Amd athlon 64 processor 3400: AMD’s Athlon 64 3400+ processor

AMD’s Athlon 64 3400+ processor

SINCE AMD’S ATHLON 64 PROCESSORS debuted back in September, things have been fairly quiet on the CPU front. We left our Athlon 64 review with the sense that AMD had captured at least a portion of the x86 performance crown. Since then, we’ve learned that the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition will cost more than a healthy mortgage payment—a fact that confirms AMD’s status as the price-performance leader at the high end of the processor market. Beyond that, not much has happened. We’ve heard rumblings about Intel’s new “Prescott” Pentium 4 chips, but the processors themselves haven’t shown up yet.

Now, AMD is stirring things up again by introducing a new model of Athlon 64, the 3400+. Running at 2.2GHz, this CPU is very similar to the Athlon 64 FX-51, except that the 3400+ slides into a 754-pin socket and talks to only one channel of DDR400 memory. So the 3400+ doesn’t break new ground in terms of clock frequencies, but its introduction does suggest AMD is comfortable in its ability to produce enough 2. 2GHz Athlon 64 processors to bring this speed grade to its higher-volume desktop platform.

We’re interested to learn several things about the 3400+. Its performance rating, for instance, suggests it’s faster than a theoretical Pentium 4 3.4GHz CPU. Can its performance back up that (implicit) claim? Also, how much difference is there between one memory channel and two? We’ve tested the Athlon 64 3400+ against its companions and competitors in an attempt to answer these questions, so read on.

In this corner…
Those of you not familiar with the Athlon 64 will want to read our initial review of the processor before continuing here. To refresh your memory, though, the Athlon 64 3400+ has a number of notable assets that help separate it from its predecessor, the Athlon XP. Among its virtues: an on-chip memory controller to cut memory access latency, a hefty 1MB of level 2 cache, support for SSE2 instructions, a radical system infrastructure based on high-speed HyperTransport links, and AMD’s 64-bit instruction set extensions. These changes have made the Athlon 64 a very tough competitor for the Pentium 4, even though Microsoft hasn’t yet delivered a 64-bit version of Windows.

Of course, we’d be remiss not to present some pictures of the Athlon 64 3400+. This particular chip, unlike our previous Athlon 64 and Opteron review units, sits on packaging dyed green, making it look very similar to a Pentium 4.

The Athlon 64 3400+ processor

754 pins of single-channel excitement

So that’s our subject today. Not much to look at, but what did you expect?

Interestingly enough, our A64 3400+ review unit showed us a less-than-cosmetic difference between itself and our A64 3200+ processor: the ability to run at CAS 2 with our Corsair test memory. Normally, we’d try to chalk up this difference to the chipset or some other external factor, but in this case, the memory controller is on the chip. AMD has no doubt made some revisions to the A64 over time, and it seems very possible the memory controller has been tweaked a bit. Whatever the case, our test results for the Athlon 64 3400+ use CAS 2 memory timings, and the 3400+ was entirely stable at CAS 2. Our A64 3200+ chip, however, was not, and we had to test it at CAS 2.5.

The other guys
The 3400+ is the star of the show today, but there are a couple of other Athlon 64 processors worth mentioning. For one thing, our benchmark results reflect a change in the Athlon 64 FX-51 system config. Corsair and other top memory makers have now produced low-latency memory for the Athlon 64 FX, registered DDR400 memory capable of running at a CAS latency of 2, so we’ve retested the FX with some. As a result, most of our Athlon 64 FX-51 scores are a little better than they were last time around, when we were running at CAS 2.5. That’s a noteworthy development, because the Athlon 64 FX-51 was already the fastest processor around.

On the other end of the spectrum, AMD recently introduced, very quietly, a relatively inexpensive version of the Athlon 64, the 3000+. This CPU is very similar to other Athlon 64 chips, except that it has only 512K of L2 cache on board, not the 1MB you’ll find in most Athlon 64 chips, and it runs at 2.0GHz. Most importantly, this puppy lists at only $218, or under a third what you’d pay for an Athlon 64 FX-51. That’s a heckuva price for a 2GHz “Hammer” processor, even with a smaller L2 cache.

Intrigued, we ordered up an Athlon 64 3000+ for testing from an online vendor, but the bums didn’t get it here in time for our article. We will have to update you on the A64 3000+’s performance numbers at a later date.

Now, on with the show…

 

Our testing methods
As ever, we did our best to deliver clean benchmark numbers. Tests were run at least twice, and the results were averaged.

