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+: 206$
K8T Neo: 81$
That
brings us a total of 287$, excluding taxes and shipping. For
reference, an A64 3200+ will run you about
270$, and the cheapest Socket-939 CPU will run about
450$. Although it's about a 64$ 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
