PDA

View Full Version : AMD 3200XP vs FX53/3800


Pages : [1] 2

reactiv8
10-25-04, 07:11 PM
Can anybody post a link or something with benches of AMD Athlon 3200XP vs Amd Athlon 53or/and 3800 with GeForce 6800ultra in games like Doom3,Far Cry in High resolutions(1600x1200 etc)
See i wanna buy that card or even wait for the next gen card but i dont wanna buy a new CPu since i am running everything at 1600X1200 AA AF but i wanna see the difference at high resolutions...
I really appreciate that...Cheers..

CaptNKILL
10-25-04, 07:14 PM
Yes, im very interested in this too. It seems theres a big difference between XPs and top end FX CPUs at medium resolutions, but I hardly ever see any reviews that compair CPUs at high graphics resolutions with AA\AF.

It doesnt really make any sense. Anyone who spends $3,000 on high end PC parts isnt buying them to play at 1024x768 with no AA or AF.

Graphicmaniac
10-25-04, 07:32 PM
there will probably be differences in HL2 coz it use much cpu power for its phisic engine.

anyway my idea is that a 3200xp permorms just like an A64 2800

but i forgot the benchamrk .. and is time to go to sleep, i will check tomorrow ehe, night.

MUYA
10-25-04, 07:46 PM
Hang around my review of a Leadtek A400 Ultra TDH is due this week and my system is a mid end Barton 2800+@ 2.2Ghz. There is difference between Barton and K8s........stay tuned

Cota
10-25-04, 08:22 PM
Do a search in toms hardware, I recall they recently made a review with several processors including the xp3200 and FX53.

EternalManifest
10-25-04, 10:02 PM
"anyway my idea is that a 3200xp permorms just like an A64 2800"

Wow, never heard such a horrid comparison. XP's are in no way shape or form on par with any A64's.

I'm looking for the Doom 3 benchmarks I've seen thousands of times putting A64's $150 chip on par with Pentiums $800 chip EE.

Edit:

Have fun.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

AMD64 > AMDXP anyday.

AMD64's stomp pentium as well. Hard.

Quickest bench I could muster up, there's another good one on HardOCP if you feel like looking for it. Says the same thing.

THE VIKING
10-25-04, 10:46 PM
I agree. The Athlon XP isn't in the same league with the Athlon 64, especially in games. An Athlon 64 2800+ would humiliate an Athlon XP 3200+. Don't pay much attention to those PR ratings when comparing the two CPUs. Even a Sempron 3100+ which is based on the A64 core but lacks 64-bit support and only has 256K of L2 cache is slower than an A64 2800+.

The Athlon XP 3200+ is no slouch though as it would easily beat my P4 3.06GHz system.

mezkal
10-25-04, 10:47 PM
Wouldn't beat mine ;)

Lemur.fi
10-26-04, 12:50 AM
With 1600x1200 the difference is ofcourse even less than in that 1280x1024 chart.

Might be a bit high price to pay for a few measly FPS.

Lezmaka
10-26-04, 01:12 AM
It's not exactly what you want, but Anandtech did a big roundup of CPUs for the Athlon 64 4000+ (same thing as FX53, except higher multipliers are locked) and FX55, including Athlon XP 3200+. But they use X800 XT and all games are run at 1024x768 with no AA/AF. But even then, since it's pretty certain those games are CPU bound, you can be pretty sure that a 6800 Ultra at 1600x1200 4xAA/16xAF won't be any higher :)

Game benches start on page 9
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2249&p=9

Quick Numbers

All 1024x768

Doom 3
XP 3200+ - 58
64 4000+ - 100.7

CS Source
XP 3200+ - 98.3
64 4000+ - 185.6

Halo
XP 3200+ - 59.9
64 4000+ - 96.7

Star Wars: Battlefront
XP 3200+ - 112
64 4000+ - 145

Battlefield Vietnam
XP 3200+ - 170
64 4000+ - 240

UT2004
XP 3200+ - 44.5
64 4000+ - 70.9

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory
XP 3200+ - 73.3
64 4000+ - 108.9

