Yeah anand has his Socket-939/FX53 review posted.

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: BlvdKing
I'm no expert, but I cannot understand why AMD would release a castrated 32 bit chip on S754 when they are trying, very successfully at the moment, to push the industry into 64 bits. Wouldn't leaving the 64 bits enabled on the value XP line spread x86-64 computing even faster? IMO AMD should leave the 64 bits enabled and just half the cache again, down to 256K, to distinguish the value line from the middle and performance levels.

I tend to fully agree with you on this one and disagree with DAPUNISHER a little. AMD should be pushing 64-bits to its utmost potential. If their value line of CPUs had it, it would make it that much more important for apps such as Windows-64 to be released imminently.

Disabling 64-bits saves AMD no money on the CPU costs. Halving the cache, or even quartering the cache, WOULD.

The other thing that AMD is doing that is seriously irritating me is that up until now, they have only offered dual-channel CPUs to their high-end line. I'm pretty sure that ALL A64 CPUs produced have the dual memory controller feature, but it goes unused on the S754 platform. Again, AMD is crippling their CPUs for the sole purpose of controlling what we buy. By not allowing the mainstream A64 CPUs to use a dual-channel memory controller (up until now), they are not saving themselves money in the least. All they are doing is costing US money, which appauls me. If they must differenciate their product line, they should do it in a fair and logical way, which seems to be the way they are going with S939. It's just a shame that it took them so long to do so.

AMD are starting to remind me of intel; their business practices of late seem downright criminal. If they keep this up and continue to raise prices, I'm sure they will promptly lose any of the marketshare that they have gained over the past two years.

 

[BlvdKing]

Leaving x86-64 enabled and losing another 256K of cache makes more sense to me, but I am not one of the "big brains" at AMD so I am not sure what their end game is. I do know, however, that I would never buy an Athlon XP on socket 754 without x86-64.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: BlvdKing
I am not one of the "big brains" at AMD

I'm pretty sure the "big brains" at AMD recently performed a mind-meld with the "big brains" at intel. :roll: :beer:

 

[AnnoyedGrunt]

Well, now that the pricing is out, I will say that I am a bit disapointed in AMD.

First, I am kinda pissed that they raised the price of the FX-53 from $733 to $799. Lame to have prices go up over time on anything semi related IMO.

Second, I think they are asking far too much for the 3500. Given that it is barely any faster than the 3400, I have a hard time justifying the extra $80. Also, the 3700+ and 3800+ as well as the entire FX line seem way overpriced if you compare them to the Opteron prices.

Does anyone know the difference between the FX and the Opterons? Is there anything on the FX that makes them significantly faster?

3400+ = $404 (OEM)
Opt 148 = $404 (OEM)
3500+ = $485 (OEM)
Opt 150 = $615 (OEM)
3700+ = $705 (OEM)
3800+ = $715 (OEM)
FX-51 = $745 (retail)
FX-53 = $799 (OEM)

(all prices from newegg)

If the Opterons perform similarly to the FX, then they seem like a much better way to go. Maybe the 939 makes up a bit of the price disparity when you take into account the RAM and stuff. But, when comparing the 940 FX to the 940 Opterons, why are the Opterons so much less expensive? What am I missing here?

Also, as far as the AMD "value" 754 processors, I definitely feel they should leave the 64bit capability enabled. Currently, the P4 and A64 are neck and neck in performance when you compare the similarly priced prodcuts. Intel is better for some things and AMD is better @ others, but the difference isn't huge IMO. Therefore, the one thing that really differentiates AMD from Intel @ this time is the 64bit capability. If they really want to take advantage of that, they will need to get as much 64bit exposure as possible, even if the performance improvement is negligible. People will often feel like they got a better value if they have more features, even though they may not need or use those features right away, and that might help sway new users away from Intel. I think AMD would position themselves much better in the long term if they made a lower cache version of the A64 for the value market, instead of propagating a 32bit version (funny how that reinforces Intel's current position on 64bit). Oh well, that's why I am an not a marketing dude.

D'oh!