Our test systems were configured like so:

Processor Athlon XP ‘Barton’ 3200+ 2. 2GHz Athlon XP ‘Barton’ 2500+ 1.83GHz
Athlon XP ‘Barton’ 2800+ 2.183GHz
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0GHz
AMD Athlon 64 3400+ 2.2GHz
AMD Opteron 146 2.0GHz
AMD Athlon 64 FX-51 2.2GHz
Pentium 4 2.4 ‘C’ GHz
Pentium 4 2.8GHz
Pentium 4 3.2GHz
Pentium 4 3.2GHz Extreme Edition
Front-side bus 400MHz (200MHz DDR) 333MHz (166MHz DDR) HT 16-bit/800MHz downstream
HT 16-bit/800MHz upstream
HT 16-bit/800MHz downstream
HT 16-bit/800MHz upstream
800MHz (200MHz quad-pumped)
Motherboard Asus A7N8X Deluxe v2. 0 Asus A7N8X Deluxe v2.0 MSI K8T Neo MSI 9130 Abit IC7-G
North bridge nForce2 SPP nForce2 SPP K8T800 K8T800 82875P MCH
South bridge nForce2 MCP-T nForce2 MCP-T VT8237 VT8237 82801ER ICH5R
Chipset drivers nForce Unified 2. 45 nForce Unified 2.45 4-in-1 v.4.49
ATA 5.1.2600.10
Audio 5.10.0.5920
4-in-1 v.4.49
AGP 4.42
Audio 6.14.1.3870
INF Update 5.0.1015
ATA 5.0.1007.0
Audio 5.10.0.5250
BIOS revision 1005 1005 1.0 1.0 1.6
Memory size 1GB (2 DIMMs) 1GB (2 DIMMs) 768MB (3 DIMMs) 1GB (2 DIMMs) 1GB (2 DIMMs)
Memory type Corsair TwinX XMS4000 DDR SDRAM at 400MHz Corsair TwinX XMS4000 DDR SDRAM at 333MHz Corsair XMS3200 DDR SDRAM at 400MHz Corsair CMX512RE-3200LL PC3200 registered DDR SDRAM at 400MHz Corsair TwinX XMS4000 DDR SDRAM at 400MHz
Hard drive Seagate Barracuda V 120GB ATA/100 Seagate Barracuda V 120GB ATA/100 Seagate Barracuda V 120GB SATA 150 Seagate Barracuda V 120GB SATA 150 Seagate Barracuda V 120GB SATA 150
Audio nForce2 MCP/ALC650 nForce2 MCP/ALC650 VT8237/ALC650 VT8237/ALC201A ICH5/ALC650
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra
OS Microsoft Windows XP Professional
OS updates Service Pack 1, DirectX 9. 0b

Sorry about the 768MB of RAM in the Athlon 64 3200+ and 3400+ system. I couldn’t get it to boot with either pair of 512MB DDR400 DIMMs I had on hand, and its motherboard had only three DIMM slots, so 768MB was as close as we could come. I don’t belive this difference in memory size should affect any of the benchmarks we used.

All tests on the Pentium 4 systems were run with Hyper-Threading enabled.

Thanks to Corsair for providing us with memory for our testing. If you’re looking to tweak out your system to the max and maybe overclock it a little, Corsair’s RAM is definitely worth considering.

The test systems’ Windows desktops were set at 1152×864 in 32-bit color at an 85Hz screen refresh rate. Vertical refresh sync (vsync) was disabled for all tests.

We used the following versions of our test applications:

  • Cachemem 2.65MMX
  • SiSoft Sandra MAX3! (2003.7.9.73)
  • Compiled binary of C Linpack port from Ace’s Hardware
  • Discreet 3ds max 5. 1 SP1
  • NewTek Lightwave 7.5
  • Cinebench 2003
  • POV-Ray for Windows v3.5
  • PICCOLOR v4.0 build 451
  • SPECviewperf 7.1
  • ScienceMark 2.0 beta (06SEP03-A build)
  • Sphinx 3.3
  • LAME 3.93.1 (build from mitiok.cjb.net)
  • Xmpeg 5.0.1 with DivX Video 5.05
  • Quake III Arena v1.31

All the tests and methods we employed are publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.

 

Memory performance
Our customary synthetic memory benchmarks will start us off, and we can see how the A64 3400+’s single channel of DDR400 memory compares to the dual-channel solutions so common nowadays.

The results show a clear difference between the 3400+ and the dual-channel solutions. These synthetic benchmark scores may not translate directly into real-world performance, but they may be a primary reason for the existence of the dual-channel Athlon 64 FX.

The only real difference between the Athlon 64 3400+ and the A64 FX-51 is the number of memory channels, as Linpack demonstrates. The two processors perform identically until matrix sizes become large enough for main memory to matter. Note, though, how the A64 3400+’s on-die memory controller allows it to achieve much higher throughput than the Athlon XP 3200+. In fact, the 3400+ just barely falls behind the Pentium 4 3.2GHz, and then only at the largest matrix sizes.

Memory latency is the 3400+’s real strength. The dual-channel Athlon 64 FX requires registered DIMMs, and those add a cycle of latency to memory accesses. As a result, the 3400+ beats everything in our memory latency test. Notice, especially, the massive latency difference between the Athlon XP 3200+ and the Athlon 64 3400+, which run at the same 2.2GHz clock speed. This is one of the main reasons why AMD is now able to run with the Pentium 4 so well.

