data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4be29/4be299dd56383fd8175a7737eb53b42b6d75be97" alt=""
Original Link: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1211
Athlon64 3000+: 64-bit at Half the Price
by Wesley Fink on December 22, 2003 8:15 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Newcastle, the 512k cache version of Athlon64, is in the AMD Roadmap for the first half of 2004.
Imagine the surprise when we stumbled across the 3000+ for sale at several sites this week. The specifications were wrong at most sites, and got changed several times without getting them completely right, but there was no mistake that the Athlon64 3000+ is for sale at just over $200 for the OEM (bare chip) version. This is about half the price of the 3200+, so we couldn’t resist getting one in to see what was really being sold and how it performed.
The chip arrived a couple of days ago, and it certainly appears to be Newcastle. Clock speed is exactly the same at 2.0GHz as the 3200+. The only difference that we can see is the L2 cache is 512kb instead of the 1Mb found on the 3200+. Regardless of the botched specs you are seeing, the Athlon64 3000+ being advertised for mainstream prices is a Socket 754 running at 2.0GHz with 512kb cache.
AMD even added the new 3000+ to their 1,000 lot Processor price list on December 15th. You can see the full 12/15/03 price list at AMD. Anand is preparing an in-depth look at Newcastle, but we knew that our readers would enjoy a preview of the performance of the chip as it compares to other processors. With the early Christmas present from AMD, we couldn’t help but rush it into an Athlon64 board that we were testing and put it through its paces. How much difference does that 512k cache make in performance?
Basic Features: Athlon64 Processors
With so much speculation and confusion about the 3000+ Specifications, it seemed worthwhile to quickly review the features of the Athlon 64/FX/Opteron processors that are currently available.
Athlon64 Family — Specifications | ||||
Athlon64 3000+ | Athlon64 3200+ | Athlon64 FX51 | Opteron | |
Speed Rating | 3000+ | 3200+ | Unrated | Unrated |
Actual CPU Speed | 2.0Ghz | 2.0GHz | FX51 — 2.2GHz | x48 — 2.2GHz x46 — 2.0GHz x44 — 1.8GHz x42 — 1.6GHz x40 — 1.4GHz |
L1 Cache | 128k 64k Code Cache + 64k Data Cache |
128k 64k Code Cache + 64k Data Cache |
128k 64k Code Cache + 64k Data Cache |
128k 64k Code Cache + 64k Data Cache |
L2 Cache | 512kb | 1024kb | 1024kb | 1024kb |
Memory Type | Unbuffered DDR | Unbuffered DDR | Registered or Registered ECC DDR | Registered or Registered ECC DDR |
Memory Speed Supported | Up to DDR400 | Up to DDR400 | Up to DDR400 | Up to DDR400 on later models, Up to DDR333 on earlier models |
Maximum CPUs | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1xx — 1 2xx — 2 8xx — 8 |
On-Chip Memory Controller | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Hyper Transport Speed | Up to 1.6GHz (800MHz Clock) |
Up to 1.6GHz (800MHz Clock) |
Up to 1.6GHz (800MHz Clock) |
Up to 1.6GHz (800MHz Clock) |
Performance Test: Configuration
To provide you with the best picture of the performance of the new Athlon64 3000+, we decided to compare it to other processors using our standard Motherboard tests. The same Socket 754 motherboard, the Soltek K8AV2-RL, was used to benchmark the Athlon64 3000+ and the Athlon64 3200+. The Asus P4C800-E was used to test the Socket 478 Pentium 4 3.2GHz and 3.0GHz CPUs. Finally, the Asus SK8V was used for benchmarking the Socket 940 Athlon64 FX51.Performance Test Configuration | |
Processor(s): | AMD Athlon64 3000+ AMD Athlon64 3200+ Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz Intel Pentium 4 3.0GHz AMD Athlon64 FX51 |
RAM: | 2 x 512Mb OCZ 3500 Platinum Ltd 2 x 512Mb Mushkin ECC Registered High Performance 2:3:2 |
Hard Drive(s): | Seagate 120GB 7200 RPM (8MB Buffer) |
Video AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers: | VIA Hyperion 4.51 (12/02/03) Intel Chipset Drivers |
Video Card(s): | ATI Radeon 9800 PRO 128MB (AGP 8X) |
Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 3.10 |
Operating System(s): | Windows XP Professional SP1 |
Motherboards: | Soltek SL-K8AV2-RL (VIA K8T800 — 754) Asus P4C800-E (Intel 875P — 478) Asus SK8V (VIA K8T800 — 940) |
All performance tests were run with the ATI 9800 PRO 128MB video card with AGP Aperture set to 128MB with Fast Write enabled. Resolution in all benchmarks is 1024x768x32.
