Athlon64 3000+: 64-bit at Half the Price
by Wesley Fink on December 22, 2003 8:15 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Basic Features: Athlon64 Processors
With so much speculation and confusion about the 3000+ Specifications, it seemed worthwhile to quickly review the features of the Athlon 64/FX/Opteron processors that are currently available.
| Athlon64 Family — Specifications | ||||
| Athlon64 3000+ | Athlon64 3200+ | Athlon64 FX51 | Opteron | |
| Speed Rating | 3000+ | 3200+ | Unrated | Unrated |
| Actual CPU Speed | 2.0Ghz | 2.0GHz | FX51 — 2.2GHz | x48 — 2.2GHz x46 — 2.0GHz x44 — 1.8GHz x42 — 1.6GHz x40 — 1.4GHz |
| L1 Cache | 128k 64k Code Cache + 64k Data Cache |
128k 64k Code Cache + 64k Data Cache |
128k 64k Code Cache + 64k Data Cache |
128k 64k Code Cache + 64k Data Cache |
| L2 Cache | 512kb | 1024kb | 1024kb | 1024kb |
| Memory Type | Unbuffered DDR | Unbuffered DDR | Registered or Registered ECC DDR | Registered or Registered ECC DDR |
| Memory Speed Supported | Up to DDR400 | Up to DDR400 | Up to DDR400 | Up to DDR400 on later models, Up to DDR333 on earlier models |
| Maximum CPUs | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1xx — 1 2xx — 2 8xx — 8 |
| On-Chip Memory Controller | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Hyper Transport Speed | Up to 1.6GHz (800MHz Clock) |
Up to 1.6GHz (800MHz Clock) |
Up to 1.6GHz (800MHz Clock) |
Up to 1.6GHz (800MHz Clock) |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
75 Comments
View All Comments
Pumpkinierre - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
Oh yes and while I'm at it, AMD should drop that silly naming system. Its not only confusing with 2 different processors(K7,K8), 4 different caches(L2 64K,256K,512K,1Gb), 4 FSB(100,133,166,200MHz) and single bank/dual bank mem. controllers. It basically makes Intel the standard and allows them to call the shots as they did with the P43.2 vs the A-XP3200+. The masses enjoy a bath and also dont like BS to which most of them turn their back at the slightest whiff.Pumpkinierre - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
This is the cpu that should have been released to the masses (who do enjoy a shower #9) in september. The only disgrace is the lack of official release from AMD who dont want to disturb their server focussed business model in the eyes of the analysts and so decide to slip it out the back door. That's why I am on the side of people who think these cpu's are just A64 3200s that failed to make the grade. At least, mine and others rants about AMD only looking after the well heeled have'nt fallen on deaf ears. And I agree with #7 a P4EE should be included if you include the outrageously priced (and yes limited edition #11) FX51 in your reviews. After all by the time you include reg. memory and 940Mobo for the fx the price diferential cf. P4EE in that stratospheric category is not much.While I'm discussing ranting, look at the only bench mark where the 3000+ beat the 3200+ (and all others) sciencemark2 (memory latency). This demonstrates what i've said about large caches getting in the way of system latency. This low latency translates into better response and smoothness in gaming (not demos which dont show this quality due to their predictable code path). The ideal woud be a fast L1 cache (probably 256K) and quad pumped fast memory maybe that dual phase memory that VIA are looking at. What AMD have created is the ideal gaming chip then crippled it with a large cache because they decided to go into the server market and then re crippled the desktop chip with a single bank memory controller so as to differentiate product without upsetting their production line . No wonder SETI doesnt get any reply out there. Still lack of A64 3200+ sales has reluctantly pushed them to release the 3000+ maybe the same will occur with the true Newcastle once they realise that the server path is going to be along slow haul.
tfranzese - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
good review, good chips again from AMDKristopherKubicki - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
The only difference between NewCastle and Clawhammer was the onchip cooling technology (and the 1/2 cache size)...My NewCastles are in the mail, Ill do some thermal testing on it for some upcoming enclosure reviews as well to see the difference.
Kristopher
sandorski - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
sweeeeeeetShinei - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
Okay, now I'm REALLY upset that I just bought a 2800+ Athlon XP... :(Fantastic review though. :)
Jeff7181 - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
We already know it does well in a 32-bit environment.I'd like to see it tested against the A64 3200+ under a 64-bit Linux OS and software.
64-bit code naturally has more "bulk" to it than 32-bit code, so the extra cache of the 3200+ SHOULD cause a larger performance gap between the two processors when running 64-bit software... although I've yet to see this tested anywhere, it is one of the most important factors.
Oxonium - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
Ok, I concede that Morgan was a slightly different core. But my point was that it is fairly common for AMD and Intel to give the same core different names depending on their cache size or how they are to be used.I agree with dvinnen. I'm sure a smaller die would save some money in wafer costs but it also requires design time, tooling, and qualification. The die size issue will likely be addressed in ~6 months when AMD implements the 0.09 micron manufacturing process. It doesn't make a lot of sense to spend money on reducing core size when there will be a new core in a few months anyway that resolves the problem. Plus, as dvinnen said, using the Clawhammer core allows AMD to still make a profit on the Athlon64's that don't pass QA with their full cache.
As for memory controller improvement, that could be true. But this would be more like a new processor stepping rather than a new core.
Hopefully Anand will remove the heat spreader to show if this really is just a 3200+ with half the cache disabled or a new core.
johnsonx - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
#12 - I think you're wrong on the Morgan being just a Palomino with most of the cache disabled. I'm pretty sure the Morgan was actually a different core that truly had only 64k L2.As to the Thorton, you may be right on that one... I'm not sure.
dvinnen - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
but of course, there is only one way to find out, pop the top on them. Some core pictures will tell the truth.