*Official Athlon 64 and FX51* 15 reviews, ANANDTECHS IS UP!!!! P4EE is not the clear winner as some people say ;)

[PrinceXizor]

As I already mentioned...screw the whole FX vs. EE debate (guess what folks...its even, from price to performance...NEITHER wins).

The real winner is the AMD Athlon 64 3200+

This little gem bests the P4 3.2C in a majority of benches and currently costs 50% less than its opponent.

The fact of the matter is this...to truly determine who "won" will require what most tech geeks don't have a lot of...patience.

There still are a lot of questions that AMD has to answer (despite what you might read in most debates, it has little to do with the P4 EE or the yet to be released Prescott core).

1. Can AMD generate the yields it needs to be able to supply the demand for this chip. You can't steal marketshare if you don't have product.

2. When will Microsoft actually release a 64-bit version for Windows XP?

3. Tied with number one is this...can AMD fully take advantage of the excellent scaling that this architecture can deliver with its current manufacturing capabilities?

4. How much will AMD's agreement with IBM assist in its yield issues and other manufacturing issues as well as its own inevitable die shrink to the 90 nm process?

All of these questions are much more applicable and much more useful then debate over some jury-rigged, rebadged server chips.

P-X

 

[Pariah]

I guess the half dozen reviews I looked at today were different from the ones you looked at, because the standard A64 didn't earn any overall decisive victory vs the P4 C in the articles I saw.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Pariah
I guess the half dozen reviews I looked at today were different from the ones you looked at, because the standard A64 didn't earn any overall decisive victory vs the P4 C in the articles I saw.

Well, from the 15 I've looked at today (my eyes hurt), I thought that the 3200+ did damn well against the 3.2C.

Also:

3200+ Retail = $445
3.2C Retail = $616

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: PrinceXizor
As I already mentioned...screw the whole FX vs. EE debate (guess what folks...its even, from price to performance...NEITHER wins).

The real winner is the AMD Athlon 64 3200+

This little gem bests the P4 3.2C in a majority of benches and currently costs 50% less than its opponent.

The fact of the matter is this...to truly determine who "won" will require what most tech geeks don't have a lot of...patience.

There still are a lot of questions that AMD has to answer (despite what you might read in most debates, it has little to do with the P4 EE or the yet to be released Prescott core).

1. Can AMD generate the yields it needs to be able to supply the demand for this chip. You can't steal marketshare if you don't have product.

2. When will Microsoft actually release a 64-bit version for Windows XP?

3. Tied with number one is this...can AMD fully take advantage of the excellent scaling that this architecture can deliver with its current manufacturing capabilities?

4. How much will AMD's agreement with IBM assist in its yield issues and other manufacturing issues as well as its own inevitable die shrink to the 90 nm process?

All of these questions are much more applicable and much more useful then debate over some jury-rigged, rebadged server chips.

P-X

I fully agree ! And whoever says the A64-3200 didn't win, either didn't read Anand's review, and the many others out there, other they need a brain transplant. Oh, and speaking for someone that USED to like Tomshardware, their review really sVcked. You also have to read between the lines, but even in their review the A64-3200 beat the P4 3.2C most of the time.

Edit: Also, the A64 51 FX can be had, and the P4EE is paper, even if they are supposed to be the same price. AND I think it beat the P4EE in most benches and gets the crown, not to mention that the P4EE is 117 watts and a great space-heater !

 

[glugglug]

Something I just noticed and this applies to ALL the Athlon FX benchmarks:

The memory timings on the Kingston and Legacy electronics registered DDR400 modules (since those are the only non-overclocked registered DDR400 out right now) have 2.5-3-3-6 or 2.5-3-3-5 timings depending which site you read. This is slower than the memory timings of pretty much every Athlon XP and P4EE bench (some are 2-2-2-5, some are 2-3-2-5). Extremetech I noticed has slower RAM timings on even the Athlon64 (not FX) than they do on the P4s - are the test boards being bundled with slower DIMMs or something?

When other (read CAS2) registered DDR400 modules start being sold, those benches will move up another notch.

These processors are obviously damn good from every review but Tom's.
The most obviously bogus benchmark on Tom's Hardware is the PC Mark 2002 Memory Bench, showing P4EE kicking FX-51's ass on memory speed by like 40%.

 

[mechBgon]

Corsair has Registered 3200LL available right now for the Athlon 64 FX family. You can check it out at newegg and Monarchcomputer, I didn't see info on it at www.corsairmicro.com last night.

 

[wetcat007]

Does anyone know how many watts of heat the AMD Athlon 64 FX and Regular puts out? I'm just curious because the prescott puts out well over 100.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: PrinceXizor
As I already mentioned...screw the whole FX vs. EE debate (guess what folks...its even, from price to performance...NEITHER wins).

