Thoughts
Yes, I left off gaming performance. It's not a tease, since almost all games I could reasonably test won't show you much difference with a dual-core processor, when the game is the only thing using the processor. For gamers, your current processor of choice if you have big pockets is the Athlon FX-55, or the coming-very-soon-indeed FX-57. However, for users not grabbing FX, since you've effectively got a pair of Athlon FX-53s in the same processor package, there's great single-threaded gaming performance to be had, with a core left over for other things. The Windows XP scheduler is pretty smart, and will help you out with that. We'll test the effect in full in a future article.The X2 range has four current processor models. The 4800+ sits at 2.4GHz with 1MiB, the 4600+ is 2.4GHz and 512KiB, the 4400+ is 2.2GHz and 1MiB and looks like a solid choice, and finally there's the 4200+ with 2.2GHz and, you guessed it, 512KiB. Prices are $1001, $803, $581 and $537 respectively.
The effects of multi-threading lie further than performance shown with a single figure from a single application, which had full reign over the system with nothing else running. Anand got it mostly right with his tests on the Pentium D and Extreme Editions, where he loaded up the system with other applications, before running certain tests. Real-world testing on a dual-core processor, where you load up the system like that, is a necessity of sorts, and we'll come up with our own methods of doing so in the future.
I alluded to that on page five, with talk about operating system responsiveness and the feel of HyperThreading while using your computer system for meaningful stuff. However, basic CPU-bound tests are still needed to check out raw performance, since raw performance is what composite, real-world performance is built on.
To sum up, the AMD Athlon 64 X2 range looks very promising. I'm hoping you did a quick cross reference with Tarinder's dual-core Pentium results recently, where applicable. You'll see some exciting stuff if you do. I'll be doing the X2 range in full when time permits and a 512KiB CPU shows up, and I'll retest a Pentium dual-core system with a range of processors when I do so, for the full story.
I hope that recent changes in processor architecture have you as interested in new CPU developments as I am again, after what feels like an age of ever increasing core clocks and, really, not much else. Now that sockets are set on and PCI Express is around for all, concentrating on CPUs is fun again.
Look out for HEXUS' full review of the AMD Athlon 64 X2 range in due course.
The key things to take from today's look at the 4800+ is that it's generally no slower, but generally no faster either, than an FX-53 in single-threaded tests, yet it'll cost you a fair bit more. I hope it's obvious that a dual-core processors benefits lie elsewhere, with multi-threaded applications and real-world operating system usage. Think HyperThreading.
That the new CPUs will work fine in existing Socket 939 boards that support Athlon FX-53 and Athlon FX-55, with just a change in BIOS and without any change in cooling needed (if you have an Athlon FX-55 PIB cooler, or something aftermarket that's rated to handle that CPU) is all the better.
The 4400+ looks like the pick of the bunch at $581, for most users. Dual-core is here to stay, and the mid-range battle between the 4400+ and 4200+ X2s and Intel's comparative Pentium D CPUs will be very interesting in coming months.
HEXUS Awards
