Athlon64 3000+: 64-bit at Half the Price
by Wesley Fink on December 22, 2003 8:15 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
While the Athlon64 is a better designed and better performing processor than the Athlon XP in almost every way, people have not been waiting in line to buy the processor. Certainly the cost of motherboards is not the reason, since there are many Socket 754 boards in the $100 and less price range. Performance compared to Intel is also not the reason, since the Athlon64 3200+ performs very well compared to Intel's best. The issue seems to be price. AMD loyalists want it all, but they seem to want it all at a cheap price. Perhaps the long wait for Athlon64 with AMD prices dropping spoiled AMD buyers to expect incredible performance at very low prices. This high-performance-at-low-cost is certainly what AnandTech found with AMD processors in the recent Budget CPU Shootout.The Athlon64 3000+ is the chip that answers the need for a lower cost Athlon64. At just over $200, the 3000+ cuts the cost of entry for Athlon64 computing in half. This in itself is significant and should have A64 3000+ chips flying off dealer shelves.
Value, however, is not just about price; it is about performance for your dollar. The Athlon64 3000+ delivers value in spades. Running at the same speed as the 3200+, the reduction in cache to 512k has only a minor impact on performance. In almost every benchmark, the 3000+ is only a few percent lower in performance than a 3200+. Even more important, the 3000+ performs very well compared to Intel's 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 - a chip that sells for almost double the cost of the Athlon64 3000+.
While the Athlon64 FX and Athlon 64 3200+ are both fairly priced considering their performance, there is no arguing that they are too expensive for many would-be buyers. The Athlon64 3000+ should fit most budgets, and the even better news is that it performs very well indeed. There are a lot of AMD potential buyers who want a more reasonably-priced Athlon64 that will out-game Intel's top 3.2 and 3.0 chips. The Athlon 64 3000+ is also that chip. You get the bragging rights that the 3000+ does outperform the 3.2 in most games at a price that most budgets can handle. The Athlon 64 3000+ looks like a winner!
Anand has an in-depth look at the Athlon64 3000+ in the works that will provide all you would want to know about Newcastle. If these initial performance benchmarks have excited you, as they have excited us here at AnandTech, then you don't want to miss Anand's upcoming Newcastle Technology Review.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
75 Comments
View All Comments
Pumpkinierre - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
Oh yes and while I'm at it, AMD should drop that silly naming system. Its not only confusing with 2 different processors(K7,K8), 4 different caches(L2 64K,256K,512K,1Gb), 4 FSB(100,133,166,200MHz) and single bank/dual bank mem. controllers. It basically makes Intel the standard and allows them to call the shots as they did with the P43.2 vs the A-XP3200+. The masses enjoy a bath and also dont like BS to which most of them turn their back at the slightest whiff.Pumpkinierre - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
This is the cpu that should have been released to the masses (who do enjoy a shower #9) in september. The only disgrace is the lack of official release from AMD who dont want to disturb their server focussed business model in the eyes of the analysts and so decide to slip it out the back door. That's why I am on the side of people who think these cpu's are just A64 3200s that failed to make the grade. At least, mine and others rants about AMD only looking after the well heeled have'nt fallen on deaf ears. And I agree with #7 a P4EE should be included if you include the outrageously priced (and yes limited edition #11) FX51 in your reviews. After all by the time you include reg. memory and 940Mobo for the fx the price diferential cf. P4EE in that stratospheric category is not much.While I'm discussing ranting, look at the only bench mark where the 3000+ beat the 3200+ (and all others) sciencemark2 (memory latency). This demonstrates what i've said about large caches getting in the way of system latency. This low latency translates into better response and smoothness in gaming (not demos which dont show this quality due to their predictable code path). The ideal woud be a fast L1 cache (probably 256K) and quad pumped fast memory maybe that dual phase memory that VIA are looking at. What AMD have created is the ideal gaming chip then crippled it with a large cache because they decided to go into the server market and then re crippled the desktop chip with a single bank memory controller so as to differentiate product without upsetting their production line . No wonder SETI doesnt get any reply out there. Still lack of A64 3200+ sales has reluctantly pushed them to release the 3000+ maybe the same will occur with the true Newcastle once they realise that the server path is going to be along slow haul.
tfranzese - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
good review, good chips again from AMDKristopherKubicki - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
The only difference between NewCastle and Clawhammer was the onchip cooling technology (and the 1/2 cache size)...My NewCastles are in the mail, Ill do some thermal testing on it for some upcoming enclosure reviews as well to see the difference.
Kristopher
sandorski - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
sweeeeeeetShinei - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
Okay, now I'm REALLY upset that I just bought a 2800+ Athlon XP... :(Fantastic review though. :)
Jeff7181 - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
We already know it does well in a 32-bit environment.I'd like to see it tested against the A64 3200+ under a 64-bit Linux OS and software.
64-bit code naturally has more "bulk" to it than 32-bit code, so the extra cache of the 3200+ SHOULD cause a larger performance gap between the two processors when running 64-bit software... although I've yet to see this tested anywhere, it is one of the most important factors.
Oxonium - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
Ok, I concede that Morgan was a slightly different core. But my point was that it is fairly common for AMD and Intel to give the same core different names depending on their cache size or how they are to be used.I agree with dvinnen. I'm sure a smaller die would save some money in wafer costs but it also requires design time, tooling, and qualification. The die size issue will likely be addressed in ~6 months when AMD implements the 0.09 micron manufacturing process. It doesn't make a lot of sense to spend money on reducing core size when there will be a new core in a few months anyway that resolves the problem. Plus, as dvinnen said, using the Clawhammer core allows AMD to still make a profit on the Athlon64's that don't pass QA with their full cache.
As for memory controller improvement, that could be true. But this would be more like a new processor stepping rather than a new core.
Hopefully Anand will remove the heat spreader to show if this really is just a 3200+ with half the cache disabled or a new core.
johnsonx - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
#12 - I think you're wrong on the Morgan being just a Palomino with most of the cache disabled. I'm pretty sure the Morgan was actually a different core that truly had only 64k L2.As to the Thorton, you may be right on that one... I'm not sure.
dvinnen - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link
but of course, there is only one way to find out, pop the top on them. Some core pictures will tell the truth.