Performance Test: Configuration
To provide you a clear picture of how the new Athlon64 3400+ performs and where it fits in the performance hierarchy, we compared the 3400+ to other processors using our standard Motherboard tests. The same Socket 754 motherboard, the widely available and excellent performing MSI K8T Neo, was used to benchmark the Athlon64 3000+, the Athlon64 3200+, and the new 3400+. All benchmarks with the 3000+, 3200+, and 3400+ were rerun to provide the greatest consistency in test results. The Asus P4C800-E was used to test the Socket 478 Pentium 4 3.2GHz EE, the standard Pentium 4 3.2GHz, and the Pentium 4 3.0GHz CPUs. Finally, the Asus SK8V was used for benchmarking the Socket 940 Athlon64 FX51.| Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s): | AMD Athlon64 3400+ AMD Athlon64 3200+ AMD Athlon64 3000+ Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz EE (2Mb cache) Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz (512Mb cache) Intel Pentium 4 3.0GHz AMD Athlon64 FX51 |
| RAM: | 2 x 512Mb OCZ 3500 Platinum Ltd at 2-2-2-6 2 x 512Mb Mushkin ECC Registered High Performance at 2-2-3-6 |
| 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): | ATI Radeon 9800 PRO 128MB (AGP 8X) |
| Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 3.10 |
| Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP1 |
| Motherboards: | MSI K8T Neo (VIA K8T800 - 754) Asus P4C800-E (Intel 875P - 478) Asus SK8V (VIA K8T800 - 940) |
All performance tests were run with the ATI 9800 PRO 128MB video card with AGP Aperture set to 128MB with Fast Write enabled. Resolution in all benchmarks is 1024x768x32, unless otherwise noted.
Power Requirements
None of the reviews that we have seen have really said much about the power requirements of the 3400+. Our standard test setup uses a 350-watt PowMax power supply because it is typical of a good quality power supply from a typical components or "white-box" dealer. The 3400+ would not run with complete stability on this 350-watt PS. We ended up moving to a 430-watt Antec True Power, which was one of the top performers in our Power Supply roundup, to get stable performance with the 3400+. The 3400+, in our experience, requires a good PS rated at least an honest 400 watts.We asked AMD about our problems with power supplies using the 3400+. AMD suggested that end-users check their list of approved power supplies for the 3400+ on the AMD web site. You can also refer to Anandtech's Power Supply roundup test results in the articles, 2003 Power Supply Roundup Part II: Better Faster Cheaper and 4-Way Power Supply Shootout: Vantec, Enermax, ThermalTake, Antec. The future 3700+ and other .13 processors from both AMD and Intel will likely be even more demanding of a quality power supply. We are not likely to see power requirements drop again until the introduction of .09 process CPUs later this year.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
20 Comments
View All Comments
atlr - Thursday, January 22, 2004 - link
Anyone seen any performance comparisons of 32-bit versus 64-bit versions of software and o/s on the A64?milehigh - Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - link
I'd like to 2nd #13's reply to include some older CPU's in these reviews. I've got a Barton 2500+ and seeing how it stacks up can help in not only help in upgrade decisions but I think it can help illustrate just how much faster these new CPU's are...KingofFah - Thursday, January 15, 2004 - link
I would be careful with most 350's, but, like #15 said, most FSP's (no matter which brand is relabeled on it) are marked much lower than what they are capable of doing. THG did a psu round up a while back showing that the FSP-300 was really capable of being completely stable at 390W consumption and the 350 (of which I am a owner) was capable being completely stable at 454W. I have not seen a review of the FSP-400 yet, but I am sure it follows the same trend as its predecessors. Most PSU's run very little over (or even under if it is a cheap one) their specified values, but Sparkle goes well over them.TrogdorJW - Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - link
As for dropping Quake 3, how about checking out this, first:http://speedycpu.dyndns.org/opt/
I've read (from X-bit Labs) that the optimized DLLs boost Athlon XP/64 performance by 13 to 18 percent. Wow!
See:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlo...
One last word of caution, though, is that if the DLLs in question are binary compiled as opposed to interpreted code, then id software's Jon Carmack says they are more open for cheats. In addition, there is the fact that a binary compiled DLL is already said to boost performance by up to 20%. Not sure about all this, but here's a last link if you want:
http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/336
TrogdorJW - Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - link
#15, as the review states, they could not get system stability with a 350W quality power supply and the 3400+. Maybe you have a better PS than their 350W, but I wouldn't count on that.There are those that claim the Prescott will be a flame-thrower. Maybe. What we know for sure, though, is that the 3400+ has raised the bar in power requirements. Looks like 450W PS will become the norm in the next year....
sprockkets - Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - link
You can't go wrong with a 350 watt FSP-350PN power supply, from either Sparkle or Forton Power Source, with it's 12cm fan. Works fine for my system I built with a 3200+ and gf4 4600, soon to be 9800 ATI card.rms - Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - link
Congrats on the great article. Please STOP USING QUAKE3-BASED GAMES AS A CPU BENCHMARK. It doesn't recognize athlons as SSE-enabled, and is worthless for cross-platform comparisons.rms
clv101 - Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - link
What I'd really like to see in reviews like this are some slower systems - I'm fed up with seeing graphs showing 6 cpu with only a few % performance difference.I'd like the see the A64 3400+ and P4 3.2 benchmarked against a XP 2500+, a 2.4GHz P4 and my old 1.33GHz TBird. That would be useful to see.
Seeing that the A64 3400+ is a little bit faster than a A64 3200+ is no good to anyone!
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - link
PrinceGaz -You are correct, but I had to return the initial 655TX and just received the shipping version of the P4S800D-E the day we left for CES. So I did not have the board available for the full roundup.
I did run the P4EE through the 655TX to check benchmarks and it is faster by a small amount in almost every benchmark. However, it does not change any of the positioning or conclusions.
#10 - I could not find the list either, since it looks like AMD has stopped the PS list for the Athlon64 and replaced it with "Athlon64 Power Supply recommendations" which are just general guidelines. The best source of info on compatible PS then, will likely be Power Supply reviews by AnandTech and others.
PrinceGaz - Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - link
Its nice to have a clear comparison of how the A64 and A64FX compare with the top P4's including the P4EE.One question though, shouldn't an article which "tests the top CPU's from Intel and AMD on the top-performing motherboards that we have tested for each platform" use an SiS 655TX rather than Intel 875P mobo for the Intel chips when your own review last month found the 655TX to be faster than the 875P in every single test?