Let’s dwell on this point with some 3D graphs..

 

Memory performance (continued)
Not only are our 3D graphs indulgent, but they’re useful, too. I’ve arranged them manually in rough order from worst to best, for what it’s worth. I’ve also colored the data series according to how they correspond to different parts of the memory subsystem. Yellow is L1 cache, light orange is L2 cache, and orange is main memory. The red series on the Extreme Edition graph represents L3 cache. Of course, caches sometimes overlap, so the colors are just an interesting visual guide.

The A64 3400+ produces some very impressive latency numbers across the board. Let’s see how those translate into real-world performance.

 

Unreal Tournament 2003

The A64 3400+ darn near matches its big brother, the FX-51, in Unreal Tournament. The Pentium 4 3.2GHz trails well behind, and only the face-saving P4 Extreme Edition can, well, save face for Intel.

Quake III Arena

The 3400+ cranks out some mind-bending, bone-shattering Quake III frame rates, second only to the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. The lower access latencies on the 3400+ seem to make up for the lower total memory bandwidth. Quake III Arena seems to play especially well with the P4 EE’s massive on-chip caches, running nearly 90 fps faster on the P4 EE than on the standard Pentium 4 3.2GHz.

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory

Again in Wolfenstein: ET, the Athlon 64 chips take the top spots, interrupted only by the P4 EE.

 

Comanche 4

Serious Sam SE

Whatever the game, the 3400+’s performance looks very good, as do the rest of the Athlon 64 processors.

3DMark03

Surprisingly, 3DMark03 shows the Pentium 4 on top for once. The individual CPU tests in 3DMark, however, tell a different story…

In these processor-oriented sub-tests, the A64 again comes out on top.

 

Sphinx speech recognition
Ricky Houghton first brought us the Sphinx benchmark through his association with speech recognition efforts at Carnegie Mellon University. Sphinx is a high-quality speech recognition routine that needs the latest computer hardware to run at speeds close to real-time processing. We use two different versions, built with two different compilers, in an attempt to ensure we’re getting the best possible performance.

There are two goals with Sphinx. The first is to run it faster than real time, so real-time speech recognition is possible. The second, more ambitious goal is to run it at about 0.8 times real time, where additional CPU overhead is available for other sorts of processing, enabling Sphinx-driven real-time applications.

The 3400+’s single memory channel doesn’t prove to be much of a hindrance here, believe it or not. The P4s take the top spots in Sphinx, but the 3400+ just trails the Athlon 64 FX-51.

LAME MP3 encoding
We used LAME 3.92 to encode a 101MB 16-bit, 44KHz audio file into a very high-quality MP3. The exact command-line options we used were:

lame –alt-preset extreme file.wav file.mp3

The Pentium 4 is hard to beat in media encoding, as it proves here.

DivX video encoding
Xmpeg is partially self-tuning, and it chose to use the SSE2 Optimized iDCT on the Hammer processors.

Even with SSE2 support, the 3400+ can’t keep up with the Pentium 4, falling one second behind the P4 2.8GHz.

 

3ds max rendering
We begin our 3D rendering tests with Discreet’s 3ds max, one of the best known 3D animation tools around. 3ds max is both multithreaded and optimized for SSE2. We rendered a couple of different scenes at 1024×465 resolution, including the Island scene shown below. Our testing techniques were very similar to those described in this article by Greg Hess. In all cases, the “Enable SSE” box was checked in the application’s render dialog.

The 3400+ splits the results with the Pentium 4 3.2GHz, outpacing it in one of the tests but not the other.

 

Lightwave rendering
NewTek’s Lightwave is another popular 3D animation package that includes support for multiple processors and is highly optimized for SSE2. Lightwave can render very complex scenes with realism, as you can see from the sample scene, “A5 Concept,” below.

Lightwave uses SSE2 well enough that more threads don’t really help, or so it seems. All the results below are single-threaded.

The 3400+ virtually ties the Athlon 64 FX-51 in Lightwave, so memory bandwidth probably isn’t a big bottleneck here. The Pentium 4 responds especially well to Lightwave’s SSE2 options, and the P4 3.2GHz renders all three scenes faster than the 3400+.

 

POV-Ray rendering
POV-Ray is the granddaddy of PC ray-tracing renderers, and it’s not multithreaded in the least. Don’t ask me why—seems crazy to me. POV-Ray also relies more heavily on x87 FPU instructions to do its work, because it contains only minor SIMD optimizations.

When old-school x87 FPU math is the name of the game, the Athlon 64 excels. The 3400+ finishes rendering the scene 40 seconds ahead of the P4 3.2GHz.

 

Cinebench 2003 rendering and shading
Cinebench is based on Maxon’s Cinema 4D modeling, rendering, and animation app. This revision of Cinebench measures performance in a number of ways, including 3D rendering, software shading, and OpenGL shading with and without hardware acceleration.

