AMD Athlon 64 4000+ & FX-55: A Thorough Investigation
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 19, 2004 1:04 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
As we've shown just in the final pages of this review, AMD's launch of the Athlon 64 4000+ doesn't mean all that much other than bragging rights. The justification of the rating is questionable, as is the release of the processor, since it is little more than a rebadged FX-53 with some of its overclocking appeal removed. The fact that Intel has pulled the launch of the Pentium 4 4GHz while AMD has come to market with a 2.4GHz Athlon 64 4000+ doesn't mean much, but there is little to complain about since AMD has many more attractive Athlon 64 options.
What the cancelation of Intel's 4GHz Pentium 4 does say however is that Prescott was a waste. Intel would have done a much better job of competing had 90nm been simply a die shrink and done without the architectural "enhancements" of Prescott designed to ramp up clock speeds. Granted hindsight is 20-20 and we can't blame Intel for not having that knowledge of the future, but we can say that once again, it looks like AMD made the right bet, this time with reference to their 90nm strategy. We would strongly recommend any of AMD's 90nm parts thanks to their significantly lower power consumption, competitive price as well as their performance.
It is worth noting that after the Athlon 64 3500+, AMD doesn't really have many price-competitive options with Intel. The 3800+ and 4000+ compete in a price segment that even Intel's Pentium 4 560 won't touch, making Intel's flagship desktop processor cheaper than AMD's similar offering - a first if we've ever seen one. So although the Athlon 64 3800+ and 4000+ are very strong performers, you're definitely paying for them. Although it is worth noting that even the FX-55 is cheaper than Intel's Pentium 4 3.4EE.
The introduction of the FX-55 with strained silicon technology is an interesting and unexpected move from AMD, at least at this point. We knew they were planning an FX-55, but we had no idea it would include strained silicon support - the question of when we'll see strained silicon and higher clock speeds at 90nm does still remain.
With 2004 quickly coming to a close, we can't help but wonder if this will be the last year for the foreseeable future where we will have a processor speed war to talk about. With 2005 destined to be the year of multiple cores, and with dual core solutions from both AMD and Intel guaranteed to run at lower clock speeds than present day single core chips, are the great MHz and GHz races of years past on hiatus for a while?
What about software support for multi core processors? Although Intel has happily shipped over 50 million Hyper Threading enabled Pentium 4s in just over two years, the vast majority of desktop applications are still not multithreaded. Will the introduction of dual core CPUs be a clever way of weaning the populous off of fast CPUs so that lower clocked, slower overall, multi core CPUs can tide us over until performance actually improves? The prospects are interesting.
We expected Intel to launch Hyper Threading with killer applications and benchmarks that would truly show its necessity on the desktop, but we were rather surprised to see that the best we got two years ago were some scripts that simulated isolated situations. Our fears are that 2005 will hold a repeat of Intel's HT launch on the desktop; while no one is arguing that dual core won't have a future, we're wondering if it may come a bit too soon to actually do anything. Obviously only time will tell, but until then don't expect too many more speed bumps from either Intel or AMD. It seems like both camps are going to be increasing cache sizes and playing with other architectural tweaks in the near future before they can get dual core out the door.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
89 Comments
View All Comments
mlittl3 - Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - link
Hey Val, why don't you go to this link and look at a picture of your hero, Intel CEO Craig Barrett on one knee begging forgiveness for their shitty processors.http://news.com.com/Photo+Barretts+mea+culpa/2100-...
Both Intel and AMD have difficulties. But your analogy of AMD being like the cheap car companies doesn't make sense. The expensive car companies like Ferrari, Porsche, etc. sell the best cars but are very small companies because not many can afford them. AMD is like these companies now because they sell the processors for a lot of money because they are really good. Just not everyone can afford them.
But AMD is good for cheap processors too. Please find one review site that shows any Celeron doing better than a Sempron 3100+. Just one site. I want only to see you post that link in your next posting. Nothing else please because every thing you say is wrong and I'm sure Intel fanboys are telling you to stop making them look bad.
Gnoad - Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - link
Eh, let him have his celerons, Intel will need the fan base soon to stay in business come 2005...Rhl - Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - link
First off, Val, you're ignorant. You shouldn't speak on subjects where you are grieviously misinformed, it makes your intelligence quotient seem very low.1. You think Celerons are fast? I'm sorry, what hole have you been living in? A 1.7 ghz Celeron is SLOW, and far outpaced by an Athlon 1.7 ghz. Almost by 2x as much.
2. AMD doesn't design their own processors? May I ask who does then? INTEL? LOL. Sorry, but no, AMD does design all of their own CPU's.
3. They don't care or support consumers/developers etc? OF COURSE THEY DO, AMD's track record of supporting "the little guys" (independent shops, consumers etc) is FAR better than Intel, who doesn't care much at all for the "little guys". What you have stated is just plain WRONG.
4. AMD is alot cheaper than Intel, and is ALOT better as well. They beat Intel in real world benchmarks 9 times out of 10. You think because they're cheaper they're worse? How old are you? You need to do some research, kid.
5. You're right, nobody expects AMD to be as good as Intel... BECAUSE THEY'RE BETTER. AMD is flatout kicking Intel's ass, and has been since the original Athlon was released.
