The Battle for Value: Athlon 64 3200+ vs. Pentium 4 530

In a review of processors selling for close to $1,000, it's important to look at some of the more affordable CPUs to see how they stack up against each other as well. With the introduction of the first 90nm Athlon 64 parts, AMD has been able to bring the Socket-939 Athlon 64 CPUs down below $300, making for an interesting value comparison.

Using our RealTime Pricing Engine we found that for just over $200 you could either have an Athlon 64 3200+ or a Pentium 4 530 (3GHz). While this doesn't take into account motherboard cost, 925X boards and Socket-939 boards are in the same general price ranges. You can get a Socket-939 nForce3 board for $133, and you can get an ABIT 925X board for $150.

So the question becomes, based on our plethora of benchmarks, which CPU do you buy? In order to find out, we'll break down the benchmarks by category once again.

In our Business/General Use tests, the Athlon 64 3200+ won 6 benchmarks, tied in 1 and lost 3. In the 6 benchmarks that the Athlon 64 3200+ won, its average win percentage over the Pentium 4 530 was 17.6%. In the 3 that the Pentium 4 530 won, its average win percentage was also a hefty 9.6%. Overall it would seem that the Athlon 64 3200+ is the better buy for Business/General Use, although the Pentium 4 did manage to outperform it in some tests.

In our Multitasking Content Creation tests, the Athlon 64 3200+ won 2 benchmarks and the Pentium 4 530 won 3 benchmarks. In the two benchmarks the 3200+ won, it outperformed the 530 on average by 12.8%. In the three benchmarks the 530 won, it outperformed the 3200+ by 10.2%. Although the Athlon 64 won fewer benchmarks here it won by a larger overall percentage so we'll call this one a draw.

Next up is Video Creation/Editing and Photoshop performance, where the 3200+ won 2 out of the three tests by outperforming the 520 by 22.8% on average. The Pentium 4 won one test by a margin of 2.5%. The clear winner here is AMD.

Audio/Video encoding gave the Athlon 64 two wins at an average of 11.9%, while the Pentium 4 530 had 3 wins at an average of 11.3%. Given the virtually equal performance wins with a slight difference in the number of wins, we'll call this one a slight victory for Intel.

If you're a gamer, the choice is clear, the Athlon 64 3200+ won 10 out of 10 gaming benchmarks with an average performance advantage of 13.9% over the Pentium 4 530.

In our 3dsmax 3D rendering tests, the Athlon 64 won twice while the Pentium 4 one once. However the one test the Pentium 4 won in was actually a composite of 4 separate 3dsmax tests which we also included in our results. The Athlon 64 advantage in its two wins was 7.7%, while the Pentium 4 advantage in its wins was an average of 7%. With 4 actual victories over AMD's 2, our recommendation here would be leaning more strongly towards Intel but the win is definitely not clear cut.

Finally in our workstation tests, the Athlon 64 won 7 benchmarks, the Pentium 4 won one by 1% and failed one. The performance advantage here was an average of 8.4%, giving the advantage to AMD.

In the end, here's our scorecard for the Athlon 64 3200+ vs. Pentium 4 530:

Business/General Use - Athlon 64 3200+
Multitasking Content Creation - Tie
Video Creation/Editing and Photoshop - Athlon 64 3200+
Audio/Video Encoding - Pentium 4 530
Gaming - Athlon 64 3200+
3D Rendering with 3dsmax - Pentium 4 530
Workstation Performance - Athlon 64 3200+

Depending on your usage our recommendation may vary, but the best overall performer at the $200 price point appears to be the Athlon 64 3200+.

Power Consumption Comparison Justifying a Rating: Athlon 64 4000+ vs. Athlon 64 3800+
Comments Locked

89 Comments

View All Comments

  • Live - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    Splendid reading! This site is doing a great job right now. I really would love more of these very informative articles that help you so at seeing the big picture.

    A really helpful article.
  • Disorganise - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    I’m a bit disappointed by you inconsistency…

    The comparison with Intel over who wins….slightly inconsistent but no biggie.

    What really is bad though, is the penultimate page – is socket 939 worth it?

    I agree it is but…..
    You’ve taking an identical chip and found it about 5% quicker than on socket 754. OK, no problem. But AMD have wacked a whopping 12% increase in rating, to 3800+ from 3400+. It doesn’t gel, the numbers don’t work.

    The 3800+ is also more expensive than the 3400+ to the tune of about 250% here in Australia and about 220% over there in the U.S. a 5% increase in performance does not warrant a doubling in price.

    Dave
  • at80eighty - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    way to go Anand...excellently comprehensive article...

    /waiting for those HDD articles you promised : p
  • SLIM - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    Going along with what #6 said:
    Athlon 64 4000+ - 2.4GHz - 1MB - 128-bit
    Athlon 64 3800+ - 2.4GHz - 512KB - 128-bit
    Athlon 64 3400+ - 2.4GHz - 1MB - 64-bit <---should be a socket 754 3700+ right?
    Athlon 64 3400+ - 2.4GHz - 512KB - 64-bit
    Athlon 64 FX-53 - 2.4GHz - 1MB - 128-bit

    SLIM
  • ViRGE - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    #12, even GPUs aren't going anywhere fast. There's still a shortage of something or other needed to make the Ultra/PE parts, and there isn't a planned refresh for 2004. ATI/Nvidia have another speed grade of RAM to jump to(1.6ghz GDDR3), and can die-shrink down to 90nm once TSMC gets there, but they're so close to CPUs right now, they're destined to hit the same wall too.

    Anand, someone has been a busy beaver.;-) That was a long, but well thought out and informative article; you've basically written the definitive CPU article for now until the multicores come out.
  • Tides - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    Ah I read the conclusion wrong.
  • Tides - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    why is this site putting down an amd performance gain and making excuses for intel at the same time.
  • Doormat - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    Its a shame the processor wars are coming to an end. I see dual core as neat, but a dud performance wise. It'll be another year or two before the GPU wars start to die out... hmmm..

    -CPU performance levels off
    -HD capacity levels off

    The only interesting stuff going on is GPU stuff.
  • dvinnen - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    Best artical from Anandtech I've read in a long time. Good job Anand.
  • skiboysteve - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link

    wait nevermind, you put your comments ABOVE the graphs. threw me off cause this isnt what you usualy do...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now