AMD Athlon 64 & Athlon 64 FX - It's Judgment Day
by Anand Lal Shimpi on September 23, 2003 1:25 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Memory Latency & Bandwidth Performance
Given AMD's on-die memory controller, memory latencies should be reduced significantly as well as bandwidth efficiency improved a bit. In order to validate these hypotheses we turn to ScienceMark 2.0 to give us an indication of memory latency and bandwidth performance:
Although the Pentium 4 and the Athlon 64 FX have the same amount of theoretical memory bandwidth, the Athlon 64 FX comes out ahead by a significant margin thanks to the on-die memory controller.
Memory latency is reduced significantly over the Athlon XP thanks to the on-die memory controller, although there is much to be said about Intel's 865/875 memory controllers by looking at the latency comparison seen above.
Here we have the same comparison as before, just with the performance measured in CPU clocks and not ns.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
122 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
#38, Huh how heck are we forgetting something NO ONE KNOWS? Has Intel ever really givin an absolute upper limit to the Prescott clocks throughout the year? Last time I heard Tejas would takeover after 4.2Ghz.Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
LOL, you all who think that intel is the winner here, just continue to believe so, but don't tell anyone.If Prescott was so great we should have seen "leaked" benchmarks by now. I saw benchmarks of the Clawhammer more than a year ago.
AMD can not outperform intel because they'll get problems with their supply. That's one of the main reasons AMD don't want to release a cpu that will beat all intel offerings. Imagine what will happen if everyone wants an AMD.
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
#35, Dude just frigging be quiet as I seriously hope you aren't saying crap like that in public.Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
You guys are forgetting Prescott is capable of 4.6 GHz, and it'll have the price advantage.Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
So what's the difference between 32bit with 64bit extensions, and 64bit with 32bit compatible mode.Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
#29, Didn't Intel reps at IDF make comments to the tune of a 3.2Ghz P4EE offering up better overall performance than a 3.2Ghz Prescott? How heck is Prescott going to change things when it's debutting at 3.4Ghz and going to be up against an FX51 and A64 3400+ (possibly even FX55)?!!?? What part of that shows Intel sailing through 2004 when Prescott is expected to max out at around 4Ghz and A64 hasn't even gone through a die shrink and is already performance competitive with it from the initial 130nm A64 releases??!?Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
Athlon64 isnt running in 32bit compatibility mode. It's still a 32-bit processor with 64-bit extensions, not the other way around. Pure 64-bit processors will trounce it in 64-bit apps.Just keeping up with Intel isn't enough, they needed to take the performance crown without any doubt to really gain back marketshare, right now this is just good enough to tread water, especially considering their pricing. How the next year plays out will be interesting though.
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
#32Wait till next year when the bugs of 64-bit drivers/software come onto your system. It will be Windows 95 all over again. AMD64 is an expensive disappointment.
THE END
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
amiga owns you.Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - link
For everyone saying that the Athlon64 was NOT the so-called AMD Killer, I just have one question:How can you say a 64-bit processor running in 32-bit compatibility mode that keeps up with the best Intel processor, the P4EE, disappointing? Me, I'm waiting for some more 64-bit programs to judge the strength of the Athlon 64. The fact that the Athlon 64 can keep up and sometime pass Intel in 32 bits is awesome.
BTW, I'm not an AMD fanboy. I have both AMD and Intel processors. But I find the Intel zealots are trying to discredit this processor by insisting on only looking at half the picture. Just my opinion.