AMD Athlon 64 FX-60: A Dual-Core farewell to Socket-939
by Anand Lal Shimpi on January 9, 2006 11:59 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
AMD's Socket-939 has been the platform of choice almost immediately after its introduction, so it is fitting that the last Socket-939 processor to be released would be the Athlon 64 FX-60.
After today's launch of the FX-60, there will be no faster Socket-939 CPUs produced. Instead, everything else will be Socket-AM2 (the new name for Socket-M2). Next quarter, AMD will launch their Socket-AM2 platform along with AM2 versions of the Athlon 64, Athlon 64 X2 and the FX-62. Given that the AM2 platform adds DDR2 support, it is entirely feasible that the Athlon 64 FX-62 won't receive a clock speed bump over the FX-60 and just use the higher bandwidth memory as justification for the higher model number.
Although we've generally shied away from recommending AMD's FX line of processors, we can't help but be a little excited about the FX-60. When AMD introduced their X2 line of dual-core processors, the FX series remained single core, but maintained a fairly high clock speed. AMD even went as far as to release the FX-57, clocked a full 400MHz higher than the fastest X2. With the FX-60, that trend is over; from this day forward, all members of the FX series of processors are now dual core. They are still sold under the Athlon 64 FX brand, despite being dual core chips.
Our excitement over the Athlon 64 FX-60 isn't really about its performance, although at 2.6GHz it is quite stellar; rather, it is more of an excitement out of principle. We've favored and recommended dual core processors to power users as soon as they were available, even though dual core processors were generally far slower at single-threaded applications than their equivalently priced single core alternatives. With the FX-60, at least at the high end, the same is no longer true.
The fastest single core AMD processor is still the Athlon 64 FX-57 running at 2.8GHz, which AMD will continue to sell alongside the FX-60. But with the clock speed gap between the 2.6GHz dual core FX-60 and the 2.8GHz single core FX-57 a meager 7.6%, you can effectively go to one CPU and get the best single-threaded and multithreaded performance. Remember that the best applications that scale with clock speed generally give you a 50% return on every 100% increase in clock speed, so in most of the single-threaded cases, the FX-57's performance advantage will be in the 0 - 4% range. But on the flip side, the fact that the FX-60 is a dual core processor will buy it a lot in multithreaded applications.
As with all FX series processors, the FX-60 debuts at $1031 in quantities of 1000, so you can expect street pricing to be at or around that number. The FX-57 will drop to $827 mark as it will co-exist with the FX-60.
The FX-60 is really just a multiplier unlocked 2.6GHz Athlon 64 X2. It is still a 90nm processor and there are no architectural changes that we've been made aware of or have been able to find on our own. We stress the point that it is still a 90nm chip because of the fact that its closest competitor, the Pentium Extreme Edition 955, just debuted on Intel's 65nm process. Because Intel is on a smaller manufacturing process, they can cram more transistors into a smaller space. So although the Pentium EE 955 is a 376-million transistor chip, they only take up 162 mm2 of space. The Athlon 64 FX-60 by comparison is a 233-million transistor chip, but its die is a larger 199 mm2. The move to 65nm for AMD should cut the die size roughly in half assuming no architectural changes, but until then, Intel will at least have the manufacturing advantage.
You shouldn't, however, assume that the smaller, cooler running manufacturing process will result in a power advantage for Intel. The problem is that those 376 million transistors are used to build a beast of a chip with a 31-stage pipeline, so power consumption is still actually higher on the Extreme Edition than on AMD's fastest dual core:
After today's launch of the FX-60, there will be no faster Socket-939 CPUs produced. Instead, everything else will be Socket-AM2 (the new name for Socket-M2). Next quarter, AMD will launch their Socket-AM2 platform along with AM2 versions of the Athlon 64, Athlon 64 X2 and the FX-62. Given that the AM2 platform adds DDR2 support, it is entirely feasible that the Athlon 64 FX-62 won't receive a clock speed bump over the FX-60 and just use the higher bandwidth memory as justification for the higher model number.
