AMD Athlon 64 4000+ & FX-55: A Thorough Investigation
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 19, 2004 1:04 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Re-evaluating the Benefits of Socket-939
Given that pretty much the fastest processors are available on both Socket-754 and Socket-939 platforms for the Athlon 64, we have to once again look at the performance improvement brought by a 128-bit memory interface to see if Socket-939 is truly worth it from an overall performance standpoint. Understanding that the upgrade path is much brighter with Socket-939, it is still important to evaluate present-day performance benefits. So, is Socket-939 worth it from a broad standpoint? In order to find out we compared two identical processors: the Athlon 64 3800+ and the Athlon 64 3400+. Both run at the same 2.4GHz clock speed and feature the same 512KB L2 cache, the only difference is that one processor has a 128-bit memory interface while the other has a 64-bit memory interface. Let the games begin:
In our Business/General Use tests, the 128-bit memory interface of the 3800+ was responsible for an average of a 5.4% performance advantage over the Socket-754 part, only tying in one benchmark.
In our Multitasking Content Creation tests, the Socket-939 platform pulled ahead in all tests by an average of 3.2%.
In the Video Creation/Photo Editing tests, the Socket-939 platform pulled ahead, once again, in all tests by an average of 4.2%.
The Socket-939 platform pulled ahead by an average of 4.4% in four out of the 5 A/V encoding tests.
In the gaming tests, the 128-bit Socket-939 memory interface caused an average performance advantage of 6.3% across all tests.
Surprisingly enough, in the 3D Rendering tests with 3dsmax, Socket-939 offers a 5.4% performance advantage - once again, across all tests.
Finally in our Workstation tests we find the biggest supporter for Socket-939, the platform allows for an average improvement over over 17%.
From our standpoint, the recommendation for Socket-939 is clear, although rest assured that if you are on a budget you can get away with Socket-939-like performance with a Socket-754 platform in certain performance categories. Although workstation users will definitely want to spring for the 939 platforms, and with the introduction of the new 90nm Socket-939 parts, the platform should become even more affordable. It's worth going down one speed grade in order to get a Socket-939 platform in our opinion, not only for the small to reasonable performance improvements but also because of the much safer upgrade path.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
89 Comments
View All Comments
val - Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - link
for me is AMD unacceptable until there are good chipsets. All i have ever seen or had in my computers was big garbage with permanent problems and mysterious difficulties.Even SIS chipsets looks much better for intel than SIS for AMD. Its not anymore about CPU, CPU are fast for many tasks and that few percent of price or performance makes no deal, but overall quality talks strongly for Intel.
Save your time AMD fanboys to reply me something like that your AMD platform runs perfect and you had problems with intel and so on, its cheap and cannot anyway motivate me for change.
And yes, i have 2 AMD and 2 Intel computers and many i had or seen before (at home, work, school, projects, customers).
Gnoad - Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - link
3GHZ! Wow, I already was an AMD fan, but that just totally blows me away. Crazy stuff.GoHAnSoN - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
nice article. Thxcoldpower27 - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
Very nice, I await the day AMD releases a 3GHZ Athlon 64. These processor are niced but priced in a range where volumes are rather low, they have nice bragging rights though :PDa DvD - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
3GHz on air :SAMD's really out of trouble for the coming year(s)
I can imagine K8@90nm scaling well beyond 3GHz...
(lol, or even top Prescott clockspeeds? That would be insane..)
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
#30 and #43 -Once AMD informed us that strained silicon was used in the FX55 I couldn't resist a bit of a run with overclocking the FX55. The nForce4 Reference boad is not really intended or designed for overclocking, since it doesn't have any CPU or memory voltage adjustments. However it does support a wide range of multipliers so I could try a few settinngs.
I had no probelm at all running at 14.5X or 2.9GHz at default voltage. At that speed I ran quite a few benchmarks and a Quake 3 of 604.2 FPS. The FX55 actually booted at 3.0GHz but it never made it through a stable XP boot. I suspect with just a bit of CPU voltage 3.0GHz would be possible with the FX55 on air. All cooling was just the new AMD stock fan which now includes copper fins and heat pipes.
verybusy - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
There is some FX55 and 4000+ overclocking info at http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.cfm?page=2&...Assuming that my request from above is granted regarding other overclocking of 3500+, 3200+ and 3000+, I'd like to see just how overclocking turns out with the retail heatsink and fan. I hope that's not too much of a request.
Thanks...
verybusy - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
I liked the review of the Athlon 64 4000+ and FX-55 and it was nice to see it compared to the other Athlon 64 3200+ and 3000+ processors running at stock speeds.Unfortulately, with this review following so closely behind the 3500+ and 3000+ review (.09 Athlon 64: Value, Speed and Overclocking), it would have been very useful to see the 3500+, 3200+ and 3000+ overclocked to 2.6GHz as well. Afterall, the .09 3500+/3000+ @290x9 is faster than the FX53 (2.4GHz-1MB) err I mean Athlon 64 4000+). The overclocked 3500+, 3200+ and 3000+ could be pretty much as quick as the FX55 couldn't it?
That's what I want to see anyway.
ViRGE - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
#39, Anand mentions that it's multiplier locked.Zebo - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
Guys the 3400 newcastle is a way underated chip. It should have been, by all rights, called a 3600. I guess they did'nt want the 3500 to look bad agains a "old" 754 newcastle though.As for the review, total AMD performance domination at low relative speeds temps and power consumption.:) Youd have to be a fool to buy intels netburst crap right now.