non buffered memory. They really should have done this a LOT sooner, before consumers started getting adjusted to the other socket, so they wouldn't have to replace their board when upgrading to the newer chip.

    • Re:Too long. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:10AM (#9302414) Journal
      so they wouldn't have to replace their board when upgrading to the newer chip.

      Who still does this?

      I've never upgraded without swapping both the processor and mobo. This isn't a troll but rather just curiosity - I'd like to know if there is any significant percentage of non-gamers that upgrade *only* the processor. I'dathunk that the "processor bottleneck" was just a myth.

      I actually underclocked my Athlon 1800+ because it ran much cooler/lower power without any noticeable decrease in average usage habbits. Now, moving from a 5400rpm hard drive to a 7200rpm unit was a huge upgrade. I can't wait for cheap, desktop-oriented 10k and 15krpm units.

      • Re:Too long. (Score:2, Funny)

        by aelbric ( 145391 )
        You underclocked your Athlon 1800+?!

        Turn in your National Geek Association membership card at the door as you leave, sir! ;-)

        • Re:Too long. (Score:2, Insightful)

          by pebs ( 654334 )
          You underclocked your Athlon 1800+?!
          Turn in your National Geek Association membership card at the door as you leave, sir! ;-)

          Blah.. Underclocking is completely acceptable for geeks. Most overclockers on the other hand, are the rice boy equivalent for the computer world. Overclocking is hardly even considered geeky. Most geeks, especially professionals, will look down upon overclocking.

          • Re:Too long. (Score:2, Insightful)

            by JFitzsimmons ( 764599 )
            However, unlike ricing a car, overclocking actually does make your computer faster... assuming you can stand the heat, and the increase in power usage, and quite possibly the instability (if it isn't done properly).
        • You underclocked your Athlon 1800+?!

          That's nothing. I'm building a machine now where I have to underclock a K6-2! Whee!!

          Of course, it's not a total geek-loss...

          • I have to build all the external case connectors for it, because the motherboard only has IDC connectors.
          • I have to build a case to put it in since the board isn't a standard size.
          • I have to hope that I calculated the wattage correctly so that I don't have issues with my external power supply brick.
          • I have to install Linux on a CompactFlash a
      • Who still does this?

        I would. I'm running a Duron 750MHz, and I'd like to upgrade it to an Athlon 1.4GHz. (The only problem is finding the darn part.)

        I can't wait for cheap, desktop-oriented 10k and 15krpm units.

        Don't hold your breath. 10k drives generate a lot of heat.
        • If you are running on a KT133 motherboard, whilst the Palominos weren't compatible (presumably why you are looking for a Thunderbird core Athlon), apparently the TBreds are. You should be able to run a fast TBred on your hardware without a problem. Best to investigate this online though for your particular motherboard.

          If I'd known this myself I wouldn't have spent the massive amounts of money (22) on a new cheap motherboard.
        • For the thermally and electrically concious, 10k RPM drives may not be wise, but a LOT of heat? My 15k drives do get warm. I guess it's probably good to check storagereview.com to be sure, they are one of the few sites that measure things that don't necessarily affect speed, namely heat and noise.

      • Who still does this?

        As you hinted below, gamers. And immature people who feel that their worth as human beings is measured by their computers. In short, the fanboys who are the target market for all these quadrillion hardware review sites.

        • Re:Too long. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by sumdumass ( 711423 )
          what about the people building thier own computer and selected a smaller processor because it wass afordable and then plan on buying a better one when availible. I did this witha system i built for less then $300 The processor i wanted at the time cost almost that much. so i took an extra year or so to get one. With the socket A, i was able to get even a newer/faster processor then i originally wanted to.
      • I built a PC last year with a 1.8ghz celeron, and recently replaced it with a 3.06 I got on the cheap. The performance increase is more than noticable, even though I'd need to reinstall XP to enable HT.

        I didn't want to have to tear apart my box, reinstall my OS and all its files, etc, etc.. I just popped out the old CPU and heatsink, and popped in the new one.

        It was always my plan to do so, the money I saved going with the 1.8 celery short-term went to a DVD burner and a gig of quality RAM.

        Socket 478 s

        • I didn't want to have to tear apart my box, reinstall my OS and all its files, etc, etc..

          Why would replacing the mobo force you to reinstall the OS?

        • You went from p4 celeron to a real P4.

          obviously the difference is noticeable because the P4 celeron is, relatively speaking, crap.
        • even though I'd need to reinstall XP to enable HT.

          I highly doubt you need to reinstall XP to enable hyperthreading.