Sims 2
XP 3200+ - 35
64 4000+ - 56.5

Far Cry
XP 3200+ - 93.4
64 4000+ - 154.9

Warcraft III
XP 3200+ - 46
64 4000+ - 62

bkswaney
10-26-04, 01:43 AM
It's not exactly what you want, but Anandtech did a big roundup of CPUs for the Athlon 64 4000+ (same thing as FX53, except higher multipliers are locked) and FX55, including Athlon XP 3200+. But they use X800 XT and all games are run at 1024x768 with no AA/AF. But even then, since it's pretty certain those games are CPU bound, you can be pretty sure that a 6800 Ultra at 1600x1200 4xAA/16xAF won't be any higher :)

Game benches start on page 9
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2249&p=9

Quick Numbers

All 1024x768

Doom 3
XP 3200+ - 58
64 4000+ - 100.7

CS Source
XP 3200+ - 98.3
64 4000+ - 185.6

Halo
XP 3200+ - 59.9
64 4000+ - 96.7

Star Wars: Battlefront
XP 3200+ - 112
64 4000+ - 145

Battlefield Vietnam
XP 3200+ - 170
64 4000+ - 240

UT2004
XP 3200+ - 44.5
64 4000+ - 70.9

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory
XP 3200+ - 73.3
64 4000+ - 108.9

Sims 2
XP 3200+ - 35
64 4000+ - 56.5

Far Cry
XP 3200+ - 93.4
64 4000+ - 154.9

Warcraft III
XP 3200+ - 46
64 4000+ - 62


The 64 just KILLS the XP. :ORDER:
This is why I'm putting a 64 in my rig.

mustrum
10-26-04, 03:15 AM
"anyway my idea is that a 3200xp permorms just like an A64 2800"

Wow, never heard such a horrid comparison. XP's are in no way shape or form on par with any A64's.

I'm looking for the Doom 3 benchmarks I've seen thousands of times putting A64's $150 chip on par with Pentiums $800 chip EE.

Edit:

Have fun.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

AMD64 > AMDXP anyday.

AMD64's stomp pentium as well. Hard.

Quickest bench I could muster up, there's another good one on HardOCP if you feel like looking for it. Says the same thing.

In fact that comparison is quite a good one. Yay you brought up a Doom 3 benchmark. Woohoo. Doom 3 once again proofs how useless it is to compare stuff.
In almost any other game out there a XP 3200+ is just on par with the 2800+ A64.
The A64 have more potential for sure (wich Doom 3 shows quite well) but most games run just great on A XP systems.
A highly clocked XP-M still stomps the low rated A64 into the ground.
(And most P4s anyway. :lol2: )

Edit: Comparing a XP 3200+ to a FX 55 is ridiculous though. Of course the FX 55 is A LOT better than any XP. The new graphics cards need as muchz CPU power as they can get.

Chippy
10-26-04, 04:35 AM
Yes the 64 is a more powerful processor than the humble XP. But does that equate to better performance in games? Not necessarily. For example, take a look at this:

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?p=1333046380

Here's how the 64-3500 and FX-53 compare to the XP3200+ in Doom3 at 1600x1200, 8xAF. The XP3200+ wins!!! Muahahahahahah

And that's with less ram than the other 2 configs. Long live XP!

Chip

zakelwe
10-26-04, 06:34 AM
My wife rang me up earlier and told me my new FX55 had been delivered and that she had got the beers in and they were cooling down as we speak for when I get home from work.

Actually I lie, I will have to buy the beers on the way home from work. Sometimes life is just not fair ... :rolleyes:


:D

Might install Far Cry on that machine and give it a whirl, say do 200x9 up to 200x13 to give the overall range for AMD64 ( although 1MB cache of course ).

