AMD Athlon 64 4000+ & FX-55: A Thorough Investigation
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 19, 2004 1:04 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Model Numbers Help and Confuse
We've chastised AMD in the past for insisting on a model numbering system instead of just reporting actual clock speeds, but for the first time ever, AMD's model numbering system makes a lot more sense than this drivel that Intel has been using to name their LGA-775 Pentium 4s. We get more complaints today from Intel's model numbering system than we've ever had about any other CPU model numbering system in AnandTech history; that includes attempts from AMD and Cyrix to do the same. While this could be too many users used to referring to CPUs by their clock speeds, it is definitely a present day issue.
Here's a quick recap of what Intel's model numbers mean as we're featuring all LGA-775 chips in this review:
CPU Name - Clock Speed - L2 Cache
Pentium 4 560 - 3.6GHz - 1MB
Pentium 4 550 - 3.4GHz - 1MB
Pentium 4 540 - 3.2GHz - 1MB
Pentium 4 530 - 3.0GHz - 1MB
AMD does have an interesting case for model numbers today; with the release of the Athlon 64 4000+ AMD has a total of five 2.4GHz CPUs in their Athlon 64 line:
CPU Name - Clock Speed - L2 Cache - Memory Interface
Athlon 64 4000+ - 2.4GHz - 1MB - 128-bit
Athlon 64 3800+ - 2.4GHz - 512KB - 128-bit
Athlon 64 3700+ - 2.4GHz - 1MB - 64-bit
Athlon 64 3400+ - 2.4GHz - 512KB - 64-bit
Athlon 64 FX-53 - 2.4GHz - 1MB - 128-bit
This is a prime example of where the model numbering system can actually help, differentiating between the three chips, but we also have to make sure to keep AMD honest in their ratings, which is one area we'll be investigating in this review.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
89 Comments
View All Comments
skiboysteve - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
On the Business winstone 2004..."The Pentium 4 550 and Athlon 64 3800+ tie in the middle, while the 3400+ offers statistically similar performance."
No they didnt.
microAmp - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
Very nice article, loved the L2 cache and memory comparisons at the end.thermalpaste - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
Way back in 2000, I felt that Intel was doing something stupid by introducing the Willamette.The thunderbird was faster than the p-III coppermine at the same clock speeds, but considering that the p-III just had 2 parallel FPUs compared to the 3 on the athlon. An additional FPU would have helped of course. though the P-III core was not able to sustain higher clock speeds , intel could have redesigned a marginally deeper pipeline on the same core rather than designing the pentium-4 with a mammoth 20 stage pipeline.
Now the prescotts come with a 30-odd stage pipeline, but the integer unit runs at twice the speed which doesn't make the 7th generation of processors from intel very 'scalable'. Besides the processor heats upto 70 odd degrees with consummate ease (Im staying in India where the avg. room temperature is something like 29 degrees Celsius) and is not overclocker friendly.
I am waiting for the newer chips from Intel, based on the Pentium-M a.k.a the P6 architecture.
AMD is way ahead of Intel as of now.
skiboysteve - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
Athlon 64 4000+ - 2.4GHz - 1MB - 128-bitAthlon 64 3800+ - 2.4GHz - 512KB - 128-bit
Athlon 64 3400+ - 2.4GHz - 1MB - 64-bit
Athlon 64 3400+ - 2.4GHz - 512KB - 64-bit
Athlon 64 FX-53 - 2.4GHz - 1MB - 128-bit
these numbers look off.
Your saying there are two s754 3400+, and one has more cache?
eva2000 - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
why leave out the 3700+ s754 1MB from suhc a nice comparison :)miketheidiot - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
excellent article. I agree with #2 that I would have liked to see an overclocking comparison, or at least a quick demonstation of the 4000 and fx-55. Still a great article though.GhandiInstinct - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
We can always marvel at them but the prices, realistcaly speaking is a waste of our time. I'm as interested in the FX-55 as much as the IBM super-computer blue.Zac42 - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
I especially liked the comparrison of the equally priced value procs at the end of the article. Nice way to sum up the graphs. Good overall comparison, as you guys have just about any possible app one could use on a PC. Now we just need an OC comparrison, and we will be set!DrMrLordX - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
Nice article so far, still reading it, but I would like to know where the 925XE chipset-based P4 board was in this review? Are those available to you guys yet? Just wondering.