Athlon 64

[-eViL-]

Model: AMD Athlon 64 3400+
Core: ClawHammer
Operating Frequency: 2.2GHz
FSB: Integrated into chip
Cache: L1/64K+64K; L2/1MB
Voltage: 1.5V
Process: 0.13Micron
Socket: Socket 754
Price: $429.00

Model: AMD Athlon 64 FX-51
Core: ClawHammer
Operating Frequency: 2.2GHz
FSB: Integrated into Chip
Cache: L1/64K+64K; L2/1024K
Voltage: 1.5V
Process: 0.13Micron
Socket: Socket 940
Price: $749.00

anyone with any incite on that?

[Darwin]

Wait til XP comes out with better 64bit support.  The current (beta) version is rather buggy.  On the other hand, I think UT2K3 has come out with real nice 64bit support (as its what they show in the commercials).

Give it 1 to 2 years.  Slashdot has been telling rumors of intel making a 64bit x86 processor.

[Lidge Farkley]

Something about the mother board chipsets for the two chips is different.

Also the socket difference may allow some difference in transfering data speeds...

I can't freakin' remember what the differences are, but in the tests I remember that the FX-51 was much quicker than the Athlon 64 3400+ in handling video game type data, but the A64-3400+ was a tiny bit better as far as file server type processing.  I could be wrong though... it's been at least 3 months since I looked at any of that stuff. ;-p

I agree; wait until the price comes way down. ;-)  No point in buying a chip for which software does not even exist if the price for the chip will be lower when that software actually comes out.

[-eViL-]

I can't freakin' remember what the differences are, but in the tests I remember that the FX-51 was much quicker than the Athlon 64 3400+ in handling video game type data, but the A64-3400+ was a tiny bit better as far as file server type processing.  I could be wrong though... it's been at least 3 months since I looked at any of that stuff. ;-p

for Athlon64 3400+ came out like 3 weeks ago lidge... how could you have seen it 3 months ago...?

[Particle]

Well, the FX chips have a dual-channel memory controller (actually useful for the 64-bit AMD chips).  The new 3400+ has a speed stepping technology.  It has like 1.5v at full load @ 2.2GHz, 1.4v @ 2GHz or so, and 1.3v @ 800MHz.  Dunno about the exact speeds.  Anyhow, it dynamically changes based on what you're doing (like the mobile AMDs do), which I think is a good thing if the stepping is fast enough.  Running at 800MHz, it doesn't even need active cooling.  Less noise, less electricity on your next bill, and your machine will end up running cooler.  Good in theory, but I don't know how well it works.

I don't think the FX has a speed step.  I think the main reason for more pins on the FX is the dual-channel memory controller.

[UnderGod]

If only AMD were to merge technology with nVidia.  Then we would have the awesome GPU without having to worry about it overheating.

ATI would then merge with Intell, and aside from malarkeyty drivers, it would also have major overheating problems thanks to intell..


Intell: Intense Heat Inside

[Lidge Farkley]

I can't freakin' remember what the differences are, but in the tests I remember that the FX-51 was much quicker than the Athlon 64 3400+ in handling video game type data, but the A64-3400+ was a tiny bit better as far as file server type processing.  I could be wrong though... it's been at least 3 months since I looked at any of that stuff. ;-p

for Athlon64 3400+ came out like 3 weeks ago lidge... how could you have seen it 3 months ago...?

I am sorry, I owned myself with that one. :-D

What I meant to say was 4 weeks, but I wrote 3 months.  See how retarded I can be some times?  ahh well.

ANyhow, about 4 weeks a go Tomshardware.com got their copy of the AFX and tested it's values against the values of the A64.  I added a week to what I meant to say because I didn't realise it has allready this far in to January.

Back Back B.  *lighting bolt*

Ok... uhh... UG is mostly correct; the p4's require good cooling or they melt/shut off. I think that is due to their bus frequencies and their required input of power compared to the athlons.  Of course, the older athlons have some heat issues too some times.... depending on the chip and the basic frequencies.

blah blah blah...
Particle has answered it well, though I would add that games take better advantage of dual-channel memory bandwidth where regular fileserver type processing doesn't need really need to, and therefore performs slightly less in the video-display department.  I'm running on little bits of my memory so I am not sure as to this accuracy, but I do remember the FX was faster for gaming than the A64, and that would seem to make sense as the dual-channel memory advantage is present.

Adios!

[-eViL-]

blah blah blah...
Particle has answered it well, though I would add that games take better advantage of dual-channel memory bandwidth where regular fileserver type processing doesn't need really need to, and therefore performs slightly less in the video-display department.  I'm running on little bits of my memory so I am not sure as to this accuracy, but I do remember the FX was faster for gaming than the A64, and that would seem to make sense as the dual-channel memory advantage is present.
Adios!

lidge... the FX is an Athlon64 processor... so how can the FX be faster than itself?

what you mean to say is that the FX is faster than the 3400+ in the gaming department... i think anyways.

[Lidge Farkley]

The FX has more pins to take advantage of a chipset that has dual channel memory (as particle said.)

//I am calling the 3400+ the A64 for short... since it's a "normal" athlon... well, actually an Opteron at 64 Bits ;-p

The A64 does not have any chipsets made for it which use dual channel memory (or, they didn't before, they may now.)  According to Particle, who I tend to agree with, the FX chipsets (motherboards) can and do use dual channel memory, hence the more pins on the chip itself.   I don't actually know that this is what the more pins are for, but I do know that the A64 just has a standard motherboard (because the chips are based on the Operton which is more than a year old) chipset with out dual channel memory bandwidth.  The FX uses the motherboard chipset designed to run a dual channel memory.

The price difference may simply be a thing to do with the dual channel support.

Regular athlons which have motherboards which support dual channel usually cost more than regular athlons that do not.

Because it probably costs a few bucks more for them to make a chip with the dual channel (more pins from what it looks like) they probably price the chips much higher.

In the tests on THG, FX was much better for gaming than A64, despite horrendous problems with the nForce 3 chipset.

That's what I was saying ;-)