AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 Processor

Supplied by AMD

AMD is setting their sights on taking the pole position again with the Athlon
64 FX-53. AMD have launched another processor in the FX family that delivers
an intimidating set of benchmarks. FX-53 is more expensive and it won’t be immediately
coming off the shelves into consumers hands in great quantities. Could the purpose
of AMD’s flagship processor be to establish a reputation as a performance king
rather than as the underdog and cheaper alternative? Consumers do buy a reputation
and a good reputation can positively influence sales of other products carrying
the AMD brand name.

Athlon 64 FX-53, like the rest of its 64-bit family, takes the demands of
today’s 32-bit software well in stride and then performs a unique trick
by switching to 64-bit mode in a blink of an eye. AMD have poured the coal on
when it comes to 64-bit computing and continue to be first with another step
into the desktop 64-bit marketplace. FX-53 is the latest in AMD’s bid
to be the best of the best and it takes a little bit of everything from its
siblings and cousins. FX-53 is the second in AMD’s flagship FX processor
line and it comes with a flagship price yet the $733 USD hit is still less than
Intel’s 3.2 GHz Extreme Edition processor that weighs in at a hefty $857
USD*. FX-53 may be a bit overwhelming on the pocketbook to the hordes of enthusiasts
but AMD has made an intelligent marketing move that some may not see. The FX
series is designed to do one thing; beat the competition. It is the best and
its predecessor, the FX-51, managed to embarrass the competition in a few benchmarks.
Being the best has a beneficial trickle down effect. Most consumers can’t
afford or won’t shell out for the top of the line Lexus, Cadillac or Mercedes
but they will for the other, lesser-priced models. The consumer may not be buying
the ultimate that a car manufacturer can pack into one vehicle but they are
buying the reputation, the engineering and the quality that went into that flagship
vehicle. Consumers will buy a winner and FX-53 is the latest in the bid for
the crown.

*pricewatch.com March 17, 2004.

The 64-bit road

64-bit processors are nothing new but 64-bit processors for the desktop certainly
are. It was only 2 years ago in February of 2002 that AMD demonstrated the first
64-bit x86-based processor. Just over a year later came the Opteron processor
and in September of 2003 Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX stepped into the spotlight.
Meanwhile over at the Intel camp it was a different story. Intel hadn’t
been putting the same amount of public effort into 64-bit processors for the
desktop. Itanium 64 has shown us little but disaster. It wouldn’t be surprising
if somewhere in the AMD hallways the story of the three little pigs has been
adapted and the first two little pigs used Intel processors.

AMD have gone and been utterly clever by creating a processor that runs 32-bit
software and 64-bit software without assistance from software emulators. It’s
a processor that “does it all”. This is what consumers should be
perfectly clear on. Opteron, Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX can do everything that
current desktop processors can do today and what others can’t at this
moment; switch hats and run 64-bit software with no special add-ons, bolt-ons,
re-jigging or hocus pocus. In the most simple terms the processor “just
knows” and does it. This means the expensive software the PC consumer
currently use isn’t going to be immediately made obsolete. FX-53 will
just make it more powerful and faster plus the FX owner has a forward looking
product for upcoming 64-bit software. Intel is playing catch up in the 64-bit
desktop arena with the Prescott line which will also have 64-bit extensions.

Running in the family

Understanding the FX-53 requires taking a look at the Opteron and Athlon family
tree. The FX processor is an Opteron…but it isn’t…nor is it an Athlon64…but
it is.

It’s an FX processor. You follow?

No? We didn’t either. The FX series of AMD processors are more a part
of the 1xx group of Opteron processors than anything else for they come from
the same core design. Opteron comes in three model groups; 1xx, 2xx and 8xx.
The first number is important as it denotes processors for use in single (1xx),
two-way (2xx), four and eight-way processor (8xx) systems. An important difference
between the 1xx family of Opteron processors and the 2xx/8xx family is the number
of coherent HyperTransport Technology links. Coherent HyperTransport links are
processor to processor links and not to be confused with non-coherent links
which link the processor to other areas of the system. AMD have been very clever
in thwarting those who cut traces, fill bridges or otherwise fool a processor
to believe it is something else such as hacking the XP processor to make it
into a pseudo MP processor. In a 1xx or one way Opteron processor there are
no coherent HyperTransport links to connect the processor to another. In 2xx
and 8xx Opterons there are up to three coherent HyperTransport links to connect
processor to processor for a multiprocessor system. 1xx Opterons still have
HyperTransport links but they are non-coherent and used to connect the processor
to other system components. The 1xx family of Opterons cannot be modified by
the consumer to work in a multiprocessor system; there just isn’t the
“hardware on the hardware” to do it.

