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
Where is the software?
AMD sent out evaluation systems with a beta copy of Windows XP 64-bit Edition, and if you remember back several months the alleged point of delaying the Athlon 64's launch was to coincide with the release of Windows XP 64-bit Edition. From what we're hearing, although a beta of the OS will be available very soon, the final release will not be until Q1 2004.
We managed to do some 32-bit performance testing on the 64-bit Edition of Windows XP, however out of our entire benchmark suite - only one test would complete and that test was actually slower under Win64. The latest build of the beta is supposed to have better performance, but for now don't expect 64-bit Windows to be a reality. Without application support, the 64-bit "experience" is quite anticlimactic. We browsed the web in 64-bit Internet Explorer for a while before rebooting the system and getting some work done in 32-bit Windows.
The story is much different under Linux, where we managed to run tests under Red Hat Enterprise 2.9.5WS (Taroon), also a beta release. We will talk more about our results under Linux later in the article.
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.