AMD's Athlon 64 3400+: Death of the FX-51

38 Comments

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.
  
  Cheers

• 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!
  
  P-X

• 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