Athlon 64 3200+ benchmarks!

Crikey! Intel are in for a real fight with AMD. Check out these new Athlon64 3200+ benchmarks on tbreak...

http://www.tbreak.com/forums/showt [...] adid=19317

An Intel Killer! ;-)

Heheh, the people seemed so gullible it's not even funny.

2.15GHZ you say? 50MHZ shy of the real target.

Keep dreamin'!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>

lets see...

THG=fanboys=not able to believe something they dont want to, heres a compare for 2k1 with the A64: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6972333, believe it intel fanboys, intel is in trouble

and heres a link to the thread at FM: http://discuss.futuremark.com/foru [...] =0&fpart=1

legoman stfu


they were only being wary. lately theres been alot of spam here, and whos going to believe right off the bat someoene whos barely even posted here, yourself included

-------

<A HREF="http://www.teenirc.net/chat/tomshardware.html" target="_new"> come to THGC chat~ NOW. dont make me get up ffs @#@$</A>

LOL and everyone knows how much you can cheat at 3dmark.

<b><i>Consumers have spoken. They are tired of
paying the high cost of CDs & DVDs and prefer
more flexible forms of on-demand media
delivery."</i>
Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>

Your post does not even add up. The guy says he was using a MSI KT800. In 3d mark it shows that it was using a ms-6207 which I can not fine on ms web site.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue>

Does the latest version or any version of CPU-Z have the logo for Athlon 64 built in?

-----------------------------------
The bigger I am, the harder they fall.

yes, as what youve just seen.

<font color=green>If your nose <b>RUNS</b>, and feet <b>SMELLS</b>.
Then you must be born <b>UP-SIDE DOWN</b>.</font color=green>

Dont forget that when you overclock these A64 chips, they respond a lot better than a normal athlon xp. The onboard memory controller means that just a minor increase in the FSB can give noticeable increase in performance. That first score was an overclocked A64, but he also did a stock cpu/gpu bench and got 20,000. That in itself is impressive.

For me, thats not too hard to accept. What weve seen so far has mainly been Opteron benches on Opteron boards. A few months down the line and one of the first guys to put a 3200 A64 through its paces reveals its not a bad performer at all. And when overclocked, it yields excellent results.

I hang around that forum quite a bit and I think I'll be there a lot more from now on!

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6936722" target="_new"> My rig </A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1150155" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)

I am the administrator on the tbreak forums (Hybrid). I can confirm that the benchmarks are 110% real. The CPU has now been handed back to our main tester for normal benchmarks. The overclocking gang on the forums should be getting it back again later today for even more overclocking madness. The haven't even put the prometia cooling system on yet, as the CPU only reaches 39 degrees max on air cooling.

Expect more benchmarks later.

There is no need to doubt the results, they are real.

but what graphics processor does it use?

<font color=green>If your nose <b>RUNS</b>, and feet <b>SMELLS</b>.
Then you must be born <b>UP-SIDE DOWN</b>.</font color=green>

>"Besides, I though the first A64 was gonna be a 3400+? "

All rumours seem to point to a 2 GHZ 3200+ and a 2.2 GHz 3400+ release in a few weeks, and then off course the 2.2 GHz Athlon FX (=Opteron) chip, without PR rating.

>"How could they release a chip with the same rating as an >existing one, but which is faster? "

'64' will make the difference. also, don't expect all applicatons to run faster on a athlon 64 3200+ than a Barton 3200+. It has a lower clock, and this will impact some apps.

>"That would not be good for the ol' PR (if they can do any >worse already).."

Yeah, whats gonna be worse, is the the super expensive Athlon FX with its dual channel MC, may well be outperformed by the cheaper Athlon64 in quite a few tests. The reason ? Unbuffered memory. To give just one example, I will eat my hat if the FX 2.2 GHz outperforms the A64 2.2 GHz in Quake3. you may quote me to this in a few weeks.