Winstone Performance Tests
We have just updated our test suite to ZD Labs Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 and ZD Labs Business Winstone 2004 for system benchmarking. We have included both Multimedia Content Creation 2003/Business Winstone 2002 and the 2004 version results to assist in the comparison to other reviews.
Memory Performance
With the memory controller on the CPU in the Athlon64 family, we first checked to see if the memory controller has been changed in the Newcastle design. As you can see, the Memory Bandwidth, Latency Cycles, and Latency Time are so close to the 3200+ in the 9/23/03 ScienceMark 2 that it appears the only difference in the 3000+ and 3200+ architectures is the amount of cache on the processor.
Gaming and Media Encoding Performance
Based on Gaming Performance, the 3000+ rating of the new 512k Cache Athlon64 is very conservative. The 3200+ 1Mb cache version is faster in our standard game benchmarks, but by a very small margin. Compare the game benchmarks for the 3000+ to the Pentium 4 3.2 and 3.0 Processors. The 3000+ holds its own against the best from Intel. Intel does lead the Mpeg Encoding benchmark in out tests. While the FX is competitive in this vintage encoding benchmark, the single-channel A64 solutions do not do nearly as well as dual-channel designs in this benchmark.
The FX51 is clearly the best performing processor in gaming, but results should be kept in perspective. At about 1/4 the price of the FX, half the price of the 3200+, and $150 less than the 3.2 P4, the 3000+ is providing outstanding gaming performance. For those who have wanted an Athlon64 or top P4 CPU, but just couldn’t handle the cost, the A64 3000+ will be like a breath of fresh air.
Workstation Performance
Until the introduction of the Athlon64 chips, Intel was dominating Workstation Benchmarks. Across the board, the 3000+ does quite well against the top chips from both AMD and Intel. While we really expected the reduction to 512k cache to hamper Workstation Performance, the performance drop from the 3200+ is extremely small, and is much less than expected.
In general, both the single-channel 3000+ and 3200+ compete very well with the Intel 3.2, and all 3 lead the P4 3.0. The FX51 is dominant in Workstation Performance, significantly outperforming all other tested CPUs. Once again, the FX51 proves to be the fastest processor that you can buy, but you give up very little with the Athlon64 3000+. The 3000+ is definitely the best buy among performance processors right now.
Content Creation and General Usage Performance
Where Intel dominated Content Creation in the past, the 3.2, 3.0, 3000+ and 3200+ are all extremely close in performance in the 2003 version. The FX again leads all results. The most recent 2004 Multimedia Winstone, which is composed of more recent versions of software, really shows off the performance of the Athlon64 processors. All 3 of our test AMD processors outperform the Intel 3.2.
AMD processors have normally done much better in the General Usage Benchmark — even Athlon XP CPUs normally led in this test. In both the 2002 version and the recent 2004 Winstone, the 3 AMD processors outperform the Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz. Once again, the dual-channel FX51 dominates the Performance scores.
Overclocking Results
One of the questions many are asking about Newcastle is how it overclocks. It will be a while until we can really answer the question of how well the Athlon64 3000+ will overclock. However, we can tell you that early testing is very encouraging.Front Side Bus Overclocking Testbed | |
Maximum Overclock | |
Processor: | Athlon64 3000+ 2.0GHz — 512k L2 Cache |
CPU Voltage: | 1.6V (1.5V default) |
Cooling: | Cooler Master Silent K8 Heatsink/Fan |
Power Supply: | Enermax 465W |
Maximum OC: | 2200MHz (+10.0%) 10x220 or 9x239 |
While we have not been pleased so far with the overclocking abilities of the VIA K8T800 on the Socket 754 platform, our 3000+ was able to reach a stable overclock of 220 (880HT) at 1.6V. The latest Soltek BIOS on the SL-K8AV2-RL also has multiplier adjustments to allow setting lower multipliers on Athlon64 chips. The Socket 754 chips are apparently top-locked, but clever programmers have found ways to choose lower multipliers. Using a 9.0 multiplier, we were able to boot in Windows XP and run a few basic tests at a setting of 9x239. It is too early to draw hard conclusions about the overclocking ability of the 3000+, but these results, compared to our testing of the 3200+, are pretty impressive.
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.