Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

1st Athlon 64 Review

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 23, 2003 5:06:04 AM

Get the translators ready (unless you read French).

<A HREF="http://www.x86-secret.com/popups/articleswindow.php?id=..." target="_new">http://www.x86-secret.com/popups/articleswindow.php?id=...;/A>

I'm still digesting this article but so far several things surprised me.

I never heard the Athlon 64 FX 51 ever mentioned. (I thought it was a translator error but the name appears in the diagrams).

Someone did say that single channel DDR wasn't a lock for A64 and they were right. FX 51 has dual channel.

Can someone clue me in on how the FX differs from Opeteron?

Also included in the review are benchmarks for Applebred and P4 Extreme Edition.

Why the h*ll does P4 EE run away with the PCMark2002 benchmark? 40% faster than P4 3.2C. Does the 2 MB cache help that much?

I'm not impressed with Athlon 64 but Athlon 64 FX 51 looks much better.

I'll leave the rest of the comments to you all.

<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 09/23/03 01:07 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

More about : 1st athlon review

September 23, 2003 5:32:17 AM

Wow, they say the overclocked P4EE at 3.6 uses 150 watts which makes Prescott's 103 look like not much. Apparently current motherboards will be compatible with Prescott for those that were doubting it.
Related resources
September 23, 2003 5:40:18 AM

Did they say how they cooled it?

150 watts is a lot even for water cooling + Peltier.



<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>
September 23, 2003 5:53:25 AM

It didn't say anything about cooling, although my frenglish skills arn't too great. THis is what google translated it to:

3.6 Ghz with a processor comprising more than 100 transistor million and 2 Mo of mask! A pretty score. Once again let us note (it is significant) which our P4C800 supported perfectly few 150 Watts required by the processor when it was overclockés. In comparison, famous 103 Watts of Prescott appear little... Better, the chart it is revealed perfectly stable to 3.6 Ghz after a small increase in tension

And in the conclusion it says this:

Now remain to speak about overclocking. As we noted, architecture 0.13µ ONESELF of AMD appreciates only very moderately the overclocking. If we could make pass our 3200+ to 2.2 Ghz and our Athlon 64 Fx-51 with 2.4 Ghz, these results remain rather weak compared to Pentium 4 which goes up easily until A 3.6 Ghz and +, even with version ' EE' equipped with 2 Mo of mask. Let us profit to repeat that our charts i865/i875 perfectly supported 150 Watts consumed by this processor when it was overclocké and that they are not 103 Watts of Prescott which will frighten them... CQFD.



<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by kevbo on 09/23/03 01:54 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 23, 2003 6:12:49 AM

I don't know but 150 watts seems like an overly exaggerated number.

A P4 3.2C is spec'd at 82 watts (don't know about P4 EE but I don't imagine it much higher). Now you bump the speed by 12.5% and the voltage by what? say 20%. You shouldn't be getting an 82% increase in power draw.

<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>
September 23, 2003 9:55:34 AM

I don't know about you but I don't consider this a review .. for many reasons. I'll wait until later on today (it's already Tuesday 23rd where I live) for reviews by THG, Anand, X-bit Labs etc.
September 23, 2003 2:56:20 PM

..and those reasons are?

You don't like the results so you don't accept them. Is that the reason?

<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>
!