AMD64 4000+ and FX55, Plus 90nm temps

Asus

Asus

Newbie
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Messages
10,346
Reaction score
0
If you were waiting for the new Athlon 64 CPUs, they are coming soon!
Link
There is no ETA yet for delivery, but with the launch reported in mid October it looks like CPUs will show up in advance.
Click to expand...
In advance? AMD has been really good this year about either surprising us with CPUs or making sure CPUs are available at time of launch. Can't say that for every company. :rolleyes:

And here is a quick look at AMD's 90nm thermals.
 
well doesn't look like the 90nm parts are going to be that special, performancewise. i really don't see any reason to get one over a 130nm part.
 
Most interesting. It sounds like AMD wants to maintain an Intel level of pricing on its A64's. I'm disappointed at that, but I can see why. Hopefully a price war will ensue dropping prices. ;)

As for temps, you have to wonder what AMD has up their sleeve. They keep pushing 90 nm back. And they haven't provided an answer for heat problems. With Intel, we know its going to be based off of the Pentium M, it's just going to take intel till 2006 to get it out the door. I wonder if AMD has a plan for the future?
 
poseyjmac said:
well doesn't look like the 90nm parts are going to be that special, performancewise. i really don't see any reason to get one over a 130nm part.
Click to expand...
Enthusiasts will want to test the 90nm parts for OCing mainly. Although the 90nm parts are also Socket 939 with the models as low as 2800+. :O

There 130nm models are coming through better as it is a mature proccess, that is why the 4000+ and FX55 (2.6GHz) parts are still 130nm.

AMD's line-up is flooded with choices at each price point, Intel only has a few choices really. They are missing a few price points and performance gaps. And those who pick their CPU and pick Intel are getting fewer and fewer these days.
 
KidRock said:
lol and I just bought my Fx-53.
Click to expand...
Yeah but check the price. hehe
Besides, you can OC as your multiplyers are unlocked. ;)
 
When I run sissoftware my CPU appears as 90nm. But I know its not. To bad though. I will post a screen shot if I can.
 
Did you just get your CPU? Because they have had the 3500+ 90nm out for a couple of weeks, just like the 3000+ and 3200+.

I bet you don't know the stepping code or numbers printed on top of the CPU, do you?
 
and my top end becomes high end..... :( my reign is over already
 
guinny said:
and my top end becomes high end..... :( my reign is over already
Click to expand...
It only takes 1000$ four times a year to stay in the top end. ;)
 
Unfortunatly I didnt check. Had I know sooner I would have checked as I just took off my heatsink and reaplied some new arctic silver after removing the old stuff today. But I have only had this CPU for 3 weeks now so its possible. I ordered it of NCIX the day they came in stock so its possible. Im going to host the screen shot so one second.
 
90 nm is the size of the gate layer that is applyed to the transistors in the front end of the manufacturing process. Intel's plan for the heat problems lies in the form of ultra low-K dielectic layers on the backend by utilizing a hanging trench approach, after all, is air not the ultimate in dielectric material selections?

It may also be of interest to you guys to know that the layout of the chip is developed like a photograph. This is called Lithography. In the 90nm process light itself is too big to fit within the masks that are exposed on the surface of the wafers. Hence, we have to invert the frequencies of light to get the peak to trough halved.

Cool, huh?

edit: lol. . . sorry i just reread that post. Little too much detail there :rolling:
 
Yes, its nanometer. It stands for the size of the transistors used in the CPU.
 
Thought you would be interested in this as well. Power Consumption

Intel's current Prescott CPU, AMD"s 130nm and 90nm Athlon 64's compared. It is total system power not just the CPU. As you can see, just a CPU can make a big difference in power consumption.

Now all you have to do is enable Cool'n'Quiet for the Athlon 64's and the Idle power consumption would drop even more. ;)
 
guinny, you were never at high end, with your 1GB of RAM. 1024x2 is teh uber 1337sauce, not 1GB. Anddddd your '1x DVD-ROM'. :laugh:
 
The differences in power consumption are due to nothing more than clock frequencies at this point. More cycles = higher amount of skin effect = less efficiency moving through Cu pipes = more power loss and dissipation. If that AMD part was running 3.4 GHz it would be throwing off the same amount of juice.
 