Cinema 4D’s renderer is multithreaded, so it takes advantage of Hyper-Threading. For the AMD-based systems, I’ve reported the single-processor results. For the P4 systems, I’ve reported the multi-threaded results, which in all cases were notably faster.

The Pentium 4 is much faster in Cinebench’s rendering tests. In the shading tests, however, things are a bit more evenly matched.

 

SPECviewperf workstation graphics
SPECviewperf simulates the graphics loads generated by various professional design, modeling, and engineering applications.

Although the A64 3400+ isn’t really a workstation-class processor, it doesn’t get embarrassed in viewperf. Several of the tests, though, including drv-09 and proe-02, obviously prefer the dual-channel memory configurations to the 3400+.

 

ScienceMark
I’d like to thank Alex Goodrich for his help working through a few bugs the 2.0 beta version of ScienceMark. Thanks to his diligent work, I was able to complete testing with this impressive new benchmark, which is optimized for SSE, SSE2, 3DNow! and is multithreaded, as well.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that Tim Wilkens, one of the originators of ScienceMark, now works at AMD. However, Tim has sought to keep ScienceMark independent by diversifying the development team and by publishing much of the source code for the benchmarks at the ScienceMark website. We are sufficiently satisfied with his efforts, and impressed with the enhancements to the 2.0 beta revision of the application, to continue using ScienceMark in our testing.

The molecular dynamics simulation models “the thermodynamic behaviour of materials using their forces, velocities, and positions”, according to the ScienceMark documentation. Sounds simple, right?

Primordia “calculates the Quantum Mechanical Hartree-Fock Orbitals for each electron in any element of the periodic table.” In our case, we used the default element, Argon.

The 3400+ rips through ScienceMark, taking second place to the Athlon 64 FX-51 in both the Primordia and Cipher AES tests. These last two tests, SGEMM and DGEMM, measure matrix math performance using several different codepath optimized with several instruction set extensions, including SSE, SSE2, and 3DNow!

Interesting. I had expected the 3400+ to be a fair bit slower than the Athlon 64 FX-51, because matrix multiplication generally requires quite a bit of memory bandwidth. However, the 3400+ nearly matches the FX-51 step for step. The Pentium 4 with SSE2 turns in the highest peak scores, as one might expect after having seen our 3D rendering test results. However, the Athlon 64 cranks out excellent performance almost regardless of the codepath, which is a rare and useful virtue.

 

picCOLOR image analysis
We thank Dr. Reinert Muller with the FIBUS Institute for pointing us toward his picCOLOR benchmark. This image analysis and processing tool is partially multithreaded, and it shows us the results of a number of simple image manipulation calculations. The overall score is indexed to a Pentium III 1GHz system based on a VIA Apollo Pro 133. In other words, the reference system would score a 1.0 overall.

As we’ve come to expect, the A64 3400+ nestles right in between the FX-51 and the 3200+.

 

Conclusions
Thanks to its on-chip memory controller and its ability to use unbuffered DIMMs, the 3400+ has the lowest memory access latencies we’ve ever seen. The benchmarks put the Athlon 64 3400+ just behind the Athlon 64 FX-51 in terms of overall performance, and I suppose AMD’s “3400+” model number is warranted, at least for gamers, for whatever that’s worth. As has often been the case, which chip is fastest depends quite a bit on what you want to do. The Athlon 64 3400+ pummels the Pentium 4 3.2GHz in most of our gaming benchmarks, although the P4 stills does relatively well in our media encoding, speech recognition, and SSE2-laden 3D rendering tests. Athlon 64 processors are strong across the board, though, with few real performance weaknesses.

The most interesting questions about the A64 3400+, however, aren’t strictly about its performance. Many enthusiasts will have a hard time forking over the cash to build a system based on AMD’s 754-pin socket. Socket 754 only allows for a single-channel memory configuration, and AMD has already made clear its intention to move all Athlon 64 products to a new 939-pin socket later this year. If you’re hoping to to upgrade your processor to a higher speed grade down the road, Socket 754 isn’t a very good bet. Then again, as fast as things move in motherboards, chipsets, and memory these days, many of us have just resigned ourselves to performing a motherboard upgrade along with each processor upgrade.

AMD has priced the 3400+ at $417, exactly at price parity, at least for now, with the Pentium 4 3.2GHz. The Athlon 64 FX-51 will remain at $733, making it an almost irrational purchase decision. The 3400+ is nearly as fast as the FX-51 in most applications, if not faster. The FX-51’s need for regisitered memory makes for two strikes against it: higher costs and higher latencies. Strike three, perhaps, is the need to purchase DIMMs in pairs because of the dual-channel config. Overall, the 3400+ is much more economical than the FX-51.

