Athlon64 3400+ Reviews!

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU
HT would help but a SCSI drive for your oS/apps would help just as much if not more

Dude, when compressing 600MB-1GB+ files, I have a VERY low data transfer rate. And the data that is being written is being written to a separate drive. A SCSI drive may help a little but the CPU is my MAIN problem, no doubt about it.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Dug

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
If I'm encoding a DVD and one machine takes 6 hours and the other takes 8 hours, I think I would notice.

Not all of the differences are insignificant.

If I had that much time on my hands to encode, I wouldn't.
Especially the type of crappy encoding usually benchmarked.
And if I wanted to waste that much money on a dedicated machine for doing encoding, I wouldn't sit there and watch it for 6-8hrs.

I feel like I know you so much better now. Thanks for the insights.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU
HT would help but a SCSI drive for your oS/apps would help just as much if not more

Dude, when compressing 600MB-1GB+ files, I have a VERY low data transfer rate. And the data that is being written is being written to a separate drive. A SCSI drive may help a little but the CPU is my MAIN problem, no doubt about it.

And I think when I used winzip on a 600 meg file it was 35 seconds. May have to try that again.

 

[Bovinicus]

Originally posted by: motoamd
AMDMB.com numbers
Athlon64 3200+ 2.0 GHz
Athlon64 3400+ 2.2 GHz

9% increase of clock speed.
5.88% increase of Model #

Those numbers are incorrect. Instead of using the number 3200 to calculate those increases you used 3400. The increase in clockspeed is 10%, and the increase in the performance rating is 6.25%.

 

[microAmp]

Originally posted by: Bovinicus

Originally posted by: motoamd
AMDMB.com numbers
Athlon64 3200+ 2.0 GHz
Athlon64 3400+ 2.2 GHz

9% increase of clock speed.
5.88% increase of Model #

Those numbers are incorrect. Instead of using the number 3200 to calculate those increases you used 3400. The increase in clockspeed is 10%, and the increase in the performance rating is 6.25%.

Thanks, must of had too many :beer::beer::beer::beer::beer:

 

[XBoxLPU]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU
HT would help but a SCSI drive for your oS/apps would help just as much if not more

Dude, when compressing 600MB-1GB+ files, I have a VERY low data transfer rate. And the data that is being written is being written to a separate drive. A SCSI drive may help a little but the CPU is my MAIN problem, no doubt about it.

It has nothing to do with transfer rate

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU
HT would help but a SCSI drive for your oS/apps would help just as much if not more

Dude, when compressing 600MB-1GB+ files, I have a VERY low data transfer rate. And the data that is being written is being written to a separate drive. A SCSI drive may help a little but the CPU is my MAIN problem, no doubt about it.

It has nothing to do with transfer rate

Please tell me then exactly why SCSI would help more than HT.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU
HT would help but a SCSI drive for your oS/apps would help just as much if not more

Dude, when compressing 600MB-1GB+ files, I have a VERY low data transfer rate. And the data that is being written is being written to a separate drive. A SCSI drive may help a little but the CPU is my MAIN problem, no doubt about it.

And I think when I used winzip on a 600 meg file it was 35 seconds. May have to try that again.

Try using using Winace with maximum compression and a 4096K dictionary.

 

[XBoxLPU]

Please tell me then exactly why SCSI would help more than HT.

TCQ and higher I/Os

When I had SCSI I could do intensive tasks and my system wouldn't crawl...

 

[Venomous]

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU

Please tell me then exactly why SCSI would help more than HT.

TCQ and higher I/Os

When I had SCSI I could do intensive tasks and my system wouldn't crawl...

Yup, the man is correct... Its the IDE controller making it crawl. Its not the processor and HT doesnt make THAT much of a differencre btw, but people today are fooled by marketing.

I could make a Dual Xeon or Athlon crawl, so Multi-threading has jackshit to do with it. Its your I/O system that is crawling.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

TTT

 

[BFG10K]

It's good to see the Athlon 64 3400+ doing well in the benchmarks. Supposedly Intel's Prescott will be out in February so things will get even more interesting.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Venomous

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU

Please tell me then exactly why SCSI would help more than HT.

TCQ and higher I/Os

When I had SCSI I could do intensive tasks and my system wouldn't crawl...

Yup, the man is correct... Its the IDE controller making it crawl. Its not the processor and HT doesnt make THAT much of a differencre btw, but people today are fooled by marketing.

I could make a Dual Xeon or Athlon crawl, so Multi-threading has jackshit to do with it. Its your I/O system that is crawling.

You think it's the IDE controller? People today are fooled by the HT marketing?

3.6GHz P4 with HT disabled vs 3.0GHz with HT enabled

Yeah, it looks like HT makes very little difference. I can't believe I was fooled.

 

[SUOrangeman]

And to think, we'll all still be able to use these chips with 64-bit action really goes primetime.

-SUO

 

[Dug]

Originally posted by: Venomous

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU

Please tell me then exactly why SCSI would help more than HT.

TCQ and higher I/Os

When I had SCSI I could do intensive tasks and my system wouldn't crawl...

Yup, the man is correct... Its the IDE controller making it crawl. Its not the processor and HT doesnt make THAT much of a differencre btw, but people today are fooled by marketing.

I could make a Dual Xeon or Athlon crawl, so Multi-threading has jackshit to do with it. Its your I/O system that is crawling.

Really depends on the application, doesn't it?
The THG video demonstrates this. As did mine, where I'm essentially running 3apps to play a dvd. SCSI wouldn't help one bit. HT makes all the difference in the world.

In most things I find it doesn't make any difference.