Regards

Andy

Graphicmaniac
10-26-04, 06:40 AM
4 EternalManifest

look that i said it was a my "idea" coz if you read below i also wrote i have forgot the bechmark comparisons of them.

anyway now i have find

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=a642800&page=5&MSCSProfile=95385A1F52DEA1A229D5B375420544642B7303 6F2F19209B7A735E1F18FB905184D60FD0BBFD8324652642EA 60C67C9829EF6FE214481614B2C88ECF1FF7C9793AA187884C 86470A239DFD62FE73A1EFD562E5F8C072E3CCCC5C3B143677 655F014D651617F941D7C192F5C9DCA2B5E65AACB873D06A56 A5A60C2DB5632B39963A0CD05CC50F2E09

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=a642800&page=6&MSCSProfile=95385A1F52DEA1A229D5B375420544642B7303 6F2F19209B7A735E1F18FB905184D60FD0BBFD8324652642EA 60C67C9829EF6FE214481614B2C88ECF1FF7C9793AA187884C 86470A239DFD62FE73A1EFD562E5F8C072E3CCCC5C3B143677 655F014D651617F941D7C192F5C9DCA2B5E65AACB873D06A56 A5A60C2DB5632B39963A0CD05CC50F2E09

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=a642800&page=7&MSCSProfile=95385A1F52DEA1A229D5B375420544642B7303 6F2F19209B7A735E1F18FB905184D60FD0BBFD8324652642EA 60C67C9829EF6FE214481614B2C88ECF1FF7C9793AA187884C 86470A239DFD62FE73A1EFD562E5F8C072E3CCCC5C3B143677 655F014D651617F941D7C192F5C9DCA2B5E65AACB873D06A56 A5A60C2DB5632B39963A0CD05CC50F2E09

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=a642800&page=8&MSCSProfile=95385A1F52DEA1A229D5B375420544642B7303 6F2F19209B7A735E1F18FB905184D60FD0BBFD8324652642EA 60C67C9829EF6FE214481614B2C88ECF1FF7C9793AA187884C 86470A239DFD62FE73A1EFD562E5F8C072E3CCCC5C3B143677 655F014D651617F941D7C192F5C9DCA2B5E65AACB873D06A56 A5A60C2DB5632B39963A0CD05CC50F2E09

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=a642800&page=9&MSCSProfile=95385A1F52DEA1A229D5B375420544642B7303 6F2F19209B7A735E1F18FB905184D60FD0BBFD8324652642EA 60C67C9829EF6FE214481614B2C88ECF1FF7C9793AA187884C 86470A239DFD62FE73A1EFD562E5F8C072E3CCCC5C3B143677 655F014D651617F941D7C192F5C9DCA2B5E65AACB873D06A56 A5A60C2DB5632B39963A0CD05CC50F2E09


A64 2800+ permorms usually the same or little bit faster in any situation

and is between 10% and 20% faster in games.

A64 2800+ cost less than XP3200+, at least here in italy.

mustrum
10-26-04, 06:49 AM
4 EternalManifest

look that i said it was a my "idea" coz if you read below i also wrote i have forgot the bechmark comparisons of them.

anyway now i have find

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=a642800&page=5&MSCSProfile=95385A1F52DEA1A229D5B375420544642B7303 6F2F19209B7A735E1F18FB905184D60FD0BBFD8324652642EA 60C67C9829EF6FE214481614B2C88ECF1FF7C9793AA187884C 86470A239DFD62FE73A1EFD562E5F8C072E3CCCC5C3B143677 655F014D651617F941D7C192F5C9DCA2B5E65AACB873D06A56 A5A60C2DB5632B39963A0CD05CC50F2E09

