AMD's Athlon 64 3400+: Death of the FX-51
by Anand Lal Shimpi on January 6, 2004 4:35 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
With the Athlon 64 3400+ AMD has effectively killed any reason to shell out the extra bucks for an Athlon 64 FX; the 3400+ is basically as fast as the Athlon 64 FX 51 at a lower price point. Soon AMD will launch the FX53 which will restore some balance to their 64-bit universe but until then you can expect the FX line to take an even more passive role in AMD's marketing and in our lives.
AMD's Athlon 64 3000+ has provided us with an impressive show of force, especially considering its very low price point. If you look at the price/performance index values you'll see that the Newcastle based 3000+ is the only CPU able to offer a better value than Intel's Pentium 4 2.8C - the previous best-bang-for-your-buck title holder.
The overall performance picture hasn't changed much since we first looked at the Athlon 64; AMD is still the best bet when it comes to business/gaming/2D workstation either from a performance perspective or because of a superior price/performance ratio, while Intel offers the best in encoding and 3D rendering performance.
The one worry that is worth taking into account is the fact that AMD will significantly revamp their Athlon 64 line over the course of 2004 with the introduction of Socket-939 CPUs. Although AMD has committed to supplying Socket-754 and 940 CPUs throughout 2004, those looking to hold onto their motherboards and upgrade their CPUs beyond the next 12 months will want to wait until the Socket-939 platforms hit in the next few months.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
38 Comments
View All Comments
Jeff7181 - Tuesday, January 6, 2004 - link
I found fault with the article... no FS2004 benchmark. Can I have it please? :DJeff7181 - Tuesday, January 6, 2004 - link
I agree with everyone so far =)But I think AMD may have shot themselves in the foot by releasing the 3400+, which performs exactly the same as the insanely priced FX-51. Unless they have some tricks up their sleeve with socket 939 that will improve performance, why would anyone spend twice the money on the FX-51 when the 3400+ provides 98% of the performance of the FX-51?
Jason Clark - Tuesday, January 6, 2004 - link
The print article issue is fixed.Cheers
AlexWade - Tuesday, January 6, 2004 - link
I liked the compile times benchmark! Please have it all new reviews of CPU's.PrinceXizor - Tuesday, January 6, 2004 - link
Nice review! I especially liked the price/performance charts. It should be interesting to see how AMD handles the transition from 754 to 939 sockets.The thing I find most impressive is that AMD is staying ahead of Intel as far as performance, something many of us did not think possible given Hammer's seemingly endless wait.
Intel had to rush out an EE version to remain competitive while it waited for Prescott (I'm not intel bashing, I'm sure Prescott will compete nicely).
In the meantime, AMD is the one hitting the "3400+" performance arena before the 3.4Ghz Prescotts hit. The question always was, can AMD execute with the Athlon 64 as well as they did with the Athlon XP? The answer seems to be yes. Very well done AMD!
P-X
Insomniac - Tuesday, January 6, 2004 - link
I meant hints. ;)Insomniac - Tuesday, January 6, 2004 - link
Nice article. Any hits on how the battle will look when Prescott hits? :)I noticed in the print view, none of the charts are showing up.
FearoftheNight - Tuesday, January 6, 2004 - link
great review...hope to see socket 939 coverage coming soon :D