Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Waffle on October 24, 2003, 05:59:19 AM
-
Anyone seen / used these processors yet? Think they are fairly new.
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112603,00.asp
-
I wouldn't trust em not to explode.. I'll just run a dual pentium rig if i need to update.. there's your 64 bit right there ;)
-
Hmmm wonder how dual 64s would work......
-
Athlon64 is the next generation of computing. It's explosive all right - it blows Intel away.
The cpu's have gone from 8-bit to 16-bit. 16-bit to 32-bit. Now the natural step will be 32-bit to 64-bit. Would you still prefer running an overclocked 486? That's kinda what you're doing with your 32-bit pentiums.
The innovative architecture of Athlon64 brings performance gains in many different ways, even with 32-bit code.
-
The fact the Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX can execute 64 bit code doesn't mean much at the moment, but regardless the Athlon FX Model 51 is the fastest (non-overclocked) x86 CPU on the market right now. Unfortunately, its price reflects that. (Around $800)
The Athlon 64 is essentially an Athlon XP with some major improvements. (On-die memory controller and SSE2 instruction support would be the biggest improvements over the Athlon XP.)
-
The inclusion, alone, of SSE2 is going to go a long way in increasing performance. Right now the P4+ATI combination have an edge over the AMD+ATI combination due to ATI's heavy use of SSE2 in the drivers.
I just hope they get solid chipset support for the new AMD CPU's. That has, historically, been the only real issue with AMD.
-
Skuzzy, about the SSE2 optimizations in the Catalyst drivers: In the CPU benchmarks I've seen (previous to the Athlon 64) where benchmarks with both ATI and nVidia cards are present the Athlon XP typically did better with ATI cards than nVidia cards. I'm sure there's some significant SSE2 optimizations there, because the Athlon 64 reviews using ATI 9800 Pros (Aces Hardware, Anandtech) showed a much bigger gain versus Athlon XP than than those reviews using 5900 Ultras (Tom's Hardware), but it looks like ATIs non-SSE2 Athlon XP codepath was not bad at all either.
Realistically though, I'm wondering just how heavily a video driver can be SSE2 optimized. (I wish I knew exactly what operations the video drivers are doing, but I'd assume it's primarily memory read and write operations.) In the cases where SSE2 isn't used, the Athlon can dispatch 3 load/store ops plus 3 integer/fp ops (6 total) per clock versus the P4s 2 load/store and 2 int/fp (4 total). If the P4 wasn't using SSE 2 instructions it would seem to be at a significant disadvantage to the Athlon on a per clock basis.
Regardless, adding SSE2 support (and actually adding 8 more SSE2 registers when in 64 bit mode) to the Athlon 64 was definately the right thing for AMD to do. They were considering their own new SIMD instruction set for the Athlon 64. SSE2 support gives the Athlon 64 an immediate performance boost in heavily P4 optimized applications. I think from a gaming standpoint the on-die memory controller, which greatly reduces memory latencies, is probably just as important though.
-
ATI currently uses 3DNow for AMD, so, no its not a bad code path, but I can easily see AMD's SSE2 implementation just mauling Intel's.
The SSE2/3DNow instructions are used quite heavily in DX9 applications, in conjunction with DX9's new async shader functions. For DX8 games, it may not make a huge difference.
-
Another area where the 64 bit processors from AMD win is often overlooked. That is in core clock speed. Remember, the Athlon line brought about the new model numbers because the chips are not clock-for-clock with the Intel offerings. The 64 bit processors are clobbering the Intel chips with a clock speed over a gigahertz slower. Imagine how badly trounced the Pentiums would be were the FX51 running at 3.2 GHz...
SSE2, On-die memory controller, 64 bit pathways, better pipelines, more instructions per clock...the list goes on and on for the Athlon...
The downside to going the 64 bit route is the cost. Currently, the highest P4 (the extreme edition) is comparable in cost to the FX51...however, you can slap that P4 into your current setup. The 64 bit chip requires a new motherboard, and registered memory.
