performance

Its very marginal in all tests. S939 is superior due to pci-e and supposedly ddr2 in the future. Probably because the 3400+ used the clawhammer core which is still used by the fx series of cpus.
 
DDR2 will not come to s939, it is expected to come to the M2 socket. Also ddr2 offers no advantage for amd now. Especailly when we have DDR600 (not a JDEC spec though).

PCI-E is marginal performance now aswell.

the extra 200mhz is probably more important in HL2 then the extra memory bandwidth.
 
DryFire said:
DDR2 will not come to s939, it is expected to come to the M2 socket. Also ddr2 offers no advantage for amd now. Especailly when we have DDR600 (not a JDEC spec though).

PCI-E is marginal performance now aswell.

the extra 200mhz is probably more important in HL2 then the extra memory bandwidth.
Click to expand...

Bus speed is relatively unimportant with a64's, as they are not bandwidth starved like p4's. clock seems to be the big one.
 
cfish said:
why did the 3400 out perform the 3500 when the 3500 has more bus and supposedly the superior 939 socket?
Click to expand...
in case you didn't pay careful attention, here are the specs on those two chips. i put the thing that makes the 3400+ faster in bold

# AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (Socket 939, 2.2 GHz, 512KB L2);
# AMD Athlon 64 3400+ (Socket 754, 2.2 GHz, 1024KB L2);

yes, having more cache is sometimes, if not more often better than having more bandwidth for an a64. if you can have both (a64-FX), then you're set ;)
 
Well as I understand it the 3700+ will be a 2.2GHz 1Mb cache part. Itll out game the 3800+ and with a little OC ripp the belly out of all A64s w. 512 kb cache. The question is how much of a headroom the 3700+ will have if they have binned the San Diegos to get the FXs and the faster cores as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top