In fact, the 3400+ is the product that should finally push the Athlon 64 into the mainstream market. With its introduction, the Athlon 64 3200+ drops to $278, and the 3000+ slots in at a very affordable $218. Those prices mirror Intel’s prices for the Pentium 4 3.0GHz and 2.8GHz chips exactly. With these price cuts, the Athlon 64 has arrived in earnest. Now, if only we had a 64-bit version of Windows to run on it… 

Athlon 64 3400+ [in 1 benchmark]


AMD
Athlon 64 3400+

Buy

  • Interface
  • Core clock speed
  • Max video memory
  • Memory type
  • Memory clock speed
  • Maximum resolution

Summary

AMD started AMD Athlon 64 3400+ sales on January 2001. Based on Clawhammer architecture, this desktop processor is primarily aimed at home systems. It has 1 core and 1 thread, and is based on 130 nm manufacturing technology, with a maximum frequency of 2400 MHz and a locked multiplier.

Compatibility-wise, this is AMD Socket 754 processor with a TDP of 89 Watt.

We have no data on Athlon 64 3400+ benchmark results.

General info


Athlon 64 3400+ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and pricing.

Place in performance rating not rated
Market segment Desktop processor
Architecture codename Clawhammer (2001−2005)
Release date January 2001 (21 years ago)
Current price $67 of 14999 (Xeon Platinum 9282)

Technical specs


Basic microprocessor parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters can generally indicate CPU performance, but to be more precise you have to review its test results.

Physical cores 1 (Single-Core)
Threads 1
Boost clock speed 2.4 GHz of 5.5 (Core i9-12900KS)
L1 cache 128 KB of 1536 (EPYC Embedded 3401)
L2 cache 512K of 12288 (Core 2 Quad Q9550)
L3 cache 0 KB of 32768 (Ryzen Threadripper 1998)
Chip lithography 130 nm of 5 (Apple M1)
Die size 193 mm2
Number of transistors 105 million of 57000 (Apple M1 Max)
64 bit support +
Windows 11 compatibility

Compatibility


Information on Athlon 64 3400+ compatibility with other computer components and devices: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one.

Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration 1 of 8 (Opteron 842)
Socket 754
Thermal design power (TDP) 89 Watt of 400 (Xeon Platinum 9282)

Benchmark performance


Single-core and multi-core benchmark results of Athlon 64 3400+. Overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


  • Passmark
Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Benchmark coverage: 68%


Athlon 64 3400+
317


Similar processors

Here is our recommendation of several processors that are more or less close in performance to the one reviewed.

Recommended graphics cards

These graphics cards are most commonly used with Athlon 64 3400+ according to our statistics.


GeForce
8400 GS

23.1%


Radeon
X1600

15.4%


Radeon HD
7770

7.7%


GeForce
6600

7. 7%


Radeon
Xpress 200M

7.7%


Radeon X700
SE

7.7%


GeForce
9600 GT

7.7%


Radeon RX
Vega 7

7.7%


Radeon HD
3650

7.7%


HD
Graphics 630

7.7%

User rating


Here is the rating given to the reviewed processor by our users. Let others know your opinion by rating it yourself.


Questions and comments


Here you can ask a question about Athlon 64 3400+, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.


Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

AMD Athlon 64 3400+ | HotHardware



The AMD Athlon
64 3400+:
The
Athlon 64 Gets Its First Speed Bump…

By,
Marco Chiappetta
January 6, 2004

AMD
closed out 2003 by quietly releasing the Athlon 64 3000+. 
The 3000+ was clocked at the same 2.0GHz as the Athlon 64
3200+, and it used the same 754 pin socket, but it
featured 512K of L1 cache, only half that of the 3200+. 
Its performance, however, was only slightly behind that of
the 3200+, and it was priced much more affordably at
around $200 U.S.  The 3000+ is exactly the type of
CPU mainstream buyers gobble up in droves, but this almost
low profile launch was rather unusual, with all the
fan-fare being made about the new core in general.  
AMD and Intel have been playing a perpetual game of
one-upmanship for the past few years, as each company
tries to outdo the other with each new CPU release. 
The Athlon 64 3000+ wasn’t meant to compete with Intel at
the high-end of the market though.  The processor
we’ll be looking at today, however, can possibly compete
with Intel’s best, dollar for dollar.

Only a few
weeks after the introduction of the 3000+, AMD is now
officially unveiling the Athlon 64 3400+.  This new
CPU is similar to the 3200+, but it is clocked at 2.2GHz,
matching the clock speed of AMD’s flagship FX-51
processor.  We took a look at
the Athlon 64 FX-51 back in September, and were quite
impressed with its performance and the new features that
it brought to the table.  If you’re not up to speed
on all of the enhancements associated with the relative
new Athlon 64 architecture, we’d suggest taking a gander
at
our FX-51 launch article, there’s a lot of information
there.  Architecturally speaking, the new Athlon 64
3400+ is very similar to the FX-51, with the only
different being their respective memory interfaces.  
The Athlon 64 FX-51 has a 128-bit memory interface, while
the 3400+ has a 64-bit interface.  The same
HyperTransport link, 1MB of L2 cache and integrated memory
controller are all there, however.  On paper, the
Athlon 64 3400+ has the makings of a speedy and
significantly more affordable CPU.  What do you say
we plug it in and take her for spin?  We though you’d
like that…

