The Test

We have already gone into great depth about the Athlon 64 and the underlying architecture so be sure to check out our previous articles for all you could possibly want to know about the Athlon 64.

Performance Test Configuration
Processor(s): AMD Athlon 64 3000+
AMD Athlon 64 3200+
AMD Athlon 64 3400+
AMD Athlon 64 FX51
Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz EE
Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz
Intel Pentium 4 3.0GHz
Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz
RAM: 2 x 512Mb OCZ 3500 Platinum Ltd
2 x 512Mb Mushkin ECC Registered High Performance 2:3:2
Hard Drive(s): Seagate 120GB 7200 RPM (8MB Buffer)
Video AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers: VIA Hyperion 4.51 (12/02/03)
Intel Chipset Drivers
Video Card(s): Sapphire ATI Radeon 9800 PRO 128MB (AGP 8X)
Video Drivers: ATI Catalyst 3.10
Operating System(s): Windows XP Professional SP1
Motherboards: Intel D875PBZ (Intel 875P Chipset)
FIC K8-800T (VIA K8T800 Chipset)
ASUS SK8N (NVIDIA nForce3 Pro Chipset)

All performance tests were run with ATI 9800 PRO 128MB video card with AGP Aperture set to 128MB with Fast Write enabled. Resolution in all benchmarks is 1024x768x32.
Index Business/Content Creation Performance
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Jeff7181 - Tuesday, January 6, 2004 - link

    I found fault with the article... no FS2004 benchmark. Can I have it please? :D
  • Jeff7181 - Tuesday, January 6, 2004 - link

    I agree with everyone so far =)

    But I think AMD may have shot themselves in the foot by releasing the 3400+, which performs exactly the same as the insanely priced FX-51. Unless they have some tricks up their sleeve with socket 939 that will improve performance, why would anyone spend twice the money on the FX-51 when the 3400+ provides 98% of the performance of the FX-51?
  • Jason Clark - Tuesday, January 6, 2004 - link

    The print article issue is fixed.

  • AlexWade - Tuesday, January 6, 2004 - link

    I liked the compile times benchmark! Please have it all new reviews of CPU's.
  • PrinceXizor - Tuesday, January 6, 2004 - link

    Nice review! I especially liked the price/performance charts. It should be interesting to see how AMD handles the transition from 754 to 939 sockets.

    The thing I find most impressive is that AMD is staying ahead of Intel as far as performance, something many of us did not think possible given Hammer's seemingly endless wait.

    Intel had to rush out an EE version to remain competitive while it waited for Prescott (I'm not intel bashing, I'm sure Prescott will compete nicely).

    In the meantime, AMD is the one hitting the "3400+" performance arena before the 3.4Ghz Prescotts hit. The question always was, can AMD execute with the Athlon 64 as well as they did with the Athlon XP? The answer seems to be yes. Very well done AMD!

  • Insomniac - Tuesday, January 6, 2004 - link

    I meant hints. ;)
  • Insomniac - Tuesday, January 6, 2004 - link

    Nice article. Any hits on how the battle will look when Prescott hits? :)

    I noticed in the print view, none of the charts are showing up.
  • FearoftheNight - Tuesday, January 6, 2004 - link

    great review...hope to see socket 939 coverage coming soon :D

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now