So what exactly is this chip, as it's not an A643200+?

Its an overclocked 3200+ 2 GHz Athlon 64

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

Its a fake so who cares... Fagboy fanboys at it again...

-Jeremy



<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5341387" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm=1400777" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A>

MSI has their signature in their mother boards. All the boards I have from MSI have shown up on 3dmark and pcmark. Even my asus's broads. This just seems kinda fishy to me, seeing the other benchmarks on the fx, this one seem to be a bit high.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue>

Thanks for the info on the cpu. I am liking this a64 more and more I see. To bad he did not do a 3dmark03 test. I would rather see newer benchmarks instead of older test. Also why did he not do one on pcmark or sandra? I would of like to see the result for those test too.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue>

I would never believe anyone who claimed 24K.
It's FAR from attainable in today's systems. Unless he lowered all possibly resolution settings, and lowered his card's Quality settings to Performance.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>

Even if it existed, it only proves 3dMark 2001 as NOT TRUSTABLE!

3dM 2001 is notorious for being so CPU sensitive while its actual goal is to determine overall GRAPHICS SUBSYSTEM performance.

Now, the highest score on a normal high-end setup, is 17K. The 3200+ (Barton) achieves about 16000. Now how can a CPU 2GHZ less, but with a mem controller, actually do 24000 is truly asking for proof from other sites. I am not saying it's a lie, but I am far from ever convinced. It's like if I told you I got a sample of the new Radeon 10000 and it does 10 000 points in 3dMark 03. Hardly possibly believable yet.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>

Ok, lots of misinformation here.

3DMark 2001 is CPU sensitive because it is not merely a GPU benchmark but one as a direct synthetic in measuring gaming performance. This is where 3DMark 03 fails as it is entirely GPU bound.

Quads score is legit. I suggest you check out the original thread which answers many questions here. Some facts for you:

1. The MSI MS-6702 is a real board but unreleased as of yet.
2. Its a Socket 754 Athlon 3200+ operating @ 10x200.
3. The Radeon 9800Pro is cooled via phase-change and is operating in the vicinity of 530 / 400 in terms of clockspeed, far higher than default (380 / 340).

It scored 20,700 default, roughly 900 points above a Pentium 4 3.2's capability.

Eden, I suggest you check the ORB (Futuremarks Online Result Browser) before you claim 24,000 is impossible, as 26,000 has been achieved already. A Barton 3200+ will score 18,300 default with a 9800Pro, FYI.

In regards to issues of 'trust':

You will have to understand that t-break.com is more trusted than Toms, as are most independents. THG is known as an Intel-biased site for reasons valid and invalid. Noone forgot about the Photochopped P4 '3.6' and thats not going to change. Only [H]ardOCP has a worse reputation than THG.

Hallowed, you said what I wanted to but couldn't put into words elequently. *applause*

<A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030811/dual_xeon-14.html" target="_new">http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030811/dual_xeon-14.html</A>

I don't think you were right in saying default 18 300.

I really hope this isn't coming from opposing site adversity. For a good while, THG has been labelled AMD biased, you're one of the first I hear who says otherwise.

The goal is to measure GPU performance and it does that right. We can argue this here but the Graphics Forum is more adequate, as you will get a more general opinion. IMO and to many, it's best if it WAS GPU bound.


All right, for the sake of being open-minded, I'll wait. The 2.2GHZ Athlon 64 FX better score a straight 24000, no more no less. If it doesn't, then I see you'll be much less credible to most here. If it DOES score this unbelievably high score due to a higher core IPC (take a 2.2GHZ AXP vs a ~20% higher IPC 2.2GHZ A64), I'll concede and even act a forum buffoon being all nuts over this performance. But that doesn't dictate real life performance. 3dMark 01 is all too low on credibility. Look at how the Ti4600 scores so close to a 9700PRO when the 9700PRO spanks it in real games.

Bah, no harm done, I'll wait!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>