 

[XBoxLPU]

3.6GHz P4 with HT disabled vs 3.0GHz with HT enabled

Yeah, it looks like HT makes very little difference. I can't believe I was fooled.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=28&threadid=1180277

HT Will HELP, i never said it wouldn't

but HT + SCSI would make your system fly

 

[XBoxLPU]

Originally posted by: SUOrangeman
And to think, we'll all still be able to use these chips with 64-bit action really goes primetime.

-SUO

I can't wait!

 

[Bovinicus]

Originally posted by: Dug

Originally posted by: Venomous

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU

Please tell me then exactly why SCSI would help more than HT.

TCQ and higher I/Os

When I had SCSI I could do intensive tasks and my system wouldn't crawl...

Yup, the man is correct... Its the IDE controller making it crawl. Its not the processor and HT doesnt make THAT much of a differencre btw, but people today are fooled by marketing.

I could make a Dual Xeon or Athlon crawl, so Multi-threading has jackshit to do with it. Its your I/O system that is crawling.

Really depends on the application, doesn't it?
The THG video demonstrates this. As did mine, where I'm essentially running 3apps to play a dvd. SCSI wouldn't help one bit. HT makes all the difference in the world.

In most things I find it doesn't make any difference.

It certainly does depend on the application. Every application is affected different by different hardware enhancements. I think a higher throughput disk subsystem would help more with general usage and business applications. However, most business and general usage applications are not CPU limited, so HT probably wouldn't help that much except in heavy multitasking environments.

 

[cqcc]

agreed! every tech website claimed that A3400+ is the fastest cpu u ever can find now except tomshardware. why does toms still hate its own country's product since the first A3200+ and F51 out 2 monthes ago?? weird

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Two more things that bother be about the Tomshardware review, one with Intel bias, one with AMD bias, but still WRONG.

1) They OC'ed the 3400+, but did not OC the P4 to 3400 and then to mac OC (to match the 3400 OC?) and did not include the P4ee.

2) They say how many benches each wins, but if you have 10 games benches, and 20 encoding benches, and one CPU is better than the other, you can end up saying "well my CPU(insert favorite brand) won 67% of then benchmarks. (I did not count, just seemed like a lot of encoding benches.

Anands review is MUCH more even, but I don't know why he picked the FIC motherboard for the Athlon64 (not a great performer)

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: Bovinicus
I just wanted to point out how well the Athlon64 seems to be scaling with clockspeed. There were multiple benchmarks where the 10% increase in clockspeed from 2 to 2.2GHz resulted in 10%+ of an increase in performance. Most were at least 7%. There were a couple of benches severely limited by other system components, of course, but in general my previous statement holds true.

Yes! Unlike my Barton, when I overclocked my A64 another 100Mhz, game performance climbed significantly and so did benchmarks. I can only imagine what a A64 3700 would do. I'm thinking at least another 15% increase over the 3400. And I'm sorry, you cannot defend a P4 anything against these things. Just not going to happen unless you have a career at boot legging DVD's on Kazaa.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: Bovinicus
I just wanted to point out how well the Athlon64 seems to be scaling with clockspeed. There were multiple benchmarks where the 10% increase in clockspeed from 2 to 2.2GHz resulted in 10%+ of an increase in performance. Most were at least 7%. There were a couple of benches severely limited by other system components, of course, but in general my previous statement holds true.

Yes! Unlike when I overclocked my Barton, when I overclocked my A64 to another 100Mhz, game performance climbed significantly and so did benchmarks. I can only imagine what a A64 3700 would do. I'm thinking at least another 15% increase over the 3400. And I'm sorry, you cannot defend a P4 anything against these things. Just not going to happen unless you have a career at boot legging DVD's on Kazaa.

Give me a fvcking break! Career at boot legging DVDs on Kazaa? WTF? Listen, just because all you do is waste time playing games on your PC all day doesn't mean that is what everyone else does.

 

[Regs]

Break Given.

Just keep in mind the P4 no longer dominates the high end workstation environments that it once had. The 3000 and 3200 compete pound for pound with the 3.2 Intel. The 3400 ,as you can imagine, gives them a run for the money but at a much higher price tag.

So I'll ask for more of break. Because A. I obviously don't play games all day like you obviously don't do media encoding all day; And, B. The A64 seems to do more than just play games well.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Regs
Break Given.

Just keep in mind the P4 no longer dominates the high end workstation environments that it once had. The 3000 and 3200 compete pound for pound with the 3.2 Intel. The 3400 ,as you can imagine, gives them a run for the money but at a much higher price tag.

So I'll ask for more of break. Because A. I obviously don't play games all day like you obviously don't do media encoding all day; And, B. The A64 seems to do more than just play games well.

I'm glad you are taking a break because yes, I do spend ALOT of my time (main purpose of upgrading to a faster machine) encoding or compressing files. Oh and look at this, I'm not making a career bootlegging DVDs on Kazaa.

As for A64 vs P4, I'm probably leaning more toward the 3200+ or 3400+. These are some AWESOME chips and I might look over the slight lead the P4 has over them in the encoding area. But like I said, I'd like to see some benchmark of a A64 vs a P4 in CPU intensive multitasking.

 

[Regs]

Well JackBurton, every time I here someone try to defend the Intel being the better performer, they mention media encoding which is not generally used by a lot of people.

So I spoke out of line and in agitation. So you caught me there.

 

[Tom]

As DVD writers come down in price more and more people are going to be transfering home videos to DVD, so encoding speed isn't a minor point. Neither is the ability to also use the computer for something else while encoding.

But it's good there is an affordable Athlon64 and it will be even better once there are more motherboard choices.