AMD Processors
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Technological advancement of A64/FX
Topic Summary:
Created On: 10/07/2003 11:48 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 10/07/2003 11:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
monte84
Elite

Posts: 2174
Joined: 10/06/2003

Could someone offer some insight into the differences between the AXP and A64/FX and
and possibly explain the hyper trans port (i am very confused on this)

thanks

-monte84

-------------------------
Phenom II X 1055T @3.64Ghz 1.425V
NB @ 2800Mhz HTT @ 2800Mhz
Gigabyte 890FXA-UD5
8GB Crucial Ballistix @ 1866 8-8-8-24-33-1T
AMD Radeon HD6950 2GB GDDR5 shaders @1536 OC to 840/1300
 10/08/2003 07:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Ardrid
Heavy Wizardry

Posts: 12398
Joined: 10/08/2003

I can give you a brief summary and then point you in the the direction towards more information. The differences between the Athlon XP and the Athlon 64 are relatively small, except for 2 major components.

1. The Athlon 64 has an onboard memory controller. Traditionally, the memory controller is a part of the northbridge, but this is not the case with the Athlon 64. This means that memory latencies are extremely low and the processor can utilize more of its theoretical bandwidth. The only downside to this is that if you want to support new memory types, DDR-II for example, you'll have to replace your processor as the memory controller has to be physically changed to support the new memory.

2. The Athlon 64 has HyperTransport links. These links are essentially high-speed buses to the rest of the system, whether it be AGP/PCI, other I/O, or other processors. The beauty of HT is that it is extremely scalable, which is perfect for a multiprocessor environment.

The Athlon 64 also has a longer pipeline, bigger TLBs, and a bigger scheduler compared to the Athlon XP. It also has additional registers and is built on AMD's .13 micron SOI manufacturing process. The other difference between the Athlon XP and the Athlon 64 is, of course, AMD64, formerly known as X86-64. This allows the Athlon 64 to run 32-bit programs while also having support for 64-bit programs in the future. And those, in a nutshell, are the differences between the Athlon XP and the Athlon 64. Hope this helps

Here's a link to some more info as well:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1815&p=2' ">http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1815&p=2

-------------------------
Intel Core i7 860
ASUS P7P55D-E Pro
Corsair HX650W
Corsair XMS DDR3-1333 (4GB @ 8-8-8-24)
Sapphire Radeon HD 6870
Western Digital VelociRaptor 300GB
Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB
 10/08/2003 08:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
riotcity76
Member

Posts: 39
Joined: 10/07/2003

QUOTE (Ardrid @ Oct 8 2003, 03:16 PM)1.  The Athlon 64 has an onboard memory controller.  Traditionally, the memory controller is a part of the northbridge, but in this is not the case with the Athlon 64.  This means that memory latencies are extremely low and the processor can utilize more of its theoretical bandwidth.  The only downside to this is that if you want to support new memory types, DDR-II for example, you'll have to replace your processor as the memory controller has to be physically changed to support the new memory.
Thanks for the info
Does this explain why Sandra benches report 300%+ bandwidth efficiency?

-------------------------


=-=MadOnion=-=
 10/08/2003 10:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
ksama
Member

Posts: 69
Joined: 10/07/2003

QUOTE (riotcity76 @ Oct 8 2003, 04:45 PM) Thanks for the info
Does this explain why Sandra benches report 300%+ bandwidth efficiency?
300%???

I thought it was more like just over 90% efficiency. We're talking about RAM right??
 10/08/2003 11:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Green Arrow
Member

Posts: 34
Joined: 10/07/2003

I get 90% +/- 2% with a Barton. I'm sure A64 is better. 300% though?
 10/09/2003 01:21 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
ALIEN3001
Senior Member

Posts: 315
Joined: 10/07/2003

I guess that's an eror, becouse 100% is virtually impossible, over 100% - no way.
Maybie that can happen with Opteron/Athlon 64 FX, becouse Sandra doesn't detect dual channel DDR or something...

-------------------------
{Signature removed. Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines regarding signatures}
http://forums.amd.com/index.php?act=boardrules
 10/09/2003 06:37 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Dagalidis
Senior Member

Posts: 243
Joined: 10/07/2003

Its a BAD calculation since Memory controller running with the same CPU SPEED and Not With FSB speeds....

The Bandwidth for SANDRA is 200 x 16 = 3200 using 200 FSB selection....

-------------------------
ATHLON64 3200+@2380(238X10) 1.644 Vcore Cooling By AMD Stock Heatsink ASUS K8V Deluxe (VIA K8T800 Chipset) 256x2 TWINMOS PC3700 5-3-2-2.5 at 2.8V Sound Blaster AUDIGY 2 Sound Blaster Megaworks Speakers 2.1 250D THX / 300 WRMS LEADTEK FX5900 128MB My ViVo
<span style='co
 10/09/2003 11:07 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Speed_Mechanic
Junior Member

Posts: 13
Joined: 10/09/2003

Over 100% scores on SANDRA are the result of Duel-Channel support. On an Athlon 64 3200+ I don't believe it should ever go above 100%. On the FX-51, however, scores should go above 100%. Does the new version of SANDRA still report ~300% effiency with the Athlon 64 3200+ ?
Statistics
112018 users are registered to the AMD Processors forum.
There are currently 0 users logged in.

FuseTalk Hosting Executive Plan v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.



Contact AMD Terms and Conditions ©2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Privacy Trademark information