          I didn't need to reinstall W2k to do so, there was a way to switch from uniprocessor kernel to multiprocessor kernel in the System Hardware control panel. I sure as heck hope they didn't change that for XP. Google it to be sure, unless you want to reinstall for the sake of reinstalling.

      • Re:Too long. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by PhrostyMcByte ( 589271 )
        I'dathunk that the "processor bottleneck" was just a myth.

        It doesn't really matter for non-gamers. My dad runs an XP2000+ and is able to browse the web/play mp3s without a problem. But for gamers it really matters: current games are almost completely CPU limited. Until some games come out that seriously stress the video hardware with shaders, all the new video cards can do for you is increase resolution and AA/AF. With a recent system you should get around the same FPS in UT2004 and FarCry until you
      • Who still does this?

        I upgraded my Athlon XP 2000+ to a 2400+ without changing the motherboard (though I did need to update the BIOS - Abit AT7-MAX).

        The reason for that though was a bit of a one off: The newer processors (Thoroughbred, Palamino, I don't remember which way round it is) ran significantly cooler than the old ones, so for ~50GBP I got a 2400+ and put it in.. lo and behold, the CPU temperatures now run around 10 degrees C lower. Fantastic.

    • Re:Too long. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:16AM (#9302445) Journal
      The AMD64 platform design was released several years late and amd had to honor obligation with manufacturers that had already invested time and effort in the r&d based on the specs it issued before the delays. Once most of these "proto-type" boards (or whatever you will call them) were reasonably sold out, they could go ahead with thier advancments they discovered along the line.

      It sounds like the consumer got the raw end, but in reality it allowed the motherboard and chipset manufacturers to have a sence of confidence and time to develope working designs for the newer socket. It is a win-win type situation except for those that bought with the intention of upgrading. But then again most people in that situation (like me) would have been reading about the new socket when researching whether or not to get one and made a decision to live with it. Others would be just getting it for a system that would last a while bfore buying another.
      • I currently run hacked Athlon XP 2000s to run in a dual Tyan motherboard. The hack worked flawlessly and saved me sevral hundred $$$$.

        I'm not upgrading until I can get a dual core, dual proc system. I can't wait for 4 penguins on the boot screen for my Debian desktop.
    • Dual channel wasn't that great a benefit for Athlon 64 anyway, although I suspect latency is a smidge shorter for unbuffered.

      IMO, the FX series isn't exactly a toy, either, and buffered allows more memory and bigger sticks per channel. This might mean that pro gear that got by with FX might have to switch to Opteron for the next upgrade.

  • Ceramic vs Organic packaging (Score:4, Funny)

    by danormsby ( 529805 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:00AM (#9302378) Homepage
    Anyone got a definition on what the "Organic" packaging on the new Socket 939 processors is and how it compares with the previous ceramic packaging?

    I guess it isn't wicker based.

  • Sockets again (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tronicum ( 617382 ) * on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:02AM (#9302385)
    I wonder how often they will introduce new sockets for just a bunch of CPUs.

    939 will not support dual CPUs, after all that "Slot A", Socket 7xx/9xx nonsens you cant just buy a board and hope to upgrade the CPU. They change the memory systems, introduce new bus systems (graphic : PCI->AGP->PCI-X/PCI-Express).

    Anyway I like my Athlon64 and at least the TDP (Thermal Design Power) of the new CPUs does not rise....

    • Tinfoil anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Gothmolly ( 148874 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:10AM (#9302412)
      IANACD (I am not a CPU Designer), but I'd imagine that they're redesigning these things for a reason, NOT just to screw users and force an upgrade cycle. Intel did the same thing with their CPUs, and IBM/everyone did the same when they went from 30 pin to 72 pin SIMMS, then to DIMMS, then to DDR DIMMS. Was this all a vast Taiwanese component manufacturer conspiracy? I somehow doubt it. When it first came out, the PCI bus was limited to 3 slots due to physical 'ring' characteristics on the signal lines. Some propeller-heads at HP figured out a way to get 4 slots, and everyone ooh'd and aaah'd over it. Nowadays we have more slots due to bridge chips, are we going to complain that those pesky motherboard manufacturers keep updating their chipsets?
      Are you also angry at the music industry cabal that forced everyone to upgrade from vinyl to 8-track to cassette to CD to DVD ?

      Schernau's 2nd law: bolding part of your post actually detracts from your argument
      • IBM/everyone did the same when they went from 30 pin to 72 pin SIMMS, then to DIMMS, then to DDR DIMMS.