Although we've generally shied away from recommending AMD's FX line of processors, we can't help but be a little excited about the FX-60. When AMD introduced their X2 line of dual-core processors, the FX series remained single core, but maintained a fairly high clock speed. AMD even went as far as to release the FX-57, clocked a full 400MHz higher than the fastest X2. With the FX-60, that trend is over; from this day forward, all members of the FX series of processors are now dual core. They are still sold under the Athlon 64 FX brand, despite being dual core chips.
Our excitement over the Athlon 64 FX-60 isn't really about its performance, although at 2.6GHz it is quite stellar; rather, it is more of an excitement out of principle. We've favored and recommended dual core processors to power users as soon as they were available, even though dual core processors were generally far slower at single-threaded applications than their equivalently priced single core alternatives. With the FX-60, at least at the high end, the same is no longer true.
The fastest single core AMD processor is still the Athlon 64 FX-57 running at 2.8GHz, which AMD will continue to sell alongside the FX-60. But with the clock speed gap between the 2.6GHz dual core FX-60 and the 2.8GHz single core FX-57 a meager 7.6%, you can effectively go to one CPU and get the best single-threaded and multithreaded performance. Remember that the best applications that scale with clock speed generally give you a 50% return on every 100% increase in clock speed, so in most of the single-threaded cases, the FX-57's performance advantage will be in the 0 - 4% range. But on the flip side, the fact that the FX-60 is a dual core processor will buy it a lot in multithreaded applications.
As with all FX series processors, the FX-60 debuts at $1031 in quantities of 1000, so you can expect street pricing to be at or around that number. The FX-57 will drop to $827 mark as it will co-exist with the FX-60.
The FX-60 is really just a multiplier unlocked 2.6GHz Athlon 64 X2. It is still a 90nm processor and there are no architectural changes that we've been made aware of or have been able to find on our own. We stress the point that it is still a 90nm chip because of the fact that its closest competitor, the Pentium Extreme Edition 955, just debuted on Intel's 65nm process. Because Intel is on a smaller manufacturing process, they can cram more transistors into a smaller space. So although the Pentium EE 955 is a 376-million transistor chip, they only take up 162 mm2 of space. The Athlon 64 FX-60 by comparison is a 233-million transistor chip, but its die is a larger 199 mm2. The move to 65nm for AMD should cut the die size roughly in half assuming no architectural changes, but until then, Intel will at least have the manufacturing advantage.
You shouldn't, however, assume that the smaller, cooler running manufacturing process will result in a power advantage for Intel. The problem is that those 376 million transistors are used to build a beast of a chip with a 31-stage pipeline, so power consumption is still actually higher on the Extreme Edition than on AMD's fastest dual core:
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
94 Comments
View All Comments
Yianaki - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
Thanks why didn't I think of that!! I have only been making custom systems since the original Pentium I. And of course there are the HUNDREDS! OF POSTS ON THE LINK I POSTED with the same issue. Then there is the fact that I only get BSOD with anything above 78.01. But no the problem of course lies with me.Yianaki - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
Oh isn't this nice CNET is the only website that notes the downside to upgrading to dual core. Wow isn't that neat. Not one completed all their tests. Gee kinda what I was saying. Now if I read the below from some site like anads instead of glowing reviews with no problems well maybe I wouldn't have spent twice as much for a crippled NVIDIA driver.From Cnets FX reveiw
http://reviews.cnet.com/AMD_Athlon_64_FX_60/4505-3...">http://reviews.cnet.com/AMD_Athlon_64_FX_60/4505-3...
Downside: As is often the case with new hardware introductions, the FX-60 is not immune to issues and incompatibilities. We received a number of FX-60 PCs in the weeks leading up to the end of the press embargo, and to date, none of them has completed all of our tests successfully. Some vendors claim the troubles have to do with Nvidia's graphics drivers, others point to conflicts with Windows. We have faith things will sort themselves out eventually, but since the Athlon 64 FX-60 is ostensibly a gamer's chip, those problems will likely give pause to the early adopting gamers most likely to purchase it at launch.