From AMD
HyperTransport Explained.

Understanding
what HyperTransport technology can do is quite easy after you’ve read
the 3 or 4 hundred pages that I have. It’s all math and HyperTransport
is only the pathway. The clock speed and bit length at which the data is
sent determines the potential throughput. Even though a processor may have
a 64-bit bus, it still has to communicate, with current processor availability,
at a maximum of 32 bits. The AMD Hammer will change that as it is designed
for a 64 bit system. (32 Bit versions will be available as well)

HYPERTRANSPORT BANDWIDTH SCALABILITY CHART

Clock Rate Link Width 2 bits 4 bits 8 bits 16 bits 32 bits 200 MHz 0.8 Gbps 1.6 Gbps 3.2 Gbps 6.4 Gbps 12.8 Gbps 400 MHz 1.6 Gbps 3.2 Gbps 6.4 Gbps 12.8 Gbps 25.6 Gbps 500 MHz 2.0 Gbps 4.0 Gbps 8.0 Gbps 16.0 Gbps 32.0 Gbps 600 MHz 2.4 Gbps 4.8 Gbps 9.6 Gbps 19.2 Gbps 38.4 Gbps 800 MHz 3.2 Gbps 6.4 Gbps 12.8 Gbps 25.6 Gbps 51.2 Gbps

HyperTransport
technology brings many benefits to motherboard PCB design. It reduces the
amount of traces (wires) needed to connect points. It lowers the voltage
required for points to properly operate. It simplifies the overall complexity
of PCB design.

Reducing
the number of traces required for connecting two points; be it chip-to-chip
or PCI slot to CPU reduces complexity of design. A motherboard PCB is made
up of a series of layers of connections. There just isn’t sufficient
room on a motherboard to connect every point on a single layer. The solution
is to stack connection layers on top of each other and connect them two-dimensionally
and three-dimensionally through the layers. If the amount of traces is reduced
then three things can happen. The first is that the motherboard itself is
simpler to design and produce, theoretically resulting in a lower cost.
The second is that the reduction in traces results in more space allowing
for more devices to be attached on an existing motherboard size. The third
would be an overall reduction in motherboard size still keeping the same
amount of available device connection.

The performance of the FX family of processors hasn’t been limited
by reducing the number of coherent HyperTransport links. Any one HyperTransport
link has up to 6.4 GB/s of I/O bandwidth. The single coherent link design means
only that an FX series of processor cannot work in a multiprocessor system
therefore the consumer has to look to the 2xx or 8xx Opteron solutions.

FX-53 delivers up to 12.8 GB/s total processor-to-system bandwidth which tops
Athlon 64’s 9.6 GB/s and is four times that of the top of the line Athlon
XP. The FX series has 64KB Level 1 instruction cache and 64KB Level 1 data
cache just like Athlon 64 but FX is available with a fixed 1024KB Level 2
cache for 1152KB total effective on-die cache. Athlon64 has the same 64KB Level
1 instruction cache and 64KB Level 1 data cache but comes in a choice of 256KB,
512KB and 1024KB L2 cache. More cache is always better.

The 64-bit Athlon and Opteron processors saw AMD move the memory controller
from the Northbridge on the motherboard to the die of the CPU itself. This decreased
the latency of the memory or, in other words, the time the processor had to
wait for data. Remember that nanoseconds are an eternity to a processor and
reducing latency increases the speed of the data getting to where it needs to
go. Where FX differs from Athlon64 is in its dual-channel integrated DDR
memory controller which is 128-bit + 16-bit ECC. Athlon64 is single-channel
64-bit + 8-bit ECC.

What it all boils down to is that the FX series has more available bandwidth
than Athlon64 but just not quite as much as the top of the line 8xx Opteron.
More bandwidth means more data can be handled in larger “gulps”
by the processor.

FX-53 remains at the 0.13 Micron size and that usually means nothing to the
average consumer. To understand is to compare the benefits to a processor made
at a larger Micron design size. Making electronic circuits smaller accomplishes
two things: lower price and less heat. If the amount of processor cores per
sheet of silicon can be increased then the cost of manufacturing is reduced
per unit. For example, if 1000 processor cores of 0.18 micron design can fit
onto a single sheet of silicon then moving to 0.13 Microns could, just of argument’s
sake, double the amount of processor cores per single sheet of silicon to 2000.
More cores per sheet are less expensive to make per core.