I think, val, that your brain is too "cold down", as you say, and it's not working as well as it should. Go research AMD vs Intel, and check out the realworld benchmarks. If that doesn't change your mind, go buy a Dell, you silly ignorant little fool.
screech - Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - link
#64: celeron=too fast? seems like you haven't owned a celeron......anyway, why pay more for a crappy celeron when AMD can offer more performance for less money? (I am talking about the older celerons, ie 1.7, celeronD isn't that bad although sempron 3100 still wipes the floor with it).AMD only copies intel? where did intel's EMT64 (or whatever its called) come from? realistically both copy each other, although it looks like intel should have done more copying of a shorter pipeline a la AMD, given that the prescott seems to have been a failure. (no 4 ghz).
AMD is cheap, doesn't care for quality? Ladies and gentlemen, seems like Kanavit from THG has decided to start trolling around here...I heard him say that exact same thing a while back over there. anyway, this is such BS that it is hilarious. What kind of flawed logic says that better performance=cheap processors? haha. :D
anti intel BS based on fool snthetic benchmarks? LMAO. I agree that many synthetics are dumb, because often they do not reflect real performance in applications (intel high clocks often win the synthetics but then AMD's processors often win real world benchies), but AMD owns intel in jthe majority of benchmarks. I suppose you consider AMD winning (except for a tie or 2) EVERY gaming benchmark, an "if than" or synthetic? UT2004 is theoretical? it doesnt exist?
on another note, good job discrediting the only benchmarks that intel usually wins--synthetics.
I hope you wake up and smell the coffee.
Gnoad - Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - link
haha, its kinda funny watching someone defend their opinion to the bitter end even though its blatantly wrong and totally misinformed. No offense val, but seriously, you got a lot of reading to do to catch up with the current realities in the CPU world.val - Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - link
#63: i am not ignorant fool and try to control your self a bit.1,7 celeron is pretty old, 3 years or more, but i am sure that for many tasks even this is fast too much. I am sure that if you feel that the mentioned celeron was slow, it was because you was playing on it (what it was not supposed to be for) or rest of system was bad designed (HDD, memory,...)
#61: now i am happy that AMD is here, same as i am happy that there is cheap cars to buy, competing is good for all. i call for even more competitors to drop prices to real level (as in mainboards they are), same for GCs.
What i am trying to tell you, that AMD is only manufacturing what somebody else designs, they dont care and dont support products and developers, dont care for chipsets quality, certificates, nothing. This leads to that overall quality of AMD platform is far from what you can get with similar price based on Intel.
So cold down, AMD is cheap, is supposed to be cheap, nobody expects to be as good as intel with all their background. Stop that anti intel BS which is based on fool synthetic benchmarks and theoretical "if than" visions.
michaelpatrick33 - Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - link
The power consumption graph is wrong because it shows the AMD 3000+ and 3200+ as having dual channel but the power usage shows the same as the 130nm chips. AMD only makes the 3000+ and 3200+ for 939 on 90nm I thought so unless the 90nm 3000+ and 3200+ runs with more power than the faster 3500+ 90nm the graph needs to be changed. Just a stickler sorry.AtaStrumf - Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - link
Vai you need to pull you head out of your ass and smell the air. WTF are you talking about??? Sure AMD has had their share of troubles (who hasn't, Intel certainly has), but saying what your're saying just makes me think you're an ignorant fool.It's exacly that kind of thinking that makes people buy Celerons (I mean it's Intel right, so it can't be bad), and they I have to deal with 1,7 GHz piece of crap like I did yesterday for example. God that is SLOOOOOOOOOW!
mlittl3 - Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - link
#49, #50, #52, #54, #55, #60 (Val)Do you think AMD should go out of business and that Intel should be the only company out there? I am guessing you are from another country so you probably also hate (never seen) an Apple. Do you think no one should choose apple? Do you wish that apple should go out of business? What about Via and Transmeta processors (C3 and Crusoe)? Do you hate those companies too and wish them out of business? Do you think their processors suck?
You talk about choice in your #54 post (I'm assuming you don't know what choice means) yet you want everyone to choose Intel because you don't know how to build a pc properly. If you base your decision not to buy AMD because you've had troubles in the past and you are assumming that everyone will have troubles, then how did AMD make ~$1.25 billion in revenue last quarter? Did they make that money selling lemonade?
Just because a company doesn't have a large presence in whatever country you are from doesn't make them inferior products. I don't know if you have heard the statement that competition drives progress. If AMD, VIA, Transmeta, Apple, IBM, etc. etc. did not exist because Val can't get an AMD system running and demands everyone use Intel, then what motivation does Intel have to bring good products to market? The 1 GHz race is what got Intel to improve its processors and maybe even release the Pentium 4. The addition of 64-bits to AMD and Intel processors got software and hardware companies to start optimizing their products for the new tech. Hell, now with Dual-core being pushed by both companies, multi-threaded apps (and hopefully this will include games) will be developed by software companies as well.
If we had just Intel which I'm assuming you pray was the case everyday, then we would have non-64bit, ~2 Ghz, non-dualcore, non-HT, pentium 3's right now.
You must live under a rock and think AMD is still the company it was back in the early 1990's. Both Intel and AMD are necessary in the market and both of their processors and other products are used by a large number of people. More people use Intel right now and AMD has the right to try and get more people to use them and they are.
What exactly are you trying to tell us?
val - Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - link
58: thank you for information, i use Kingston or infineon on rated values which are properly detected over SPD. Maybe not on mainboards for AMD, i dont know. PSU i use Intel or Enermax with appropriate power. In my HTPC i have some noname, but it runs with no problem.