bob661 - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
Why is it that not everyone experiences this problem? Can you explain that?Yianaki - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
They all have the problem they just don't run programs that expose the flaws that happen 100% of the time. Any OpenGL non gaming windows acceleration causes problems, of which PSPx has a free tiral download of!bob661 - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
Name the programs and I'll test it tonight.Yianaki - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
Like I said a hundred times. Having problems with random crashes, that NEVER happen at all with 78.01's. Might be a confilct with a Konfabulator widget, windowblinds, I dunno. But 100% of the time Paint Shop Pro X of which you may download a trial does not work. The trial is as defective as the final version I assure you. Also any autodesk Discreet program does not work. If you look in the Forceware thread there is a Paint Shop Pro thread that lists the non funtioning OpenGL accelerated progs.And I am more than I little perterbed there are people making excuses for NVIDIA making beta dual core hacks that give a 1 or 2 frame increase which cause a long list of problems. They just fixed the prince of persia 2 bug with their newest release but it still has bugs and is unfit for release. If CNET can't run all thier tests then there IS a problem. I don't think I have ever read that little tidbit on CNET for any computer release ever. I mean they might say that about one companies system but not every one they tested.
There was a much longer list of 100% game crashes in Sept which I wish ANADS, HARDOCP, OR TOMS brought to my attention before a dumped a lot of money on a computer that can't use the newest NVIDIA drivers. I pulled my hair for a few days till I had it figured out. Not one site mentioned that a game totally crashed or BSOD. Worse thing they said was that you had to manually attach affinity to a processor to keep it from going too fast.
bob661 - Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - link
Sounds like you may have other issues. I run Autodesk AutoCAD, Mechanical Desktop, Inventor, Solidworks (for testing), Cosmos DesignStar, EFD Lab, PCAD, Altium DXP, and etc with version 81.98 drivers at work. I don't have any games at work but I have Solidworks, Inventor plus COD2, BF2, UT2004, and Quake 4 installed and running at home. My co-worker has the same CAD/CAM apps installed at work (also no games) and at home he has UT2004, Quake 4, BF2 and some older games and Solidworks and Inventor (I think he's got some other CAD stuff installed but I don't know) and he has no problems there either. I don't know what to tell ya dude.flyck - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
because if i recall correctly that driver 8x.xx isn't WHQL yet. but when it is is will work and you will have those performance gains with dual core. You have to look in the near future also.Yianaki - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
FROM THE ASSES MOUTHWindows XP/2000 32-bit
ForceWare Logo (200 x 30)
ForceWare Release 80
Version: 81.98
Release Date: December 21, 2005
WHQL Certified
WHQL WHAT!! MY ASS! The amgry posts on thier own forum are after this release as well!
This one says it FIXES Paint Shop Pro as well as other problems I have been having but they don't even let the program install or if you were to install it with 78.01's then try to load it after updating to the 81.98's it doesn't let the program start. So they fixed nothing. There are no betas at all with fixes. I was using the 8x series drivers with my older SINGLE core computer with no problems and with all the game fixes working correctly. But buying a expensive dual core upgrade(broken with normal dual processor systems too) is a downgrade. WHAT!!!
WHY ISN"T ANYONE FROM ANADS MAKING AN ISSUE OF THIS! WRITE A STORY BE ACTUALL JOURNALISTS!! Instead of these companies mouthpiece!
My computer hasn't crashed in months with the 78.01 series if I install the 8x drivers upon boot up it will randomly crash, won't let me use certain programs, or corrupt windows to the point that I need to do a clean install. This issue totally caught me off guard too as I have read every dual core review and NOT ONE has mentioned anything about buggy NVIDIA drivers. I was upset and blaming my motherboard for BSOD when installing the drivers. I WOULDN'T believe that NVIDIA was the cause even though the blue screen said nvdia.dll or whatever. And dual core gaming is NOT new! The gaming press has been writing stories about dual proceesor gaming for years, even if it is mainstream now. These problems effect computers with two seperate chips on the motherboard same as dual core.
Questar - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
"WHY ISN"T ANYONE FROM ANADS MAKING AN ISSUE OF THIS! WRITE A STORY BE ACTUALL JOURNALISTS!! Instead of these companies mouthpiece!"Don't expect an unbiased Nvidia review here. Look at the image quality issues with the 7800 that don't get discussed here.