CCW
02-08-2004, 02:09 PM
Review Quote:
The first response to the Athlon 64 FX-51 specifically, was Intel's new Pentium 4 Extreme Edition processor, with its huge additional 2MB of on board L3 cache. There is no question this CPU, like the Opteron sibling Athlon 64 FX-51, is an expensive server class processor targeted at the high end enthusiast desktop market. Intel's only immediate countermeasure for that integrated Athlon 64 memory controller, was fattening up on chip cache, bringing similar latency reducing results. Integrating a memory controller is a risky business that Intel didn't want to engage in again any time soon, since it means pigeon-holing the CPU to a specific memory architecture, a lessoned learned from their trials and tribulations with RDRAM.
You can check this review out here (http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/CCAM/p4prescott_p4ee34.shtml).
The first response to the Athlon 64 FX-51 specifically, was Intel's new Pentium 4 Extreme Edition processor, with its huge additional 2MB of on board L3 cache. There is no question this CPU, like the Opteron sibling Athlon 64 FX-51, is an expensive server class processor targeted at the high end enthusiast desktop market. Intel's only immediate countermeasure for that integrated Athlon 64 memory controller, was fattening up on chip cache, bringing similar latency reducing results. Integrating a memory controller is a risky business that Intel didn't want to engage in again any time soon, since it means pigeon-holing the CPU to a specific memory architecture, a lessoned learned from their trials and tribulations with RDRAM.
You can check this review out here (http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/CCAM/p4prescott_p4ee34.shtml).