Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A64 3400+ revisited by AnandTech

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 13, 2004 11:48:28 AM

I think the conclusion of the article is worth the reading. It's a different and interesting point of view.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1946&p=7" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1946&p=7&lt;/A>

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
January 13, 2004 12:46:48 PM

I like this part:
"...as we will explore in a future article, the more modest overclocks of the current Athlon64 family, combined with "top-locking" only (lower multipliers can be selected) can still yield some impressive performance increases for those who will overclock the Athlon64. And with 1000 Hyper Transport bus just around the corner"

This could be cool, take the A64 3000+ 512kb cache to 250fsb with 8x mulitplier and get performance increases without overclocking :)  (Many BH-5 modules can do this)
January 13, 2004 1:07:28 PM

It's aninteresting point, but, I'm not sure how well tha A64 will tolerate HyperTransport overclocking. And the actual AMD64 chipset are not mature. So we can't necessarly expect lots of overclocking...

But, what's interesting is that AnandTech thinks the 3400+ deserve to be the "3.4GHz" AMD CPU and THG conclude that 3400+ is over rating.

I think AMD was right to call it 3400+, because these processors (Athlon 64 3XXX+) are targeting mainstream and home user. And most benchmarks that target these users clearly show that the Athlon 64 architecture can gives very good performance in 3D gaming and usual applications.

Of course, in "specialized" apps. like Video Encoding and 3D rendering this chip is not necessarly the best, but for the price they are good performer too.

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
January 13, 2004 5:35:41 PM

Intel lovers dont like this review.
Haw comes this review is totally different then Tom`s review ?
Did Tom got any money ?
Is Tom an Idiot who doesnt know anything about Ram timings ?
I would say the first option, everything points at it.
Good Job Tom aka Jerry Springer
January 13, 2004 6:05:33 PM

I don't 100% agree with you... I think AnandTech gave a better view of the Athlon 64 CPUs in their market. They are meant to be used in everyday PC. Tom's focused more on pure performance in more specific software/task.

I think both reviews gave the A64 is chance. But in today's world where every component and driver can make a difference it's hard to get a clear winner. Like in many sports that are judge on performance, not all the judges agree on the winner.

We, as reader, must gather as much information as possible to buy the BEST stuff for our need. And after reading a lot of A64/P4EE reviews my choice would be to buy an A64 3000+ because I don't do much of Video Editing and 3D Rendering... I play game, surf the web, etc...

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
January 14, 2004 12:14:53 AM

Tom focused on the one thing that the P4 does really well and exploited it to mislead consumers into thinking the A64 didn't perform better than the 3.2ghz P4.

Now, if all you do is encoding then woohoo you can save a few seconds if you choose to buy a processor that's twice the price (and I'm making an assumption that the vague 3.2 in their results meant EE because they have it listed in their test setup and their weren't two 3.2's in their benchmark results). Not to mention, how many that claim this to be important use it on a regular basis (as in about half of their time on the computer)? What would you need it for? Would you let it run over-night if you didn't want to wait? These should all be taken into account (unless I've gone psycho and missed a new trend in home-computing). Sounds like a wonderful deal, doesn't it?

Yes, it isn't bad at anything else really (I'm not even going into the testing methodology in this post), the fact that the Athlon can perform just about as good and happens to cost less than half the price should be more than enough incentive already to not buy the P4 though.

If you are talking about pure performance, then I'd really suggest looking at other websites. Ace's does some cool reiviews of professional-level tools on some of these systems (or server reviews if you want) that can show the true power of the cores these cpu's come from.
January 14, 2004 12:48:05 AM

i thought the review redux was bogus. In the first review, Anandtech had the P4 3.2EE winning, in Aquamark3, Quake3, and Halo.

In the second review, the A64 FX-51 beat the P4 3.2ee in those <b>same</b> tests. they switched mobos on the A64fx. gave it a KT800 instead of nforce3. Then anandtech went on to say the A64 3400+ is worth the rating, which inconsequently is totally opposite on what Tomshardware has said. Anandtech is BS.

<b><font color=red>Aquamark3 score: 27,654</b></font color=red> :smile:
<b><font color=blue>Intel P4 2.4ghz ATI Radeon 9500 pro</b></font color=blue>
January 14, 2004 7:20:57 AM

Not saying anyone is being payed but how do you know that Anandtech didn't get any cash from AMD?

Can't point out the possibilites of one reviewer being payed off without accepting the fact that the very same thing may happen on the other side of the fence.

I use AMD chips, but I also know that you take any review found online with a grain of salt, as anything online will be biased to some degree.

Crap, all the good ones are already taken.
January 14, 2004 8:07:56 AM

If you think there getting payed ask PC Mag. one thing I learn from all the Url it depends on how the system is setup. Like the last test on Amd 3400 they use differnt Ram on Tomshardware. Apple dose the same thing they disable things in the intel or amd to make them look good. Intel dose it And Amd.