If you plan to go with the FX51, stay away from the nforce3 chipset. There are some issues that need to be ironed out. Currently the VIA K8T800 chipset is a better solution. This will probably change as the nforce3 matures...
-
Ofcourse a 64bit athlon is going to trounce an intel P*. But, has anyone compared it to IA-64? besides price, I know it's not really for PC's but you cant compare apples (32bit) to oranges (64bit). Also, in these 64bit tests are they using a true 64bit OS or is hardware emulating 32 to satisfy the code requirements?
It's about damn time we got 64bit architecture in PC's but these early "tests" (if you wanna call em that) got no leg to stand on without controlled comparisons between like hardware running software meant for the 64bit architecture.
-
Comparing an Athlon64 to an Itanium is more apples to oranges than the Athlon64 to Pentium. The reason is the instruction set. Athlon/Pentium are x86 instruction sets, the ia-64 is not.
The real-world benefits we (consumers) will see from the Athlon64 line has nothing to do with the 64 bit architecture of the CPU. This is because we predominantly have 32bit apps on a 32bit OS. The Athlon64 provides on-die memory controller, better branch prediction, SSE2 instruction set. It is here that the benefits of the Athlon64 are realized.
-
Originally posted by jonnyb
Comparing an Athlon64 to an Itanium is more apples to oranges than the Athlon64 to Pentium. The reason is the instruction set. Athlon/Pentium are x86 instruction sets, the ia-64 is not.
That I didnt realize, learn something new every day. Still apples and oranges no matter how you slice it then until intel releases a 64bit x86 cpu (blech). IA-64 aint bad though my only contact with it has been with 64bit Linux and HP-UX. What a difference in benchmarks all around. :eek: (on the Linux side that is, and not gaming related either). Guess that Alpha code aint all that bad afterall ;)
The real-world benefits we (consumers) will see from the Athlon64 line has nothing to do with the 64 bit architecture of the CPU. This is because we predominantly have 32bit apps on a 32bit OS. The Athlon64 provides on-die memory controller, better branch prediction, SSE2 instruction set. It is here that the benefits of the Athlon64 are realized. [/B]
They will when winXP-64 can take advantage, until then it seems its just a beefed up x86 chip. *sigh* I'll be more excited when it all gets fleshed out and a bit of competition errupts. :D
-
Originally posted by AcId
Ofcourse a 64bit athlon is going to trounce an intel P*. But, has anyone compared it to IA-64? besides price, I know it's not really for PC's but you cant compare apples (32bit) to oranges (64bit). Also, in these 64bit tests are they using a true 64bit OS or is hardware emulating 32 to satisfy the code requirements?
It's about damn time we got 64bit architecture in PC's but these early "tests" (if you wanna call em that) got no leg to stand on without controlled comparisons between like hardware running software meant for the 64bit architecture.
Absolutely no need to do this. The FX is designed with the gamer in mind - the benchmarks that you see use 32bit instructions. What you say quite wrong i.e. compare this processor to IA-64 - this makes little sense. A better comparison is comparing the opteron to this processor -- and then you'd have to do a price / perf comparison.
This processor does not compete with IA64 and was not designed to do so.......
That said -- it is currently the top performing chip in its class.......but still a little expensive for me - -- I am cheap :-)
My 2 cents
Acetnt
-
Skuzzy, take a look at this Athlon 64 FX review. The last few pages of this review actually test between the P4 3.2C and the FX 51 using BOTH an FX5900 Ultra and 9800 Pro. It's interesting to note that in almost all cases the Athlon FX expands its lead versus the P4 when using the Radeon 9800 Pro 256.
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_3082211__1
As for Intel vs AMDs SSE2 implementation, the Athlon 64 FX is a monster when it comes to scaler SSE2 performance, it doubles the score of the P4. The P4 still manages a victory in vector SSE2 performance by some 25%. That's pretty impressive considering the FX Model 51 runs a full 1 GHz slower than the 3.2 GHz P4.
