X-bit labs

90nm Processors from AMD: Athlon 64 3500+, 3200+ and 3000+ (page 8)

Category: CPU

by Ilya Gavrichenkov

[ 11/25/2004 | 02:25 AM ]

3DMark2001 SE, 3DMark03 and 3DMark05

The results obtained in 3DMark2001 SE test are quite expected, and the new core demonstrates a slight advantage over the old one. However, at the same time I would like to note that both modifications of Athlon 64 3500+ fall behind Athlon 64 3400+ on ClawHammer core and designed for Socket 754 platform. Of course, 1MB L2 cache of the Athlon 64 3400+ processor ensures much higher 3DMark2001 SE score of this CPU, than the dual-channel memory controller of Athlon 64 3500+.

The results of 3DMark03 are very similar to what we have just seen. However, the overall score for Winchester and NewCastle cores appears about the same.

In fact, we see that Athlon 64 with the newWinchester core is not always faster than a similar solution on the older NewCastle core. For instance, in 3DMark05 test Athlon 64 3500+ manufactured with 90nm process is defeated by the older Athlon 64 3500+ NewCastle.

Well, in the new 3DMark05 test the situation is definitely not in favor of the new core, which proved slower than the good old NewCastle. At the same time I would like to point out that new Socket 939 processors with 3000+ and 3200+ ratings based on the 90nm Winchester core appear very fast in 3DMark05, outperforming considerably the Socket 754 solutions.