        The switch from 30-pin to 72-pin SIMMS, and then on to DIMMS, occured as a result of the memory bus width increasing.

        When the normal width for a memory bank reached 64 bits, they went from 30-pin to 72-pin. (It was easier to insert one 72-pin SIMM than four 30-pin SIMMs.)

        When the normal width for a memory bank reached 128 bits, they switched from SIMMs to DIMMS. (Again, it is easier to insert one DIMM
      • you know, your totally right.. the changed from 30 pin memory to 72, then DIMM, DDR. Intel changing from a socket to a slot then back to a socket, etc.

        however, each one of those was a MAJOR change in in the architecture and took a while to implement the change.

        AMD has release what, 4 incompatable sockets in the past year?
        939, 940,754, 740
        And soon it will be releasing another socket, socket 900.

        Im sure they had other socketed versions that they never made public.

        to make things worse is that AMD has sta

        • Re:Tinfoil anyone? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Bedouin X ( 254404 )
          740 was not released in the last year, it has been around forever as the Athlon XP socket.

          940 is for the high end. You can't put a Xeon in a P4 board. It's not going anywhere.

          754 was a stepping stone to 939 which is better and cheaper. Intel did the exact same thing when the P4 came out and they went from Williamette to Northwood (socket 423 to 478). It may be inconvenient to people who didn't do their research - socket 939 was known to be coming from day one - but it's not unreasonable or unprecedented.

    • Re:Sockets again (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rufus211 ( 221883 )
      > after all that "Slot A", Socket 7xx/9xx nonsens you cant just buy a board

      Erm, what "Slot A nonsens"? Yeah, years ago AMD switched from Slot A to Socket A for very good reasons and has stuck with Socket A up until now. In fact my CPU (Barton 3200+) recently died and I threw in a Duron 1ghz to keep my board running until I got a replacement. Again, PCI->AGP made a hell of a lot of sense and was again years ago, as does the current PCI -> PCI-E. Now the only "nonesens" has been the 754>939 c

    • Re:Sockets again (Score:3, Informative)

      by CTho9305 ( 264265 )
      As I understand it, you can't build a 4-layer motherboard with socket 940 (you have to use 6 layers). By changing the pin layout for socket 939, it is now possible to use 4 layers. This should reduce the cost of motherboards.
    • Actually, I've heard that - though increased power may heat the chip a bit more - Athlon 64's are a little nicer on the heat end. Why? Much bigger surface area of the processor die. My XP2500, which has reached temperatures of 95celcius (before I installed a new fan), isn't very big on the die. The last AMD64 I saw, quite a big processor. Therefore there's a lot more surface area for heat dissipation to the heatsink/fan.
    • Just as I got a new board too.

      They got me with this the last time too with Slot A processors. Shit hell damn.

  • Bah! (Score:5, Funny)

    by hendot ( 622445 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:03AM (#9302387)
    Sounds like a ripoff to me. You pay $x for a new cpu and they don't even give you the full 940 pins :p
  • I've been waiting for these to come out before building my new dev box. Does anyone know where I can buy them in the UK? And a socket 939 mboard too? I'm thinking of the Asus A8V. I've tried Dealtime, Kelkoo and some specific dealers but no luck yet other than US stores.

  • Anandtech review (Score:5, Informative)

    by Karamchand ( 607798 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:10AM (#9302413)
    Review on Anandtech [anandtech.com]! (I like them for their print view:)

  • More review links (Score:5, Informative)

    by JaF893 ( 745419 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:23AM (#9302491) Journal
    Here are some more review links for those who are interested:
    Tom's Hardware [tomshardware.com]
    Bit-Tech [bit-tech.net]
    Driver Heaven [driverheaven.net]
    AMD Zone [amdzone.com]
    Hard Tecs 4U [hardtecs4u.com]
    PC Perspective [pcper.com]
    Ace's Hardware [aceshardware.com]
    Sudhian [sudhian.com]

  • Low-power chips (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by _|()|\| ( 159991 )
    I'd like to build a system with a 35 W mobile Athlon 64 (e.g., AMD2800BQX4AX). It would be just the ticket for a Shuttle, or even a quiet mid tower. The only problem is, it lacks the integrated heat spreader, so I don't know what heat sink to use.

  • Aceshardware Review (Score:5, Informative)

    by hattig ( 47930 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @08:27AM (#9302520) Journal
    AcesHardware found that disabling the 2T memory timing [aceshardware.com] in the BIOS improved S939 performence by over 10%. The only limitation with this is one DIMM per memory channel.