Heat is the enemy of a processor as higher clock speeds demand more electrical
power and more electrical power generates more heat. More heat leads to problems.
Making the processor at a smaller Micron level means the processor will require
less electrical power to function thus less heat. That would be comparing equivalent
processors with the only difference being Micron size. If the processor technology
is shrunk it takes up less room on the die so engineers maintain a balancing
act between the heat a processor produces and taking advantage of all the “extra
room” with added capabilities plus crank up the clock speed. There is
talk about a 0.09 Micron design which may further reduce the amount of electrical
power required by a processor plus allow for more technology to be packed on-die
and the cycle will start all over again. If the circuits are smaller then more
can be packed into the same space thus the processor can “do more faster”.
It’s a cycle of shrinking the circuits to make room for more functionality.
The FX series doubles the number of transistors on die compared to Athlon
XP; 105.9 million versus 54.3 million. FX-53 operates at 1.50 volts compared
to the 1.65 volts of Athlon XP.

The FX series, like its Opteron siblings, is a 940-pin socket design while
the Athlon64 is a 754-pin socket design. A 940-pin socket design requires Registered
ECC memory. This makes the FX family less attractive to the average consumer
due to the requirement for the more expensive ECC Registered memory. The near
future will see AMD 939-pin processors which will operate with the less expensive
non-registered memory but it isn’t as simple as breaking off one pin of
FX. 939-pin processors are completely different, but the same, again. Part
of the desire/pressure to reduce the pin count by one comes from motherboard
makers who want to produce, at a lower manufacturing cost, the 4-layer PCB motherboards
939-pin processors require instead of the more expensive to manufacture 6-layer
PCB motherboards 940-pin processors require. 939-pin processors will allegedly
work in 940-pin motherboards and it remains to be seen if non-registered memory
will work with a 939-pin processor in a 940-pin motherboard. AMD have thought
ahead as far as the upgrade path is concerned and an FX system won’t
dead end.

Stuck in the Gigarutz

It has been difficult to shake old habits ever since AMD introduced the PR
rating. GHz is akin to horsepower for the average consumer; more is better.
AMD has gone off and proven this isn’t true when it comes to comparing
Intel’s apples to AMD’s oranges. This was a topic of discussion
one day between us and the folks at AMD.

How can a processor in the 2 GHz range best a hefty 3 GHz processor? There
isn’t an easy explanation of how AMD’s “less” can better
Intel’s “more”. The first habit that must be broken is that,
when comparing Intel to AMD, Intel’s higher GHz numbers do not necessarily mean
faster or more powerful than AMD. An analogy would be to say that higher engine
RPM doesn’t equate to more horsepower when comparing Intel to AMD. It would
be more accurate to say that the design and efficiency of what’s under the AMD
processor hood allows the AMD processor to remain fiercely competitive in the
AMD/Intel performance race.

There is one obvious advantage to a lower clocked processor and that is heat
or comparatively lack thereof. As clock speed winds up so does the potential
for heat just like what happens when a car engine revs at too high an RPM. This
allows for AMD’s FX processor to prevail as the cooler head when compared
to Intel’s Extreme Edition.

Benchmarks.

The test systems.

• AMD FX-53 Processor
  (32-bit mode)
• Gigabyte
  8NNXP-940 motherboard
• ATI 9800 PRO 256 MB Video
  Card Catalyst 4.2 drivers (Application preference ticked for Anti-Aliasing
  and Anisotropic Filtering in both Direct 3D and OpenGL, VSYNC disabled BIOS
  AGP aperture set to 256)
• 2 x 512 MB Crucial
  PC3200 ECC REG DDR RAM in DIMM 1 and 3
• Sony 52x CD
• 60 GB Maxtor ATA133 Hard Drive
• Samsung 950p 19″ Monitors
• USB Keyboard and Optical Mouse
• Globalwin CAK4-76T HSF
• AMK SX1000
  modded PC case (window, fans, cables, loom)
• Enermax 465 Watt FC PSU
• Windows XP Professional Service Pack 1 updated.

