Original Link: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1220

Athlon64 3400+: Part 2

by Wesley Fink on January 12, 2004 2:59 PM EST



The 3400+ was announced on January 6th - just in time for CES. On launch day, Anand published a detailed analysis of the 3400+. Since that article, readers have been asking if AnandTech could do a follow-up, benchmarking the Athlon64 series using our standard motherboard benchmarks on the top motherboards for the Athlon64, Athlon64FX, and Pentium 4. That is the purpose of this Part 2 follow-up, which tests the top CPU's from Intel and AMD on the top-performing motherboards that we have tested for each platform.

The top-line Athlon64 FX51 is designed for Socket 940, dual-channel Registered memory; it has 1Mb of on-chip cache, and runs at 2.2 GHz. The 3400+ runs at the same 2.2GHz speed and also has 1Mb of cache, but it fits Socket 754 and works with single-channel unbuffered DDR memory - the memory most users already own. With the speed and cache-size of the 3400+ and FX51 being the same, it is natural to ask how the 2 processors compare in performance using the best-performing hardware that we have tested at AnandTech. As you suggested, we also put the 3.2GHz P4EE and the standard Pentium 4 3.2GHz through our standard benchmarks on an Asus P4C800-E to see how the best from Intel compares with the Athlon64 line.



The 3400+ becomes the 3rd member of the Socket 754 family, which now contains 3000+, 3200+, and 3400+ processors. Like the other Socket 754 Athlon64 chips, the 3400+ is built on an organic substrate with the full heat-spreader that has been used on all the Athlon64 family. One more Socket 754 speed bump is expected later this year before the move from .13 to .09 manufacturing process.



While the Socket 754 and the Socket 940 require different boards and function in different ways, they are exactly the same size, and all of the Athlon64 family chips are physically larger than current P4 chips.



Above, you can see the differences in the 2500+ Barton/Athlon XP, Socket 754 Athlon64, and the Socket 940 Athlon64 FX/Opteron. While the Athlon64 socket is smaller than the older Socket A, it is still larger than Intel's Socket 478.

A few on-line shops jumped the gun by advertising the 3400+ before it was launched on January 6th. The good news is that the price of the 3400+ is about the same as the price of the 3200+ before the launch of the 3400+. With the 3400+ around $430 and the 3000+ around $220, the 3200+ has now settled in the middle at about the $300 price point.




Basic Features: Athlon64 Processors

The growing Athlon64 family is currently available in price range from about $200 to $1000. All Athlon64/64 FX are single-CPU processors, while the server-oriented Opteron can be single, dual, or 8-way.

 Athlon64 Family - Specifications
   Athlon64 3000+  Athlon64 3200+  Athlon64 3400+  Athlon64 FX51  Opteron
Speed Rating 3000+ 3200+ 3400+ Unrated Unrated
Actual CPU Speed 2.0Ghz 2.0GHz 2.2GHz FX51 - 2.2GHz x48 - 2.2GHz
x46 - 2.0GHz
x44 - 1.8GHz
x42 - 1.6GHz
x40 - 1.4GHz
Price 1/12/2004 Retail $236
OEM $211
Retail $299
OEM $270
Retail $404
OEM $429
Retail $749
OEM $733
$175 (140) to
$3620 (848)
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
128k
64k Code Cache + 64k Data Cache
L2 Cache 512kb 1Mb 1Mb 1Mb 1Mb
Socket Type 754 754 754 940 940
Memory Type Single-Channel Unbuffered DDR Single-Channel Unbuffered DDR Single-Channel Unbuffered DDR Dual-Channel Registered
or Registered ECC DDR
Dual-Channel Registered
or Registered ECC DDR
Memory Speed Supported Up to DDR400 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 1 1xx - 1
2xx - 2
8xx - 8
On-Chip Memory Controller Yes 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)
Up to 1.6GHz
(800MHz Clock)

In comparison, the Pentium 4 3.2GHz EE is priced at approximately $985 Retail, the standard 3.2GHz P4 is $397 Retail, and the 3.0GHz is $280. It certainly appears that the recent AMD product introductions and price changes are intended to once again make AMD better-priced across the line compared to Intel products. There will undoubtedly be further price moves from both Intel and AMD as we have come to expect.