I think some of you might want to look at this review: http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000253 This is the only review I can find that actually runs tests that let you get a sense of the relative strengths of the P4 and Athlon 64 type CPUs.
I was thinking about writing about the Itanium compared to the Opteron/Athlon 64, but the two are so very different that would be difficult. In a nutshell, the Itanium was the first CPU to make use of a very long word instruction set. The IA64 instruction set is about as different as x86 as you will find. The idea with Itanium is to execute as many tasks in parallel as possible. The instruction set is especially well suited for this. Unfortunately this approach also has drawbacks. Probably the biggest drawback is the tremendous responsibility the software compiler has to properly optimize the assembled code to take advantage of the most functional units in the CPU as possible. Since the Itanium runs at such a low clockspeed it must keep as many of its functional units busy executing parallel tasks as possible. Some code, like floating point intensive mathematical software, really lends itself well to the Itanium. (The Itanium leads in most of the SPEC FP tests.)Unfortunately a lot of code does not, especially the x86 software emulation the Itanium uses to run standard x86 software. The top of the line Itanium can only run x86 software at about the level of a 450 MHz P2. Another drawback is that the Itanium's architecture really limits clockspeed and uses up a lot of die space.
-
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031021/index.html
-
bloom, I would expect AMD's implementation of SSE2 to beat Intel's. So what you are seeing is pretty much what I would expect, that the AMD64 beats the P4. The AMD64 supports SSE2, so it would be used by the ATI drivers.
I have really never thought Intel was better than AMD, in the CPU implementations. Quite the opposite. I have just not been to enamoured with the support chipsets for AMD CPU's.
It's changing, but it has been a long slow road.
From a pure technology standpoint, Intel still has an edge in manufacturing process, but I have always thought AMD's CPU's were better, clock for clock.
-
Man I hate to say it but that 64 FX looks like a monster.
I may have to build one and put my prometiea on it and see what she will do LOL:aok
-
Looks like that's certainly the case Skuzzy. This is actually the very first time I've seen a CPU review compare both ATI and nVidia cards; that's why I posted the results. It's interesting to see real world benchmarks reflecting the fact that ATIs drivers seem to be more heavily SSE/SSE2 optimized than nVidias. I'd love to find an Athlon XP vs P4 review that does the same, but I haven't found one review that compares both.
MrBlack, Aceshardware was the first review site to overclock the FX51 to 2.8 GHz. They ran a little more interesting benchmark suite IMO, so you might want to take a look at that one.
-
Oh I'm sure .
This new AMD CPU IS a monster!!
And I think with a Prometiea system you could safely push one to extreme OCs.
Now that would some fun.
-
Skuzzy, I 110% agree with you when it comes to supporting chipsets.
If I had to sum up early Athlon/Athlon XP VIA chipsets in a word, that word would be "unreliable." I can't say that VIA didn't try their hardest to fix problems with their 4 in 1 drivers, but drivers can only do so much to compensate for 2nd rate hardware. My experience with VIAs early Athlon chipsets was that just when you think you had a stable system, some new piece of hardware would come along and not work correctly with them and you'd be doing the 4 in 1 shuffle all over again.
IMO the nForce chipsets were a godsend for AMD. I can't say that they are quite as good as Intel chipsets generally are, but they are inordinately better in every possible way than VIAs KT series. Probably the most interesting thing concerning the nForce chipset was that it was originally designed for the Pentium 3, and that it's development was funded largely by Microsoft for the xBox. When nVidia decided to get into the PC chipset business Intel decided not to grant a Pentium 4 bus license to them to avoid competition with their own chipsets. IMO if Intel hadn't pushed nVidia to release the nForce for the Athlon XP, AMD might not be in the CPU business today. The Athlon was always popular in the enthusiast market, but up until the release of nForce hardly any OEMs (other than some terrible machines made by Compaq) used their CPUs. The nForce 1 chipset was the first to offer dual channel DDR support, decent integrated graphics (GeForce 2 MX), and hardware accelerated sound. I think the integrated video and sound were the primary reasons why OEMs adopted the nForce, rather than the fact that they were much more stable than VIAs offerings. Probably the biggest problem I've had with the nForce chipsets are that they will not support a 2nd gameport and they will not officially support PCI graphics cards. (At least not without disabling the AGP to PCI bridge in device manager.)
