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
Final Words
Seemingly overnight AMD went from about to fall off of the performance charts to being competitive with Intel's latest and greatest. But there's much more to this situation than proclaiming a winner and leaving it at that; AMD has lost a considerable amount of credibility, and the Athlon 64 (and FX) of today will not bring AMD back to the heydays of the Athlon.
For starters, at a 192mm^2, the Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX are well above AMD's "sweet spot" for manufacturing. When we last talked with AMD's Fred Weber, 100 - 120mm^2 die size is ideal for mass production given AMD's wafer size, yields and other manufacturing characteristics - and the Athlon 64 is close to twice that size. For the Athlon 64 to become the mainstream part that AMD wants it to be, they need to significantly reduce the die size - a shrink that the move to 90nm would be able to do just that. The mass market success of the Athlon 64 is directly dependent on AMD's ability to move to 90nm, until then the 64 will be exclusively a high-end part.
You can also understand AMD's desire to bring to market a 256KB L2 version of the Athlon 64, as reducing the cache size would not only cut down on the ~106M transistors but also significant die area.
AMD has also priced the Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX very much like the Pentium 4s they compete with, which is a mistake for a company that has lost so much credibility. AMD needed to significantly undercut Intel (but not as much as they did with the Athlon XP) in order to offer users a compelling reason to switch from Intel. However, given the incredible costs of production (SOI wafers are more expensive as well) and AMD's financial status, AMD had very little option with the pricing of their new chips.
When it comes down to recommendations, the Athlon 64 offers very compelling performance at a much more reasonable price point than the Athlon 64 FX. We cannot recommend the FX until AMD does release a version with unbuffered memory support and we would strongly suggest waiting until the Socket-939 version is released if you are considering the FX.
What is promising however are the performance gains we saw when recompiling for 64-bit on the Athlon 64; if AMD can actually get 64-bit applications and a compatible OS from Microsoft out in the market then the recommendations become much more positive for AMD. Until then, it's wait and see, AMD has done well but execution isn't a singular task - it is continued execution that will guarantee AMD a spot at the top of the market again.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
122 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
Anyone know how the new AMD CPU compares to the Apple G5? I am not an Mac-Apple guy, but my in-laws are, and I'd like to be in the know in case we get into a friendly "discussion" about the Windows and Mac platforms.Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
#58 Fanbois? lolAnonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
This review appears to be in the same general lines as the rest of the Opteron/Pentium comparisons; I'm pleased that AMD has managed to shore up their shortcomings, but the price point is what's keeping me away from going directly from a pre-XP AMD Athlon to Athlon64. If I spend $400+ on a processor, it better be the king of the hill for the next year at least, or at least the mobo should be upgradeable to compensate for CPU obsolesence.And I'm surprised no one's figured out how to unlock Opteron multipliers yet, since that's basically the heart of the early-day AXP overclocking scene... Bridge blowing, soldering, "wire mods", etc. Shame, shame on you overclocking enthusiasts for not throwing everything into unlocking the hottest new processor (figuratively, not literally; Prescott and P4EE take that award at 103W and 150W, respectively). :P Talk about good wholesome fun, take an Opteron at 3.4GHz (using multipliers) and slap that Zalman Cu-7000 thing on it; a Pen-what?
#58: No, there are dumber fanboys than Intel fanboys, trust me. Just visit Something Awful. :/
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
intel fanbois rank among the top percentile of dumbest fanboi's on the internet.Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
Is AMD actually planning on selling these versions of the 64? They and the hardware will be obsolete the day they are purchased. THe two biggest advantages the chip has can't even be used yet. The new mobos can't handle any more Ram than the current Pentium boards, I thought being able to use more ram was one of the selling points of the 64? Although that point seems to be moot anyway until a new 64 bit os is out.Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
#36 You're right dude. Intel indeed said that prescott 3.2 GHz can't touch the performance of the 3.2 GHz P4EE. Logical actually, since prescott has no extra L3 cache, and a longer pipeline. The only benefits are: larger L1 cache, larger L2 cache and SSE-3 (only needed for sysmark-2004 LOL!, and other intel benchmarketing partners)Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
Anagram for Intel Fanboy - INANE BOTFLYAnonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
THG review: triple-guaranteed bullshit. Anandtech review: Infidel profane pagan loutish review. Ace's Hardware review: For great justice!11Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
original pentium 66 was pants got beat by a 486original pentium 4 was just as bad
give it 6 months for the chip to mature. hopefully the athlon64 is a success cause if amd go bust we all pay double for cpus
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
There's some confusion on using the term 32bit and x86 here. I believe what was mean in response to what #32 said, is that A64 runs x86 natively the same way a XP does with no emulation, (as was outlined in previous Anandtech articles) just by disabling half of the 64-bit registers. So it had better run at least as well as the Athlon XP/P4 or there is something seriously wrong... not something to brag about.#50, For an Intel fanboy you sure don't know your history. Using 386 would be more appropriate as that was the change from 16-bit to 32-bit... and things have not fundamentally changed in the instruction set since then.