AMD Athlon 64 3000+ scrutinised, compared

HERE'S THE FIRST in a special series of articles which compare the findings of different web site reviews of products to help make an informed technology buying decision by comparing different reviews on the World Wide Web.

Official AMD web site
Technical Information

Online reviews read, analysed
and condensed
AMDMB
Techreport
Hardtecs4u
AMD Zone
Anandtech
XbitLabs
Clubic
Hardware France
Computerbase
Hardware Norway

Is this already the best chip of 2004?
The AMD Athlon 64 3000+ will probably be remembered by many as its first foray into the 64-bit world of computing and considered by some as the best not-so-expensive-but-better-than-entry-level chip from the Sunnyvale company for a long time. AMD chose to launch the 3000+ CPU in a most subtle way after the 3200+ was introduced about 100 days earlier, so silent that not even a press release was issued for the occasion; more intriguingly, only two documents on the whole AMD website even mentions the model 3000+.

But it was definitely not a paper launch. For once, AMD has decided to move swiftly, leaving long-time competitor Intel apparently gasping for air. Stocks in US and in UK are in good shape and the number of rigs sporting the new wonderchip is on the rise. Though from a PR point of view, the launch of the Athlon 64 3000+ is not far from being a failure, for the geekers and enthusiasts, it is a God-gifted CPU.

The Athlon64 3000+ runs at 2Ghz, same as the Athlon64 3200+ but with only half the cache (512Kb vs 1Mb). The rumour that AMD has simply stuck a Model Number on those Athlon64 3200+ which have a partly defective/disabled L2 cache fits nicely with the model numbers it used since its previous Athlon XP range. The resemblance of these two siblings continues in the benchmarks where the lack of the 512Kb cache proved to be almost a non-issue.

Moreover, the Athlon64 3200+ is probably not the Newcastle version that everyone was waiting for. A 512Kb cache difference would probably save around 45mm2 out of 193mm2 (roughly 30 millions transistors), about 25% of the surface area which might grossly translate in a 25% price difference. Somehow, AMD must have believed that etching a new 512Kb CPU might prove more difficult than disabling or using “faulty” 512Kb CPUs.

Performance and overclockability
The Athlon 64 3000+ offers 90 to 95% of an Athlon 64 3200+ at around 35% discount. It still carries a premium compared to the Athlon XP series but do compare very favourably with Intel Pentium 4 range on most benchmarks (except on optimised ones - HT enabled). The issue of optimization will probably carry its weight. Hyperthreading does provide with some serious advantages to the higher Pentium 4 and software to take advantage of this IS already available as we see in the tests.

As for overclockability, the Athlon 64 3000+ proves to be a poor overclocker with an average of 10% gain. This can be partly explained by the “newness” of motherboards present on the market but also perhaps by something that lies within the CPU itself. I'll leave that bit to the experts.

The Microsoft Excel File here contains compiled data from several dozens benchmarking software from 9 different hardware websites. You will be able to do whatever manipulation you want and draw whatever chart you want. Why nine (now 10) reviews? As at time of writing, this appears to represent the total number of reviews on the whole internet on the AMD Athlon 64 3000+. If you know of more, please email me.

Finally, a word of caution. I have noticed that benchmarks for similar software packages vary widely across the 9 reviews examined. Downloading the packages and performing the benchmarks might prove to be a better idea.

In the marketplace
At the time of writing, the cheapest Athlon 64 3000+ costs only $205 (http://www.shopping.com/xPC-AMD_Processor_1_x_AMD_Athlon_64_3000_2_GHz_L2_512_KB) which compares overwhelmingly well with Intel's Pentium 4 2.8Ghz at $211, let alone the 3.0Ghz version. More interestingly is the swiftness with which motherboard manufacturers have jumped on to the socket 754 bandwagon. This contrasts starkly with the SlotA k7/Athlon mobo “shortage” in August 1999. About 103 types of motherboards from 27 manufacturers are currently available for a platform launched only 3 months ago! And they don't come that much expensive. Gigabyte GA-k8vt800 is available in the UK for a tad under £64 inc VAT while the ECS 755a sports a more sexy $ 84 price tag and with both featuring advanced features like SATA-Raid and 6-Channel Audio.

By having the FX51+ and the 3200+ launched before the 3000+, AMD has already placed a price benchmark where the logic would be that everything that comes below the 3200+ price would be good value for the money.

Bear in mind that big money is made mainly in the lower and in the middle-level markets. By selling a significant number of 64-bit processors, AMD would be able to (1) increase its ASP and therefore get more profit (2) get more CPU out there and convince software developers that there is a market out there (3) induce in and condition customers to the fact that 64-bit is really better than 32-bit.

Conclusion
The AMD Athlon 3000+ is the best value-for-money CPU around, period. The 3200+ might prove to be slightly more performing but adds around 25% to the cost of the 3000+. Intel lovers may debate it but the mere fact that the AMD's 64 bit technology is still in its infancy and hasn't fired on all its cylinders coupled with the impending launch of an X86-64 friendly 64 bit version of Windows XP make us all salivate. No one really knows the real impact that it might have performance-wise but the thought of having a virtual processor upgrade by a simple software replacement (Linux/Windows) will certainly send some disturbing signal to Intel.

It is now Intel's turn to play: by combining dual-core Prescotts with HT on a single die, they could effectively bring forward a virtual quad processor in one machine, will they dare to do so? Also will they introduce souped-up Celerons which will match today's Pentium 4 performance? Will they bring in Yamhill and throw 10 years of Merced investment through the window? Will Prescott be finally take off and being P4EE to a premature but welcome retirement?

As for the Newcastle version of the Athlon 64 with 130nm SOI technology and probably only 512Kb L2 cache, I sincerely believe that it will not appear this quarter. We might even not see it if AMD decides to switch to a 90nm SOI version (Winchester??) with 512Kb L2 and a dual channel memory controller thereby bypassing it. For now, the Athlon XP in its nice socket A nicely outguns Intel finest Celerons at a fraction of the price but that's another story. µ

Resources
AMD Athlon 64 forum
Windows Server 2003 for 64-Bit Extended Systems Beta Customer Preview Program