Things were quite strange in the month before the Athlon64 launch. That was about the time reviewers received first details of FX51 — the Enthusiast version of Athlon64. For those who had been following AMD's slow progress to A64 launch, it certainly looked like AMD was worried and wanted to make absolutely sure that A64 would outperform anything Intel could throw at the launch. Perhaps the EE chip info leaked to AMD, and the FX was the insurance just to make CERTAIN Athlon64 would maintain a performance lead. Perhaps AMD was concerned that lack of Dual-Channel memory support on Athlon64 might make consumers think A64 was a slower chip. It isn't, but perceptions sometimes matter more than facts. We don't know the real reason for the FX launch, but whatever the reason, it is clear that it was a last minute decision.

FX51 is basically an Opteron with a different name. It works with a BIOS update on many Socket 940 Opteron boards, and will not work on any of the Socket 754 boards being introduced right now. Like Opteron, it also suffers (or benefits, depending on your perspective) from the requirement for Registered Dual-Channel memory to operate. The only concession is that while it can use Registered ECC memory like Opteron, only Registered is required on FX51.

The even stranger part was AMD's positioning of FX51. They refused to even sample Athlon64 chips, forcing review sites into a position of begging their Advertisers for Athlon64 chips to review anything. Athlon64 launch partners were frustrated because many review sites could not review their new boards because they had no Athlon64 chips. The only sampling that was done by AMD was the very limited sampling of FX51 chips in an AMD prepared system. AMD was clear in their actions and words that they wanted the Launch to be with Athlon64 FX51 processors.

Even now, we have to wonder why. Athlon64 is fully competitive with Pentium4 3.2GHz. It enjoys both a price advantage over the P4 3.2 and the Athlon64 FX51, and, maybe even more important to buyers, it is available while there are almost no FX51 chips to be found. There were also many, many Athlon64 boards at launch, and only the Asus SK-8N board for the FX51 — a board first released as an Opteron motherboard. In addition, AMD was clear in its plan to move FX51 as quickly as possible to Socket 939 in 2004, which is capable of using regular unbuffered memory like most enthusiasts already own. AMD also announced very small production numbers for Socket 940 FX, leaving little incentive for manufacturers to produce Socket 940 boards for the desktop.

Thankfully, the major players — like Gigabyte, Asus, and MSI – have delivered or will deliver Athlon64 FX boards. We were glad to see Gigabyte's K8NNXP-940, which continues Gigabyte's recent stretch of high-end “Dual-Miracle” motherboards. The name is the same as Gigabyte's nForce3 Athlon64 board, with the addition of “940” to the name. As you will see, however, the differences are much deeper than just a different socket.

Gigabyte K8NNXP-940: Basic Features
Comments Locked

35 Comments

View All Comments

  • juc - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    can you try and put in a lower clock opteron and see what type of overclocking you can do w/ it?, is the regular 14x opteron unlocked? it would be nice if it was.
  • Reflex - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    #1: A RDRAM version would completely eliminate the advantage of having an on-die memory controller on the CPU as it is very very high latency by design. The A64 thrives on very very low latency/high IPC, and RDRAM does not provide that.

    Honestly, what would be truly ideal is a QDR solution. But everytime I hear about it being close nothing seems to come of it. Too bad...
  • Anonymous User - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    Considering the performance gain, money ain't that important :-)
  • Anonymous User - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    #1,

    Samsung PC-3200 512 MB DDR SDRAM $125
    Samsung PC-3200 512 MB ECC Reg. DDR SDRAM $174

    +49

    Corsair XMS3200 PC-3200 512MB DDR SDRAM $175
    Corsair XMS3200 PC-3200 ELL 512MB DDR SDRAM $220
    Corsair XMS3200LL-RE PC-3200 ECC Reg. 512MB DDR SDRAM $235

    +15 (+60 compared to slower timings)

    completely unmeaningful to anyone with the money to buy an fx.
  • Anonymous User - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    Looks like a cool mobo, and an amazingly fast CPU, but . . .

    Who's going to buy one of these!?!?!?

    The price you'll spend on memory put's this way out of most people's price range! And before you yell at me for saying that, look up pricing for registered modules!

    You could probably buy an awesome Athlon 64 system now, then upgrade your mobo and CPU to FX when the 939 pin version comes out, and still spend less money than paying this ridiculous premium on memory. Plus, it would be upgradable to future FX chips, not an unsupported beast. Anyone remember socket 423?

    Say goodbye to the idea of 'surpassing the 4Gb memory limitation,' unless you have like $10,000 to spend on memory!

    My real question here is why, when the Athlon 64 (non-FX) is such a success, would they make this strange beast?

    What I would LOVE to see (I know you're going to hate this one) is a really tight RDRAM chipset ready when the 939-pin chipset comes out.

    What do you think? Quad Channel 1200Mhz RDRAM on the new FX? Ain't gonna happen, but I can dream.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now