Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Explain that !!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 9, 2005 11:13:04 AM

Hello.
From the data I found from net and from tomshardware i learned that

Athlon 64 3500+ (512KB,Newcastle,S939) box

has a lower core speed than

Athlon 64 3400+ (512KB,Newcastle,S754) box

3400+ has core speed of 2,4Ghz and 3500+ has 2,2GHz.

How is that and then WHY is 3500+ more expencive and how should the 3500+ be faster ??

Thank u much, trying to learn, YOU can help ;) 

Arthur

More about : explain

February 9, 2005 12:54:28 PM

the socket 939 System has a dual-channel memory interface. AMD think that's worth a lot of performance. It does help, but not by much. In virtually all situations the 3400+ will be the faster chip.

Just The usual Debate over AMD's PR ratings :eek: 

If you're considering building, get a winchester 3200+ or 3000+ on a 939 system. It'll almost certainly OC to faster than either of those two you've listed. :evil: 

---
"Sex without love is an empty experience...
But as empty experiences go, it's one of the best" - Woody Allen
February 9, 2005 4:05:02 PM

A64 3500+ has Dual Channel Memory Controller, A64 3400+ doesn't. AMD wants us to think that dual channel memory controller can compensate the loss of ~9% clock speed and may even make the processor little faster. But in really 2.4 GHz 3400+ is faster than 2.2 GHz 3500+ in almost all apps.

A64 3400+ (2.4 GHz) is the best performing CPU you can buy at a reasonanble price. There's only four A64, which are faster than 3400+. Among these four, 3700+, 3800+, 4000+ are slightly faster than 3400+, but cost much more. A64 FX55, which is clocked at 2.6 GHz is somewhat faster than 3400+, but you can build a decent performing inexpensive PC with the price of A64 FX55.

------------
<font color=orange><b><A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox" target="_new">Rediscover the web</A></b></font color=orange><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Spitfire_x86 on 02/09/05 07:06 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Related resources
February 10, 2005 12:20:05 PM

Welcome to the wonderful world of AMD, where they've replaced that <i>deceptive</i> clock speed marketing tactic with something much more <i>honest</i>.

<pre>Antec Sonata 2x120mm
P4C 2.6
Asus P4P800Dlx
2x512MB CorsairXMS3200C2
Leadtek A6600GT TDH
RAID1 2xHitachi 40GB
BENQ 16X DVD+/-RW
Altec Lansing 251
NEC FE990 19"CRT</pre><p>
February 10, 2005 3:45:28 PM

They <i>did</i> look like they were adjusting the rating to something sensible with the first A64 releases... but then they screwed it up again... *sigh*

Ah.. who cares. If it helps to convince someone to buy a 3500+ over a 3.4Ghz Scotty System then it can't be a bad thing, IMO :eek: 

---
"Sex without love is an empty experience...
But as empty experiences go, it's one of the best" - Woody Allen
February 10, 2005 3:57:05 PM

The 3500 does also have a 1ghz hypertransport interface instead of 800mhz and in some benchmarks does best the 3400. If it's within a 100 points, it's close enough.

Dichromatic for your viewing plesure...
February 10, 2005 4:32:16 PM

1 GHz HyperTransport have virtually no impact on performance over 800 MHz HyperTransport

------------
<font color=orange><b><A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox" target="_new">Rediscover the web</A></b></font color=orange>
February 10, 2005 5:23:01 PM

Yet another victim of AMD PR... :smile:

Although I am interested in seeing benchmarks between S939 and S754 of same clock speed (not same XX00+ rating) to see what impact dual channel memory does have over single channel... anyone know of one?

--------------------------------------------
In just two days, tomorrow will be yesterday.
February 10, 2005 5:35:43 PM

Agreed. However, IMO it’s a virtual tie. By the CPU charts they’re tied in OGL and video benchmarks, the 3500 takes 3D Marks and memory synthetics, while the 3400 takes Unreal, Far Cry, Audio and CPU synthetics. 100 points is wish-wash in AMD speak.

Dichromatic for your viewing plesure...
February 10, 2005 5:46:04 PM

Better be a victim of AMD's Public Relations than of Intels Personal Roomheater.
February 10, 2005 5:47:58 PM

Quote:

Poster: Spitfire_x86
<i>There's only four A64, which are faster than 3400+.</i>

Well......... 6 actually,if you count the fx-51, fx-53 and the FX-55 chips among the faster 64's. The fx-51 rates nearly the same as the 3400+. There is the FX-53(<b>$762</b>) which is identical in clock speed and L2 cache as the 3700+(<b>$429</b>) and the 3800+(<b>$589</b>). When they post benchmark results, all three of these are in very tight sscore groupings. The 754 socket 3700+ actually beats the other 2 in some game benchies.

The common denominator here between the 3700+ and the 3400+(<b>$199</b>) is the socket. socket 754 chips just plain perform better than their 939 bretheren of the same price range. The 3200+(<b>$199</b>)939 socket costs the same and doesn't perform as well as the 3400+. The 3400+ is a great chip and you could do worse than having this one. The dual channel memory and PCI-E technology is not quite all it's cracked up to be just yet and the 754 still rules for the money.

<font color=orange>AMD 64 3700+@2.52ghz
ABIT K8V-Pro
CORSAIR XMS (1gb) PC-3200
Gigabyte GF 6800gt 256mb
Audigy 2 ZS
2_36.7gb Raptors/Raid 0
Tt 480 watt PSU</font color=orange>
February 10, 2005 6:52:15 PM

4000+ and FX53 is the same chip with different labels. FX51 is not faster than 3400+ in most cases, it's a 2.2 GHz chip.

------------
<font color=orange><b><A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox" target="_new">Rediscover the web</A></b></font color=orange>
February 11, 2005 12:28:59 AM

The real problem is that AMD doesn't do chipsets. They need dual channel for thier dual core chips.
February 13, 2005 5:21:22 PM

Quote:
<font color=red><i>Poster: endyen
Subject: Re: Explain that !!</i>
The real problem is that AMD doesn't do chipsets.</font color=red>


<A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/..." target="_new">They do, they are just not the most popular is all.</A>

<font color=orange>AMD 64 3700+@2.52ghz
ABIT K8V-Pro
CORSAIR XMS (1gb) PC-3200
Gigabyte GF 6800gt 256mb
Audigy 2 ZS
2_36.7gb Raptors/Raid 0
Tt 480 watt PSU</font color=orange>
February 13, 2005 5:21:23 PM

*deleted* for some reason it put a carbon copy of the post above this.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by lazerous on 02/13/05 02:22 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
!