• AMD FX-53 Processor
  (32-bit mode)
• ASUS SK8N motherboard
• ATI 9800 PRO 256 MB Video
  Card Catalyst 4.2 drivers (Application preference ticked for Anti-Aliasing
  and Anisotropic Filtering in both Direct 3D and OpenGL, VSYNC disabled BIOS
  AGP aperture set to 256)
• 2 x 512 MB Crucial
  PC3200 ECC REG DDR RAM in DIMM 1 and 3
• Sony 52x CD
• 60 GB Maxtor ATA133 Hard Drive
• Samsung 950p 19″ Monitors
• USB Keyboard and Optical Mouse
• Globalwin CAK4-76T HSF
• AMK SX1000
  modded PC case (window, fans, cables, loom)
• Enermax 465 Watt FC PSU
• Windows XP Professional Service Pack 1 updated.

• Intel P4 3 GHz 512KB
  533 MHz 800 FSB processor (HT enabled)
• ABIT
  IC7-Max3 motherboard
• ATI 9800 PRO 256 MB Video
  Card Catalyst 4.2 drivers (Application preference ticked for Anti-Aliasing
  and Anisotropic Filtering in both Direct 3D and OpenGL, VSYNC disabled BIOS
  AGP aperture set to 256)
• 2 x 256 MB Corsair PC3200 DDR RAM in DIMM 1 and 3
• LG 52x CD/RW
• 80 GB Seagate SATA Hard Drive
• Samsung 950p 19″ Monitors
• USB Keyboard and Optical Mouse
• Retail HSF packaged with processor
• AMK SX1000
  modded PC case (window, fans, cables, loom)
• Enermax 465 Watt FC PSU
• Windows XP Professional Service Pack 1 updated.

• AMD 3200+ 400 FSB
  Processor
• Gigabyte
  7NNXP motherboard
• ATI 9800 PRO 256 MB Video
  Card Catalyst 4.2 drivers (Application preference ticked for Anti-Aliasing
  and Anisotropic Filtering in both Direct 3D and OpenGL, VSYNC disabled BIOS
  AGP aperture set to 256)
• 2 x 256 MB Corsair PC3200 DDR RAM in DIMM 1 and 3
• Sony 52x CD
• 60 GB Maxtor ATA133 Hard Drive
• Samsung 950p 19″ Monitors
• USB Keyboard and Optical Mouse
• Globalwin CAK4-76T HSF
• AMK SX1000
  modded PC case (window, fans, cables, loom)
• Enermax 465 Watt FC PSU
• Windows XP Professional Service Pack 1 updated.

Programs used

• 
  Sisoft Sandra 2004
• MadOnion
  3DMark 2001 SE
• MadOnion
  3DMark 2003
• Quake
  III Arena
• GL
  Excess
• SpecviewPerf 7.1
• Serious Sam SE
• Splinter Cell (Chinese Embassy timedemo)
• Unreal Tournament 2003 flyby benchmarks
• Aquamark3
• Jurassic Park Operation Genesis (Exercise cut scene/FRAPS)
• Call of Duty demo (40,000 frames played x 3 passes averaged)
• X2
  Demo
• Wolfenstein Enemy Territory (Railgun demo)
• Fraps
• Adobe After Effects 5.5
• Softimage 2.0.1

All tests were run at default video card settings with VSYNC disabled. Anti-Aliasing
and Anisotropic Filtering was left ticked for application preference. AGP aperture
was set to 256 MB. DirectX 8.1 was used only for 3DMARK 2001 SE and Splinter
Cell tests. DirectX 90b was installed for all other tests. Windows visual effects
was set for ADJUST FOR BEST PERFORMANCE. Windows was restarted before each test.
An process idle command was executed before each test.

Individual performance will vary with any particular or specific timings or
tweaks enabled by you. A 768 MB page file was moved to D: partition. Temporary
Internet files moved to J: partition at end of drive. OS installed to C: and
programs installed to E:. All programs were benchmarked with initial monitor
settings at 1024×768@75Hz.

3DMark 2001 SE

3D Mark 2001 SE and it’s replacement, 3D Mark 2003, answer the simple question
of how fast the hardware is; all of the hardware that powers the game.

3DMark 2003

3D Mark 2003 was originally designed to measure performance specifically in
shader-heavy titles.

 

 

 

 

Aquamark3

Aquamark3 is a newer benchmark from Massive Development. For the most part
it is a DirectX 8.1 benchmark though it is run with DirectX 90b installed. Four
measurement sets were used. The first has high and low detail with Anti Aliasing
and Anisotropic filtering turned off. The second has high and low detail with
Anti-Aliasing (6x) and Anisotropic filtering (16x) set at max.

 

 

 

GL Excess

GL Excess is an OPENGL benchmark that is optimized for DX8.1 as can be seen
by the differences between DirectX software.