AnandTech has covered the Opteron/Athlon64 extensively in the past year. If you would like to learn more about the Opteron and Athlon64, you can read our earlier articles:

AMD's Athlon 64 3400+: Death of the FX-51
Athlon64 3000+: 64-bit at Half the Price
AMD Athlon64 & Athlon 64 FX - It's Judgement Day
AMD Athlon64 Preview: nForce3 at 2.0GHz

AMD Opteron Coverage - Part 1: Intro to Opteron/K8 Architecture
AMD Opteron Coverage - Part 2: Enterprise Performance
AMD Opteron Coverage - Part 3: The First Servers Arrive
AMD Opteron Coverage - Part 4: Desktop Performance




Performance Test: Configuration

To provide you a clear picture of how the new Athlon64 3400+ performs and where it fits in the performance hierarchy, we compared the 3400+ to other processors using our standard Motherboard tests. The same Socket 754 motherboard, the widely available and excellent performing MSI K8T Neo, was used to benchmark the Athlon64 3000+, the Athlon64 3200+, and the new 3400+. All benchmarks with the 3000+, 3200+, and 3400+ were rerun to provide the greatest consistency in test results. The Asus P4C800-E was used to test the Socket 478 Pentium 4 3.2GHz EE, the standard Pentium 4 3.2GHz, and the Pentium 4 3.0GHz CPUs. Finally, the Asus SK8V was used for benchmarking the Socket 940 Athlon64 FX51.

  Performance Test Configuration
Processor(s): AMD Athlon64 3400+
AMD Athlon64 3200+
AMD Athlon64 3000+
Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz EE (2Mb cache)
Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz (512Mb cache)
Intel Pentium 4 3.0GHz
AMD Athlon64 FX51
RAM: 2 x 512Mb OCZ 3500 Platinum Ltd at 2-2-2-6
2 x 512Mb Mushkin ECC Registered High Performance at 2-2-3-6
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: MSI K8T Neo (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, unless otherwise noted.

Power Requirements

None of the reviews that we have seen have really said much about the power requirements of the 3400+. Our standard test setup uses a 350-watt PowMax power supply because it is typical of a good quality power supply from a typical components or "white-box" dealer. The 3400+ would not run with complete stability on this 350-watt PS. We ended up moving to a 430-watt Antec True Power, which was one of the top performers in our Power Supply roundup, to get stable performance with the 3400+. The 3400+, in our experience, requires a good PS rated at least an honest 400 watts.

We asked AMD about our problems with power supplies using the 3400+. AMD suggested that end-users check their list of approved power supplies for the 3400+ on the AMD web site. You can also refer to Anandtech's Power Supply roundup test results in the articles, 2003 Power Supply Roundup Part II: Better Faster Cheaper and 4-Way Power Supply Shootout: Vantec, Enermax, ThermalTake, Antec. The future 3700+ and other .13 processors from both AMD and Intel will likely be even more demanding of a quality power supply. We are not likely to see power requirements drop again until the introduction of .09 process CPUs later this year.

Performance Test Additions

We recently updated our test suite to ZD Labs Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 and ZD Labs Business Winstone 2004 for system benchmarking. We have also added Halo from Microsoft to our game benchmarks. Halo is a DirectX 9.0b game that thoroughly tests the newest DX9 video cards from ATI and nVidia. We have included a full series of benchmarks at 800x600, 1024x768, and 1280x1024 to give our readers a better idea of the typical results for the Halo benchmark at various graphics resolutions.