    A lot of reviews you read today will not be using this, and the results will therefore be significantly lower than what is possible.

  • Good review at XbitLabs (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The source:
    Meeting First Socket 939 Processors: AMD Athlon 64 3800+ and Athlon 64 3500+

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/at h lo n64-3800.html

    I liked the conclusion. From the article:

    "First, Socket 939 becomes a "stable platform" with a lifecycle stretching to 2006. Thus, AMD makes a step towards end-users who want to have low-cost upgrade opportunities.

    Second, the new processor socket offers dual-channel memory access to the owners of the Socket 939 platform. I can't say that the two channe
  • ...this guy [michaelscomputers.com] start selling them.

    Do you Remember [tomshardware.com] him?
    • Ah, but now they have a money back guarentee. So if you get a computer from them and send it back they'll cover it. If you "Read Why" they explain that they've never had a return.

      I guess you don't get many returns when you don't actually ship the computers.
  • We've posted a list of links to reviews and news regarding the AMD64 939-pin processors. It's available here [overclockersclub.com] for anyone that wants to look at more information on the new CPUs. Currently 18 reviews, and the list is updated as they come in.

  • Compile performance! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IceFox ( 18179 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @09:44AM (#9303125) Homepage
    Something I personally look for and most of the time isn't included in any reviews I was presently surprised to find in anandtech's review a Quake compile test!

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2065&p =12 [anandtech.com]

    It doesn't specify what compiler or platform was used, but at the bare minimum it gives a little glimpse of what you might be able to achieve. Now all you have to do is apply that to a price/performance graph to determine what and how many you want to buy.

    -Benjamin Meyer

    • Re:Compile performance! (Score:4, Informative)

      by HarvardAce ( 771954 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2004 @10:05AM (#9303397) Homepage
      From a previous guide [anandtech.com], a brief description of their build process.

      As introduced with our Athlon 64 article, we are looking at compile times for the Quake III Arena source code. In running this test, we compiled the source for both Q3A and Q3TA in both debug and release modes using the Batch Build feature of Visual C++ 6.0. The build was run three consecutive times for each processor (in order to try to reduce file read time impact), and we used the third compile time.

  • I heard that Intel CPU's used to automagically reduce their clock rate when their temperature got too high.

    This feature caused some businesses I know to forgo choosing any AMD cpu, since it couldn't protect itself in the event of an unattended fan failure.

    First question - does the clocking down feature really exist on Intel CPU's? and second question, Does AMD have this feature yet?
    • I'm using the AMD CPU on my personal system right now. If I were trying to generate FUD I would have just blasted away instead of asking for information.

      According to my limited stab, googling for info, it looks like AMD still doesn't have the down-clock protection on its CPU's. Thats too bad.

      I was hopinfg that someone would point me at info saying otherwise.

      I would really like to be able to use them in my client installations but I can't really recommend them for anyplace that doesn't have 7x24 staff w

      • I would really like to be able to use them in my client installations but I can't really recommend them for anyplace that doesn't have 7x24 staff within hearing distance of any audible thermal alarms.

        As mentioned in another post, the P4 clock throttling will typically not prevent the system from crashing, particularly with the latest and greatest (and rather power hungry) revision of the P4 except maybe if the system is still idle, and even than it's hit and miss. All it will do is give you a bit more

        • Otherwise most of this started with a particular hardware review website that wanted to get MANY page hits (and they succeeded beyond their wildest imaginations) with a video of an AthlonXP frying itself because they yanked the heatsink off the thing while the system is running

          The original article [tomshardware.com] was shot down in an AMDZone article that was covered [slashdot.org] by Slashdot.

    • This feature caused some businesses I know to forgo choosing any AMD cpu, since it couldn't protect itself in the event of an unattended fan failure.

      AMD processor will shut down if their CPU fan fails, just like pretty much all previous processors. Intel P4 chips MIGHT just throttle back, though according to Intel tech-docs they will only throttle down to 30% of their full speed at an absolute minimum, so it's quite possible that the chips will still be consume 20-30W of power. What that means is that

  • All the reviews have pretty much shown that there is little difference between 940-pin and 939-pin versions of the chip, and even 512KB L2 vs. 1MB L2 doesn't make a big difference. Afterall, in the vast majority of applications, are you going to notice a 5% increase in speed?

    This is a nice starting point for AMD to ramp up their line of consumer/low-end workstation chips, given that registered RAM isn't required. Higher end workstation users and servers will still want multi-processor systems with regist

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close