    


Specifications of the AMD Athlon 64 3400+
Processor

Increased Core Clock Speed

Specifications /
Features from
AMD.COM

The
AMD64 core provides leading-edge 32-bit performance
and support for future 64-bit applications

  • AMD64 technology
    provides full speed support for x86 code base for
    uncompromising 32-bit performance, with readiness
    for 64-bit applications
  • 40-bit physical
    addresses, 48-bit virtual addresses
  • Eight new (sixteen
    total) 64-bit integer registers
  • Eight new (sixteen
    total) 128-bit SSE/SSE2 registers
  • Including support
    for 3DNow!? Professional technology and SSE2

A
high-bandwidth, low-latency integrated DDR memory
controller

  • Supports PC3200,
    PC2700, PC2100 or PC1600 DDR SDRAM
  • Unbuffered DIMMs
  • 72-bit DDR SDRAM
    memory (64-bit interface + 8-bit ECC)
  • Up to 3. 2 GB/s
    memory bandwidth
  • ECC protection
    enables increased system reliability


HyperTransport technology for high speed I/O
communication

  • One 16-bit link up
    to 1600MHz
  • Up to 6.4GB/s
    HyperTransport I/O bandwidth
  • Up to 9.6GB/s total
    delivered processor-to-system bandwidth
Large
high performance on-chip cache

  • 64KB Level 1
    instruction cache
  • 64KB Level 1 data
    cache
  • Up to 1MB Level 2
    cache
  • Improved branch
    prediction for greater accuracy in anticipating
    instruction calls
  • Enhanced TLB
    structures for better memory management of complex
    workloads

THE DIE

THE
ATHLON 64

MORE
ATHLON 64


PROCESSOR
COMPARISON

The
specifications listed above don’t reveal anything we
haven’t seen before.   The Athlon 64 3400+ is equipped
with the same 1MB of L2 cache, has the same integrated
memory controller, the same HyperTransport link and the
same die size as the 3200+.  It’s not until you get
to the bottom of the list above, and see two additional
operating frequencies, at different power states, that we
observe something new.  With the 3400+ AMD is
bringing their «Cool’n’Quiet» technology to the a desktop
CPU.  This is the same technology that allows AMD
mobile processors to run only as fast, and to draw only as
much power as is needed, for any given task.  As the
name implies, the result is a cooler running and quieter
system, because the system’s fans can spin slower, which
in turn consume less power. In order to take advantage of
this CPU feature, you must have a motherboard that has
been designed to support the Cool’n’Quiet technology. 
We’ve already begun to see some vendors add the feature
their BIOS options (see
here), and suspect others will be adding it as well in
the near future.

 

 

 

 

 

Physically,
the Athlon 64 3400+ looks identical to the 3200+ that
preceded it.  It uses the same organic packaging, and
has the same large integrated heat spreader.  When
placed side by side with a Pentium 4 though, the Athlon 64
3400+ is quite a bit larger.  A quick look at the
underside of the CPUs reveals the much «busier» 754 pin
package, as opposed to the 478 pins found on the P4. 
The stock cooler AMD provided with the 3400+ also deserves
some attention.  The heatsink, which is built by

Ajigo, has a thick copper base, with thin Aluminum
fins covering its entire surface.  We found the
heatsink to work quite well.  It kept our CPU running
in the mid 40°C range while gaming at default clock
speeds.


 More Processor Info & Overclocking


<a href=»http://bilbo. counted.com:80/7/43383/» target=»_top»><img src=»http://bilbo.counted.com:80/0/43383/»
width=88 height=31 alt=»Vote for this Site!» border=0></a>

Specs AMD Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ processor 2.2 GHz 1 MB L2 Processors (AMN3400BKX5BU)

This is a demo of a seamless insert of an Icecat LIVE product data-sheet in your website. Imagine that this responsive data-sheet is included in the product page of your webshop. How to integrate Icecat LIVE JavaScript.

Long product name AMD Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ processor 2.2 GHz 1 MB L2
:

The short editorial description of AMD Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ processor 2. 2 GHz 1 MB L2

Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ 2.2GHz, Socket 754, 1MB Cache

More>>>


Short summary description AMD Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ processor 2.2 GHz 1 MB L2:

This short summary of the AMD Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ processor 2.2 GHz 1 MB L2 data-sheet is auto-generated and uses the product title and the first six key specs.

AMD Mobile Athlon 64 3400+, AMD Athlon 64, Socket 754, 90 nm, AMD, 2.2 GHz, 1 MB


Long summary description AMD Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ processor 2.2 GHz 1 MB L2:

This is an auto-generated long summary of AMD Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ processor 2. 2 GHz 1 MB L2 based on the first three specs of the first five spec groups.

