Conclusion
In order to have a overall view of performances, we normalized the results for each test, giving the best result 100%. We then accumulated the scores based on the Athlon XP 3200+ to compare cards. Here are the results:
Results show that some P-Ratings have been overestimated by AMD and aren’t representative of real performance. The Athlon 64 4000+ and 3700+ have an increased P-Rating of +300 due to the L2 increase of 512 Kb to 1024 Kb. The situation is the same for the Athlon 64 3500+ Socket 939. Its P-Rating was increased by 300 compared to the 3200+ for an additional 200 MHz. Any other similar frequency increases involve a 200 points bonus. It’s also important to notice that this processor is less efficient than the 3400+.
The Athlon 64 3000+ and 3200+ Socket 939 are problematic in that they are often less efficient than their Socket 754 counterparts. To compensate for the 200 MHz reduction in frequency, they are equipped with a double channel, which isn’t enough for most situations.
This P-Rating, however, doesn’t overshadow the quality of the Athlon 64. These processors are still an excellent choice as we already stated several times. The Pentium 4 is only faster in specific applications particularly adapted to its architecture, like video and 3D processing, while heat dissipation and electrical consumption are more significant.
Our price study showed that several processors stand out. For the Socket 754, the Athlon 64 seems to be a good choice, and the 3200+ and 3400+ remain competitive.
The situation is a little bit more problematic with the Socket 939. This format has a brighter future and is compatible with the FX-55 (while waiting for faster version). The Socket 754 is limited to the 3700+ (which doesn’t deserve its P-Rating). So under these circumstances many of you will prefer the platform with the most possibilities for upgrades, even if this is still unknown (compatibility with dual-core CPU?).
A problem arise in choosing the Socket 939 : the Athlon 3000+ and 3200+ Socket 939 aren’t always available everywhere in the world and the 3500+ is clearly more expensive that the 3400+ Socket 754, but has lesser performances in the end. If you want to be able to upgrade your computer, there will be a price to pay.
Finally, we feel that it’s unfortunate that the quality of the Athlon 64 architecture is handicapped by an inappropriate sales policy. Because of its overestimated P-Rating, prices are also overestimated.
We finish this article with a positive thought. We were pleasantly surprised with the technological side of the 90nm “Winchester” core Athlon 64. Electrical consumption was less with an equivalent frequency and overall performances increased slightly. Our only reservation is current problem with increases in frequency.