Quake III high quality

Quake III continues to hang around. This benchmark is one that
most can’t just let go of and it retains grandfather rights in the community.
Many of today’s games are based upon the Quake engine. But look at those scores
at 1600×1200! Over 160 FPS! It wasn’t too long ago that we thought topping 100
FSP was fast. Now we sit at over 200 FPS with the screen set to a high resolution
and detail.

Serious Sam

UT2003 Flyby

 

Wolfenstein Enemy Territory: Railgun timedemo

 

Wolfenstein Enemy Territory uses an improved version of the heavily
modified Quake III engine from Return to Castle Wolfenstein. The Railgun time
demo results were recorded.

 

 

X2 Rolling Demo

 

X2 – The Threat is a teaser with a benchmark option for Egosoft’s
upcoming release. It does not use pixel shaders.

 

 

Call of Duty Demo

 

Call of Duty is a new game thus using the latest in optimizations.
FRAPS was used to record the average number of frames per second over a minimum
of 100,000 played frames. Call of Duty also finds its roots in the Quake III
engine.

 

Specviewperf 7.1

SpecviewPerf measures the 3D rendering performance of systems
running under OPENGL. The improved 9800 with its massive amounts of memory only
make the 9700 look silly.

The following two tests are targeted mainly towards CPU performance and will
show if any “flaws” are in board design affecting the ability of the
CPU to crunch through the data. While in render mode the two test programs virtually
bypass ram and GPU.

Adobe After Effects 5.5

Adobe After Effects is a tool to produce motion
graphics and visual effects for film, video, multimedia and the web. It is primarily
a 2D application using imported graphics or digital footage or self generated
effects. A project was created that was a combination of many video footage
files, resizing and rasterizing effects, text animations and multiple layer
effects. This “average” combination was felt to best demonstrate advantages
and/or disadvantages that a real world user may experience rather than isolating
and benchmarking a particular effect.

There is no official benchmark for After Effects
but tasks can be timed to show specific results. Rendering, or the task of building
and compiling frames, is mainly CPU intensive and After Effects generally bypasses
the video card and relies solely on the processor for speed. The time taken
to render 900 frames basically shows how fast the processor is working on the
given task.

Softimage XSI can simply bring
any computer to its knees. It’s an incredibly powerful 3D animation program
that has the ability to become so complex that single processor systems have
been known to “think” for days when rendering an animation. Softimage works
on somewhat similar principle to After Effects. A faster and more powerful video
card will translate to a smoother interface where complex scenes can be manipulated
in real time. Note that Softimage does not have an interface to real-time preview
a finished frame as unlike After Effects. Users can manipulate objects in a
choice of views from wire frame mode to simulated real-time shading mode. In
order to look at a finished frame a user must render the frame to disk which
bypasses the GPU. A faster processor will result in the faster render. The amount
of RAM is not as great an issue as the user is working frame by frame and the
graphics card is doing the bulk of the work while working within the GUI.

This is a most basic overview and there are specialty
hardware components that can enhance the speed and interactivity of complex
3D scenes and programs. The designers working on the test system use Softimage
on a less complex level to provide enhancements and elements to commercials,
promos and station ID elements. Though their work is quite complex to some it
a far cry from that of special effects in major film productions.

Benchmark Conclusions

It’s very easy to see that FX53 takes a substantial leap beyond Intel’s 3.06
GHz processor. The 3.2 GHz Extreme Edition would have been a better comparison
but was unvavailable at press time. The top of the line AMD 3200+ XP processor
does give the 3.06 GHz Intel processor a run for its money but neither can catch
the FX-53 even when it is held back by PC2100 RAM. The Athlon 64 FX-53 was benched
on two platforms to show it isn’t a specific motherboard/processor combination
that makes a winner. Both boards are based on the NForce3 chipset though.

Overclocking

Allegedly the FX-51 processors are edging nearer to 3 GHz under exotic cooling.
Speed costs and FX-53 may not surpass that mark because FX-53 comes from the
same stock as FX-51. The FX-53 multiplier allowed the processor to be bumped
up to 2600 MHz darn fast on air but then promptly stopped when asked to go a
bit further. It wouldn’t turn over at 2700 MHz nor would it accept even a 1
MHz bump in CPU OVERCLOCK in either 940-pin motherboard.

Conclusions

It’s an Opterthlon! No it’s an Athleron!

