AMD Athlon 64 3800+ and FX-53: The First 939 CPUs
by Derek Wilson on June 1, 2004 12:30 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Comparing CPUs: 3400+ and 3500+
There have been plenty of rumors trickling out from around the globe that seem to indicate that the 3500+ is a slower processor overall than the 3400+. Of course, answering the question of whether or not the new naming scheme is simply marketing distinction for the new socket, or an actually deserved rating is a question we have strived to answer through these tests. If we step up and take a look at most of the benchmarks we ran, we will see these percent differences:
As we can see, six or seven of the benchmarks are at or around the 2% mark we were looking for in calling this part deserving of its performance rating. Most of the other benchmarks still show an increase in performance over the 3400+ even if its not as much as we would like to see, and only two benchmarks show a decrease in performance. There is a good mix of games, encoding, and compiling (and the content creation winstone is close enough) that show the increases we would expect, and things like DX9 games (graphics limited) and 3D rendering don't always scale the way we would expect. It seems that Lightwave and Business Winstone are very sensitive to cache size, in spite of the increased memory bandwidth provided by the dual channel memory interface.
When all is said and done, it is clear that the 3500+ is a better performer than the 3400+ on average. But what else could AMD have done, call it a 3450+? Well, maybe their still holding on to that card for a reason, and maybe their tests show that the 2.2GHz 512kB caches dual channel unbuffered CPU really does deserve a rating of 3500+. There is really not enough data to point toward the 3500+ not living up to its name to get upset with AMD about the rating number.
It is our opinion that the 3500+ is solid performer that is at least not undeserving of its name. And we have a good feeling that overclocking performance may also help to seal the deal, but we'll have to wait on a final verdict in that arena until we actually get our hands on a 3500+ and aren't reduced to underclocking a 3800+.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
38 Comments
View All Comments
Pumpkinierre - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
That earlier french review couldnt get 4 DS sticks to work at DDR400:http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/cpu/s939/s939-3...
Still, I'd sooner have the dual bank memory than the extra cache. But if it is $800 and $600 then the Skt754s become good buys.
intercollector - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
#6 - With memory prices where they're at now, the more dimms the better.For example, if you were to be building a system right now, you'd be hard pressed to justify getting anything more than 1GB (2X512). This fills up 2 slots already, thus only allowing 1 free slot for upgrade in the future. If you were to upgrade with another 512 stick, you'd have 1.5GB, but all your spots filled. If you want this system to last a while, that might just not do.
I say that 3 is definately the minimum you'd ever want, and wanting 4 is definately not out of the question.
Jeff7181 - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
#5 - Is running four unbuffered DIMMs really that necessary? I mean... I haven't ever had more than two DIMMs since my 486, which technically didn't have any DIMMs... but it had 4 one MB SIMMs.mechBgon - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
One potential benefit to the Socket939 platform is that it should open the door to running four unbuffered DDR400 DIMMs.JGF - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
Hmm, now Toms is reporting the $700US+ price of the 3800+ as well. This had better not be true. Roughly $50 seperating the FX line and the 'regular joe' A64 line?? Please AMD, tell me this isnt right...Jeff7181 - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
Well well well... looks like socket 939 isn't really worth waiting for, especially if it's priced a lot higher than socket 754. Socket 754, here I come :)JGF - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
Good read. Couple of disappointments (though not neccessarily wesley's fault):1. Pricing/availability - supplies of 939 parts are rumored to be VERY constrained and some quarters are even uttering the dreaded p-phrase (paper launch). Also early listings for the 3800+ are placing it at an astronomical $700US+ which is obviously bunk. SAtill we are without any official statement regarding price and availability.
2. No 3700+ scores or even a word with what is happening there. With the rumored constraints on 939 and the fact that PCI-E from VIA or nvidia wont be around until late summer, I'm actually seriously looking into a 3700+ 754 system. When will we get info?!?
dvinnen - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
hmmm, 30 mins after the nda ended. Yall need to get on the ball.