The real winner is the AMD Athlon 64 3200+

This little gem bests the P4 3.2C in a majority of benches and currently costs 50% less than its opponent.

Yes and no.
Joe consumer:
sees AMD Athlon XP 3200+, AMD Athlon 64 3200+, and P4 3.2C based computers at a retailer. Asks salesman about the difference, doesn't understand what the hell the salesman is talking about (64-bit what?!?) and figures that with all this confusion he better sticks with what he knows.

Enthusiast (my reasoning at least):
Why the hell should I spend $450 on a 3.2 GHz-equivalent CPU with little headroom when I can buy a 2.4C or 2.6C for much less and very likely OC it to 3.2 GHz or better?

you're left with the non-overclocking enthusiasts who have a bunch of money to spend... but not too much money or they'll buy an FX-51 or P4-EE. The market looks kinda narrow when you look at it this way, no?

I hope that AMD can scale the Athlon 64 quickly so as to keep the pressure on Intel since Intel is somewhat vulnerable until Prescott is available in significant quantities.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Pariah

Originally posted by: jbond04
I never said anything about the P4EE...and, in the past year, Intel has been executing very well with their launches.

Neither did I, so I have no idea why NFS4 brought it up.

B/C everyone is saying that Intel stood up to AMD's best punch today. The only thing that really weathered those punches today was an unreleased CPU...the P4 EE. You sorta have to use a little thing called reading comprehension

..and logic, seeing as how the P4 3.2c couldn't keep up.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: wetcat007
Does anyone know how many watts of heat the AMD Athlon 64 FX and Regular puts out? I'm just curious because the prescott puts out well over 100.

Its in white-papers 30430, and if I read it correctly the 1.8 ghz is 66 watts, the 2.0 is 70 watts, and the 2.2 FX doesn't state a number but the max the chip can handle is 89 watts. Please feel free to correct me if I read this information incorrectly.
Link to Athlon64 white paper thermal data sheet

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: PrinceXizor
As I already mentioned...screw the whole FX vs. EE debate (guess what folks...its even, from price to performance...NEITHER wins).

The real winner is the AMD Athlon 64 3200+

This little gem bests the P4 3.2C in a majority of benches and currently costs 50% less than its opponent.

Yes and no.
Joe consumer:
sees AMD Athlon XP 3200+, AMD Athlon 64 3200+, and P4 3.2C based computers at a retailer. Asks salesman about the difference, doesn't understand what the hell the salesman is talking about (64-bit what?!?) and figures that with all this confusion he better sticks with what he knows.

Enthusiast (my reasoning at least):
Why the hell should I spend $450 on a 3.2 GHz-equivalent CPU with little headroom when I can buy a 2.4C or 2.6C for much less and very likely OC it to 3.2 GHz or better?

you're left with the non-overclocking enthusiasts who have a bunch of money to spend... but not too much money or they'll buy an FX-51 or P4-EE. The market looks kinda narrow when you look at it this way, no?

I hope that AMD can scale the Athlon 64 quickly so as to keep the pressure on Intel since Intel is somewhat vulnerable until Prescott is available in significant quantities.

You make a very good point, although I don't think AMD will have trouble selling their current limited(assuming that the reports are true) supply. Once MS releases Win XP/64(or whatever), I hope AMD and MS do a joint TV ad blitz. This really is AMDs' chance for Intel level recognition, they are competitive in speed and, more importantly, introducing a new evolutionary generation in computing(for Home Users) 64bit!! This is AMDs' chance to appear as *the* industry leader in innovation, a chance that may never happen again.

 

[wetcat007]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: PrinceXizor
As I already mentioned...screw the whole FX vs. EE debate (guess what folks...its even, from price to performance...NEITHER wins).

The real winner is the AMD Athlon 64 3200+

This little gem bests the P4 3.2C in a majority of benches and currently costs 50% less than its opponent.

Yes and no.
Joe consumer:
sees AMD Athlon XP 3200+, AMD Athlon 64 3200+, and P4 3.2C based computers at a retailer. Asks salesman about the difference, doesn't understand what the hell the salesman is talking about (64-bit what?!?) and figures that with all this confusion he better sticks with what he knows.

Enthusiast (my reasoning at least):
Why the hell should I spend $450 on a 3.2 GHz-equivalent CPU with little headroom when I can buy a 2.4C or 2.6C for much less and very likely OC it to 3.2 GHz or better?

you're left with the non-overclocking enthusiasts who have a bunch of money to spend... but not too much money or they'll buy an FX-51 or P4-EE. The market looks kinda narrow when you look at it this way, no?

I hope that AMD can scale the Athlon 64 quickly so as to keep the pressure on Intel since Intel is somewhat vulnerable until Prescott is available in significant quantities.

