AMD Athlon 64 3200+ CPU Review

Ilya Gavrichenkov of Xbit Laboratories got his hands on the Athlon 64 3200+ CPU and wrote a detailed review about it. I just want to point out some of the things that caught my attention and leave the rest for you to read. Ilya’s review goes on to talk about performance, overclockability and the Cool’n'Quiet technology. There are lots of CPU-Z screenshots and comparison charts with other CPUs. Ilya really likes to compare the Athlon 64 3200+ to the Athlon 64 FX. The review is a good read, so check it out.

First of all let me point out that Athlon 64 processor is exactly that particular 64bit processor for desktop systems, which AMD was going to introduce from the very beginning. Later on, when Intel announced faster Pentium 4 processors and provided them with a faster 800MHz bus and Hyper-Threading technology support, AMD had to quickly re-position a one-way Opteron processor for the desktop market having hidden it behind the Athlon 64 FX trade mark. However, the server origin of Athlon 64 FX will prevent this solution from spreading really widely and getting less expensive so far. So, it is exactly Athlon 64 that is intended to really promote the 64bit architecture into the market.

So far AMD has released only one processor model from the new Athlon 64 family with the 3200+ performance rating. This CPU works at the actual 2GHz frequency, which is 200MHz lower than Athlon 64 FX-51 supports. Later on AMD will also release a faster modification of its Athlon 64 CPU with 3400+ performance rating and 2.2GHz actual core clock frequency. However, this can hardly be expected to happen soon. Why so, you will understand later on.

Cool’n'Quiet Technology is finally being brought to the desktop arena. This feature is attractive for it will manage the power output of your CPU when it is idle and when it is working overtime and adjust your variable fan to accommodate it. For me it should make my office a bit quieter.

For the diehard AMD fans, like me, this seems to be a solid investment and a great way to move into the next generation of processors. Checkout the conclusion Ilya Gavrichenkov has written:

[...]

I have to say that the performance of Athlon 64 3200+ is slightly lower than that of Athlon 64 FX-51. Mostly it is not because of the memory controller with lower bandwidth, but because of the lower core clock frequency. Since the memory subsystem latency of Athlon 64 3200+ is considerably lower than that of Athlon 64 FX/Opteron processors, the performance of the two is about the same on average. That is exactly why AMD hasn’t yet released Athlon 64 with 2.2GHz core clock. For the same reason AMD will not roll out faster Athlon 64 models that soon, because Athlon 64 FX family positioned as High-End stuff, will have to be faster than Athlon 64.

Also I have to stress that Athlon 64 3200+ is much faster than Athlon XP 3200+ in most benchmarks, even though both these processors have similar rating. In fact, Athlon 64 3200+ can easily compete with Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz: the tests prove it hundred percent. Of course, in some applications NetBurst architecture appears more suitable, but there definitely is a number of tasks where Athlon 64 3200+ is an indisputable performance leader.

All in all, Athlon 64 3200+ can be considered a good choice for those users who prefer AMD products. The only thing I have to mention though in conclusion is a questionable situation with the Socket754 platforms. Since the CPUs with a dual-channel memory controller cannot be used in this socket, I expect all Socket754 CPUs to be soon moved into the Budget segment. Therefore, you should consider Socket754 as a solution allowing further upgrade only if you realize that this system will not be able to set any performance records later on.

Source: Xbit Laboratories