AMD Mobile Athlon 64 3400+. Processor family: AMD Athlon 64, Processor socket: Socket 754, Processor lithography: 90 nm

Report mistake

EN Access to this product is restricted. Please contact your account manager at Icecat.

Specs

Reviews

Similar products

Specs

No information available on Specs

Login or signup for Full Icecat
to access all product specs

Reviews
Source Testseek summary Average rating

Updated:
2013-10-05 08:44:25

Uk has collected 3 expert reviews for AMD Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ processor 2. 2 GHz 1 MB L2 and the average expert rating is 100 of 100. The average score reflects the expert community’s view on this product. Click below and use Uk to see all ratings, product awards and conclusions.

Read the full review

Source Review comments Score

expertreviews.co.uk

Updated:
2013-10-05 08:44:22

AMDs Athlon 64 3400+ on Socket 754 is nearly as fast as a Socket 939 Athlon, and significantly cheaper. Combine it with one of the many cheap Socket 754 motherboards and you can build a powerful computer on a tight budget. With the release of a 64-…

bayreviews.com

Updated:
2013-10-05 08:44:22

I just finished building a computer for one of my customers and they wanted a good 2.4 GHz processor, so after thinking about it for a…

Similar products
AMD

(show image)

AMN3700BKX5BU Mobile Athlon 64 3700+ 0. 00

(excl. VAT)

0 (incl. VAT)

AMD

(show image)

AMN4000BKX5BU Mobile Athlon 64 4000+ 0. 00

(excl. VAT)

0 (incl. VAT)

AMD

(show image)

AMN3200BKX5BU Mobile Athlon 64 3200+ 0. 00

(excl. VAT)

0 (incl. VAT)

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X vs AMD Athlon 64 3400+


Comparative analysis of AMD Ryzen 7 5800X and AMD Athlon 64 3400+ processors for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Performance, Memory, Compatibility, Peripherals, Advanced Technologies, Virtualization.
Benchmark processor performance analysis: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score.

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X

Buy on Amazon


vs

AMD Athlon 64 3400+

Buy on Amazon

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X

  • CPU is newer: launch date 19 year(s) 10 month(s) later
  • Processor is unlocked, an unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
  • 7 more cores, run more applications at once: 8 vs 1
  • Around 96% higher clock speed: 4. 7 GHz vs 2.4 GHz
  • A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor: 7 nm vs 130 nm
  • 4x more L1 cache, more data can be stored in the L1 cache for quick access later
  • 8x more L2 cache, more data can be stored in the L2 cache for quick access later
  • 5.3x better performance in PassMark — Single thread mark: 3449 vs 652
  • 51.7x better performance in PassMark — CPU mark: 28151 vs 545










Launch date 5 Nov 2020 vs January 2001
Unlocked Unlocked vs Locked
Number of cores 8 vs 1
Maximum frequency 4.7 GHz vs 2.4 GHz
Manufacturing process technology 7 nm vs 130 nm
L1 cache 512 KB vs 128 KB
L2 cache 4 MB vs 512 KB
PassMark — Single thread mark 3449 vs 652
PassMark — CPU mark 28151 vs 545

Reasons to consider the AMD Athlon 64 3400+

  • Around 18% lower typical power consumption: 89 Watt vs 105 Watt


Thermal Design Power (TDP) 89 Watt vs 105 Watt

Compare benchmarks


CPU 1: AMD Ryzen 7 5800X
CPU 2: AMD Athlon 64 3400+



PassMark — Single thread mark

CPU 1
CPU 2


PassMark — CPU mark

CPU 1
CPU 2





Name AMD Ryzen 7 5800X AMD Athlon 64 3400+
PassMark — Single thread mark 3449 652
PassMark — CPU mark 28151 545
3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score 11366

Compare specifications (specs)

















AMD Ryzen 7 5800X AMD Athlon 64 3400+
Architecture codename Zen 3 Clawhammer
Launch date 5 Nov 2020 January 2001
Launch price (MSRP) $449
OPN PIB 100-100000063WOF
OPN Tray 100-000000063
Place in performance rating 58 2148
Vertical segment Desktop Desktop
Base frequency 3. 8 GHz
L1 cache 512 KB 128 KB
L2 cache 4 MB 512 KB
L3 cache 32 MB
Manufacturing process technology 7 nm 130 nm
Maximum core temperature 95 °C
Maximum frequency 4.7 GHz 2.4 GHz
Number of cores 8 1
Number of threads 16
Unlocked
64 bit support

Die size

193 mm
Transistor count

105 million
ECC memory support
Max memory channels 2
Maximum memory bandwidth 47. 68 GB/s
Maximum memory size 128 GB
Supported memory types DDR4-3200
Sockets supported AM4 754
Thermal Design Power (TDP) 105 Watt 89 Watt
Max number of CPUs in a configuration

1
Max number of PCIe lanes 20
PCI Express revision 4. 0
PCIe configurations 1×16+x4, 2×8+x4, 1×8+2×4+x4
AMD SenseMI
AMD StoreMI technology
Fused Multiply-Add 3 (FMA3)
Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX)
Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions 2 (AVX2)
Intel® AES New Instructions
AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™)

