[align=center]64 bit Performance Wars[/align]
The 64 bit market has opened with a bang and continues to progress to faster chips as the months unfold before us. A mere 4 months after the introduction of AMD's socket 939 platform AMD's latest processor is here, announced one week after Intel announced it will drop plans of reaching the 4 GHZ barrier any time soon. AMD has hit intel where it really hurts with a faster and architecturally improved processor. AMD's latest processor success is also based the fact of continually gaining more performance out of its 130 nm process after intel switched to 90 nm this past February.
The Athlon64 FX-55 at 2.6GHZ and the newest child Athlon64 4000+ showcase AMD's latest launch since the release of the 2.4GHZ FX=53 with the 4000+ CPU bench marks being nearly identical to that of the FX-53. AMD is now setting the performance standards in the AMD Vs Intel performance competition. With the Athlon 64 3800+ AMD introduced a quantispeed rating that exceeded the clock speed of Intel's for the first time and now with the introduction of the 4000+ another precedent has been set that presents a serious challange for Intel.
AMD has silently but swiftly began to phase in its 90 nm production process with far less hoopla than when Intel introduced its 90 nm process with the winchester core being the first of the line up actually being a newcastle core with the L2 cache being downsized to 512 kB. AMD will initially use the process for the manufacture of its slower devices with the downside being that the packaging does not identify the process and data sheets will be the only reference to tell the difference between the 130 nm and 90 nm processes.
With AMD's 90 nm process Athlon64 3500+ being rated at 67W and the 130 nm at 89W it is very realistic that the new core may reach the 3 GHZ barrier within 6 months but this also could depend on Intel returning to the high clock speed approach again to entice AMD to produce even faster processors.
The Athlon 64 and the FX series have been on the market for just about a year now and since have become more desireable with the release of the socket 939. The most distinctive difference between the socket 939 and the socket 940 is that the socket 939 does not require the more expensive registered memory. The downfall of the socket 754 is that it only supports 64 bit single channel DDR400 memory while the socket 939 supports 128 bit dual channel mode. The integrated memory controller is one of the most important architectural designs that unleashes the performance of the socket 939 Athlon64.
AMD's support for 64 Bit instructions and memory addressing represents a large step in processor evolution. but operating systems and application support are still lacking so the true power is yet to be seen. Hopefully this will change with the RTM of the x64 operating system that will be htting the shelfs soon and followed by a miriad of 64 bit software to follow. Now, 64 Bit capabilities are thus becoming more important, which is why Intel has finally introduced its EM64T extensions to the desktop market with the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition for Socket 775 and FSB1066. Even so the Athlon64 largely has an exclusive hold in the 64 bit mass market.
AMD has jumped ahead with power-saving features While Intel has yet to implement Enhanced Speedstep Technology for its Pentium 4's, AMD has already offered Cool & Quiet since the very launch of the Athlon64.Socket 940 platforms are not capable of changing the core clock speed due to their registered memory not being flexible. For both Socket 754 and Socket 939 architectures, Cool & Quiet requires the following:
BIOS support;
Cool & Quiet Windows driver installation, adding a tab to the power options;
Change of Windows power scheme in order to enable 'Minimal Power Management.'
AMD supports the NX-bit security features DEP or Data Execution Prevention. After WindowsXP Service Pack 2 is installed DEP allows for memory areas to be marked as non-executable. Here, malicious code, written by buffer overflows, won't be executed any more. This feature also requires BIOS support.
Athlon64 4000+
As already mentioned, the Athlon64 4000+'s basic architecture is the same as the Athlon64 FX-53.
This is why all the technical specs are identical: Sledgehammer core, 2.4 GHz, 1 MB L2 cache, Socket 939 and 89 Watts Thermal Design Power. Things like Cool & Quiet and NX-support are also available.
Releasing the 4000+ is a smart move as it does not cause any changes in the current 130 nm production. Only the labeling has changed compared to its predecessor.
With the FX-55 obviously AMD has achieved a better-than-expected yield rate with its 130 nm process as it has managed to launch a 2.6 GHz device based on 130 nm. AMD was not expected to offer devices at this speed prior to starting up its 90 nm process.
As the non-FX CPUs reach better sales due to more attractive pricing, the former FX-53 is simply transformed into a 4000+. Using the Newcastle core with 512 kB cache at increased clock speed hence is not necessary and leaves production capacities for lower-speed versions that are desperately needed in order to make Socket 939 affordable for the average user.
Athlon64 FX-55
The Athlon64 FX-55's 2.6 Ghz speed was made possible by squeezing even more out of its 130 nm manufacturing process.
Features and technical data remain the same as with the FX-53 except for a 200 MHz faster core clock speed at 2.6 GHz rather than 2.4 GHz. With the introduction of the FX-55, AMD will eventually phase out the FX-53.
Once again,it is emphasized how important decent memory for the Athlon64 family is. Since the memory controller is integrated, performance benefits can be realized by using RAM with short timings and low latency.
The three chipset makers ATi, NVIDIA and VIA are fighting in order to get their PCI Express enabling Athlon64 chipsets perfected. All three chipsets will have a different focus. While NVIDIA goes for maximum features with the nForce4 Ultra, followed by an nForce4 SLI for dual graphics applications, ATi will try to offer lower price points.
VIA's K8T890 Pro will likely aim to offer dual graphics capabilities at a more affordable price point than NVIDIA devices, with motherboards with decent features that will retail for more than $ 200.
Conclusion
Previously, the latest Pentium 4 processors were able to outperform AMD's CPUs when it came to encoding tasks, which was practically the only benchmark for which the Pentium beat the Athlon64 according to previous tests.
Now, the new FX-55 at 2.6 GHz is able to close most of the remaining gaps in the Pentium 4's performance lead for MPEG-2, MPEG-4 or MP3 encoding as well as the video editing software Studio 9 and is almost head to head with the Pentium 4 Processor 560 or the Extreme Edition at 3.4 GHz.
When it comes to games and multimedia, the FX-55 gains even more lead over the P4 processor family, beating the Extreme Edition in 3DMark, Doom 3, Far Cry, Unreal Tournament 2004 and Wolfenstein ET. These are also precisely the applications for which the P4 EE and the Athlon FX are designed.
Comparing the substantial price difference between mid-range and high-end processors and take into consideration the narrow performance delta, there is only very little reason why one should one spend over $800 for an Athlon64 FX-55 or $999 for the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition.
Both companies offer exclusive devices for a tiny audience and are in the midst of a prestige war that does not bring much benefit to the customer. Back in 1996, there was still a huge performance gap between a Pentium 133 MHz and the top model Pentium MMX 233 in terms of price and performance. Today, the performance gap between the fastest and the slowest processors is rather small. Despite the marginal differences in performances between the high-end and low-end lines from both AMD and Intel, the bright winner of the current race is AMD's Athlon64 FX-55, as Intel's Extreme Edition loses more ground.