One point I need to tell you all Read more then one review. And More reviews amd faster. And PC mag what they do is use differnt software so Intel and amd can t tweak there cpus. So the review is Ture So read a magazine.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by AtolSammeek on 01/14/04 05:37 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 14, 2004 10:33:57 AM

Anand got any money from AMD ?
Yeah richt, (you guys would love that, isnt it ?)
All over the web and pc-magazines the AMD is the fastest, and then you are telling Anand got money as like Tom ?
Ask anyone who knows something about computers, Anand is a topsite, no fanboi site like Tom.
Tom only cares about how many visitors, and this dooing alla Jerry springer style.
January 14, 2004 3:27:50 PM

i think a guy at Overclockers.com explain the problem with the article at THG very nicely:

"One of the biggest advantages of the A64 is the onboard memory controller that lowers memory latencys really low. While the cas setting is the most important one, it's suprising how much the rest of the settings affect the results too.

While I agree that inaccurate is the wrong term, I would prefere to say extremly misleading. Tom did supply all the details about the test rig, I just think that most people who read his site are not computer literate enough to understand the results.

Somebody e-mailed the auther of the article and asked why they used so relaxed timings on the A64 article, and the awnser was that they did'nt get it to work with better timings. Most people think this is nonsence, but I believe it's true. I also believe the author should not write anymore articles, as he is obviously not very good with computers...

The ram they used on the A64 was not on the compatibility list on Msi's homepage. The bios they used was not the newest one, which could mean it has problems with diferant ram chips ect. I can't think of any other reason to even use the Msi motherboard apart from the fact that lately Tom has been favoring MSi in the save fashion as they have been favoring Intel...

The biggest problem in his reviews however is, the suite of programs that he chooses for benchmarking. Half of the programs are encoding or spec. Funny enough, the intel only one one benchmark that was not encoding... And this is against a crippled A64. I do understand that there is a need for people to benchmark programs that are actually used for work. The need could even be bigger then having every new game benchmarked. Unfortunatly it seems that Tom has picked the "workstation programs" very precisely, and he believes everyone is just encoding.

I was delighted to notice that he included Nuendo in his testsuite as I make music with Cubase sx, made by the same company and based on the same engine. The first time I read a review I was shocked to see P4's winning by a big margine, as even on Steinbergs (the developer) homepage the Xp's are neck to neck with the p4's. After looking closer I noticed that the only thing they tested was rendering the final song to a .wav file.
Anyone using the software should understand how stupid this is. The only reason for needing a powerfull processor in the program is to be able to run a large amount of effects and software synthesizers with low latency while working on the song. Nobody really cares if the final rendering takes 4 or 6 minutes...
Despite this people where allready starting to talk at music making sites about how the P4 is better for Nuendo and Cubase!

A site as big as Tom's would be expected to have atleast a bit of professionality. Unfortunatly it's been going downhill for a while, and the hill just seems to be getting steeper and steeper. I don't really see any reason to read their reviews anymore, and the last 5-6 reviews have allways either had skewed results, or just somehow strangely come to a completly diferant conclusion then all of the other sites around."

source:
http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?s=2c3c20036c2491...
January 14, 2004 3:49:34 PM

The only thing Tom cares is page hits !
Dooing this Jerry springer way, i mean, haw low can you go ?

You can fool 1 person one time, but you cant fool all the people all the time !
The forum is a mes, pretty normal if you write such a reviews.
January 14, 2004 3:54:48 PM

Quote:
Nobody really cares if the final rendering takes 4 or 6 minutes...


If you're not a hobbyist and actually do this for a living, you are damn well going to care how long the final rendering takes... if it's too slow, productivity suffers.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
January 14, 2004 4:34:10 PM

Again why would any of us care what some e-penis user has to say. The dudes just like everyone else right now takeing advantage of the slack THG has shown in their reviews.

Well Anandtech takes the cake on that with their ovious e-penis hit idea of redoing the 3400+ review and change'n all their scores to appease the AMD mongrols that no doubt e-mailed their poor servers to death.

-taitertot

If this post has attitude, seems to be overly aggressive, rude, distasteful to 99% of the users here, and shows a zealous defense of Intel... It’s probably Spud.
January 14, 2004 5:03:12 PM

Nice post Inkspot,

I think the conclusion sums up the way most people here feel or view the situation.

"A site as big as Tom's would be expected to have atleast a bit of professionality. Unfortunatly it's been going downhill for a while, and the hill just seems to be getting steeper and steeper. I don't really see any reason to read their reviews anymore, and the last 5-6 reviews have allways either had skewed results, or just somehow strangely come to a completly diferant conclusion then all of the other sites around."


If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
January 14, 2004 9:13:14 PM

First off, I'd definitely say that Anandtech is a heck of a lot less biased than this site is, but that's beyond the point.

The nForce3 does not perform as well because it's HT links are castrated (600mhz versus a full 800mhz link), which is why it performed lower, and, subsequently, the Via KT800 performs better than it, especially in games where the link really matters. That's why the results are better and why the A64 3400+ does deserve the rating. Not to mention, it's not even supposed to be benched against the EE for it's rating, as they are far from consumer products. If you said Prescott, then sure I might as well agree, but then again it would most likely do just as well as a Prescott anyway (dare I speculate on performance...)

