Athlon64 Preview: nForce3 at 2.0GHz @ anandtech

[bjc112]

Still struggling a bit in Divx and what not...

But like the final words said, that are almost certain the scores will go up in every benchmark.

If AMD can eventually hit 2.2-2.3 Within a month or so of release, Intel is finally going to start to sweat.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: Tabb
$400 for the A64? Sorry, I like the performence but thats way too expensive for me.

$630 for an 3.2 P4? Sorry, I like the performance but thats way too expensive for me.

 

[Swanny]

I'm impressed.

 

[glugglug]

Why do these results differ so greatly from all the other Opteron benchmarks out there, including earlier ones at this site?

Is this a new nForce3 chipset rev that fixed some major issue?

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Tabb $400 for the A64? Sorry, I like the performence but thats way too expensive for me.

$630 for an 3.2 P4? Sorry, I like the performance but thats way too expensive for me.

AMD Athlon64 FX-51 Processor, Retail
Built on AMD64 arcitecture, the AMD Athlon 64 processor is designed to deliver outstanding levels of performance and customer-focused innovation to home and business users alike.

Regular Price: US$829.00

Dayum, that's a lot of money. Is the FX-51 version the one with 940 pins, or 754? I'm making an edumakated guess that the Athlon64 FX-51 is the opteron that's not really an opteron (to use overclockers.com terms).

 

[NOX]

:Q

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: NOX
:Q

popular look of the day

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

of course NSF4 has to come in and bash on the pricing of the A64, so typical of him and his biases. Look we all know initial prices will be high, but things will level out and AMD will begin pricing these babies lower.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: KraziKid

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Tabb $400 for the A64? Sorry, I like the performence but thats way too expensive for me.

$630 for an 3.2 P4? Sorry, I like the performance but thats way too expensive for me.

AMD Athlon64 FX-51 Processor, Retail
Built on AMD64 arcitecture, the AMD Athlon 64 processor is designed to deliver outstanding levels of performance and customer-focused innovation to home and business users alike.

Regular Price: US$829.00

Dayum, that's a lot of money. Is the FX-51 version the one with 940 pins, or 754? I'm making an edumakated guess that the Athlon64 FX-51 is the opteron that's not really an opteron (to use overclockers.com terms).

A more accurate description would be that the FX-51 is the "Athlon64" that's really an Opteron.

 

[ultimatebob]

So, has anyone benched this processor with one of the beta 64-bit versions of Windows XP? If this bad boy can outrun a 3.2 GHz P4 with 32-bit code, I can't wait to see what it can do once it's bottleneck is removed!

 

[JSSheridan]

Should it be a concern that the platforms had different amounts of memory, the Opteron and Xeon had 2GB, the P4 had 1GB, and the Athlon XP's had 512MB?

Originally posted in: Athlon64 preview, page 4
(Opteron and Xeon) 4 x 512MB Legacy ECC at 2.5-3-4-5
(Pentium 4) 2 x 512MB Mushkin PC3500 Level II
(Athlon XP) 2 x 256MB Corsair PC3200 TwinX LL (v1.1 or 1.2) Modules (SPD rated)

Peace.

 

[msparish]

Should it be a concern that the platforms had different amounts of memory, the Opteron and Xeon had 2GB, the P4 had 1GB, and the Athlon XP's had 512MB?

Actually, I suspect that the Athlon64 would be quicker with just 1GB of non ECC RAM rather than than 2GB of the ECC. Of course your mileage will vary depending upon the application.

 

[mrgoblin]

Shame its gonna cost upwards of 1k for an fx cpu/mobo combo and some reg ddrs.

 

[mikecel79]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
So, has anyone benched this processor with one of the beta 64-bit versions of Windows XP? If this bad boy can outrun a 3.2 GHz P4 with 32-bit code, I can't wait to see what it can do once it's bottleneck is removed!

