A New FX

The next new CPU introduction that we're here to evaluate is the Athlon 64 FX-62, a 2.8GHz dual-core FX part that's debuting exclusively on the Socket-AM2 platform. Given AMD's policy of only having one active FX part at a time (prior violations of this rule aside), the FX-62 is the only FX on the AM2 platform. The FX-60 still reigns supreme on the Socket-939 platform, and since the two platforms perform the same we can pretty much compare the FX-60 to the FX-62 directly without worrying about any motherboard/memory/chipset differences skewing the comparison. Of course no very-high-end CPU comparison is complete without Intel's latest Extreme Edition processor, which in this case is the Pentium Extreme Edition 965 we reviewed back in March.

3D Rendering - Cinebench 9.5

3D Rendering Performance - Cinebench 9.5

The beauty of the FX series of AMD processors is that its cache size doesn't vary like the rest of the Athlon 64 line, so the FX-62 has an undeniable performance advantage thanks to its 2.8GHz clock speed. The clock speed advantage is able to give it a pretty decent performance boost over the FX-60 here, as well as over the Pentium EE 965.

3D Rendering - 3dsmax 7

3dsmax 7 - SPECapc Benchmark

While we see a performance increase over the FX-60 in 3dsmax 7, it isn't enough to catch up to the performance of the Pentium EE 965. At 3.73GHz, the 965 is an extremely formidable competitor and very high performance CPU for 3dsmax rendering tasks.

Video Encoding - DivX 6.1.1 Pro

DivX 6.1.1 Pro with Xmpeg 5.0.3

Intel gets the slight nod in DivX encoding performance, with the FX-62 falling smack in the middle of the chart here between the 965 and the FX-60.

Video Encoding - Windows Media Encoder 9

Windows Media Encoder 9 - Advanced Profile

The situation doesn't really change with WME9; the FX-62 manages to come very close to the Extreme Edition 965's performance but falls a little short. The improvement over the FX-60 is quite noticeable here.

Video Encoding - Quicktime 7.0.4 (H.264)

H.264 Encoding with Quicktime Pro 7.0.3

Apple's Quicktime for Windows has never run well on Intel processors, and the FX-62 takes good advantage of that fact by putting the Extreme Edition 965 to shame in our H.264 encoding test. After looking at the 4000+ vs. 3800+ comparison on the previous page, it's nice to see a real tangible performance difference between two AMD CPUs.

MP3 Encoding - iTunes 6.0.1.4

MP3 Encoding with iTunes 6.0.1.3

While all three CPUs are very competitive in their MP3 encoding performance the Athlon 64 FX-62 is the clear winner here, finishing the encoding task 16% faster than the Pentium EE 965.

Gaming - Quake 4

Quake 4

At higher clock speeds the Athlon 64 FX-62 really separates itself from the Pentium EE 965, offering a very significant 21% performance advantage in Quake 4.

Gaming - F.E.A.R.

F.E.A.R.

The AMD gaming advantage continues in F.E.A.R., this time the FX-62 holds on to a solid 18% lead.

Gaming - Oblivion

Oblivion

The Pentium Extreme Edition 965 is utterly disappointing in Oblivion, as the FX-62 outperforms it by an incredible 38%. With a very CPU and GPU dependent game like Oblivion, you can't ignore these types of performance differences, especially if you plan on feeding a pair of high end GPUs in SLI or CrossFire.

Athlon 64 FX-62 Conclusion

The Athlon 64 FX-62 verdict is a lot easier than with the 4000+ since the performance advantage is clear thanks to a 1MB L2 cache per core and an increase in clock speed. We would still recommend the FX-62 over the Extreme Edition 965 for gamers, but as we've seen in the past there are some situations where being able to execute four simultaneous threads, as you can with the EE, has its benefits.

Given the incredible price premium you pay for the FX-62, we would still strongly recommend going with a lower clocked Athlon 64 X2 instead. You can always overclock to get close to FX-62 performance or, alternatively, you could stay at the lower clock speed and enjoy lower thermal output.

