AMD Athlon 64 & Athlon 64 FX - It's Judgment Day
by Anand Lal Shimpi on September 23, 2003 1:25 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
AMD's Gem: Athlon 64
When you have an architecture that has been talked about publicly for a couple of years and when all of your partners have had access to CPUs for almost as long, it becomes very tough to keep things a secret. Leaks occur and it would be an understatement to say that AMD was plagued by a few leaks, so most of the information you're about to hear has been published elsewhere and already alluded to.
With that said, AMD has brought two versions of their K8 architecture to the desktop market - branded the Athlon 64 and the Athlon 64 FX. The Athlon 64 is the 754-pin ClawHammer that we've been hearing about all this time, while the Athlon 64 FX is little more than a higher clocked 940-pin Opteron.
Let's start with the regular Athlon 64; contrary to surprisingly popular belief, the regular Athlon 64 does include an on-die memory controller - what it doesn't include is the on-die 128-bit memory controller found on the Opteron. Instead, you will find only a single-channel 64-bit memory controller with the Athlon 64. This on-die memory controller supports regular unbuffered DDR SDRAM at speeds of up to DDR400.
The other major difference between the Athlon 64 and the Opteron is that the Athlon 64 only has a single Hyper Transport link. Remember that the K8 architecture does not have any external "Front Side Bus" instead, serial Hyper Transport links connect the CPU to external chips such as a South Bridge, AGP controller or another CPU. With only one Hyper Transport link, there's no hope for the Athlon 64 to be used in multiprocessor environments as the sole Hyper Transport link would be tied up by the South Bridge/AGP controller. This lack of multiprocessor support is in direct contrast to the "lack" of multiprocessor support with the Athlon XP, which you could use in multiprocessor configurations; with the Athlon 64 it is physically impossible (unless you don't want any BIOS, hard drive or expansion slot support).
AMD originally announced that the Athlon 64 would have a 512KB L2 cache, however after continued delays and increased competition the Athlon 64 was given a full 1MB L2 cache. As we mentioned before, the 128KB L1 cache remains unchanged from the original Athlon XP and its exclusive nature means that the Athlon 64 has a total of 1088KB of cache for data storage (the remaining 64KB is for instruction storage).
The Athlon 64 will continue with AMD's model numbering system, although with a revised test suite. The end result is that AMD is much more conservative with their ratings, meaning that an Athlon 64 3200+ is inherently faster than an Athlon XP 3200+, despite carrying the same model number. As you've undoubtedly heard, the only Athlon 64 available at launch will be the 3200+, which will run at a 2.0GHz clock speed. The 2.0GHz clock speed is arrived at by taking the 200MHz Hyper Transport clock and multiplying it by a 10.0x clock multiplier. Currently there isn't a way to adjust the multiplier of Athlon 64 CPUs, so the potential for overclocking exists by increasing the Hyper Transport clock.
In Q4 AMD will launch the Athlon 64 3400+, which we'd assume would be clocked at 2.2GHz. The 3400+ will be the last Athlon 64 for 2003, and although we will see lower clocked versions in the mobile space, that will be it for desktops. The 3400+ will be introduced at around $600.
The Athlon 64 3200+ will sell for $417 in 1,000 unit quantities.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
122 Comments
View All Comments
AgaBooga - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
Where is the P4EE in the memory tests?Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
Personally this was rather anti-climatic for me. It's certainly not a Intel killer that all the hype proclaimed. AMD for business, Intel for content, and a throwup for gaming. Same as it has been for awhile.Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
#27 & #28 (amd fanboy double post)It SHOULD be up there with the P4EE because the PRESCOTT will be coming right around the corner! Face it, AMD did not put out a killer and Intel is sitting pretty in 2004.
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
#20 are you serious? Did you just comment in the forum without looking at the review or did you actually look at the review. AMD is not "lagging" behind Intel. They are right up there with them. Look at the benchmarks and you will see the CURRENTLY AVAILABLE Athlon64 easily matches a NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE P4EE.Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
#20 are you serious? Did you just comment in the forum without looking at the review or did you actually look at the review. AMD is not "lagging" behind Intel. They are right up there with them. Look at the benchmarks and you will see the CURRENTLY AVAILABLE Athlon64 easily matches a NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE P4EE.Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
AMD, Pamela Anderson called. She want's to know how she can get a bust as big as yours. I have two words for AMD- "Segway" and "Scooter."Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
nForce3 performance bugTime to re-do the benchmarks, Anand.
Your FX-51 benchmarks are inaccurate.
http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_...
Nvidia: NForce-3 Bug
The extremely low AGP performance of the NForce3 can be clearly attributed to problems with the HyperTransport channel interface to the Northbridge. That is proven by the benchmark results and the performance differences of up to 33.2 percent. Details about this can be found in the benchmark section of this article.
Originally, Nvidia had planned to also integrate a SATA RAID controller in the Southbridge. Although the controller is included in the current NForce 3, Nvidia deactivated this feature. The reason was that error-free operation was not possible. For this reason, we decided to use additional boards based on the VIA K8T800 chipset.
Nvidia (Athlon 64 FX, or alternatively GeForce FX - related names) may be a more high-profile partner for AMD than VIA. However, we would point out that VIA, with the K8T800 chipset, currently offers a clearly better solution for the Athlon 64.
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
What is that smell?AMD just let loose with a huge turd!
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
#4 You may be right (I don't think so but let say you are), but then ask yourself - where is the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition? There is no mention of this CPU at Intel web site at all, there is no datasheet and no batch numbers. Today, it is only a prototype CPU, such as Prescott is. They managed to build few Gallatin B1 cores that are able to work at this frequency and then remarked them. This CPU is not reality, only OEMs can buy it in very limited quantities, but end users can't. I think a 3 GHz Athlon 64 FX on 90nm prototype would perform far the best in this review... and it would be the same policy as with this Pentium 4 Extreme Edition.Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
#17 Answers:1. Athlon 64's memory controller is very fast as you can see from the benchmarks. Dual channel is only needed in some situations to give decent performance. HT operates at 800 MHz with DDR and 16 bits, thus giving 3.2 GB/s each way (6.4 GB/s). Not so bad for a I/O and AGP interface only bus
3. S754 is a lower end platform while S940 is an Opteron platform. AMD will introduce S939 early next year and will continue to produce CPUs for all those sockets. S940 A64 FX will, however, disapper in the end of next year.
6. HyperTransport "Tunnel" system allows for practically unlimited number of chipset combinations, thus a PCI Express will only require to add another Tunnel or integrate it into current chipsets.