Athlon64 3000+: 64-bit at Half the Price

75 Comments

View All Comments

• dvinnen - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link

  I agree, I think it will actually cost AMD more to make a smaller core. Sure, it will save wafer costs, but they lose the value of bulk, have to make new masks, plus can't pull a Celeron and sell chips with some cache broken.

• mkruer - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link

  According to AMD Zone, this is not the Newcastle Core, but rather and AMD64 with half the L2 cache disabled.
  
  BTW #12 are you sure I though the Newcastle Core was suppose to have some memory controller refinements. Either way it is still good to see the chips finally coming down to a more reasonable price, and still kicking Intel @$$
  

• Oxonium - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link

  I think Newcastle is just the codename for the Clawhammer corde with cache disabled, rather than a totally new core. AMD frequently does this. Morgan was the Palomino core with 3/4 the L2 cache disabled. Thorton was the Barton core with 1/2 the L2 cache disabled. Intel uses a similar naming system in distinguishing the Xeon cores from the Pentium 4/Celeron cores. This naming system can sometimes make it difficult to determine whether a core is totally new or variant of another one.

• MrEMan - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link

  #9, I think Intel has a bigger problem with "clockspeed is the only thing that matters" position in determining CPU performance. I have yet to see any explanation out of Intel as to why a 1.6GHz Duron is better in many cases than a 2.6 GHz Celeron. Same goes for the Pentium III like 1.6 GHz Centrino comparing to a 2.6 GHz P4.
  
  My main fault with AMD over the years is that they never run ads comparing equivalent clock speed Athlons/Durons vs P4/Celerons, to let the public see who is BSing whom when it comes to clockspeed vs performance (would anyone brag that they need a 30%+ increase in GHz to compare with their competitor's product, especially when they cost almost twice as much?). As for their use of performance ratings, I feel the Intel marketing machine left AMD no choice but to do so.
  
  #7 as for the P4EE who really cares about the P4EE with its limited availability (most going to Intel's Dell division), and its outrageous price... not me, that is for sure.
  
  Lastly, concerning performance to currently available competitor's products, how come so many cut Intel slack back when the original 1.3-1.5 GHz P4s dogs got trounced by P3s of that time, let alone Athlons, and now give AMD grief because the P4 wins some of the benchmarks? Also those giving AMD grief about being late with the Athlon64, it seems that Intel is also having process problems with their new designs.
  
  Seems like a double standard to me.
  

• morcegovermelho - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link

  #8 Thanks.
  Great review.

• johnsonx - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link

  Is it really NewCastle? As in a new core that is actually different (like it physically has only 512k cache and thus is smaller and therefore cheaper to make)?
  
  Or is it just the same ClawHammer core with 1/2 the cache disabled? (surely with such a big die, many 1Mb ClawHammer cores must come out with some bad cache but otherwise perfectly functional)
  
  I tend to think it is the latter, though the author seems pretty convinced we really have a new core here (but with no further explanation).
  
  Or am I being too picky about what does and doesn't constitute a new core? Does turning off half of the cache on old core X = new core Y?
  
  
  As a side note, to Praeludium, recall that back when the AthlonXP first came out, the ratings were VERY conservative as well; 1600+ chips benchmarked well against 2.0Ghz P4's. But as Intel changed cores, increased cache & FSB, and added HT, AMD's ratings increasingly seemed like marketing BS; but this is not an entirely fair criticism. AMD had no choice but to keep the same ratings system for the AthlonXP, else they would be in the ridiculous position of bringing out a faster AthlonXP, but giving it a lower rating than a slower AthlonXP. Ratings numbers are designed to compare with Intel (nevermind what AMD says about comparing to the T-Bird - at first, probably yes, but not any more), but the ratings also have to be internally consistent within AMD's AthlonXP line. AMD has taken the wise step of 're-targeting' the ratings of the A64, though these new ratings may falter again when the Prescott comes out and starts to ramp.
  I think AMD is probably stuck with this ratings system on the consumer-level chips for quite some time; I'm sure AMD and Intel both chose their architectures carefully and for good technical merit, but higher IPC is certainly harder to market to the unwashed masses than raw clock speed.
  

• Wesley Fink - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link

  #4 - Memory Bandwidth and Latency (ScienceMark 2) should not change between a 3.0 and 3.2 Pentium 4. We only included both the 3000+ and 3200+ in these tests because the Athlon64 Memory Controller is on the chip, and as we said in the review, we wanted to roughly check if there had been any chages to the Memory Controller.
  
  We started comparisons to the 3000+ with a 3.0 P4, but when we saw the gaming benches, we updated to a 3.2. In the interest of getting a review to you quickly, we ran complete benches on the 3.2, but only included 3.0 benches where we had already run them, or where they would provide more info. The winstones are VERY time-consuming and are run on a separate drive, while Aquamark 3 appeared mostly bound to the video card we were using for benchmarking.

• saechaka - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link

  will the p4ee be included in the next review?

• KristopherKubicki - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link

  lifeguard1999: Same for me.
  
  Kristopher

• Praeludium - Monday, December 22, 2003 - link

  "...the 3000+ rating of the [...] Athlon64 is very conservative."
  
  Heh, never thought I'd see that. But it does seem true, almost suspiciously so. I am still holding off on getting an Athlon64 because my own AthlonXP chip is not yet a year old, but all the same, the new year might bring an investment in one (investment? Ha, the things depreciate faster than a car hitting a cement wall).
  
  Good review at trying to clear up the mystery. I kind of wish the 3000+ was slightly less of a performance champ though, because now I'm thinking AMD can't figure out how to scale with their own rating numbers. :P
  
  And #4, I'd almost assume the 2.8c wasn't included because the results were pretty much in favour of the A64 3000+ already over the 3.0.