When AMD unveiled the FX-51 back last September it was such an impressive part that not even Intel?s last-second, thunder-stealing Pentium 4 ?Extreme Edition? could entirely counter its appearance (though it did dampen the affect a bit).  The P4 EE?s additional cache gave it an impressive performance boost in quite a few scenarios, but the FX-51?s dual memory, 64-bit support, and high performance overshadowed Intel?s effort.  It also helped that the FX-51 was about $300 cheaper and actually shipping (EE?s didn?t really begin showing up until December).

Although Intel?s 3.2 GHz Prescott didn?t give AMD anything to be afraid of, Santa Clara?s 3.4 GHz Extreme Edition processor (based on the Northwood core) proved capable of besting the FX-51 and returned the highest-performing enthusiast-oriented processor crown to Intel.  AMD?s response to this challenge is the FX-53; a 2.4 GHz Socket 940 CPU, with all of the Opteron?s design features.

The Chip:

The Athlon 64 FX-53 is identical in all ways to the FX-51, save for its core speed.  Default voltage is still 1.5v, transistor count is 105.9 million, and the die is 193 mm square.  Max thermal power is still 89W, though it should be noted that this is a motherboard manufacturer guideline rather than an actual consumption figure.  According to this article at Aces Hardware, ?the power dissipation of the 1.8 GHz Opteron is between 50 and 60 Watts, and 50 Watts is probably closer than 60 Watts.?

 
Curious what an Opteron / Athlon FX part looks like inside?  Have a look.

While FX-53?s clock is 2.4 GHz rather than 1.8, the CPU?s dissipated wattage is still guaranteed to be well under 89W.  Supporting the theory that AMD specced its processors for a much higher thermal output than they actually produce is the manufacturer?s choice in OEM coolers.  We?ve seen the retail 142 cooler, and its identical to the FX-53?s retail cooler, which itself doesn?t run all that warm.

 
We pulled this from our FX-51 review, just in case a few of you hadn’t seen it.  This is the AthlonXP, Opteron, FX-51, and Athlon 64 all side by side.  As is obvious, the last three are all built on an identical substrate / package.

The FX-53 will likely be the last FX part released for the Socket 940 platform.  Its possible that AMD will offer an FX-55, but considering that the FX parts and Opteron 1xx parts are perfectly compatible, AMD will probably expect FX users needing an upgrade to jump for a Socket 940 Opteron at the higher speed.  When Socket 939 rolls later this year AMD will either issue the FX-53 in a 939-pin formation, or alternatively choose to launch the FX-55 as well.  Since we?re still on track to see that shift before Q3, it?s possible that the FX-53?s reign at the top of AMD?s ladder will be relatively brief.  This makes it a poorer upgrade option, but if you?ve got $733 to drop on a CPU, you probably aren?t all that worried about upgrades, anyway. 

The Positioning:  There Can Be Only One

Those of you who were counting on picking up a cheap FX-51 once the FX-53 came out can check those hopes at the door, as AMD has decided to release only one FX part at a time.  Some FX-51?s will doubtlessly remain in channel, but its unlikely prices will drop on them much. 

At first glance this policy might seem a bit unfair, but it actually makes good sense.  As our article on dual channel memory performance made clear, dual memory (actually one double-wide channel) offers the Athlon 64 FX-51 relatively little performance advantage.  The CPU?s main performance advantage comes from its clockspeed boost over other Athlon 64?s.  Since the FX-53 is about 9% faster than 3400+, (and does pick up a small boost from its double-wide memory), this leaves us with a CPU 9-14% faster than anything else AMD has on the market.  This (theoretically) justifies the higher price.

As soon as the Athlon 64 line catches up, however, this performance advantage vanishes.  The FX-51 is scarcely any kind of bargain when compared to the 3400+, so there?s no reason to keep it available.  Thus it?ll fade away, and the FX-53 becomes AMD?s new enthusiast part.

next >

---

• Maximum PR, Minimum Impact, Thermals (1 of 10)
• System Config, Performance Expectations (2 of 10)
• Synthetic Tests (3 of 10)
• Synthetic Tests Cont, Predictions (4 of 10)
• Office Performance: (5 of 10)
• Multimedia Encoding (6 of 10)
• 3D Rendering (7 of 10)
• 3D Rendering, Cont. (8 of 10)
• Gaming Benchmarks (9 of 10)
• AMD Closes the Gap, Conclusion (10 of 10)