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
EglsFly - Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - link
"AMD suggested that end-users check their list of approved power supplies for the 3400+ on the AMD web site."Can someone post the link to this power supply list? I did not find it on AMD's web site.
Wesley Fink - Monday, January 12, 2004 - link
Yeti Studios has been on the web at http://www.yetistudios.co.uk/ The link appears to be down right now. Zoo Digital released the original Gun Metal game with Yeti and their link to Gun Metal is working at http://www.zoodigitalpublishing.com/article.asp?id...brett1 - Monday, January 12, 2004 - link
Hey I'm glad to see that gunmetal (2?) is one of those games that actually relies on the VIDEO card VPU/GPU instead of the processor. Let's hope anandtech keeps it for future video card only tests.Speaking of gunmetal 2....why is there no website dedicated to the game itself? Yetistudios.com does not exist and there are little to no references to the actual game when doing a google search.
Jeff7181 - Monday, January 12, 2004 - link
#5 Please don't tell me you're saying the 9800 Pro 128 MB was a bottleneck and caused the P4 to be outperformedShinei - Monday, January 12, 2004 - link
Because the difference between the 9800 Pro and XT is marginal, and if they made the GPU less powerful the benchmarks would be GPU-bound instead of CPU-bound.KillaKilla - Monday, January 12, 2004 - link
Why do they have a 9800Pro 128? Wouldn't it make sense to make the CPU as much of a bottleneck as posible?CRAMITPAL - Monday, January 12, 2004 - link
Nice to see a quality review of all the latest and greatest chippies without bogus memory settings and benchmarks to skew the results. As most folks probably knew the 3400+ is the most practical choice for top of the line performance on a budget. FX51 which will be replaced shortly by FX53 will raise the bar for those looking for the absolute fastest X86 system available, period. The A64 3000+ is the sweet spot for most folks and the A64 3200+ ain't bad either for only $60. more.Intel's gonna have their work cut out for them Spinning how Prescott is worth purchasing when it's slower than EE and A64 by a long shot.
KristopherKubicki - Monday, January 12, 2004 - link
i play quake... on my cell phone!http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1945&p...
KristopherKubicki - Monday, January 12, 2004 - link
i still play quake... :(Icewind - Monday, January 12, 2004 - link
Wow, the differences are very minumual between all these CPU's, especially the FX vs the 3400+. Makes me wonder how the newer 128bit Channel version of the A64 will do this summer when I upgrade from this 2.8@3.3ghz P4c. The extra cost overhead for the EE as well as the FX can't be justified by any means from this comparison. I guess if you got the money though.....Well done Anandtech. Though i'd love to see a BF1942 benchmark in the future, The quake 3 bench has simply gotta go. Its no longer a rellavent and viable benchmark anymore.