How Does the New 4000+ Stack Up? Athlon 64 X2 5000+: A Cheap FX or Overpriced 4800+?
POST A COMMENT

80 Comments

View All Comments

  • Slappi - Thursday, May 25, 2006 - link

    That is the real question.

    Very biased these last few months.

    I sure hope Conroe can cook dinner and clean my house because if it can't someone has some explaining to do.
    Reply
  • lewisc - Thursday, May 25, 2006 - link

    How was that review at all biased? AM2 showed very very small improvements over socket 939, Anand said so. Is it biased because the result was not what you wanted? How you could possibly suggest buying a a new platform that has hardly any improvement over a predecessor is beyond me. Reply
  • Slappi - Thursday, May 25, 2006 - link

    Just all his talk about Intel the last few months has been really biased. Not necessarily this article.

    Just my opinion and I really like this site it just seems like someone is being taken care of.

    I could be wrong.
    Reply
  • clnee55 - Friday, May 26, 2006 - link

    I agree in the last few months, AMD has shown that it doesn't have anything ready to compete with Conroe. I certainly can trust Anand's analysis. Your conspiracy theory is full of it.

    By the way, just how much AMD stock do you own?

    Reply
  • EdisonStarfire - Thursday, May 25, 2006 - link

    I've owned AMD systems since 1998 starting with an Athlon 600 OEM. I've built several other AMD systems since then. Sure, there is a slight chance Intel had some influence on their test systems anand tested but from seeing other pre-release samples around the web I think its just a case of Intel finally waking up and building a good cpu. I hope AMD has a good answer but if they don't and fooled themselves into thinking Intel didn't have the resources or need to build something (like alot of fanboys do) then they were kidding themselves badly. If the Core 2 Duo chips are the best out when its time to dump my X2 4400 then thats what I will be buying. I know AMD is limited in resources but the Dothan should have been a sign of what was coming and made some revisions with the AM2 release. Let's hope the deerhound cores improvements add about 20% IPC so can keep some good competition going between the two companies.

    in short... I don't think Anand is being biased about anything. Just my 2 cents.
    Reply
  • peternelson - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link


    I am interested in the changes from 939 to AM2/940 and opteron/940 and SocketF/1207

    I would like detailed PINOUTS for these.

    eg how many pins are GND, how many power / core power, how many ddr, how many ddr2, how many hypertransport links.

    Ideally full pinout not just summary by group function.

    Is this information available anywhere or would I have to/my company have to sign an NDA with AMD to obtain it?
    Reply
  • ultraCODE - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    Have anyone managed to benchmark new AM2 platform with RightMark RMMA? It shows the real peak speed (I don't trust crappy Sandra) for mem. read/write. Any results highly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
    Best wishes,
    uC
    Reply
  • jmke - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    here ya go

    quote:

    Dual-Channel DDR2-800 on AMD Athlon 64 X2 "AM2" — the First Test Results of the New Integrated Memory Controller in RightMark Memory Analyzer


    http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/mainboard/ddr2...">http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/mainboard/ddr2...
    Reply
  • Xenoid - Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - link

    Ok so AM2 is AMD's offering for 2/4 06.

    The article title mentions same performance, faster memory, lower power. Wouldn't faster memory (in this case, ddr2) net a higher performance than what we're seeing here? Why is AMD bothering with DDR2 if it's not a significant improvement? If the power usage is so low, does this mean we can overclock a lot easier? I never understood the huge deal behind power usage on a cpu.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - link

    DDR production is slowing down, and DDR2 is continuing to mature, AMD does need to change to this memory type now, regardless if they like it or not.

    DDR2 also allows higher capacities, so you can probably reach 4x2Gb now as 2Gb modles are actually available on DDR2.

    Considering DDR2 biggest advanatge bandwidth, is what AMD doesn't really need more fo right now, performance improvements will be negligible.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now