|
|
AMD Athlon 64 FX Processor vs Pentium 4 Extreme Edition
|
Features |
AMD Athlon 64FX |
Pentium 4 Extreme Edition |
|
Architecture Introduction |
2003 |
2001 |
|
Infrastructure |
Socket 939 |
MicroPGA 478, LGA
775 |
|
Process Technology |
130nm, SOI |
130nm |
|
Number of Transistors |
105.9 Million |
169 Million |
|
64-bit Instruction
Set Support |
Yes, AMD64 Technology |
No |
|
32-bit Instruction
Set Support |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Enhanced Virus Protection
for Windows XP SP2 |
Yes |
NO |
|
System Bus Technology |
HyperTransport technology
Full
duplex, independent |
Front Side Bus (FSB)
Half
duplex |
|
Integrated DDR Memory
Controller (MCT) |
128-bit + 16-bit ECC
unbuffered PC3200, PC2700, PC2100, or PC1600 |
FSB: up to 6.4GB/s
@ 800MHz |
|
Total Processor-to-System
Bandwidth |
HyperTransport: up
to 8.0 GB/s @2.0GHz
MCT: up to 6.4 GB/s @ 400MHz
Total: up to 14.4GB/s |
NO, Discrete logic
device on motherboard,64-bit data path @200MHz |
|
High-Performance On-chip
Cache |
L1: 128KB
L2: 1024KB
(exclusive)
Total Effective Cache: 1152KB |
L1: 8KB
L2: 512KB
(inclusive)
Total effective cache: 2048KB |
|
3D and Multimedia
Instructions |
3DNow! Professional
Technology, SSE2 |
SSE, SSE2 |
“Pentium 4 Extreme edition Vs. Athlon 64 FX: Well, the battle of the most powerful desktop processors
from both leading CPU makers reveals no winners. We can’t admit that the
Pentium 4 Extreme Edition wins at the difference of 1.3%, especially because the P4 EE wins in half of the tests, while the
A64 FX takes the crown in the other half.
“Battling
Brothers- Celeron vs. Pentium 4: All hail the Pentium 4! With its high clock speeds, a wide selection of compatible platforms
and a dearth of rival AMD models, Intel has successfully defended its title as the champion in the processor business. Now
the low-cost Celeron model has joined the party in the lower-clock-speed segment (up to 1.8 GHz), in order to beat out AMD’s models with low prices and high clock speeds.”
“Celeron vs. Pentium III: …AMD was able
to sell huge amounts of K6, K6-2 and K6-III processors, even though they had never been a threat to Intel’s high performance products. The sales volumes of low-end processors cannot" |
|
