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
Viditor - Saturday, June 5, 2004 - link
#37 - "Doesn't seem to me to make any sense spending 5 Grand on a 64 bit system until the OS is available?"5 GRAND?!?!?!
What are you PUTTING in there?
Even the most expensive (FX53) chip is ~$840, and the ASUS mobo is ~$190...
tmhartsr - Friday, June 4, 2004 - link
Hey guys - where is the 64 bit OS? Doesn't seem to me to make any sense spending 5 Grand on a 64 bit system until the OS is available? Also really need PCI Express MOBO. But especially - how about an update on the OS. Perfect opportunity for an Apple OS-64 written especially for the AMD 64?!#*Falco. - Thursday, June 3, 2004 - link
will the S754/940 heat sink and fans work with 939 ??XRaider - Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - link
Thanks Viditor, I appreciate it! :) I will have to keep my eyes open on this heat stuff and see what other people will state about this.TrogdorJW - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
Pretty interesting, but I'm not super surprised by the results. I would imagine that the 3700+ CPU would be about the same distance from the 3800+ as the 3400+ is from the 3500+. Given the prices, I really don't see much reason for celebrating the release (finally!) of socket 939.I did some speculation on some other forums about some related issues AMD and Intel seem to be encountering, for any who want to read a longer post:
http://forums.firingsquad.com/firingsquad/board/me...
Viditor - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
XRaider - To be clear, AMD and Intel actually report 2 different numbers when they talk about heat dissapation.AMD reports the MAXIMUM TDP FOR THE WHOLE CPU LINE (both now and in the future...) This means that 104watts is the max thermal design power (the absolute worst it could get) for all 939 cpus at 13nm.
Intel reports ONLY THE "TYPICAL" TDP FOR THE SPECIFIED CHIP. This means that Intel runs a series of software (they won't release WHICH software they use) and measure the power at that time. They don't report the actual maximum theoretical thermal levels. Intel have a different TDP listed for each processor, and often a different TDP for different stepping of processors.
So, to answer your question (sorry about the length), while the 939 line of parts have an absolute theoretical max of 104 watts, you will probably see it somewhere in the 80's...
mikeymasta - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
These benchmarks look great, but I REALLY would appreciate it if we could see some OpenSSL benchmarks?Because I would love to get my boss to get an AMD based server but hes one of those know all "Intel' is always better type people
In the server enviroment just an openssl benchmark could turn things around.
Just install linux or FreeBSD, you could even use a live linux CD so you dont have to install and then just type "openssl speed"
most linux dists would have openssl in
/usr/bin/openssl
/usr/bin/openssl speed > speed_log 2>&1
to log it to a file
We are thinking about getting the Sun based AMD
http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/v20z/ but it costs a lot!
If you could do that for all new CPU benchmarks I would be very happy.
Pumpkinierre - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
#23 The french site said the spec is 104W and found the heatsink temp (applied above) to be 50C under load and 60C@1.8V overclocking (216MHz) on a 3800+ using a MSI K8Nneo2 (nf3-250) and Asus A8V (K8T800pro). Overall they stated that the cpu ran hot compared to S754 a64s:http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/cpu/s939/s939-7...
Both mobos BIOSs defaulted to DDR333 with 4 double sided DIMMS.
Xbit say that 104W is the overall spec for S939 but present 130nm cpus stay at 89W TDP (Prescott anyone?). However the temps (cpu diode-Asus A8V)are mildly frightening: 41-64 (idle-load) for the 3800+ but the 3500+ is the coolest 38-58. They even get 40-60C with the 3400+ (but dont quote ambient) which still makes me wonder about the coolness of these cpus. They got the 3500+ to 232MHz FSB and the 3800+ to 215 but didnt quote the voltage. They quoted the same AMD info for the DIMMS:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlo...
All in all it looks like the heat issues arent confined to Intel biut Cool and Quiet might help out.
Pollock - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
"In the final analysis, we aren't talking about the be all end all of platforms and performance, but, certainly, anyone who wants an Athlon 64 system should look no further than socket 939 for its flexibility, overclockability, and performance."I don't remember reading much about overclockability anywhere? Yeah, maybe a statement about the higher HT speed possibly helping, but I want to know more than that!
SHO235V8 - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link
Derek, what about the compatability issues and heat issues? Any news on these fronts and when will these parts be available? I have been waiting for the 939 for some time and my desktop gets slower everyday! Thanks ;)