PDA

View Full Version : Is the A64 3500+ faster than the 3400+?


LiquidX
11-04-04, 01:30 PM
Well I am down to the last stages of building my new system but I just cant figure which one to get. I would rather speed over weather one is s939 or not. Can you guys please tell me your opinion on which is the better choice. System will run stock in everything and by the time I will even consider upgradeing I will be getting a whole new system most likely. So which will be faster at stock settings?

Here are the specs of both CPU's. The 3500+ seems to match the specs of the 3200+ but is s939. Any opinion is welcome.

3400+ s754
Specification
Model: AMD Athlon 64 3400+
Core: Newcastle
Operating Frequency: 2.4GHz
FSB: Integrated int chip
Cache: L1/64K+64K; L2/512K
Voltage: 1.5V
Process: 0.13Micron
Socket: Socket 754
Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNOW!, 3DNOW!+
Packaging: Retail Box (Heatsink and Fan included)

3500+ s939
Specification
Model: AMD Athlon 64
Core: Newcastle
Operating Frequency: 2.2GHz
FSB: Integrated into Chip
Cache: L1/64+64KB; L2/512K
Voltage: 1.5V
Process: 0.13Micron
Socket: Socket 939
Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNOW!, 3DNOW!+
Packaging: Retail

-=DVS=-
11-04-04, 01:41 PM
Its more of a question you want to go 939 or 754 route ?

|JuiceZ|
11-04-04, 01:59 PM
Its more of a question you want to go 939 or 754 route ?

Yup, since the perf diff between both cpus is pretty much neligible. For upgradeability, I'd recommend the 3500+ paired with some good low latency ram. With A64's, fast ram running @ 1T timings has much more of an impact on overall system performance than an extra 200Mhz.

LiquidX
11-04-04, 02:08 PM
Its more of a question you want to go 939 or 754 route ?


No it's strickly which is faster. By the time system will need to be upgraded something new and better will be out.

Also someone told me to check the reviews and here was my answer below. I really cant get nothing from the reviews so I would much rather user input.

Thats the thing none of the countless reviews are for the 3400+ which is 2.4ghz but the Clawhammer which is 2.2ghz but with better cache.All the reviews I have found uses the Clawhammer when putting it against the 3500+ so you cant really gage how good the 3400+ at 2.4 would perform.

Clawhammer which all the reviews seem to be using.
Specifications:
Model: AMD Athlon 64 3400+
Core: ClawHammer
Operating Frequency: 2.2GHz
FSB: Integrated into chip
Cache: L1/64K+64K; L2/1MB
Voltage: 1.5V
Process: 0.13Micron
Socket: Socket 754
Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNOW!, 3DNOW!+
Packaging: Retail Box (Heatsink and Fan included)

911medic
11-04-04, 02:10 PM
I've been looking into this as well, and trying to decide if there's any convincing evidence (for me, personally) that I should go S939 over S754. You can get a 754 3400+ (revision CG) for $238 at Newegg, vs. a 939 3500+ (also CG) for $288. So you trade 200MHz clockspeed for ~5% gain for dual channel memory, for $50.
So, it's a tough call. Since you're not worried about "future-proof," I guess you need to decide if $50 is worth what may be a SLIGHTLY faster 3500+. And I don't know for certain if the DC memory really makes up for the 200 MHz or not. Here (http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjI5LDI=) they compare a 754 3000+ that they OC'd to 2.45 GHz (just over the 3400+ you're looking at) and compared it to a 939 3500+. Maybe that'll help.

Riptide
11-04-04, 02:30 PM
Guys, BOTH of those CPUs he quoted are socket 939. And if I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing, AMD should be shot. The 3400+ looks to be faster than the 3500+ there.

*EDIT* My bad, the 3400+ he quoted is skt754. Doh! There is a 939 3400+ though.

circuitbreaker8
11-04-04, 02:58 PM
The 3400 1MB is better than the 3500 512k

911medic
11-04-04, 03:02 PM
The 3400 1MB is better than the 3500 512kBoth processors he's considering have 512KB L2 cache.

Dazz
11-04-04, 03:32 PM
I myself gone with the 3500+ better upgrade plan for the long run also i am running dual channel 550MHz FSB getting over 7.2GB/sec bandwith :D

Ninjaman09
11-04-04, 06:13 PM
The 3400 1MC is not necessarily better, it performs about equally across the board and does not offer the same kind of upgradability.

Riptide
11-04-04, 06:32 PM
Seems like more than 512K L2 is overrated. The FX53 doesn't get much of a boost from it vs. the 3800+ in most applications.

Viral
11-04-04, 08:38 PM
If you're overclocking, go with a 90nm 3500+. If you aren't, then the extra clock speed of the 3400+ Newcastle will mean more than dual channel memory controller on the 3500+ (for gamers, anyway).

john19055
11-04-04, 09:02 PM
I have the A643400+ newcastle 2.4g and it is 754 socket and it overclocks nice too but IMO I would go with the A643500+ 939 socket simply because you can upgrade it in the future .I check a lot of reviews and the 512mb of cache with a 200mhz speed boost was faster in games and nearly everthing else then the A643400 2.2g with 1meg of cache.IMO

911medic
11-04-04, 11:51 PM
I myself gone with the 3500+ better upgrade plan for the long runThe 3400 1MC is not necessarily better, it performs about equally across the board and does not offer the same kind of upgradability.If you're overclocking, go with a 90nm 3500+.IMO I would go with the A643500+ 939 socket simply because you can upgrade it in the futureGuys, as the thread starter clearly stated:
System will run stock in everything and by the time I will even consider upgradeing I will be getting a whole new system most likely. So which will be faster at stock settings?