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=a642800&page=6&MSCSProfile=95385A1F52DEA1A229D5B375420544642B7303 6F2F19209B7A735E1F18FB905184D60FD0BBFD8324652642EA 60C67C9829EF6FE214481614B2C88ECF1FF7C9793AA187884C 86470A239DFD62FE73A1EFD562E5F8C072E3CCCC5C3B143677 655F014D651617F941D7C192F5C9DCA2B5E65AACB873D06A56 A5A60C2DB5632B39963A0CD05CC50F2E09

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=a642800&page=7&MSCSProfile=95385A1F52DEA1A229D5B375420544642B7303 6F2F19209B7A735E1F18FB905184D60FD0BBFD8324652642EA 60C67C9829EF6FE214481614B2C88ECF1FF7C9793AA187884C 86470A239DFD62FE73A1EFD562E5F8C072E3CCCC5C3B143677 655F014D651617F941D7C192F5C9DCA2B5E65AACB873D06A56 A5A60C2DB5632B39963A0CD05CC50F2E09

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=a642800&page=8&MSCSProfile=95385A1F52DEA1A229D5B375420544642B7303 6F2F19209B7A735E1F18FB905184D60FD0BBFD8324652642EA 60C67C9829EF6FE214481614B2C88ECF1FF7C9793AA187884C 86470A239DFD62FE73A1EFD562E5F8C072E3CCCC5C3B143677 655F014D651617F941D7C192F5C9DCA2B5E65AACB873D06A56 A5A60C2DB5632B39963A0CD05CC50F2E09

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=a642800&page=9&MSCSProfile=95385A1F52DEA1A229D5B375420544642B7303 6F2F19209B7A735E1F18FB905184D60FD0BBFD8324652642EA 60C67C9829EF6FE214481614B2C88ECF1FF7C9793AA187884C 86470A239DFD62FE73A1EFD562E5F8C072E3CCCC5C3B143677 655F014D651617F941D7C192F5C9DCA2B5E65AACB873D06A56 A5A60C2DB5632B39963A0CD05CC50F2E09


A64 2800+ permorms usually the same or little bit faster in any situation

and is between 10% and 20% faster in games.

A64 2800+ cost less than XP3200+, at least here in italy.
Yeah but a mobile XP 2600+ is a lot less than a 2800+ and usually can do 2600mhz.
I wouldn't build an XP system now but for those who have nforce2 boards it's still a very nice option.
Even my desktop barton is doing damn well still.
Why upgrade if there is no need yet?

Chippy
10-26-04, 08:02 AM
4 EternalManifest

A64 2800+ permorms usually the same or little bit faster in any situation

and is between 10% and 20% faster in games.


I think your comments are misleading. You show 11 benchmarks. The non-overclocked 64 wins 7 and the XP3200+ wins 4. This is "sometimes wins".

You can't fairly compare an overclocked 64-2800 with a non-overclocked XP3200+. How would the 64-2800 compare with an XP3200+ running at 2.5GHz - which many of them will? I would say it would *lose* in the majority of the benchmarks.

Also, you say its 10-20% faster in games? Well as my earlier post showed, even a FX-53 is not even 1% faster than a regular XP3200+ in Doom3 at 1600x1200, 8AF. What this shows is that - even using X800XT PE's or 6800 Ultras - new games like Doom3 run at 1600x1200 are still GPU limited and a faster processor offers no benefit.

I guess what it really boils down to is where you are on your upgrading / purchasing decisions. If I was building a new PC today, I can say 100% certain I would go A64. Perhaps even FX-53 or FX-55. But if you already have a good 32-bit XP solution, then the benefits are marginal. And the cost can be considerable.

To get a CPU that will *significantly* outperform my XP3200 (running at 2400MHz), I would probably have to spend something in the region of 600 on a new motherboard, CPU, Heatsink and fan. Add another 200 if I needed registered Dimms. 600 ~ 800 is ***Way*** too much to spend for something that may improve overall system speed by what? 10%? Its not worth it.