You make a very good point, although I don't think AMD will have trouble selling their current limited(assuming that the reports are true) supply. Once MS releases Win XP/64(or whatever), I hope AMD and MS do a joint TV ad blitz. This really is AMDs' chance for Intel level recognition, they are competitive in speed and, more importantly, introducing a new evolutionary generation in computing(for Home Users) 64bit!! This is AMDs' chance to appear as *the* industry leader in innovation, a chance that may never happen again.

64 bit could really be a HUGE marketing perk for AMD, especially if Microsoft got involved. People know about consoles and their so called bits or whatever 32bit to 64 bit, anyways most people will be like woah it must be so much better and newer, if they market it aggressivly.

 

[wetcat007]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: PrinceXizor
As I already mentioned...screw the whole FX vs. EE debate (guess what folks...its even, from price to performance...NEITHER wins).

The real winner is the AMD Athlon 64 3200+

This little gem bests the P4 3.2C in a majority of benches and currently costs 50% less than its opponent.

The fact of the matter is this...to truly determine who "won" will require what most tech geeks don't have a lot of...patience.

There still are a lot of questions that AMD has to answer (despite what you might read in most debates, it has little to do with the P4 EE or the yet to be released Prescott core).

1. Can AMD generate the yields it needs to be able to supply the demand for this chip. You can't steal marketshare if you don't have product.

2. When will Microsoft actually release a 64-bit version for Windows XP?

3. Tied with number one is this...can AMD fully take advantage of the excellent scaling that this architecture can deliver with its current manufacturing capabilities?

4. How much will AMD's agreement with IBM assist in its yield issues and other manufacturing issues as well as its own inevitable die shrink to the 90 nm process?

All of these questions are much more applicable and much more useful then debate over some jury-rigged, rebadged server chips.

P-X

I fully agree ! And whoever says the A64-3200 didn't win, either didn't read Anand's review, and the many others out there, other they need a brain transplant. Oh, and speaking for someone that USED to like Tomshardware, their review really sVcked. You also have to read between the lines, but even in their review the A64-3200 beat the P4 3.2C most of the time.

Edit: Also, the A64 51 FX can be had, and the P4EE is paper, even if they are supposed to be the same price. AND I think it beat the P4EE in most benches and gets the crown, not to mention that the P4EE is 117 watts and a great space-heater !

omg how does one cool the thing?

 

[hungrygoose]

let's not forget that this amd cpu is only clocked at 2.2ghz..........u know amd will come out with some higher offereing q1 2004......the fact that the a64 is competing against a cpu clocked 1 ghz faster is damn impressive.....says alot about the architecture...i'm surprised nobody has really commented on that.....good job amd!

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Edit: Also, the A64 51 FX can be had, and the P4EE is paper, even if they are supposed to be the same price. AND I think it beat the P4EE in most benches and gets the crown, not to mention that the P4EE is 117 watts and a great space-heater !

94W. The A64 isn't a cool chip either.

 

[Rectalfier]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Edit: Also, the A64 51 FX can be had, and the P4EE is paper, even if they are supposed to be the same price. AND I think it beat the P4EE in most benches and gets the crown, not to mention that the P4EE is 117 watts and a great space-heater !

94W. The A64 isn't a cool chip either.

Yes, but it is cooler.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Pariah
I guess the half dozen reviews I looked at today were different from the ones you looked at, because the standard A64 didn't earn any overall decisive victory vs the P4 C in the articles I saw.

Well, from the 15 I've looked at today (my eyes hurt), I thought that the 3200+ did damn well against the 3.2C.

Also:

3200+ Retail = $445
3.2C Retail = $616

How much did you pay for your "3GHz" chip? Very few us, even enthusiasts, buy the top of the line chip which rarely has any OC'ing headroom. And it is well established with Intel that you don't have to buy top of the line to get top of the line performance. Why pay $600+ when for $400 less you can get practically the same performance? That's not exactly an option with the A64, where the cheapest option is $450. Not to mention you are guaranteed to have to buy a new motherboard for an A64, where a lot of us already own P4C compatible boards. When total cost is taken into account, for a large number of us, the P4 setup would be significantly less expensive (less than half).

 

[solofly]

Originally posted by: orion7144

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Goose77
WoW, loving the reviews about the A64. Its doing what i expected, which is not bad! after reading Ace's review(which is reminisce of old anand style!) really showed what the A64 can do! i cant wait to see how the final winxp64 performs!!! It seems like intel is doing damage control with there P4 Emergency Edition!!!!! I now see why it was so relevant that Intel's CTO Pat Gelsinger said that there is no need for 64bit processor right now!!

heh yeah but right now for today's usage the P4 EE is either beating the Athlon 64 or just underneath it. If the current P4 can do that just wait until Prescott comes out...AMD will be clobbered

You make it seem as though AMD is going to stand still. AMD will have a 3400+ Athlon 64 (2.2GHz) by year's end and you can expect a 3600 and 3800 by 1H '04

Maybe but what about chipsets? Are we in for another round of incompatability with certain cards and software that will lock up just like a couple years ago with.

