When AMD team-launched the Athlon 64 3200+ and Athlon 64 FX-51 last fall it was with the expectation that the 3200+ version of the processor would be seen as the mainstream, ?standard? version, while the FX-51 would be perceived as strictly an ultra-high end gaming or performance solution, needed by only a handful of users.  While price structuring has kept this division intact for the most part, a vocal minority of AMD users and industry watchers decried the 3200+ as a ?crippled? processor thanks to its lower memory bandwidth and hailed the Athlon 64 FX-51 as the ?real? Athlon 64?while simultaneously muttering dark threats about its stratospheric price. 

The launch of the 3400+ today gives us the opportunity to examine the claim that the standard Athlon 64 is ?crippled? in some fashion by directly comparing the performance deficit between Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 FX-51 when the two chips are running at an equal clock speed.  With both CPU?s packing a meg of L2 cache and both running at 2.2 GHz, the only difference between the two is the FX-51?s double-wide memory controller that provides it with a theoretical 6.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth.  How much of a difference will it make?  Let?s find out.

The 3400+ Itself:  Nothing New Under the Sun.

There?s nothing new really about the 3400+ save the stamping on the chip itself.  It?s built on the same Socket 754 form factor, uses a default 1.5v, and is unchanged from earlier designs (except its green).  AMD hasn?t? upgraded their thermal solution for the chip either (which isn?t a problem) so it uses the same quiet cooler earlier 3200+ and FX-51 chips did. 

The 3400+ takes its place at the top of AMD?s 64-bit hierarchy, and should further depress the price of the 3200+ and possibly even the 3000+ (we?ve heard rumors of the 3000+ dipping to just above the $200 mark?moving it ever closer to an actual mass-market position.  While $200-$240 is still a bit pricey for the average (cheapskate) enthusiast, it?s completely possible to build a sub-$1000 system with such a chip. 

The fact that the 3000+ only has 512K of L2 cache has had no negative impact on its performance (beyond justifying its lower rating) but its not clear which direction AMD intends to move with its future Athlon 64 CPU releases as of yet.  For the moment, this cache difference is the only thing separating the slower 3000+ from its 3200+ and 3400+ siblings. 

We?ve covered the new features AMD introduced into the Athlon 64 line extensively at Sudhian, particularly in our Athlon 64 FX-51 review, so readers wanting to brush up on the CPU architecture and the market situations surrounding its introduction should refer to our original review, here.

Platform Conundrum:  Pick a Socket, any Socket?.

The 3400+ we?re reviewing is built for AMD?s Socket 754, but as anyone following the market knows, Sunnyvale also has plans to introduce Socket 939 in the near future.  While it?d be nice to give you some solid background on where each motherboard platform is headed, we can?t at the moment?mostly because AMD doesn?t seem to have entirely decided themselves.

One thing AMD IS clear on is that they have no intention (at this point) of abandoning Socket 754?but they don?t seem to have decided precisely what its value is, either.  It?s possible that we might see the ?AthlonXP? brand transition to Socket 754 later this year?this would be an Athlon 64 without 64-bit potential.  On the one hand, this makes fine sense for maintaining lower-end market pressure while preserving 64-bit margins (after all, even the current AthlonXP can whip the Celeron from Hell to Tuesday) but it?d do nothing for users who bought Athlon 64 chips at low speeds who found themselves stuck back on a 32-bit upgrade path. 

We?re willing to give AMD slack on this one, for the moment, thanks to their excellent track record when it comes to providing upgradeable solutions.  Much of the AthlonXP?s customer loyalty was built on users who found they could start with a low-end Duron and jump all the way to an AthlonXP when those chips came down in price?so we?ll gamble on the fact that AMD hasn?t forgotten its roots.  It?d be nice to know within the next few months what the game plan is, however?and it?d be a nice demonstration of good faith on AMD?s part to at least make standard Athlon 64?s available through 4000+ clock grades at a minimum to early adopters who bought into the platform (4200-4400+ would really be optimal). 

Lets move on to what you all came to see?performance.

 

next >

---

• Test Setup (1 of 6)
• Synthetic Tests (2 of 6)
• Office Performance / DVD Encoding (3 of 6)
• 3D Modeling (4 of 6)
• Gaming (5 of 6)
• Conclusion (6 of 6)