Which one is faster? AMD64 3400 or 3500?

[Jincuteguy]

Which one is faster? amd 64 3400 or 3500? or they're about the same performance even though 3400 is 2.4ghz and 3500 is 2.2ghz? (let leave out the future proof advantage of 3500).

 

[Avalon]

I can't seem to find any links at the moment, but I'd suspect the extra 200mhz is worth more performance than the dual channel ability, since the A64 isn't starved for bandwidth. Plus, there's the DFI Lanparty for s754

 

[Jincuteguy]

if i get the 3500, will I be able to overclock it to 2.4ghz easily?

 

[charloscarlies]

Originally posted by: Jincuteguy
if i get the 3500, will I be able to overclock it to 2.4ghz easily?

Most likely yes. But you also have to wonder how the 3400 will overclock as well.

 

[Jincuteguy]

yea but somehow I think dual channel memory is a lot better.

 

[charloscarlies]

Originally posted by: Jincuteguy
yea but somehow I think dual channel memory is a lot better.

Well somehow you've thought wrong.

Yes dual channel memory is nice...but the A64's are not bandwidth starved like the P4's. From a lot of tests it seems to make maybe a 3-5% difference in performance. Clock speed is much more important with the A64's.

 

[klah]

There is some guy that benchmarks cpus and posts the results on the internet. I think his name in Anind or Anond or something. You may want to look into it.

 

[dennisjai215]

if memory serves me right i think the 3500+ was faster than the 3400+ in anandtechs review a long time ago

 

[VIAN]

At stock, the 3500 is faster. That's why it's called 3500.

 

[SonicIce]

Anandtech even made a special page about the 3400+ vs 3500+. Check it out. 3500+ is faster in almost everything.

 

[charloscarlies]

Originally posted by: SonicIce
Anandtech even made a special page about the 3400+ vs 3500+. Check it out. 3500+ is faster in almost everything.

You guys are missing a key point....they are comparing the 3500+ to the 3400+ CLAWHAMMER. The Clawhammer is giving up 200 mhz over the Newcastle counterpart. Try comparing a 3400+ Newcastle with the 3500+ and see how much closer it is.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: charloscarlies

Originally posted by: SonicIce
Anandtech even made a special page about the 3400+ vs 3500+. Check it out. 3500+ is faster in almost everything.

You guys are missing a key point....they are comparing the 3500+ to the 3400+ CLAWHAMMER. The Clawhammer is giving up 200 mhz over the Newcastle counterpart. Try comparing a 3400+ Newcastle with the 3500+ and see how much closer it is.

the 3400+ clawhammer performs identical to the 3400+ newcastle. the loss of 512k cache is made up by increasing the frequency by 200mhz. cache isnt all too important for amd as it is for intel, and in amd's case, they decided to make the newcastles in order to keep cost of production down. cache costs a lot of money. AMD wouldnt name them 3400+ if they performed so diffrent. anyways, you're missing a key point also. the 3500+ is just a 3400+ on socket 939. amd only named it 3500+ because socket 939 actually increased the cpu's performance to a point where it would compare with an intel 3.5ghz.

 

[charloscarlies]

Originally posted by: Mik3y

Originally posted by: charloscarlies

Originally posted by: SonicIce
Anandtech even made a special page about the 3400+ vs 3500+. Check it out. 3500+ is faster in almost everything.

You guys are missing a key point....they are comparing the 3500+ to the 3400+ CLAWHAMMER. The Clawhammer is giving up 200 mhz over the Newcastle counterpart. Try comparing a 3400+ Newcastle with the 3500+ and see how much closer it is.

the 3400+ clawhammer performs identical to the 3400+ newcastle. the loss of 512k cache is made up by increasing the frequency by 200mhz. cache isnt all too important for amd as it is for intel, and in amd's case, they decided to make the newcastles in order to keep cost of production down. cache costs a lot of money. AMD wouldnt name them 3400+ if they performed so diffrent. anyways, you're missing a key point also. the 3500+ is just a 3400+ on socket 939. amd only named it 3500+ because socket 939 actually increased the cpu's performance to a point where it would compare with an intel 3.5ghz.

I see your point, but from all my testing clock speed is more important in most apps and especially games. I'm currently using a 3200+ CH at 2.2 (basically a 3400+ CH), but at one time my 3200+ NC @ 2.4 (basically a 3400+ NC) performed better in ALL gaming benchmarks. It really just depends on whether the apps you run need the added L2 cache.

 

[Avalon]

Yeah, the Anand benches were between a 512kb L2 cache 3500+ @ 2.2ghz and a 1mb L2 cache 3400+ @ 2.2ghz. The OP was referring to a newcastle 3400+ with half the cache and an extra 200mhz in frequency. The extra mhz are much more influential than the extra cache. I'd still think that the newcastle 3400+ would be slightly faster. I mean, if there are benches out there that show otherwise, then at least I've learned something, but I couldn't find any.

 

[Zebo]

2.2 claw (3400)would loose in every test to a 2.4 NC(3400).

And a 3500NC would loose everytest to a 3400NC.


I can prove this stuff if you want but first I'd prefer you look at a claw 3200 vs nc 3000 review and anands review posted earlier in this thread and do the math. It's real simple CPU performance scales linearly with CPU speed. And since both 1mb lvl 2 or dual channel only makes 3-5% difference it can't hope to compete with the 3400nc's 200 (8-10%) mhz advantage. Unless you add both dual channel and 1 mb lvl 2 found in the FX-51 then it will about tie a 3400NC while running 200mhz slower.

The 3400NC is the best chip in price and perfromance too.

 

[ijester]

After spending 2 hours reading every friggin review out there ( I sometimes have no life!) and all the benchmarks and forum posts, I have come to the conclusion that performance wise, the 3500 barely beats out either 3400 in many tests, and loses to them in a few, Proving that the higher memory bandwidth is not enough to always overcome the lower mhz/smaller cache. So it really comes down to do you want the 754 or 940 pin(will be phased out, albeit somewhat slowly) or the 939 pin motherboard, to be able to upgrade in the future?

 

[Dave n Daytona Beach]

The 940 will continue for Opteron's.

 

[Jincuteguy]

ok, if I get the 3500, will I be able to overclock it easily to 2.4ghz? if so, then 3500 would be a better deal right?

 

[Zebo]

upgrade to what? Scaling is dead. Both AMD and intel can't release much faster chips w/o putting everyone on vaporchills or watercooling. These chips are using insane amounts of power relative to just a couple years ago and it will only get worse if they try and keep upping the Mhz speeds. So they have both already made the dual core commitment. And you next CPU will not be a 4000Mhz 939 but a dual 1800mhz 1878pin board. Nessesitating a completly new board and processor either way you go.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Jincuteguy
ok, if I get the 3500, will I be able to overclock it easily to 2.4ghz? if so, then 3500 would be a better deal right?

Yes should get 2.5- 2.6 on stock HSF... Only a couple bucks more...I would go 939 out of these three options if you're overclcoking.

But 3000+ really is the better deal....but since you wer'nt asking..nevermind