I think AMD made a huge mistake in not offering their own chipsets in quantity and at a decent price point. Unfortunately their only single processor Athlon XP chipset, the AMD760 was too expensive for most board manufacturers. To cut costs they coupled the excellent 761 Northbridge, to possibly the worst Southbridge in history, the VIA 686b.
It doesn't really look like things have changed, as the AMD8000 series chipsets are going to be primarily used for 2, 4, and 8 way Opteron motherboards. Early reviews of the VIA K8T800 and nForce 3 150 chipsets have been in general impressed with their stability but both have drawbacks. The nForce 3 150 doesn't offer Soundstorm (the excellent hardware accelerated audio available with nForce 1 and 2, because nVidia is about to launch Soundstorm as a standalone soundcard) and lacks an integrated graphics option. (nVidia does plan on offering an nForce 3 variant with an integrated GeForce 4 Ti 4200, but that isn't planned for 9 months.) It also isn't quite as fast in gaming benchmarks as the VIA solution. This is going to make nForce 3 150 a tough sell for OEMs. The VIA solution is a very poor overclocker, as it does not offer an AGP clock lock option, making it a poor choice for enthusiasts who want to overclock.
AMD itself is taking a huge risk with the Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX. They are using SOI (silicon on insulator) 200mm diameter wafers for production at their only modern fab in Dresden Germany. SOI is expensive compared to regular silicon wafers, but does offer lower power consumption and potentially higher clockspeeds because of reduced bulk capacitance. Sticking with 200mm wafers, instead of moving to 300mm wafers may also be risky. The die of the Athlon 64 is huge compared to the P4 and Athlon XP. (2x the size of Northwood in both transistor count and die area, and larger still than Barton.) Moving to 300mm wafers would allow a lot more CPUs per wafer and reduce manufacturing costs in the long run. AMD doesn't plan to do this until mid-2005 at the earliest in a joint venture to build a new fab with IBM. (SOI production was largely pioneered by IBM.) The last issue with Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX is the addition of the on die memory controller greatly increased the pin count of the processor, which makes the CPU package itself more expensive than Athlon XP. (754 and 939/940 pins versus 462 of Athlon XP.) To cut costs in the short term, AMD is using a ceramic package. Eventually to hit higher clockspeeds they will have to move back to a more expensive organic package though. The combination of all of this means that Athlon 64 is going to cost a LOT more to produce than Athlon XP and the Pentium 4. Since AMD has historically sold their CPUs much cheaper than Intel's competing models, their profit margins per CPU will be lower. AMD really needs the Athlon 64 to sell well to move back into the black, but unfortunately to add insult to injury they have been rumored to be unable to produce enough Athlon 64s to satisfy even the current demand for the Athlon 64 3200+. (I checked Techdata's site yesterday and the Athlon 64 3200+ is currently in allocation, meaning each distributor has a limited quanity available to them.) So once again, at least for now, AMD has managed to design an excellent CPU, but their old enemies of high production costs and inadequate chipset choices seem to be present once again. Hopefully that will change, as AMD going bankrupt would be a huge blow to the PC industry as a whole.
-
Yep, pretty much spot on there bloom. Only think I would add, is that unless AMD can get their yeilds up, they face a very difficult road ahead of them.
This is where Intel has always had the edge.
I hope AMD can hang in there as well. The marketplace needs them.