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
Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
Edit:Ratio is 1.27 only.
Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
NO.It is not 939-pin 175.
The most important:
It is the FP performance/64-bit and Linux OS.
Few people use Linux OS.
PD820 -- the FP performance of windows/32bit
Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
P4 better than X2.Ratio is the key.
The ratio below 1.33 -- P4 is behide.
ratio above 1.4x -- P4 is competitive. Intel 4.26GHz VS AMD 2.9GHz
For the ratio of intel 820 VS AMD 3800+ 165 170? see the benchmark of spec cpu2000 rates for 2 core 1 chip:
The float point performance(under windows OS/32-bit):
PD 820 SPECfp_rate_base2000 29.9 SPECfp_rate2000 30.0
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...
170(939-pin 2GHz 1MX2) SPECfp_rate_base2000 25.2 SPECfp_rate2000 26.3
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q4/...
We don't find the benchmark of 165 and 3800+, but we find the benchmark of 175.
170(939-pin 2.2GHz 1MX2) SPECfp_rate_base2000 26.2 SPECfp_rate2000 27.3
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/...">http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q3/...
We don't find the benchmark of both PD and X2/opteron dc under windows OS/64bit, so we can not compare the dual-core float point performance 64-bit directly.
The test--SPECfp_rate is the most important test for CPU float performance. AMD approbate SPECfp_rate for testing dual-core's FP performance.AMD think it is a fair test.
flyck - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
in my opinion spec scores arent that meaningfull. for example look @ the scores of a P-M and then in real applications.It is great for giving a fast overall impression but hardly something to base your overall descission on.
but i do agree with your ratio you wrote down now.(if you discount ram overclock and others)
1.33 p4 is slower
1.4x p4 is competive
>1.55 p4 is faster
But in this case : you can overclock that p4 very well but say you overclock them both max with prom or other good cooling devices. you'll have 3-3.3GHz compared to 4.5-5Ghz p4. and i think those are pretty competive against eachother. But still that doesn't convince me in buying that p4. ok it overclocks better but in the end the difference is nothing.
Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
AMD think spec cpu2000 rates for testing multi-core is very very important.And lots of professional and smart person who really know cpu's tech think it is the best benchmark for testing FP/Int performance.
If you look at some professional articles about how to improve the CPU's performance ac about , you will find that spec cpu is the most important and most frequently used for the standard of performance benchmark.
flyck - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
that doesn't mean it is not a benchmark with its flaws. and if you look @ those scores there are many fluctuations depending on the cpu.don't get me wrong, spec is nice to measure performance but has his major flaws to test overall performance or the performance the cpu really will get.
Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
spec don't measure video card's performance. But it measures the performance of cpu, memory and so on.So, it is the most important performance test, and show the performance the cpu really get.
If you find another more important performance test which can measure the FP/INT performance, please tell us.
But you can not find it. We can not find it too.
fluctuations?
275 is different with 939-pin 175, and it's benchmark is under 64-bit(275) but not under 32-bit(175).
Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
No. you don't how to understand the tests.Yes, X2 win the games, but X2 lose in many tests.(I think that (for games) the ratio need at least 1.5 or more)
Let's look at the ratio 1.46(4.26/2.9)
PCMark05 test for CPU
955 7431
FX-60 5912
DiVX6.1
955 354sec
FX-60 388sec
XviD1.1
955 364sec
FX-60 380sec
CS2
955 98sec
FX-60 107sec
Premiere Pro 1.5
955 163sec
FX-60 178sec
FineReader8.0
955 140sec
FX-60 160sec
3D rendering
3ds max7.0 CPU Render
955 3.46
FX-60 3.19
Maya7.0
955 40.9sec
FX-60 41.96sec
Only one?
The more accurate ratio will be ?
Without OC, for most poeple , they will not buy X2@2.4G or X2@2.6G or PD@3.2G or PD 3.46G, they may buy PD820/920 or X2@1.8G or 2.0G(such as 3800+ ,165, 170).
We can get the more accurate ratio from spec cpu2000 rates for dual-core.
Note: spec cpu2000 rates is admit by AMD.
For integer performance,
flyck - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
pcmark05 :roll: overall it is equal between the two.DIVX6.1 p4 8% faster
XVID p4 4% faster
mp3 ecoding same time
WME : FX 25% faster
photoshop : p4 8% faster
3dsmax interactive : FX 12% faster
cpu rendering : p4 8% faster
Maya : equal
far cry : FX 16% faster
half life: FX 17% faster
this is hardly called a victory for p4 ... i would even say overall FX is faster.
Betwon - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
No. you don't know how to understand the tests.pcmark05 overall? NO, it will include video card/harddisk benchmark.
Now let's the benchmark of CPU:
PCMark05 test for CPU
955 7431
FX-60 5912
Intel faster 25.7%
About encoding
DiVX6.1
955 354sec
FX-60 388sec
Intel faster 9.6%
XviD1.1
955 364sec
FX-60 380sec
Intel faster 4.4%
CS2
955 98sec
FX-60 107sec
Intel faster 9.2%
Premiere Pro 1.5
955 163sec
FX-60 178sec
Intel faster 9.2%
FineReader8.0
955 140sec
FX-60 160sec
Intel faster 14.3%
3D rendering
3ds max7.0 CPU Render
955 3.46
FX-60 3.19
Intel faster 8.5%
Maya7.0
955 40.9sec
FX-60 41.96sec
Intel faster 2.6%
Except the games, this is hardly called a victory for X2 ... i would even say overall P4 is faster.
Note: Now , the ratio is 1.46 -- 4.266GHz/2.926GHz