Lastly, you can't use the credibility of Tom's to show how Anandtech is BS. You are true that one has to be wrong, or that they are going from a different perspective, but Tom's is not the god of sites to which any site is 'benchmarked' (yes that's a horrible term). In fact, dare I say it, I'd call Tom's BS from your very same statement.

P.S. I really don't want to get into the RAM/MB debate, as, frankly, it'd waste more of my time then it's worth. But if I misseed something, you might as well bring it up. I'm still open to other opinions.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by mac404 on 01/14/04 05:13 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 15, 2004 12:29:58 PM

Why did Tom not use the best performing A64 board and best performing P4 board and use the same RAM (at its best settings) and same general set up?

AMD Is An Anagram Of MAD, Intel Is An Anagram Of INLET, Cyrix...Ah Who Cares?
January 15, 2004 1:40:57 PM

Quote:
First off, I'd definitely say that Anandtech is a heck of a lot less biased than this site is, but that's beyond the point.

The nForce3 does not perform as well because it's HT links are castrated (600mhz versus a full 800mhz link), which is why it performed lower, and, subsequently, the Via KT800 performs better than it, especially in games where the link really matters. That's why the results are better and why the A64 3400+ does deserve the rating. Not to mention, it's not even supposed to be benched against the EE for it's rating, as they are far from consumer products. If you said Prescott, then sure I might as well agree, but then again it would most likely do just as well as a Prescott anyway (dare I speculate on performance...)

Lastly, you can't use the credibility of Tom's to show how Anandtech is BS. You are true that one has to be wrong, or that they are going from a different perspective, but Tom's is not the god of sites to which any site is 'benchmarked' (yes that's a horrible term). In fact, dare I say it, I'd call Tom's BS from your very same statement.

Good point,
let's just say, Anandtech is a bit AMD biased, because historically, i've seen a lot of AMD ads there, and proabably freebies. And he seems to be supporting AMD with Links to AMD forum. If Toms is intel then Anand is AMD. Tom vs Anand, Intel vs AMD! :lol: 

-------
<b><font color=red>Aquamark3 score: 28,208</b></font color=red>
<font color=blue><b>Intel P4 2.4ghz 533fsb - 512mbDDR - ATI Radeon 9500 pro</b></font color=blue>
January 15, 2004 2:57:38 PM

Everyone is a little bit biased. For one simple reason, each CPU on the market are good at something (except Celeron's).

So, a good review would conclude that a new CPU is great for this or that but not the best for other stuff. And InkSpot made a good point, it's because a CPU is good at one operation (for example, audio compression) that is not good or the best at audio processing (real-time effects, etc...). So it's hard for us to judge a CPU on single task or specific game.

What if CPU X achieve 100FPS in this scene and 90FPS in another, while CPU Z achieve 95FPS in both scene. Which CPU is the best X or Y???

What is best in a car, acceleration or top speed? It depends on the needs... But, anyway there will always be speed limit (FSB bottleneck, GPU not good enough, HDD).

So the question is not who is biased? But who can clearly place a CPU at the right place in the actual market?

I think both AMD and Intel CPUs have their strenght and weakness.

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
January 15, 2004 10:22:32 PM

TheRod pretty much hit it in the post before this one, but I'll respond to.

I agree Anand is slightly AMD biased, as are some other sites, but they usually only lean to AMD, unlike Tom that has a definite slant towards Intel (I've seen some lovely P-M ads in his Athlon reviews, lol).

All sites are slightly biased, and no CPU will ever be the best at everything because of the varying architectures from P4 to A64. It's impossible to say that one is better at everything. That was what Tom tried to imply slyly. I especially liked the well, there might be hope for AMD with that 64-bit stuff, which most know won't really be of much use for most for awhile. It sounded horribly slanted towards Intel. That's all I'm trying to say.

Oh, and did anyone even read the Athlon memory 'review'? They didn't use highest-quality memory (no Enhanced Latency versions of anything, they still are trying to use the TakeMS memory with latencies it doesn't support....) almost to try and save face for their review. Aah well, he'll never really change I guess.
January 16, 2004 7:41:03 AM

"What if CPU X achieve 100FPS in this scene and 90FPS in another, while CPU Z achieve 95FPS in both scene. Which CPU is the best X or Y???

What is best in a car, acceleration or top speed? It depends on the needs... But, anyway there will always be speed limit (FSB bottleneck, GPU not good enough, HDD)."

Does that mean I can get a traffic ticket for OC'íng my rig?

:)  Cheers



BigMac

<A HREF="http://www.p3int.com/product_center_NWO_The_Story.asp" target="_new">New World Order</A>
January 16, 2004 7:59:45 AM

Re: I agree Anand is slightly AMD biased

Anandtech came to the same conclusion as the rest of the world (internet harware review). Only this site reaches a different conclusion.

So why did you say anandtech was a little biased? I hope it's not because of what Kanavit said because that guy is beyond stupid.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart. <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by darko21 on 01/16/04 05:10 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 17, 2004 1:19:29 AM

Nah, just the fact that most sites like to root for the underdog. I wouldn't listen to him, don't worry.
!