The 3400+ compares very well to the much higher-priced Athlon64 FX51 in Multimedia Content Creation and Office (General Usage) Benchmarks. With the 2004 version of Winstones and the Athlon64 family processors, we no longer see the Intel domination of Content Creation tests, while AMD leads Office Winstone. Across the board, the Athlon64 processors, 3000+ to FX51, outperform the 3.2GHz Pentium 4 in both benchmarks. The P4EE falls between the 3200+ and 3000+ in Multimedia Winstone 2004, with all 3 processors very close in performance, but the 3400+ and FX51 are still the best performers. All the Athlon64 chips outperform the top Pentium chips in Office Winstone 2004. Keep in mind that the 3.2GHz Pentium 4 EE is more than twice the price of the 3400+, while the 3.2GHz P4 is in the same price range as the 3400+.

Those who were hoping that the new 3400+ would perform like a FX51 will be pleased to see that it is exactly what we find in these two "real application" benchmarks. The FX51 is on top by a small margin in these benchmarks, but the Dual-Channel architecture does not appear to matter very much in the performance of the internet, creating multimedia content, editing pictures, creating presentations, word-processing, spreadsheets, and the other common things we do with our computers.

Since Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004 also includes media encoding tests as part of the benchmark, we were surprised to see that the Athlon64 processors perform so well when Intel Pentium 4 chips are usually the faster chips in pure Media Encoding.




Gaming and Media Encoding Performance



One of the biggest questions is how the $430 3400+ compares to the $750 Athlon64 FX51 in gaming. With both running at the same speed and the same 1Mb of cache, we can finally see what impact the different memory architectures have on performance. The only real difference in the 3400+ and the FX51 is, after all, the Dual-Channel Registered memory used in the FX51 versus the Single-Channel used for the 3400+. While the FX51 is still faster, the real difference between the 2 chips is next to nothing in X2 and Unreal Tournament Flyby. The Dual-Channel memory does make a larger difference in Media Encoding, Halo, and UT Botmatch. It is fair to say that at about 60% of the price of the FX51, the 3400+ performs very well indeed, coming very close in many gaming benchmarks.

It is interesting that all of the Athlon64 chips outperform the Intel Pentium 4 EE in gaming, except for the comparable performance in the older Quake 3. This again demonstrates the superiority of the A64 as a gaming platform. The one area where Intel dominates is Media Encoding, where the 3.2EE, 3.2 and even the 3.0 lead all Athlon64 family chips. While the Dual-Channel FX51 does compare much better to Intel in Media Encoding, the Intel P4 family is still the top choice for Media Encoding. Also, don't overlook the fact that the 3400+, in particular, and the Socket 754 A64's, in general, have made giant strides in Media Encoding performance compared to the older Athlon XP processors.

The Pentium 4EE does perform much better in gaming than the lower-priced 3.2 and 3.0, and the gap is much smaller when the Athlon64 is compared to the P4EE. However, unless your budget can handle $1000 for the CPU, the Athlon64 is your best choice for a gaming rig. In the Athlon64 family, the FX51 is the best performing processor in gaming, but it is also a pricey $750. The 3400+ provides most of the same gaming performance for about $430.

As we have seen in other recent GunMetal 2 tests, the benchmark seems to be video-card bound and it tells us very little about the performance differences in processors or systems. While GunMetal 2 may be useful for Video Card comparisons, it is not a good tool for processor or system performance measurements and will be dropped from future system testing.




Workstation Performance



While the 3400+ does very well compared to the standard Pentium 4 in the demanding Specviewperf 7.1, you can clearly see that the bandwidth matters a great deal in Workstation Performance. This gives the advantage to the FX51 and Pentium 4 EE in these benchmarks. Until the introduction of the Athlon64 chips, Intel dominated most Workstation Benchmarks. Now the Athlon64 Single-Channel and Intel 3.2/3.0 perform similarly - with Athlon64 generally slightly faster in most benchmarks. In many of the Specviewperf suite, however, Athlon64 FX51 dominates, followed by the P4EE, showing its muscle as a workstation CPU.

Once again, the 3400+ performs extremely well, considering its price compared to the Athlon64 FX51. Its rating as a chip comparable to a 3400MHz CPU seems completely justified.