Chip

Graphicmaniac
10-26-04, 09:37 AM
Look that there is not only an overclocked 2800 ...

there are both the oc and 2800 at stock speed...


and if you wanna talk about oc 2800 of course overclocks a lot better ehe


anyway if you go to read my 1st post my intention was to show that there is not big difference between xp3200 and A64 2800

about games

if you look the stats you will see that A64 is nearly always 10-15-20 % faster than xp3200

i wonder how many people own a 6800 ... and then how many use the 1600 4x 16x..

my monitor (and i guess a lot of other in the world) just reach the 1280 lol.

:)

reactiv8
10-26-04, 10:24 AM
Doezn matter...It is out of topic(64 2800 vs 3200Xp) all i am saying that if u wanna play Doom3 or Far Cry at 1600x1200 AA AFturned on there wont be much difference in FPS( 3-5 FPS max).There was 1 good review with Far Cry on Hight settings and resolution at Firingsquad.com but i cant find it....
I am sure that there will be a big differnce between AMd Athlon 3200Xp vs Amd 55 FX, BUT how big? we will find out soon ....

Mojoe
10-26-04, 10:29 AM
Well i think my Barton at 2714Mhz is still fast, i dont have any plans yet to upgrade it to an Amd-64 but who knows...

Chippy
10-26-04, 10:39 AM
Doezn matter...It is out of topic(64 2800 vs 3200Xp) all i am saying that if u wanna play Doom3 or Far Cry at 1600x1200 AA AFturned on there wont be much difference in FPS( 3-5 FPS max).

Well like my link shows, at 1600x1200 with 8xAF the XP3200+ *beats* an FX53. I am sure this is just down to margin of error in the benchmark runs. But the reality is, it is just as fast.

Graphicmaniac,
Yes, there are OC and non-OC 64's in the charts you provided. But there are no OC'ed XP's in the charts. Its not fair to compare an overclocked 64 with a non-oc'ed XP. I would like to see what the charts would look like with an XP at 2500MHz or more, and particularly with an FSB of perhaps 250MHz. That would be very interesting.

Chip

zbose
10-26-04, 10:56 AM
What you guys don't seem to understand is that at 1600x1200 8xAA 16xAF, the games are NOT CPU BOUND. NOT AT ALL! Instead the graphics card is the only part of the system holding it back. That is why you always see gaming processor comparisons showing low resolutions. At that point the graphics card is not the limiting factor in frame rates, the CPU is.

So while you are technically correct in saying that at 1600x1200 the CPU won't make as big of a difference, if you were to watch the framerate throughout the test I am sure you would see that the faster processor bogs down less during heavy physics type stuff... IE, in 32 player UT2k4 in a large fire fight you would maintain your 70 fps while everyone else drops below 20.

So quit deluding yourselves. an FX-53 will eat a 3200XP for breakfast in terms of power. Depending on your GFX card and what you play, it may or may not be a wise upgrade. I know I would see a HUGE difference between my 3000+ XP (at 2.4 GHZ) with my 6800GT, as I maintain constant frame rates until the number of UT2k4 players gets up to 32... then it boggggggs.

-zbose

Chippy
10-26-04, 11:04 AM
What you guys don't seem to understand is that at 1600x1200 8xAA 16xAF, the games are NOT CPU BOUND. NOT AT ALL!

No sheet, Sherlock. I think we had managed to piece that together ourselves.

The OP asked about performance in games like D3 and Far Cry at 1600x1200 with AA and AF. And in those circumstances the faster CPU won't make much difference.

Chip

zbose
10-26-04, 12:03 PM
...I am sure you would see that the faster processor bogs down less during heavy physics type stuff...

As in on the ship in the first level of far cry. Or perhaps in the last level with all the rocket launching monster monkeys.

theultimo
10-26-04, 12:13 PM
My mobo was only $30 w/ the 3000+ being $150. Price/performance is still nice in the XP line.