Everyone is talking about the 64-bit Windows and how it's gonna improve performance so much. You still need 64-bit applications written for Windows then. Just having 64-bit Windows or even Linux isn't gonna improve performance that much. All the programs in the benchmarks would have to be recompiled using the AMD64 instructions for the Opteron/Athlon64 to run in 64-bit mode.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: mrgoblin
Shame its gonna cost upwards of 1k for an fx cpu/mobo combo and some reg ddrs.

i thought registered was not required for athlon64???

 

[silent tone]

Decent scores. Waiting to see how it ramps against Prescott.

Didn't the Nforce 1 use hypertransport? Article says Nforce 2.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: shady06

Originally posted by: mrgoblin
Shame its gonna cost upwards of 1k for an fx cpu/mobo combo and some reg ddrs.

i thought registered was not required for athlon64???

Same here. I don't think it is, but I think its an option like the 875P boards. Either that or its required for the Opterons which are for workstation and server markets.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: mikecel79

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
So, has anyone benched this processor with one of the beta 64-bit versions of Windows XP? If this bad boy can outrun a 3.2 GHz P4 with 32-bit code, I can't wait to see what it can do once it's bottleneck is removed!

Everyone is talking about the 64-bit Windows and how it's gonna improve performance so much. You still need 64-bit applications written for Windows then. Just having 64-bit Windows or even Linux isn't gonna improve performance that much. All the programs in the benchmarks would have to be recompiled using the AMD64 instructions for the Opteron/Athlon64 to run in 64-bit mode.

I read an interview with Tim Sweeney of Epic, and it sounds like there's no question at all but that there will be 64-bit-optomized games coming from his direction. His prediction was that a 64-bit version on 64-bit Windows would probably bring about another ~15% performance improvement as far as the engine side goes, although he commented that framerate will probably not jump that much due to bottlenecking by the video card side of the equation.

 

[mikecel79]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: mikecel79

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
So, has anyone benched this processor with one of the beta 64-bit versions of Windows XP? If this bad boy can outrun a 3.2 GHz P4 with 32-bit code, I can't wait to see what it can do once it's bottleneck is removed!

Everyone is talking about the 64-bit Windows and how it's gonna improve performance so much. You still need 64-bit applications written for Windows then. Just having 64-bit Windows or even Linux isn't gonna improve performance that much. All the programs in the benchmarks would have to be recompiled using the AMD64 instructions for the Opteron/Athlon64 to run in 64-bit mode.

I read an interview with Tim Sweeney of Epic, and it sounds like there's no question at all but that there will be 64-bit-optomized games coming from his direction. His prediction was that a 64-bit version on 64-bit Windows would probably bring about another ~15% performance improvement as far as the engine side goes, although he commented that framerate will probably not jump that much due to bottlenecking by the video card side of the equation.

I'm not doubting that there will be performance improvements but you will need more than just a 64-bit version of Windows. Like I said you'll need 64-bit compiled applications to see a performance improvement.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: mikecel79

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: mikecel79

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
So, has anyone benched this processor with one of the beta 64-bit versions of Windows XP? If this bad boy can outrun a 3.2 GHz P4 with 32-bit code, I can't wait to see what it can do once it's bottleneck is removed!

Everyone is talking about the 64-bit Windows and how it's gonna improve performance so much. You still need 64-bit applications written for Windows then. Just having 64-bit Windows or even Linux isn't gonna improve performance that much. All the programs in the benchmarks would have to be recompiled using the AMD64 instructions for the Opteron/Athlon64 to run in 64-bit mode.

I read an interview with Tim Sweeney of Epic, and it sounds like there's no question at all but that there will be 64-bit-optomized games coming from his direction. His prediction was that a 64-bit version on 64-bit Windows would probably bring about another ~15% performance improvement as far as the engine side goes, although he commented that framerate will probably not jump that much due to bottlenecking by the video card side of the equation.

I'm not doubting that there will be performance improvements but you will need more than just a 64-bit version of Windows. Like I said you'll need 64-bit compiled applications to see a performance improvement.

Like he said, there are 64 bit games coming from Epic, UT2k3 is getting re-done in 64bit.

 

[Tbirdkid]

my wallet cant take it.... my wifes wallet cant take it.... oh screw it when can i get one?