 

[AnnoyedGrunt]

Well, I got interested in comparing the Opteron 150 and FX-53, and according to these tests, they are about neck and neck. The Opteron edges out the FX, but the FX is unsing the NF 150 chipset so that may have saddled the performance a tiny bit. Overall though, they are pretty much the same.

http://tech-report.com/reviews/2004q1/athlon64-fx53/index.x?pg=1

http://tech-report.com/reviews/2004q2/opteron-x50/index.x?pg=1

So, do people realize they are the same and that you can get the Opteron 150 for $180 less than the FX-53? Somehow, I still think I'm missing something, since I can't figure out why that price difference is so high. Just seems strange to charge more for the "enthusiast" version while charging less for the "workstation" version.

-D'oh!

 

[SickBeast]

Mr. Grunt:

It is well known that many of the Opterons will perform at par with some of the FX chips. What you need to take into account is the fact that the Opteron requires registered memory, which is very expensive. I'm not sure on this but I think it more than offsets the cost savings.

 

[AnnoyedGrunt]

Ahh, I thought both the Opteron and FX required registered memory. (I'm talking about comparing the 940 chips, in case that was unclear).

Some of the reviews of the FX say that it requires registered memory just like the Opteron, but if it really doesn't, then that would be one thing that is different between the two chips.

I looked at memory, and comparing the same type from same MFG's was about a $40 total difference for 1 GB, but you could find el cheapo memory of the unbuffered type for maybe $60-80 less or so. Would be a significant savings if you already had the RAM, but otherwise you'd need about 2GB to make up the difference in cost (I guess that for people spending that amound of money of a proc, 2GB might be a realistic amount).

That may explain the difference, (but I have my doubts ), although I still think it is cheesy for AMD to charge such a premium for the FX line.

-D'oh!

 

[SickBeast]

Actually, you might be right, they both might require registered memory. I'm not sure now that I think of it.

/confused.

 

[AnnoyedGrunt]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Actually, you might be right, they both might require registered memory. I'm not sure now that I think of it.

/confused.

Yeah, exactly (about the confused part). I keep thinking I'm missing something cuz I don't understand how these two chips (which seem to be the same with different names) can have such a large price difference. Maybe those Intel Xeons are actually performing well enough to keep the cost of the Opterons in check.

-D'oh!

 

[BlvdKing]

The Opteron requires Registered and ECC whereas the FX requires only Registered. That is how I understood it....

 

[White Widow]

The confusing part is that the s939 FX will support standard unbuffered memory, while the the FX for s940 requires the more expensive stuff - don't expect the see any more FX chips for the s940 platform.

As much as I would like to see a 64bit "value" processor, I have to admit that it *does* make some sense for AMD to sell a crippled A64 part at the low-end. Why? Because just like the original Duron, a 64bit "junior" CPU would probably perform so closely to it's bigger "mainstrem" brother that it would eat heavily into the sales of the more expensive part. In fact, even with less cache (which will surely be the case) I would wager that a 32bit Hammer would perform very well in 32bit benchmarks against a similiarly clocked A64 part. The only difference will be the sing-channel memory for the 32bit part and, of course, a luck of support for 64bit apps. What this (and a lot of on production plans from AMD) tells me is that AMD will keep pumping out "old" AthlonXP's well into 2005 as their low-end part, with S754 A64 being the mainstream and S939 being the high-end. Opteron, of course, will constiute the workstation segment. Again, AMD plans to produce far more S754 chips than S939 chips through the end of the year and pssibly through Q1'05. They will wait until they have a) a solid and efficient 90um process and b) solid and establish 64bit OS/driver support before really dropping the price and upping the availability of the S939 systems. Aroudn the same time we'll say goodbye to the beloved K7 core, and welcome the castrated 32bit K8 product as it're replacement at the low-end in the S754. At the time, AMD will begin to transition S939 to the mainstream and begin to position their S900 (DDR-II) parts for the high-end. Whew.

Bottom line - you won't see a good price on a S939 chip for a LONG time. Some suggest they might release a few lower-speed models, but I doubt it. AMD is not going to consume limited S939 production capacity and eat into their own market (S754) with low-end S939 chips.

An intersting side note: the die size of the S939 A64 is 144 mm2, while the Barton core AXP's are 101mm2. Maybe this is why AMD is planning to keep 80% of their total CPU produciton with AXP's through the middle of NEXT YEAR!