Athlon 3400+ or 3500+

[Dynamix3D]

Okay I am debating on which CPU is better to get. The 3400+ looks like its a better deal, because of the 1MB of L2 cache, but the 3500+ is more money and it has a different socket which is newer. I am wondering which processor is faster, and is more worth the money in the long run.

Can someone tell me the differences, and the benefits I'd get from running one than the other? Thanks alot.

 

[SneakyStuff]

Well, the 3500+ has an integrated memory controller, for dual channel configurations. That's the key difference. As for the L2 cache, it doesn't make much difference, the newcastles with the 512k perform the same, if not slightly better, than the clawhammers with 1MB. Either way, you really can't go wrong. One is a fantastic deal, the other is more upgrade friendly, but you pay a premium. it's a win win situation IMO.

 

[fsstrike]

the 3500 is slighty faster, but not by much.

 

[dguy6789]

The 3500+ is superior to the 3400+. The benches show this. The dual channel of the socket 939 cpu allows it to be much better in media encoding, and just as good, if not better in everything else. The 1MB cache on the athlon 64s are a gimmick and that is it. the 1MB cache over 512K offers less performance gain then having a p4ee over a regular at the same ghz, which is less then 3%.

a 2Ghz athlon 64 with 512K cache is NO slower then a 2ghz with 1MB.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
The 3500+ is superior to the 3400+. The benches show this. The dual channel of the socket 939 cpu allows it to be much better in media encoding, and just as good, if not better in everything else. The 1MB cache on the athlon 64s are a gimmick and that is it. the 1MB cache over 512K offers less performance gain then having a p4ee over a regular at the same ghz, which is less then 3%.

a 2Ghz athlon 64 with 512K cache is NO slower then a 2ghz with 1MB.

actually it does. to make up for the loss of 512k of cache, amd added 200MHz more to the cpu, so a 2.2ghz athlon 64 with 512K cache is about the same as an athlon 64 2GHz wiht 1mb cache. amd makes 3400+'s with 2 different cores. one is the newcastle which has only 512k L2 cache but with 200 MHz more, and the clawhammer with 1mb L2 cache.

 

[pspada]

Ok, I'm confused. This one is $172:

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-486&depa=0

AMD Athlon 64 3000+, 512KB L2 Cache 64-bit Processor - Retail
Model# ADA3000AXBOX
Item # N82E16819103486
Specifications:
Model: AMD Athlon 64 3000+
Core: Newcastle
Operating Frequency: 2GHz
FSB: Integrated into Chip
Cache: L1/64K+64K; L2/512K

And this one is $175:

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-424&depa=0

AMD Athlon 64 3000+, 512KB L2 Cache 64-bit Processor - Retail
Model# ADA3000BOX
Item # N82E16819103424
Specifications:
Model: AMD Athlon 64 3000+
Core: ClawHammer
Operating Frequency: 2GHz
FSB: Integrated into Chip
Cache: L1/64K+64K; L2/512K

So, exactly the same, but one is newcastle, one is Clawhammer. Which is better, and why?

 

[Dustswirl]

Tested both 3400 and 3500 and kept the 3400... with the price difference you can get something else and the performance difference is not really there. but with second generation mobos we could expect a performance gain from the 939. a noticable gain, something we feel and see not just some numbers that some software spits out.
Am waiting for that to upgrade to 939, till then, lemme play with 754. it's a very capable platform.

 

[Corsairpro]

the claw hammer has 1/2 of its cache disabled while newcastle only had 512k to begin with. They disable cache on cpus because sometimes they don't pass validation for the full cache and disabling some allows it to pass and you don't waste a cpu by trashing it