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: mikecel79

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: mikecel79

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
So, has anyone benched this processor with one of the beta 64-bit versions of Windows XP? If this bad boy can outrun a 3.2 GHz P4 with 32-bit code, I can't wait to see what it can do once it's bottleneck is removed!

Everyone is talking about the 64-bit Windows and how it's gonna improve performance so much. You still need 64-bit applications written for Windows then. Just having 64-bit Windows or even Linux isn't gonna improve performance that much. All the programs in the benchmarks would have to be recompiled using the AMD64 instructions for the Opteron/Athlon64 to run in 64-bit mode.

I read an interview with Tim Sweeney of Epic, and it sounds like there's no question at all but that there will be 64-bit-optomized games coming from his direction. His prediction was that a 64-bit version on 64-bit Windows would probably bring about another ~15% performance improvement as far as the engine side goes, although he commented that framerate will probably not jump that much due to bottlenecking by the video card side of the equation.

I'm not doubting that there will be performance improvements but you will need more than just a 64-bit version of Windows. Like I said you'll need 64-bit compiled applications to see a performance improvement.

I agree, and I think we'll see some AMD64-optomized games soon enough.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: KraziKid

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Tabb $400 for the A64? Sorry, I like the performence but thats way too expensive for me.

$630 for an 3.2 P4? Sorry, I like the performance but thats way too expensive for me.

AMD Athlon64 FX-51 Processor, Retail
Built on AMD64 arcitecture, the AMD Athlon 64 processor is designed to deliver outstanding levels of performance and customer-focused innovation to home and business users alike.

Regular Price: US$829.00

Dayum, that's a lot of money. Is the FX-51 version the one with 940 pins, or 754? I'm making an edumakated guess that the Athlon64 FX-51 is the opteron that's not really an opteron (to use overclockers.com terms).

Just to make it clear, the chip AnandTech tested was an Opteron, not an Athlon. However, there will be 2 Athlons introduced, the 3200+, and the FX; the 3200+ will be the 754pin chip with a single memory channel, while the FX will be the 940 pin dual channel version that's basically an Opteron. The FX should return scores similar to what AnandTech got; the 3200+ is likely to score lower however.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: mikecel79

Originally posted by: mechBgon
I read an interview with Tim Sweeney of Epic, and it sounds like there's no question at all but that there will be 64-bit-optomized games coming from his direction. His prediction was that a 64-bit version on 64-bit Windows would probably bring about another ~15% performance improvement as far as the engine side goes, although he commented that framerate will probably not jump that much due to bottlenecking by the video card side of the equation.

I'm not doubting that there will be performance improvements but you will need more than just a 64-bit version of Windows. Like I said you'll need 64-bit compiled applications to see a performance improvement.

Unreal2 and UT2003, what a joke. Those are some of the most inefficiently coded games on the market. Their system resource to eye candy ratio is so low its embarassing.

Frankly, I cant make heads or tails out of the new naming schemes.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Gaming is one area where our tests show Opteron at 2.0GHZ an amazing performer. When you find game benchmarks 10% to 20% higher, you are genuinely impressed. However, in some of the very latest DX9 benchmarks, Athlon64/Opteron was 40% to 50% faster.

Impressive, especially compared to Barton, but note that what the article implies is the "best P4" is a 3.0 GHz not a 3.2.

the older Quake 3 is about 10% faster on the 2.0GHz Opteron than it is on the fastest P4 that we have tested.

which you'd assume is a 3.2, but is just a 3.0 according to the test setup page.

So, the A64 at 2.0 seems to be competitive with a 3.2 P4, but not dominant in anything except Gunmetal. It's also seriously weaker in media encoding, at least until developers figures out how to optimize for it.

If the 2.0 really is sold and priced as a "3200+" it will be a good value. If they try to pass off a 1.8 as "3200+" and price it anywhere near P4 3.2 prices it will be the Barton "3200+" story all over again.

Competition is a Good Thing so I'm hoping AMD is going to take the A64 introduction as a chance to bring their ratings and pricing back to reality. Then maybe I can start recommending AMD again for speeds above 2500+.