Athlon 64 FX-53 is the best of both worlds. It is an Opteron but it isn’t.
It also is more than Athlon 64. It’s an Opterthlon. Or is it an Athleron?
It certainly isn’t a WillWoodPrescinteleon. Regardless, enthusiasts will
drool over it and power hungry single processor workstation users will lust
after it. It is the best of AMD for this particular niche in the market at this
particular moment in time.

Just one look at the benchmarks will show that the Athlon 64 FX-53 pegs a significant
increase over the competition and its XP predecessor. This has nothing specifically
to do with 64-bit versus 32-bit. It has everything to do with the clever minds
at AMD taking the best from all of their processor lines and making it better.
The icing on the cake that’s yet to be tasted comes in the form of a 64-bit
operating system. 64-bit will bring a lot of benefits but those will take a
while to filter down to the consumer. AMD’s 64-bit processors will be
able to easily do double duty in the meantime.

It all comes down to purchasing the product. Is the FX-53 worth the $733 USD
opening ticket price? If the goal is to be the best at this moment in time the
answer is a clear yes. There’s no doubt that the FX series will hold their
ground for CPU intensive tasks such as multimedia and gaming for quite some
time. We are not in the position to declare FX-53 an overall winner due to the
lack of an Intel 3.2 GHz Extreme Edition for benchmarking at press time. The
flip side of the processor coin is cost. Top of the line products come with
a top of the line price tag but AMD has positioned their best at a lower price
pont than Intel’s best. With the 940-pin FX-53 is the added cost of ECC
Registered RAM. The talk of a 939-pin version that operates with non-registered
RAM could influence consumers to “wait and see”. The goal at AMD
may not be to sell an overwhelming amount of the top of the line FX processors.
It may just be to establish the reputation of being a performance champion.
Firmly establishing that reputation will go a long way towards swinging consumers
over to other AMD product.

In either situation AMD has introduced yet another product that has kicked
some serious butt.

Things that go “bork”
in the night.

There are times when things go “bork”. Anyone who has toiled away
into the wee hours of the night benchmarking knows this quite well. There were
two times things indeed went “bork” with this review. The first was
the one in a million sample of MUSHKIN memory that came with the FX-53. Not
every stick of RAM is perfect and the rare few slip by. Mushkin RAM is also
known to be problematic with the Gigabyte K8NNXP. Unfortunately that rarity
slipped right into my hands. Both Gigabyte and ASUS boards were not stable.
With time running out I began putting solutions into play. I turned to the PR
folks at CRUCIAL who immediately
put two 512 MB sticks of their Registered ECC memory in an overnight courier.
Crucial is a highly recommended company. Crucial RAM comes with a lifetime warranty
and is known for its wide compatibility standards and its product quality and
stability. Crucial came to the rescue where Mushkin had failed.

We highly recommend Crucial
for your next memory choice.

The second time something went bork was actually the first time but it’s funnier
in this order. We look forward to courier visits especially when they may be
carrying an FX-53 review sample. AMD is notorious for sending their wee little
processors in fancy foam-lined plastic boxes or sandwiched in a processor tray.
In either case the processor box or tray is wrapped in many layers of bubble
wrap then packed into comparatively gargantuan boxes so couriers can’t misplace
them. The day came when the courier showed up with a box that was about 4 inches
by 6 inches by baseball bat length. The box disgorged a wad of bubble wrap.
A rather heavy wad of bubble wrap for a processor I thought. This wasn’t heavy
as in “my goodness that seems an ounce or two heavy”. It was heavy
as in “abnormally, curiously and oddly heavy” heavy.

Layer upon layer of bubble wrap gave way to a processor tray. Off came the
top of the tray to reveal…

One, two, three….six, seven…eight….EIGHT Athlon 64 FX-53 processors.
I sat there stupefied for a moment or two trying to fathom why I had eight FX-53
processors in my hand. Like a child with a brand new toy I went about proudly
displaying my treasure even if the recipient of my glee didn’t really care.
From my perspective I had found Nirvana. From everyone else’s perspective I
was acting just plain odd.

Then for a fleeting moment I thought…”AMD must have made a mistake…”
I thought some more. “A mistake they might not know about…and…and…”
The wheels in my head turned at a furious pace. “And…they….may…think
they have sent me just one”. It was a fleeting thought. Honesty got the
better of me and I fessed up. Every good boy deserves a favor but I did send
them a kind request in exchange for returning the excess number of processors
which had mistakenly found their way to my desk.

Our thanks to AMD for
their support of this and many other sites.