That's right, AMD always had crap chipset support. Budget Via, etc.

 

[orion7144]

Originally posted by: wetcat007

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: PrinceXizor
As I already mentioned...screw the whole FX vs. EE debate (guess what folks...its even, from price to performance...NEITHER wins).

The real winner is the AMD Athlon 64 3200+

This little gem bests the P4 3.2C in a majority of benches and currently costs 50% less than its opponent.

Yes and no.
Joe consumer:
sees AMD Athlon XP 3200+, AMD Athlon 64 3200+, and P4 3.2C based computers at a retailer. Asks salesman about the difference, doesn't understand what the hell the salesman is talking about (64-bit what?!?) and figures that with all this confusion he better sticks with what he knows.

Enthusiast (my reasoning at least):
Why the hell should I spend $450 on a 3.2 GHz-equivalent CPU with little headroom when I can buy a 2.4C or 2.6C for much less and very likely OC it to 3.2 GHz or better?

you're left with the non-overclocking enthusiasts who have a bunch of money to spend... but not too much money or they'll buy an FX-51 or P4-EE. The market looks kinda narrow when you look at it this way, no?

I hope that AMD can scale the Athlon 64 quickly so as to keep the pressure on Intel since Intel is somewhat vulnerable until Prescott is available in significant quantities.

You make a very good point, although I don't think AMD will have trouble selling their current limited(assuming that the reports are true) supply. Once MS releases Win XP/64(or whatever), I hope AMD and MS do a joint TV ad blitz. This really is AMDs' chance for Intel level recognition, they are competitive in speed and, more importantly, introducing a new evolutionary generation in computing(for Home Users) 64bit!! This is AMDs' chance to appear as *the* industry leader in innovation, a chance that may never happen again.

64 bit could really be a HUGE marketing perk for AMD, especially if Microsoft got involved. People know about consoles and their so called bits or whatever 32bit to 64 bit, anyways most people will be like woah it must be so much better and newer, if they market it aggressivly.

Thats exactly what the guys on Tech TV's screensavers said not to concern yourself with. Two AMD reps were in the studio and a caller called in and asked if he should upgrade to the Athlon 64. The screensaver hosts, with AMD present, flat out said no. They said even though the AMD people were touting the 64 bit that it is pretty much usless right now. They did go on to say that maybe down the road when MS and other developers start developing 64bit software is when people should take another look at the 64 bit processors.

 

[paperfist]

Any one read http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3082211 anymore? Ah the results are nice without that EE paper launch chip to muck things up

Did you guys see or know there is a AMD64 3000+ that will sell for $278!?!?!?! I didn't see that in any benchmarks, but I just read about it here http://www.overclockers.com/tips00463/ and overclockers.com points you to this chart: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_609,00.html?redir=CPT301. WTF is a "Desktop Replacement" Processor?

 

[Chaotic42]

Sweet review.

I'm actually starting to get interested in this stuff again, even though I have no use for a 3.2GHz (or equivalent) processor. I'm hoping that the MP prices will plunge so much that they red-shift.

 

[Leokor]

Originally posted by: Accord99

94W. The A64 isn't a cool chip either.

Where did you get that? AMD specifies 89W as the max for the entire line of Athlon 64 chips, including those that will be released in the future! Check this out: http://www.aceshardware.com/#75000419

Leo

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: hungrygoose
let's not forget that this amd cpu is only clocked at 2.2ghz..........u know amd will come out with some higher offereing q1 2004......the fact that the a64 is competing against a cpu clocked 1 ghz faster is damn impressive.....says alot about the architecture...i'm surprised nobody has really commented on that.....good job amd!

While that is true, comparing Ghz anymore is pointless..

It's lke apples and oranges.. IF the A64 only need 2ghz to get it done, and Intel needs 3.. So be it, If it's soon AMD needs 3ghz to take Intel 5 or something to that sort...

They are both getting it done, and at relatively close prices.

 

[jjyiz28]

so far im impressed by both the p4EE and 64fx. problem i see with A64 is that it is on a .13 micron. i don't believe that the a64 chips will be able to scale much higher than 2.2 ghz. amd will have to hurry up and go to .09. prescott being on .09 will be able to scale quite well. the only saving grace for a64 will be a A64 version of windows. after that, the perfomance will be stagnant until they reach .09

 

[Diable]

Originally posted by: Diable
Oh how i wanted a A64 but it sucks at Divx/Xvid encoding, guess a P4EE will be in my new box :brokenheart:

Guess I was wrong, after reading Hardware Review's (the only site that does real Divx benching) A64 FX 51 review (link) a A64 might be in my future