TechReports.com Athlon 3000+ review

[SM-Bot]

TechReports.com: AMD's Athlon 64 3000+ processor
Finally, a Hammer without Pentagon pricing!

WE LOVE TO COVER the release of hot new processors that run at seventy jazillion megahertz and cost more than a Florida vacation, but everybody knows the real action is down in the middle of the product line, in the sweet spot. No, we're not talking about some semi-veiled reference in a Britney Spears song. We're talking about the point where the supply and demand lines converge at optimum performance, the place where good deals are born and tech know-how can overcome the constraints of a limited budget.

AMD's new Athlon 64 3000+ arguably resides in the sweet spot now, priced at less than $220 for an honest-to-goodness 2GHz "Hammer" microprocessor with a built-in memory controller and true 64-bit computing capabilities. To see how the 3000+ measures up, we've benchmarked it against 11 of its closest competitors. Keep reading to see what we found.


The Review Features'
<ul><li> Athlon 64 3000+ 2.0GHz 512K Cache
<li> Athlon 64 3200+ 2.00ghz 1MB Cache
<li> Athlon 64 3400+ 2.20ghz 1MB Cache
<li> Opteron 146 2.00ghz 1MB Cache
<li> Athlon 64 FX-51 2.20ghz 1MB Cache
<li> Pentium 4 EE 3.20ghz 2MB L3 Cache
<li> Pentium 4 'C' 3.20ghz
<li> Pentium 4 'C' 2.80ghz
<li> Pentium 4 'C' 2.40ghz
<li> Athlon XP 'Barton' 3200+ 2.200ghz
<li> Athlon XP 'Barton' 2800+ 1.833ghz
<li> Athlon XP 'Barton' 2500+ 2.083ghz </ul>

[Omega65]

Conclusions

It sounds trite to say, but the Athlon 64 3000+ performs about like one might expect a 2GHz AMD Hammer processor with 512K of L2 cache to perform. That is, it's an exceptional performer for 3D gaming, and it has few weaknesses overall. Versus the Pentium 4 3GHz, the A64 3000+ is a very good value. The difference between the Athlon 64 3000+ and 3200+ hinges entirely on the usefulness of the larger 1MB L2 cache on the 3200+ model. Right now, that larger L2 cache will cost you about $60 American money, and since you've seen the benchmark scores, you can decide for yourself whether it's worth paying the extra cash.

At about $220, the Athlon 64 3000+ isn't a cheap processor, but its performance makes older Athlon XP chips look a little antiquated, especially in applications where fast memory performance and SSE2 instructions are important. This CPU has all the next-generation Hammer advantages, including the built-in memory controller and 64-bit extensions, to give it some longevity, too. That's why I think it's sitting right in the sweet spot of AMD's processor lineup. If you're looking to build a new gaming rig or do-it-all workstation PC, the A64 3000+ should be prominent on your radar screen.

[EyesOnly]

It is on my radar. But so is this (http://www.short-media.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8829) thread and the problems discovered there. I really hope it can be fixed since the 3000+ seems like a really good deal both now and later.