Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

AMD Athlon 64 4800+ X2 - Dual Core CPU

Filed under

On the 25th of April AMD announced loads of dual core stuff. Besides the launch of the dual core 8xx series Opteron it also announced the 2xx dual core Opteron and the dual core Athlon 64 X2. Today we’re a step closer to the launch of Athlon 64 X2 but it’s not here quite yet - you’ll have to wait until June for that pleasure. If only there was a large international IT trade show that started at the end of May why, that would be the perfect venue to announce a new processor.

Until the official launch happens we won’t be able to get our hands on a fully fledged Athlon 64 X2 PC, so what we have here is a technical preview based on an AMD press kit of an Asus A8N SLI Deluxe motherboard, an Athlon 64 X2 4800+ and 1GB of Corsair 3200XL Pro memory.

There are four processors in the Athlon 64 X2 family which share a number of features with each other, and with existing models of Athlon 64. Athlon 64 X2 continues to use socket 939, the fabrication process is 90nm (.09 micron) using SOI (Silicon on Insulator), the 128-bit memory controller is compatible with PC1600, PC2100, PC2700 and PC3200 DDR, although you’d be barking mad to use anything but top notch memory, and there’s one bi-directional 1GHz Hyper Transport link. This gives an effective data bandwidth of 14.4GB/sec (8GB/sec x1 HyperTransport link + 6.4GB/sec memory bandwidth). X2 has 64KB of L1 instruction and 64KB of L1 data cache, just like Athlon 64.

The second core raises the transistor count to 233.2 million, but thanks to the 90nm fabrication process the die size is only 199 square millimetres. Compare that to the 130nm SOI Athlon 64 4000+ and Athlon 64 FX-55 which have cores that use 105.9 million transistors but which have an area of 193 square mm and you’ll see what an effective die shrink can bring to the party.

The Athlon 64 X2 4800+ has a nominal operating voltage of 1.35-1.40V and a TDP (Thermal Design Power) of 110W which compares very favourably to the FX-55 at 104W and the 4000+ at 89W.

Add in support for SSE3 and a revised memory controller to help compatibility with a broader range of memory modules and what you’ve effectively got is a pair of the new Venice cores tied together with the dual Opteron crossbar.

Full Review.

More in Tux Machines

Feral Interactive Ports Life Is Strange to Linux and Mac, Episode 1 Is Now Free

Feral Interactive has recently announced that they have managed to successfully port the popular, award-winning Life Is Strange game to GNU/Linux and Mac OS X operating systems. Read more

Introduction to Modularity

Modularity is an exciting, new initiative aimed at resolving the issue of diverging (and occasionally conflicting) lifecycles of different “components” within Fedora. A great example of a diverging and conflicting lifecycle is the Ruby on Rails (RoR) lifecycle, whereby Fedora stipulates that itself can only have one version of RoR at any point in time – but that doesn’t mean Fedora’s version of RoR won’t conflict with another version of RoR used in an application. Therefore, we want to avoid having “components”, like RoR, conflict with other existing components within Fedora. Read more

Our First Look at Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon

Now that I’ve had about a week to play around in Mint 18, I find a lot to like and have no major complaints. While Cinnamon probably isn’t destined to become my desktop of choice, I don’t dislike it and find it, hands down, the best of the GNOME based desktops I’ve tried so far. Anybody looking for a powerful, all purpose distro that’s designed to work smoothly and which can be mastered with ease would be hard pressed to find anything better. Read more

The subtle art of the Desktop

The history of the Gnome and KDE desktops go a long way back and their competition, for the lack of a better term, is almost as famous in some circles as the religious divide between Emacs and Vi. But is that competition stil relevant in 2016? Are there notable differences between Gnome and KDE that would position each other on a specific segment of users? Having both desktops running on my systems (workstation + laptop) but using really only one of them at all times, I wanted to find out by myself. My workstation and laptop both run ArchLinux, which means I tend to run the latest stable versions of pretty much any desktop software. I will thus be considering the latest stable versions from Gnome and KDE in this post. Historically, the two environments stem from different technical platforms: Gnome relies on the GTK framework while KDE, or more exactly the Plasma desktop environment, relies on Qt. For a long time, that is until well into the development of the Gnome 3.x platform, the major difference was not just technical, it was one of style and experience. KDE used to offer a desktop experience that was built along the lines of Windows, with a start center on the bottom left, a customizable side bar, and desktop widgets. Gnome had its two bars on the top and bottom of the screen, and was seemingly used as the basis for the first design of Mac OS X, with the top bar offering features that were later found in the Apple operating system. Read more