As mentioned earlier, all the benchmarks were run at 1024x768 through 1600x1200 at maximum detail settings, with onboard sound enabled. In contrast to our application benchmarks, the control panel settings were set to "Balanced" for these tests. Again, all tests were run five times, with the average Frames per Second being displayed as the end result.
Unreal Tournament 2003: Antalus
| |
1024
|
1280
|
1600
|
| Athlon 64 3200+ |
114.93
|
72.98
|
47.03
|
| Athlon 64 3000+ |
109.45
|
69.89
|
45.28
|
Unreal Tournament 2004: as-convoy
| |
1024
|
1280
|
1600
|
| Athlon 64 3200+ |
86.51
|
69.61
|
43.78
|
| Athlon 64 3000+ |
81.22
|
65.22
|
40.67
|
For UT 2003 and 2004, at the lowest resolution is where we see the most difference. Once we get up to 1600x1200, the CPU (with our chosen video card) makes little difference.
Halo: Default Demo w/Shader 2.0
| |
1024
|
1280
|
1600
|
| Athlon 64 3200+ |
35.89
|
24.73
|
17.42
|
| Athlon 64 3000+ |
33.23
|
21.68
|
16.41
|
Both CPUs perform very closely with one another, from the lowest to highest resolution. At 1600x1200, the 3000+ is 1.01 Frames per Second slower, which is not going to be noticeable at all.
Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Checkpoint Demo
| |
1024
|
1280
|
1600
|
| Athlon 64 3200+ |
145.2
|
132.5
|
94.0
|
| Athlon 64 3000+ |
144.2
|
129.6
|
93.9
|
Quake 3: Arena: Demo Four
| |
1024
|
1280
|
1600
|
| Athlon 64 3200+ |
322.7
|
215.1
|
150.4
|
| Athlon 64 3000+ |
321.8
|
213.2
|
148.7
|
Far Cry: Fort Demo
| |
1024
|
1280
|
1600
|
| Athlon 64 3200+ |
36.26
|
24.85
|
15.86
|
| Athlon 64 3000+ |
33.21
|
21.87
|
12.89
|
I think it's pretty clear what is happening today. Although higher resolutions do stress video card performance more, at 1024x768 the CPU still plays a large part in the benchmark results. Nonetheless, I think our numbers speak for themselves. For a much cheaper CPU, the 3000+ is within 10% across the board at high resolutions.
Overclocking
Overclocking the Athlon 64 is something VL covered quite a bit in previous reviews. As we've seen in these reviews, your overclocking success will vary greatly depending on your motherboard and cooling. Using K8T800 motherboards, we've had various levels of success in the 215FSB to 225FSB range. The lack of dividers on this platform probably had a lot to do with it.
I know there have been some issues with the K8N Neo when it comes to overclocking, but it's the only Socket-754 motherboard we have access to that can lock the AGP/PCI slots. Despite these issues with the 3200+ and K8N, I was anxious to give it a go with the 3000+. I'll spare you all the drama and get to the point... at a 10x multiplier I managed an OC of 238FSB at 1.8v. This translates to a 2.38GHz OC, which isn't bad at all. I did manage to push it as high as 242FSB, but no amount of voltage tweaking stabilized the system even with our Koolance EXOS running at Mode 3.
Just a FYI, 245FSB caused the strange problem we've seen with the K8N Neo where the FSB automatically dropped to 100FSB. Anyhow, the question is, how much of a performance gain in gaming will we see from an extra 380MHz?
Quake 3: Arena: Demo Four
| |
1024
|
1280
|
1600
|
| Athlon 64 3000+ |
321.8
|
213.2
|
148.7
|
| Athlon 64 3000+ OC |
334.2
|
219.3
|
154.1
|
Far Cry: Fort Demo
| |
1024
|
1280
|
1600
|
| Athlon 64 3000+ |
33.21
|
21.87
|
12.89
|
| Athlon 64 3000+ OC |
42.94
|
27.43
|
18.33
|
The extra speed certainly makes a big difference on our benchmarks, surpassing the numbers put out by the 3200+. I'm sure the video card was holding us back a bit, and perhaps a high end card by ATI or NVIDIA would net us a larger difference.
Final Words
Hubert made a statement that I know he's gotten some flack for and that was "Socket-754s are on the way out."
Now, we already know the Socket-754 is still on AMD's roadmap, and will be moved into the "budget" category, but his statement makes some sense when you think of it. AMD is pretty much committed to the Socket-939 platform for the foreseeable future, and truth be told, an upgrade to a Socket-754 CPU is going to limit your motherboard or CPU options, which is an important factor since our theme today is budget gaming.
If you pick up a Socket-754, such as the 3000+, you'll need a Socket-754 motherboard to go with it. Should you want to change motherboards in six months, I'm willing to bet the majority of the ones you'll find in shops will be of the Socket-939 variety. Let's switch things around. Let's say you love your mobo and want a new CPU. Well, you guessed it, you'll be stuck with a Socket-754 as well. What your options will be by then, only time will tell. I think this is the point Hubert was harping on, and I think this makes some sense.
On the otherhand, we've already seen where the Athlon XP stands compared to the Athlon 64. Although it is by no means a slouch, the XP is getting a little long on tooth. I'll admit it hurt a bit financially when I initially made the 64-Bit jump with the 3000+, but looking back, it was a good move as it keeps my system viable for gaming, which I do a lot of, and offloading my XP setup for a bit of cash did soften the blow. For reference, here's a bit of pricing I dug up for you (all in US prices):
Athlon 64 3000+:
K8T Neo:
That brings us a total of 287$, excluding taxes and shipping. For reference, an A64 3200+ will run you , and the cheapest Socket-939 CPU will run . Although it's about a 64$ difference between the 3200+ and the 3000+, I still think that the 3000+ is a better buy since our overclocking results have been a bit better than with the 3200+, at least here at VL. Overclocking is a random type of thing though, as no two CPUs are alike, but based on our experiences that is what we observed.
If we're going to talk about big bucks, and that's something you have, then go for the latest processor and video card. A lot of this article was based on reality though, and I'd imagine not a whole lot of you are ready to drop $1200 for a CPU, motherboard and video card combo. For the price of the Socket-939, you can pick up an A64 3000+, K8T800 based motherboard, and a decent mid-ranged video card. For gamers on a budget, I think the choice is obvious.
Pros: Great performance, relatively cheap, good overclocker.
Cons: Limited upgrade path as the move to Socket-939 progresses.
Bottom Line: If you're on a limited budget, it's really tough to go wrong with the A64 3000+. Overclocking it puts out some serious performance as well, so for this price point, it's a no brainer.
If you have any comments, be sure to hit us up in our forums.
HOME
