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
Live - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
Splendid reading! This site is doing a great job right now. I really would love more of these very informative articles that help you so at seeing the big picture.A really helpful article.
Disorganise - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
I’m a bit disappointed by you inconsistency…The comparison with Intel over who wins….slightly inconsistent but no biggie.
What really is bad though, is the penultimate page – is socket 939 worth it?
I agree it is but…..
You’ve taking an identical chip and found it about 5% quicker than on socket 754. OK, no problem. But AMD have wacked a whopping 12% increase in rating, to 3800+ from 3400+. It doesn’t gel, the numbers don’t work.
The 3800+ is also more expensive than the 3400+ to the tune of about 250% here in Australia and about 220% over there in the U.S. a 5% increase in performance does not warrant a doubling in price.
Dave
at80eighty - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
way to go Anand...excellently comprehensive article.../waiting for those HDD articles you promised : p
SLIM - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
Going along with what #6 said:Athlon 64 4000+ - 2.4GHz - 1MB - 128-bit
Athlon 64 3800+ - 2.4GHz - 512KB - 128-bit
Athlon 64 3400+ - 2.4GHz - 1MB - 64-bit <---should be a socket 754 3700+ right?
Athlon 64 3400+ - 2.4GHz - 512KB - 64-bit
Athlon 64 FX-53 - 2.4GHz - 1MB - 128-bit
SLIM
ViRGE - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
#12, even GPUs aren't going anywhere fast. There's still a shortage of something or other needed to make the Ultra/PE parts, and there isn't a planned refresh for 2004. ATI/Nvidia have another speed grade of RAM to jump to(1.6ghz GDDR3), and can die-shrink down to 90nm once TSMC gets there, but they're so close to CPUs right now, they're destined to hit the same wall too.Anand, someone has been a busy beaver.;-) That was a long, but well thought out and informative article; you've basically written the definitive CPU article for now until the multicores come out.
Tides - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
Ah I read the conclusion wrong.Tides - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
why is this site putting down an amd performance gain and making excuses for intel at the same time.Doormat - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
Its a shame the processor wars are coming to an end. I see dual core as neat, but a dud performance wise. It'll be another year or two before the GPU wars start to die out... hmmm..-CPU performance levels off
-HD capacity levels off
The only interesting stuff going on is GPU stuff.
dvinnen - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
Best artical from Anandtech I've read in a long time. Good job Anand.skiboysteve - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
wait nevermind, you put your comments ABOVE the graphs. threw me off cause this isnt what you usualy do...