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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: Accord99
Originally posted by: Czar
I'm surprised how amazingly well the EE is doing. But it all comes down to price, how cheap can Intel produce those EE chips since they wont be replacing the P4 while the Athlon FX will replace the current Athlons
Click to expand...
Probably much cheaper than AMD can produce Athlon 64s, considering they're roughly the same size, Intel has spare 0.13um capacity as they begin to transition to 0.09um, the R&D costs have long been paid off, Intel's 300mm wafers and lower costs from not using SOI.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure because of the insane amount of transistors the EE version has
 
H

HokieESM

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
798
0
0
I'm QUITE impressed by the Athlon64 FX... its doing quite well, from what I can see. Slightly less impressive (somewhat disappointing) is the Athlon64 3200+.... its giving up quite a bit to its "bigger" brother. Isn't the "FX" line supposed to be the limited "showing off" processor for AMD? Which usually means sky-high prices? eh.... I was hoping that a "new generation" of processors would make a "leap"--but apparently those days are done.

But I am glad to see competition. Now its just seeing how AMD can scale the FX... and Intel can scale the EE. Its, at least, an interesting race. 64-bit for AMD.... Prescott is around the corner.... I'll have to pay attention and see what I can afford a year from now. :)
 
L

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
I'm suprised the chipset on the FX-51 has so much of a difference, I thought the differences were meant to be fairly negligeable due to the onboard memory controller.
Certainly 1 up for VIA again though.

(Techreport review)

And from the same review, a product compiled with an Intel compiler and Microsoft compiler is odd, the Intel compiler version runs faster on AMD CPU's than the MS complier (all AMD CPU's) while the MS compiler is best for Intel CPU's. If I read it correctly.
Here
 
alexruiz

alexruiz

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2001
2,836
556
126
Well, the 2 sites that I consider the most reliable besides Anand (TechReport and Ace's) are giving a clear victory to the Athlon FX 51 overall, and giving the Athlon 64 a decision by points (over the regular P4 3.2)...... Let me read the others, but I am very impressed, as let's not forget that the FX51 is running registered RAM. Well, it seems that saving my money for a laptop based in the Athlon 64 was a wise choice.... dual boot Win2k/WinXP 64 bits here I come.....

Toms had a lot of benchmarks, but I guess no one can refute the fact that the ultimate gaming processors right now are made in Dresden....

I also noticed that ALL the reviews are using GeForce FX 5900, I wonder why.....

Let's keep reading


Alex
 
L

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
Anandtech still seems fast....for now

I'm opening all the pages before it slows to a crawl.
 
T

thatsright

Diamond Member
May 1, 2001
3,004
3
81
SCHWEET!!!

UT2004 will be also sold in 64-Bit format for the A64. Available by X-Mas. Now I kinda wish I had a A64 CPU, well almost............;)
 
Regs

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,666
21
81
Shite do I want one and now. But I just have this feeling that someone will make a better mobo for it.

Btw, where is the nforce 3? er.
 
Adul

Adul

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
32,999
44
91
danny.tangtam.com
Anand's conclusion

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.
Click to expand...
 
T

thatsright

Diamond Member
May 1, 2001
3,004
3
81
This past June I built a new IC7/P4c 2.4Ghz/Radeon 9700 Rig, and my next whole PC upgrade I was thinking would of been with a Intel based PCI-Express and Socket-T and BTX type motherboard. I would probably do this at the earliest in early 2005. But now I wonder if AMD will come out next year with a A64 based chipset or MB with PCI-X and the newer BTX format?

Anyone have an idea? Does the new A64 chipset already support PCI-Express in the future? Or will this require AMD to design a whole new chipset next year to support PCI-Express?
 
ElFenix

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,406
8,585
126
ace's review is good, except for the 5900 being used. no time to read anand's right now.
 
Regs

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,666
21
81
I agree with Anand, thats why im getting a 3200 Hammer. That other stuff is just a tad...tad too pricy.
 