Dirk Pitt said:
The differences in power consumption are due to nothing more than clock frequencies at this point. More cycles = higher amount of skin effect = less efficiency moving through Cu pipes = more power loss and dissipation. If that AMD part was running 3.4 GHz it would be throwing off the same amount of juice.
Click to expand...
Not really, look at the Athlon XP. It idles hotter than the P4 but changes little on load.
Volts on the other hand can make the CPU hotter.

Plus Intel's Prescott added a number of tranistors over the Northwood while the Athlon 64 is basicly a strait shrink. That's not taking into account it's leakage issues. ;)

But still the issue is not Power : MHz/GHz but rather Power : Performance...
 
Asus, what do you do for a living? I work in R&D designing manufacturing processes for Intel.
 
Dirk Pitt said:
Asus, what do you do for a living? I work in R&D designing manufacturing processes for Intel.
Click to expand...
Explain the details plz. ;) Though I can see how an increase in transitors can make a CPU consume more.

I guess a reason why I'm confused is because the Prescott consumes a lot of power but the 90nm G5 also runs very hot, which is clocked well below 3GHz. While the Athlon 64 does not. Plus the die size is small so it's harder to cool. See how I could be confused by your comments?
 
Unless you have a basic understanding in high clock skin effects on nonterminal Cu microconductors, it would take too much typing =)
 
Dirk Pitt said:
Unless you have a basic understanding in high clock skin effects on nonterminal Cu microconductors, it would take too much typing =)
Click to expand...
I'm a reader and a learner, ya gotta post something. ;)
 
Subatomic said:
guinny, you were never at high end, with your 1GB of RAM. 1024x2 is teh uber 1337sauce, not 1GB. Anddddd your '1x DVD-ROM'. :laugh:
Click to expand...

never noticed i put 1x lmao. and if you think 2 gigs of ram does anything, it actually just slows down ur comp.
 
Well, once you hit about 2.5 GHz skin effect really starts to kick in. Skin effects are when you put a high enough frequency through a wire, the electrons in the center of the wire no longer conduct, only the atoms of copper around the very surface of the wire will allow electricity to flow.

Needless to say, the wires on a microchip are pretty small in the first place, and reducing the amount of conductivity in those by 70 - 80% makes it essentially like trying to push through a resistor.

Basic electronic power theory tells us that amps + ohms = power loss in the form of heat. Hence, the AMD running at sub-2.5 gig will drop a shitload less power than a P4 running full throttle @ 3.6 GHz.

I'm currently researching what i think is the answer. We are testing out what we call MIM's or Micro Integrated Machines. We can make motors, valves, pipes, and many other structures using the same process that we use in the fab for producing our parts.

With this technology, we will be able to build a cooling system that will be part of the chip itself.

I hope that kinda helps put it in perspective. AMD does have the better design over us, that's no big secret. However, our manufacturing process is leaps and bounds beyond anything they can do. Or TSMC, but that's a whole other can of worms now, isn't it? :P
 
I wish the computer-technology would take a vacation every now and then. A computer is only top end for like 3 weeks nowadays. And still I find it fun to upgrade my computer and waste money..
 
well I am getting FX55 its going to be the fastest.

UK price would be £614. :(
 
Gorgon said:
well I am getting FX55 its going to be the fastest.

UK price would be £614. :(
Click to expand...

no, the fx-57 will be the fastest. then next year the fx-58 and fx-59. then the fx-60. then 1000 years from now. the fx-6000 will be.
 
yeah I realized you cant say.. my computer is the fastest! because really in 2 months there is always something better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MRG
CPU, Motherboard & RAM ID Tool
Replies
2
Views
890
MRG
MRG
L
Please be kind (help w/ system specs)
Replies
5
Views
847
Leonard
L
clairelovestlc
halflife 2, and counter strike source crashing
Replies
24
Views
2K
grmbl
G
Back
Top