Final Words

Our benchmarks show the 3400+ is a fast CPU that is deserving of the 3400+ Performance Rating. It is faster than Intel's comparably priced 3.2 Pentium 4 in almost every benchmark and even outperforms the pricey 3.2EE in most benchmarks. It is certainly the fastest Socket 754 chip available. It runs at the same 2.2 GHz and has the same 1Mb cache as the fastest Socket 940 processor, the Athlon64 FX51, but it operates with common Single-Channel DDR unbuffered memory instead of the Dual-Channel Registered memory required by the FX51 and Opteron. In many benchmarks, the 3400+ comes very close to the top-line FX51 in performance, despite the fact that the memory bandwidth is much lower than the Athlon64 FX. This is particularly true in the "real application" benchmarks, like Multimedia Content Creation Winstone and Office Winstone.

In gaming applications, all of the Athlon64 family processors top our gaming benchmarks and the 3400+ is the top performing Athlon64 Socket 754 chip. The Athlon64 FX51 is still the fastest processor, as expected, but in many cases, the 3400+ comes very close to the FX CPU. In computing intensive applications like Workstation Graphics, Media Encoding, and some of the most demanding games, the Dual-Channel FX chip shows its superiority. However, for most users, the 3400+ will give them all they could want in a processor - for about 40% less than the FX51.

We like the 3400+, but the larger question is where the chip fits in the big AMD picture. For the next year, Socket 754 seems like a safe bet. AMD will be introducing another 754 chip later this year, expected to be the 3700+. However, the 3700+ may be the last Socket 754 chip. The upcoming Socket 939, which will be used for the new version of the Athlon64 FX, is expected to become the dominant AMD socket. Socket 939 will allow the common unbuffered DDR memory (that most already own) to be used in Dual-Channel with the revised FX processor. Many speculate that the 754 will move to low-end or be discontinued after a short period of co-existing with Socket 939.

So where does this leave you as a potential buyer? If you want to wait until Sockets settle down before you buy, then you will likely never own another motherboard or processor. 478 will be going to 775, 939 will be appearing, 754 may move to the low end, 940 will continue with Opteron, and a multitude of other changes are in the works in this industry. However, if you are looking for a fast gaming system, you can build an excellent system with a 3400+ or any of the 3 current Athlon64 Socket 754 processors. The Socket 754 boards are very reasonable, and what you get for your money will be a top gaming rig that can outperform anything on the market.

AMD's marketing directions are as clear as mud, which is really a shame since the Athlon64 chips are really excellent. Normally, a new chip with the highest rating that we have seen so far would be a reason for pulling out all the stops and proclaiming a new Market Performance Leader. However, the 3400+ is introduced between the Opteron-based Athlon64 FX and the Xeon-based Pentium 4EE, so it is hard to proclaim the 3400+ the fastest chip on the market. As Dorothy might say, this isn't Kansas anymore. However, in every area except Media Encoding, the 3400+ equals or outperforms the pricey P4EE, and in most benchmarks, the 3400+ is surprisingly close to the costly FX51. So, we find the Athlon64 3400+ to be the best performing mainstream CPU. To put it another way, if we had about $430 to spend on a CPU, then the 3400+ is the CPU that we would buy.

If you are an ambitious overclocker, however, the greater headroom of the Pentium 4 chips cannot be ignored if you are shopping for a new CPU. You also cannot ignore the fact that the Athlon64 FX chips are completely unlocked, allowing many more options for the overclocker. In another of the twists and turns of the processor market, we now talk about how very overclockable the Intel Pentium 4 CPU is, when Intel was the company not long ago who tried to stop remarking (and kill overclocking as a consequence) with the CPU lock. In the same market we see AMD, the company that recently championed overclocking with unlocked XP and Barton processors, now locking the very same CPUs. However, as we will explore in a future article, the more modest overclocks of the current Athlon64 family, combined with "top-locking" only (lower multipliers can be selected) can still yield some impressive performance increases for those who will overclock the Athlon64. And with 1000 Hyper Transport bus just around the corner, you will likely be able to take the Athlon64 even further . . .

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now