Mmmmmmmmm... You know, it'll be interesting to see how much effect 64 bit computing is going to make. I have seen some 32bit/64bit Linux benchmarks doing webserver work and the like, and the performance increase was between 18% and 40%, depending on task. There are AMD64 versions of Windows Server 2k3 floating around on the net, as well as an AMD64 update for Windows XP. Also, the new Visual Studio (Whidbey) comes with all 64bit compiler options. Application conversions (in some cases) could prove to be very easy. Anyway, I think I'm just rambling. This is exciting!
I'm just here to be a wet blanket, but why are all their conclusions so different to THG's?
- Reference THG's :-
'<b>A close look at all the benchmark results reveals that the new Athlon64 just barely earns the performance rating 3400+</b>. Out of 32 benchmarks, only 13 were decided clearly in favor of AMD's new contender. If you were to evaluate each of the 41 individual disciplines, the result would be even poorer.'
- The Tech Report :-
The benchmarks put the Athlon 64 3400+ just behind the Athlon 64 FX-51 in terms of overall performance, and I suppose AMD's "3400+" model number is warranted, at least for gamers, for whatever that's worth. As has often been the case, which chip is fastest depends quite a bit on what you want to do. The Athlon 64 3400+ pummels the Pentium 4 3.2GHz in most of our gaming benchmarks, although the P4 stills does relatively well in our media encoding, speech recognition, and SSE2-laden 3D rendering tests. <b>Athlon 64 processors are strong across the board, though, with few real performance weaknesses.</b>
- AMDZone :-
In conclusion the Athlon 64 3400+ is one of the top couple performing processors around. It can stand toe to toe with the FX51 in most tests, and surpasses the 3.2GHz P4 in almost everything we tested. With the bump in the Athlon 64 performance one should expect an FX53 from AMD soon running at 2.4GHz. Until then AMD retains the CPU performance and price crown with Prescott in February being Intel's best hope this side of the P4EE.
- Xbit Labs
So, it is now possible to build the <b>fastest desktop PC</b> on a <b>Socket754 platform</b>. Thanks to the higher working frequency of the new Athlon 64 3400+, this CPU can <b>successfully compete not only with the top Pentium 4 processor models</b>, but <b>also with the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition.</b>
And those are just the ones that I checked. THG say that it only beat the <b>3.2C</b> in <b>40%</b> of the tests, while XBit says that it can keep up with the P4 EE. What is up with that?
Yooud figure that would happen but this chip is not worth getting unless you are a gamer. Otherwise you can get the Intel 3.2ghz chip cheaper. Just futhers my disgust with AMD64 chips.
Gamers will love this while appers will not even give this recognition. When's the hammer comming out?
Barton 2500+ @ 2200mhz (10x220 vcore @ 1.8)
Asus A7N8X Dlx 440 FSB
1gb Geil GD pc3500 Dual Channel (2-3-3-6)
Segata 80gb SATA 8.5ms seek
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro(420/720)
I just read the AnandTech article and there is differences in some benchmark results. I haven't checked every system specs of every reviewer's. But it seems that there is some difference in benchmarks.
For sure, 3D/Video/Audio = Intel and gaming = AMD.
NOTE : I liked the price/perf. comparisons in Anand Article. Athlon 64 3000+ and P4c 2.8GHz are the best bang for the bucks at the moment. P4EE is the worst followed closely by the Athlon FX-51.
i'm sticking with P4 , in fact i'm sticking with anything that says INTEL on it. i don't trust AMD chips, i heard they are unstable and cheap. no matter how well it performs, the A64 is still 2.2ghz, while the P4 is at 3.40ghz with hyperthreading, these guys better wake up and smell the coffee. i aint gonna spend $400 on 2ghz. i run a lot of video encoding apps and it needs high speed frequency to run well. All A64 is, is a complex calculator with 64-bit knobs that isn't even available yet.
Well A64 is faster in general office performance and games, and only slightly slower in encoding. But you clearly demonstrates why THG is so popular for some people. Besides why would you hate Athlon 64, its fast its relatively cool has Cool 'n Quiet technology and is 64bit ready. Why are there no CAD benchmarks? CAD is one of Athlons Strongpoints as far as i remember. Also note that the Athlon 64 looses in nearly every synthetic benchmark.
Another Question why did you run the the memory at 2-2-2-5 (DDR 433) on the pentium system and 2-4-4-8 (DDR 400) on the Athlon 64 3400+ system?
P4EE is the worst followed closely by the Athlon FX-51.
You're truly right.
The performance difference between the FX-51 and 3400+ is very negligible. And there are even some tests that shows that Athlon 64 3400+ can perform better than that of the fx-51 and p4ee.
Upgrading to 3400+ is quite reasonable at this stage because the next processor will be the 3700+ (i think) which might come in Q2 and price drops will still be 3 or more months away. But if you have processors such as a P4 2.4Ghz or AMD Athlon XP 2400+ you don't need to upgrade.
THGC:
"At the end of the day, it still lags slightly behind the Pentium 4, a deficit that the 64-bit architecture could compensate for in the medium term"
This just shows us of what many Intel's spokepersons always say about 64-bit computing and that THGC is not a very good Information site anymore for "CPUS ONLY".
in fact i'm sticking with anything that says INTEL on it. i don't trust AMD chips, i heard they are unstable and cheap
Do you think any rewiewer would recommend AMD chip if they were that unstable or badly designed? I'm tired of hearing this, all the people that I know who have AMD or Intel CPU have no stability issue if they bought GOOD motherboard/memory.
And cheap is not a problem, it's the major selling point for AMD they offer very good price/performance in lew and mid rnage market. And in high-end market price/perf. is abotu the same as Intel.
You are right to stick to Intel if you do a lot of Video Encoding. Intel are better in this king of applications.
Quote :
no matter how well it performs, the A64 is still 2.2ghz, while the P4 is at 3.40ghz
You are so wrong on the MHz thing! Check the Celeron processors they are all clocked higher than AMD chips and they can't even beat to cheapest AMD chip in many apps.
And if you REALLY are a big fan of Digital Video you are probably aware that PowerMac G5 are clocked at 2.0Ghz and they do Video Editing/Encoding at amazing speed!
MHz is a question of design not a question of performance. There is a lot of stuff that affect performance in a CPU, not only MHz.
Quote :
All A64 is, is a complex calculator with 64-bit knobs that isn't even available yet.
You are right, but when AMD64 enabled windows will come out, Athlon 64 owner will be able to install it and anjoy it. Not P4 or P4EE owner.
Instead of only BASHING AMD, come with real arguments.
why is it all the time I bring up Mhz argument, people talk about the celeron? the P4 is no Celeron. anyways, the P4 owns all video and audio encoding apps, because of SSE2, MHZ, and Hyperthreading. And still runs Quake III faster than A64 too! a 3 year old 32-bit processor beating AMD's newest finest 64-bit processor. i'm not impressed with the A64 by how much it beat the P4 at all.