C

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
one question,
why are we not seeing Halfelife2 benchmarks since the Athlon64 is a "released hardware" ?
 
alexruiz

alexruiz

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2001
2,836
556
126
Dissapointed at Anand's review...... :(

I was expecting his review to be close with Ace's, but he rans a few benchmarks only. I am surprised of how someone already declared the P4$ emergency edition as the clear winner juts by reading the review posted by Tom.....
rolleye.gif


A few comments:
- Aren't you surprised of how different the results between different sites are despite using "similar hardware"....?
- A lot of people seem to critizice the "limited" upgradeability.... come on guys, this is a NEW architecture....
- Price? A lot of people seem to forget the 1 GHz parts at over $1000 USD...... Don't be partial, critizing the price just because it came from AMD is not fair.... If the CPU is the HIGHEST performing baby in town, it should be priced as such.....
- The Barton being a joke? Yes, AMD became less fair in their ratings, but saying it is not worthy of the performance ratings is also being fanatic..... A lot people seem to think "it is all over for AMD" because reviewers liked to show applications that work waay better in a P4 SSE2 machine.... (lightwave anyone?)
I insisted that reviewers were missing a lot of applications suited for worksations such as scientific calculations (FEA, Eworkbench, PSpice, NASTRAN, financial models, compile jobs, etc... even autocad). If PSpice and nastran were selected instead of 3dsmax or lightwave, people would be screaming that the Athlons stomp over the P4s..... (before the flames, make sure you understand what NASTRAN or PSpice do....) So far only a compile test and a mathematica test......


I said before, it is not black and white, it has several shades of gray.....

Can the Athlon FX 51 be crowned?? Well, that depends on you and your application, but if we want to get the overall champ let's look at their wins and the margin of victory . Let's look also at the depth and comments of the reviewers. I would say yes, the king is dead, long live the king!
 
NFS4

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,636
47
91
Originally posted by: Regs
I agree with Anand, thats why im getting a 3200 Hammer. That other stuff is just a tad...tad too pricy.
Click to expand...

Same here. Who has the lowest prices on 3200+'s??

I saw Page Computer as having the lowest price+shipping for a retail CPU
 
H

HokieESM

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
798
0
0
Originally posted by: alexruiz
Dissapointed at Anand's review...... :(

I was expecting his review to be close with Ace's, but he rans a few benchmarks only. I am surprised of how someone already declared the P4$ emergency edition as the clear winner juts by reading the review posted by Tom.....
rolleye.gif


A few comments:
- Aren't you surprised of how different the results between different sites are despite using "similar hardware"....?
- A lot of people seem to critizice the "limited" upgradeability.... come on guys, this is a NEW architecture....
- Price? A lot of people seem to forget the 1 GHz parts at over $1000 USD...... Don't be partial, critizing the price just because it came from AMD is not fair.... If the CPU is the HIGHEST performing baby in town, it should be priced as such.....
- The Barton being a joke? Yes, AMD became less fair in their ratings, but saying it is not worthy of the performance ratings is also being fanatic..... A lot people seem to think "it is all over for AMD" because reviewers liked to show applications that work waay better in a P4 SSE2 machine.... (lightwave anyone?)
I insisted that reviewers were missing a lot of applications suited for worksations such as scientific calculations (FEA, Eworkbench, PSpice, NASTRAN, financial models, compile jobs, etc... even autocad). If PSpice and nastran were selected instead of 3dsmax or lightwave, people would be screaming that the Athlons stomp over the P4s..... (before the flames, make sure you understand what NASTRAN or PSpice do....) So far only a compile test and a mathematica test......


I said before, it is not black and white, it has several shades of gray.....

Can the Athlon FX 51 be crowned?? Well, that depends on you and your application, but if we want to get the overall champ let's look at their wins and the margin of victory . Let's look also at the depth and comments of the reviewers. I would say yes, the king is dead, long live the king!
Click to expand...


You might be surprised by some of the numerical applications.... I know (for a fact) that Opteron's are not running ANSYS any faster than Xeons (and its something a LOT like NASTRAN). :) The whole cache issue is a big deal..... not to mention optimization. Compiled code on the Opteron is looking good (from the two we have at school).... but its only marginally faster than the Xeons (<5%).

But you're absolutely right... its shades of grey. Not to mention, we're comparing a brand new processor with a "last generation" one. Two VERY different processors, I might add. I think this one will take a LONG time to sort out.

Of course, one also has to remember that to 90% of the people, the comparison is moot. Either is WAY faster than they need. To enthusiats (or people like me... people forced to put up with the thing to get our work done), it matters. But, in my layman's opinion, its such a complicated question, that its really, really hard to answer.
 
D

Diable

Senior member
Sep 28, 2001
753
0
0
Oh how i wanted a A64 but it sucks at Divx/Xvid encoding, guess a P4EE will be in my new box :brokenheart:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom