The Affordable Athlon 64 3000+ Shakes Up the Desktop Market
The high end of the processor market gets all the headlines, and AMD's first wave of Athlon 64 chips was no exception. The supreme-performance Athlon 64 FX-51 delivered a healthy spanking to the fastest Pentium 4 offerings, and even spurred Intel to release a souped-up, super-expensive P4 Extreme Edition in response. The Athlon 64 3200+ was an equally successful launch, providing a 64-bit CPU that more than held its own against the 3.2GHz Pentium 4 in 32-bit testing.
(((((Why would a processor that costs $230 (amd64 3000) be compared to one costing $170 (intc 2.6c) - of course it runs better - maybe.)))))
The only cloud on the horizon concerned price. Since AMD is viewed as the low-cost alternative to dominant Intel, some potential buyers hesitated at the $400 price of the Athlon 64 3200+, or fainted when confronted by the $750 tag of the FX-51. Of course the older, 32-bit Athlon XP line offers an alternative, but a surprising number of mainstream buyers seem ready to take the AMD64 plunge -- if the price is right.
AMD would obviously prefer not to injure its current 64-bit lineup or profit margins, especially since the Athlon 64 3200+ is steadily moving up the sales charts. The obvious answer? Take a page from Intel's playbook and stage a stealth release.
Same Core, Less Filling
AMD still hasn't made a formal announcement or press release, but CPU shoppers received an early Christmas present this month as a new processor surged to the top of the price-search lists: the Athlon 64 3000+, with a $220 street price that really turned some heads. Specifications were initially hazy, so conventional wisdom suggested a lower-clocked revision of the Athlon 64 3200+ (1.8GHz instead of 2.0GHz, one site confidently stated), at hardly half that chip's price. You could almost hear the enthusiast crowd licking its chops, eager to get a hold of this model and see how high it could clock.
AMD, however, is hip to that jive -- instead of launching a "buy an Athlon 64 3000+ and overclock it to 3200+ level" frenzy, the company released an altogether different alternative to the Athlon 64 3200+, with the same 2.0GHz core speed and 128K Level 1 cache but only half the Level 2 cache (512K instead of 1MB).
As the Pentium 4's poor relation Celeron has shown, there's a potential drawback to this kind of strategy -- the performance impact of lowering L2 cache levels. In this case, AMD's saved by the standard Athlon 64 architecture, which features a powerful albeit single-channel DDR memory controller. A larger cache really benefits from a wider memory path and less data contention; cutting the L2 cache of the dual-channel-DDR Athlon 64 FX platform would enact a severe performance penalty.
But the Athlon 64 design is different. While, in the case of Intel's "Northwood" Pentium 4, stepping up to 512K of L2 cache really optimized the platform, the Athlon 64 3000+ and its cache cut may have actually hit a price/performance sweet spot.
Ironic as it is considering AMD's last few years' marketing, there are many games and applications that tilt more toward a "megahertz matters" pattern than elegant architectural appreciation, and are likely to yield similar results when confronted by a couple of 2.0GHz Athlon 64 processors.
The first wave of benchmark tests bear this out: For the most part, the Athlon 64 3000+ nips right along at the heels of the 3200+. This is especially true with many 3D games, which seem to respond more positively to the 2.0GHz core speed than negatively to the lesser L2 cache. To be sure, the costlier CPU wins the race, but at a relative retail savings of some 45 percent, the new chip's cost-benefit ratio is off the charts. Nor is the Athlon 64 3200+ the only processor looking in its rear-view mirror -- the Pentium 4/3.2 is also double the price of the Athlon 64 3000+, while offering comparable performance metrics.
Built for Speed, Built for Change
In short, the Athlon 64 3000+ squeaks under the calendar deadline as a contender for CPU of the year -- it not only underscores AMD's interest in moving 64-bit processing into the mainstream, but confirms our earlier predictions about how well the Opteron/Athlon 64 design could manage revision changes.
If you think of the processor cosmos in terms of the famous introduction to "The Outer Limits," the chipset still controls the vertical, but with its integrated memory controller, the AMD64 platform has at least taken back the horizontal. An external chipset still handles Southbridge I/O chores, but AMD has made a landmark advance in incorporating top-level CPU and memory-bus features into its 64-bit processors.
The new 512K-L2-cache core revision is certainly not a major one, but AMD now holds most of the cards when it comes to adjusting the basic design. This can greatly enhance the time-to-market part of the release equation, and could really give AMD the edge in reacting to changing trends. The HyperTransport bus is flexible, and AMD has full knowledge of its development and capabilities, so given the Northbridge functionality in the processor itself, the company has virtual control and doesn't need to confirm much on the chipset end of things. This is only the tip of the iceberg, and newer AMD64 CPUs promise higher core speeds, greater HyperTransport clock speeds, and other enhancements, all while maintaining compatibility with current platforms.
The Athlon 64 3000+ may have been a stealth release, but unlike other low-key launches, its impact is being felt across the spectrum. The new processor's low sticker price, high-end performance, and incredible value have created a veritable buyer rush, and its low platform costs have provided the first mainstream 64-bit system option. Though Microsoft is still dragging its feet on shipping 64-bit Windows XP, it's now possible for an AMD64 system configuration to hit the elusive $1,000 price point -- and give Intel fits in the midrange segment. The only danger could be if the 3000+ proves to be a bit too popular and take away some of the Athlon 64 3200+ and FX-51 fire.
hardware.earthweb.com |
