I know AMDZone is little bit AMD Biased, but at least we have our first numbers for this CPU. In games, it's about 4-5% slower than A63 3000+. What is missing in AMDZone banchmarks are results of P4C 2.8GHz for comparison.
I wish to see more OverClocking tests (with nForce3 250Gb). The Athlon 64 2800+ might be the next Barton 2500+ for AMD OverClocker FANS!
I'll have to look at that second review when i have time. I am a little leary of trusting them so far, only because I see they used kingston ram in the Intel and Corsair in the AMD rigs. I know from my own testing that low latency corsair scores clearly ahead of my kingston hyper X when tested on various systems. It is a huge difference in an Abit IS7 because the corsair not only runs more aggresive timings, it allows other settings to be used also such as Turbo or in the IS7's case F1 gaming enhancement. Wonder why they didn't use corsair on the P4 like everyone else seems to do in reviews? Anyway I've yet to look at the performcance, that was just a first observation that maybe they address somewhere in the review? I like to see the same ram used at it's most aggressive stable timings on each system. That IMO gives a much better picture of a real comparison. i sure hope they tweaked both bioses and at least had the PAT enabled for the P4? :tongue:
You are right about those memory issue, but I don't think this would change the results a lot.
First, the A64 architecture scales well, so it's easy to predict CPU performance. Second, the A64 2800+ is the entry-level A64, there is no "top-performer" crown to win there.
I think AMD just nearly killed the Athlon XP line with this CPU. Because the new A64 2800+ equal the XP-3200+ in most benchmarks. So, the only reason to buy Athlon XP system now is Duron, low-priced XP (1600+/1800+), or the Athlon XP-M 2400+/2500+/2600+ for overclocker's out there. People who want mid-range system will be better server with the A64 platform now that there is a truly affordable A64 processor on the market.
It would be very useless for anyone to buy a Athlon XP based system rated over 2500+/2800+, because you mostly can't upgrade it and the price difference with A64 based system is not much.
well they will be keeping the xp line on, and i think its a good move. the xp line move to the low to mid range segment, eventually i suppose it will replace durons for the value segment. amd64 will become the mianstream segment for gaming and most general purpose systems not based on low price.
I haven't seen a reason to buy AXP's higher than the 2500+ anyway really. Maybe 2800+ now. But above that there were the P4C's and yes now A64 2800+ and 3000+. WHo would buy an XP3000+ or Xp3200+ now with A64 or P4C so cheap?
I am waiting to see a real review site publish A64 2800+ results. I like more info on the test systems and confirmation about mem timings, etc. it is really very easy to make one system look better than the competion if you try to do so. Tweak one, don't tweak another. What was up with using a R9700P on some systems and a R9800XT on the Athlon FX's. Pretty lame IMO. As far as A64's, It seems the 3000+ is a better deal to me as it kinda spanks the 2800+ in the limited reviews I have seen so far.
They won't be cheaper to produce than A64s, unless it's 256kb version. It's pointless to disable only x86-64 and market as AXP.
I don'think Athlon XP for Socket754 will use the same A64 core, I checked the AMD roadmap, and I'm not sure they will use the same core. Maybe they will only add a memory controller to the actuel XP core... I don't know? Do you have any details about that?