AMD Athlon 64 FX-57: The Fastest Single Core
by Derek Wilson on June 27, 2005 11:47 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Introduction
AMD is increasing the speed of their highest performing CPU today. The Athlon FX-57 is a 200MHz bump from the current FX-55, brining the clock speed of the highest performing single core CPU on the market to 2.8GHz. This modest 7.7% increase is not the be all, end all of speed bumps, but AMD is still in a much better position than Intel for extracting performance by tacking on an extra 200MHz. Intel's successive 200MHz increases on Prescott since it's existence have increased performance by smaller and smaller amounts 2.8 GHz to 3.8 GHz is a 35.7% increase in clock speed, which should be an overestimate of performance barring cache size increases. If we look at AMD's performance improvements from 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz, the upper bound on our performance increase is greater than 55%, plus any improvement for doubling cache size.Performance doesn't scale exactly linearly with clock speed in most cases, but the bottom line is that K8 started out faster than Prescott at a lower clock speeds. The result of the speed increases on current generation CPUs has been an increasing performance gap between Intel and AMD in favor of AMD. Even in the benchmarks where AMD's architecture traditionally loses to Intel, the gap is either decreased or the outcome has changed all together. There just isn't any way Intel's current architecture can compete in single threaded performance on the high end.
But as we have mentioned time and time again, steadily increasing clock speed over time is a losing proposition. The future of computing performance must increasingly rely on architectural enhancements. The first incarnation of this outlook has been the introduction dual core processors. This first generation shows some promising numbers in many areas, but a single thread's maximum performance won't increase with the addition of cores. The result of this fact is that those who demand extremely high performance will still demand high end single core processors.
While the focus of the industry is clearly elsewhere, both AMD and Intel still need to cater to the current state of the market. The FX-57 is very expensive and comes in at a whopping $1031 (in quantities of 1000 from AMD). While this is the fastest processor on the market, let's take a look at the benchmarks to see how much we get for the money.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
56 Comments
View All Comments
Calin - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
Anyway, what's with the data analysis benchmark? Looks like every Pentium4 beats the hell out of every Athlon64.If this is true, then I feel my suggestions to buy Athlon64 might not always be correct
Calin - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
An processor with 1M level2 cache and dual channel memory controller is a preview of what to expect from a nice cheap 256K cache single channel memory controller? I really really don't think soAtaStrumf - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
This isn't just a speed bump, it's a new revision (SH-E4 I think). Check PCU-Z next time!New Semprons with x86-64 will be even newer revisons - DH-E6 (don't know if that's good or bad yet, but very likely good) so OCing of this new E4 is like the most important thing here because nobody's gonna buy $1000 CPUs, nobody here anyway.
FX-57 is a preview of what to expect of a nice cheap 3300+ Sempron and all you gave it was one line. Try a little harder next time please! If it's true that everybody else is getting 3,0 GHz on air, than that is great news. Just what we have been waiting for!!!
JarredWalton - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
Overclocking is half luck, and there's no telling how the OC benches at other places are really performed. 2.75 GHz "easy" on a Winchester? Fat chance. Maybe with water cooling and the proper motherboard, but even then it's not guaranteed. And don't think the Venice cores are much better - they're really about the same, which means 2.6 to 2.7 GHz air cooled is the typical maximum for a truly stable system.Anyway, if you're into serious cooling and overclocking, the FX-57 might be a bit better than the FX-55. 90nm vs. 130nm I believe, so hopefully it does better. I just can't see dropping $1000 for a single threaded CPU, though. A 4000+ San Diego does almost as well at half the cost, even with overclocking.
composer - Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - link
I don't get it? A AMD64 3200 Winny clocks easy at 2.75 with no problems.Why would someone in the know buy such a proc if they can get the same performance for little money?
Also, why can't they get past 3.0 ghz yet? (air cooling, or do we need to wait for .65 nano?
JustAnAverageGuy - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
Page 1:"But as we have mentioned time and time again, steadily increasing clock speed over time is a loosing proposition. "
'losing'
Those macro buttons are getting overused. It's the same text in every review, just different charts. :)
Sunbird - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
The FX-57 is still being called a FX-55 in the Doom3 graphs.Cygni - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
Oh, in other news, the only thing i felt missing was Dual core results. Could have deffinitly been used.Cygni - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
Its a speedbump review... i dont think AT, or anybody else, really gives a shit.cryptonomicon - Monday, June 27, 2005 - link
uh, they used the dfi ultra-d to overclock right?else, that is just retarded.