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
gherald - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
Search for 939 on newegg.com folks, you will be pleasantly surprised! Now if we could just find a motherboard...I had been hopping this launch would bring the 754 prices down a bit to, say, $220 for a 3200 and $350 for a 3400, but it doesn't seem like that's going to happen quite yet what with 939 starting out at $500 for the 3500 and $700 for the 3800... *sigh* ... more waiting... perhaps prices will come down by the time true PCIe motherboards are availeable.
amdfanboy - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
Go AMD !!nserra - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
"Everything here is graphics card limited even at 1024x768, but perhaps in the near future when we upgrade the video card we use in CPU and motherboard tests..." i have said this at xbit site and I say it here again!What about lowering games resolution and details it may help! There is a detail level in almost every game, it may help. You are testing a processor not the video card! I don't want benches in a processor review that limit the differences between processors.
fx53 35 fps vs xp3000+ 34fps, what a difference!
JGF - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
#22 while I certainly agree these new prices are too high I dont agree with the wholesale gutting of prices that you're recommending. AMD deserves some decent margins, they shouldnt have to give their product away all the time. Thats unhealthy business and has really hurt amd in the past. I want a healthy amd and for that they are going to need some fatter margins on some sku's.RyanVM - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
Found a typo on page 13: "Winstones hare usually very static..." should be "Winstones are usually very static..."XRaider - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
What the heat issues with these newer AMD cpu's? I believe I read on that French site that the new AMD's are putting out alot of thermal wattage! 100+ Can anyone confirm this? I believe the P4 3.4 puts out around 102 - 104 watts! That's alot.AtaStrumf - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
I found a couple of typos if anyone would care to correct them:p.13
Workstation performance is more sensitive to memory bandwidth, and we do see a wider range in variation among the --3.2GHz-- (THAT WOULD BE 2,2GHz) processors in SPECviewperf.
The pattern was the generally the same fastest to slowest of 939-949-754 (THAT WOULD BE 939-940-754)
p.14
Since we have found the performance of the Dual-Channel Socket 940 and the Single-Channel 754 to be close when hey (THEY)ran...
Anyway these new S939s suck a$$. Well actually their prices do. Here's what I suggest: retire Athlon XP socket A, introduce it as Socket 754 but only higher models, price 20% up, bring S754 down 33% and S939 down 50%, retire FXs. These prices now are insane.
AMD are you listening? Of course not.
Viditor - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
"i'll be getting a Dual Channel for sure when the arrive. Pair that with a nice new X800 XT from ATI and i'll be sitting pretty with the flexibility of upgrading for awhile"Horses for courses I guess...I'll be getting one too, but I think I'm going nvidia because they appear to have a better handle on 64bit drivers...
JMHO
vedin - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
Sure would be nice if they released something more along the lines of a 3000-3300+ for 939 this year. Maybe then my brother can finally be nice and justified with an upgrade without having to spend a lot.Icewind - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
Hmmm, well i'll be getting a Dual Channel for sure when the arrive. Pair that with a nice new X800 XT from ATI and i'll be sitting pretty with the flexibility of upgrading for awhile.Thanks again AMD, im anxious to get out of this P4 setup I have now.