Navigation

Choose a CPU

Compare processors

Compare AMD Ryzen 7 5800X with others




AMD
Ryzen 7 5800X



vs



AMD
Ryzen Threadripper 3990X




AMD
Ryzen 7 5800X



vs



AMD
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX




AMD
Ryzen 7 5800X



vs



AMD
Ryzen 9 5900




AMD
Ryzen 7 5800X



vs



Intel
Core i7-11700KF




AMD
Ryzen 7 5800X



vs



Intel
Core i9-11900




AMD
Ryzen 7 5800X



vs



Intel
Core i9-11900F

AMD Athlon 64 3400+ 2.

2GHz Socket 939 ADA3400DAA4BY CPU Processor

General information
Type CPU / Microprocessor
Market segment Desktop
Family AMD Athlon 64
Model number 3400+
CPU part number ADA3400DAA4BY is an OEM/tray microprocessor
Stepping codes LBBWE   NBBWE
Frequency 3400+ (rated)
2200 MHz (real)
Clock multiplier 11
Package 939-pin lidded organic microPGA
1.57″ x 1.57″ (4 cm x 4 cm)
Socket Socket 939
 
Architecture / Microarchitecture
Microarchitecture K8
Processor core  Venice
Core stepping  E6
Data width 64 bit
The number of cores 1
The number of threads 1
Floating Point Unit Integrated
Level 1 cache size 64 KB 2-way associative instruction cache
64 KB 2-way associative data cache
Level 2 cache size 512 KB exclusive 16-way associative cache
Physical memory 1 TB
Virtual memory 256 TB
Multiprocessing Uniprocessor
Features
  • MMX instructions
  • 3DNow! technology
  • SSE / Streaming SIMD Extensions
  • SSE2 / Streaming SIMD Extensions 2
  • SSE3 / Streaming SIMD Extensions 3
  • AMD64 / AMD 64-bit technology 
  • EVP / Enhanced Virus Protection
Low power features
  • Halt state
  • Stop Grant state
On-chip peripherals
  • Dual-channel DDR SDRAM memory controller
  • One 16-bit HyperTransport link with speeds up to 1000 MHz
 
More Information
Price View Price Range
Manufacturer AMD
CPU Series Athlon 64
Processor speed 2. 20 GHz
L2 Cache 512 KB
Cooling Component(s) Included None/Processor Only
Condition Certified Refurbished
Condition Comment Full working order
Warranty 30 Day RTB (Return to Base) Warranty
Important It is your responsibility as a buyer to ensure this is compatible with your hardware or operating system before buying.

Assume that any photo is a library photo, not the actual item you will receive, unless expressly mentioned above. Item has been pulled from salvage machine so expect the item to be in a used condition with minor scuffs etc.

Unless expressly mentioned in the description, there will be no other parts included with the item. This includes items such as drivers, cables, manuals, warranty cards etc. Hard drives, tape drives, caddies etc. will not include any screws, fixing rails unless expressly mentioned.

We aims to deliver items ordered to you as soon possible. As a guide, we estimate that most items will be delivered according the following timescales. To help you plan for your delivery, we will send you an e-mail with tracking details, as soon as your order has been shipped.

UK Delivery

  • Free Delivery: Monday-Friday (2-5 Working Days)
  • Fast Delivery: Monday-Friday (1-2 Working Days)
  • Next Working Day Delivery: if ordering before 1pm it is next day (excluding Saturday/Sunday), if you place order Saturday/Sunday we will dispatch your order Monday for delivery Tuesday.

    Please note that Saturdays, Sundays, and Bank Holidays are not classed as working days.

    Delivery services may take longer if you live in remote areas like the Scottish Highlands and Northern Ireland. As a result, Next Day service may not be guaranteed.

International Delivery (not including customs processing)

  • You can choose UPS Courier at checkout, please fill in your address first to get a shipping quote. International orders are usually delivered within couple of days, speed depends on the services selected.
  • Goods are despatched Monday – Friday only.

  • Sending goods outside the United Kingdom may result in additional local customs clearance charges and taxes. Failure to pay these charges and taxes on arrival will result in the goods being returned to us. In such instances we may refund your order and delivery fees but retain a re-processing fee to cover the return costs and customs processing fees.

    Changes from 1st January 2021 – Brexit

    On 1st January 2021 the UK left the EU. A consequence of this is that goods purchased from the UK for delivery in the EU are now subject to additional duties and taxes as well as increased shipping costs. To our European customers we offering following delivery option:

    Delivery Only Service – we will deliver your order excluding any customs clearance fees, import charges and taxes. When the goods arrive in your country you will be contacted by the delivery company to pay these additional costs directly to them before final delivery as the importer of record.

    Delivery is processed under the ‘Delivery at Place’ (DAP) Incoterm.

    We would advise you to check the cost of delivery before making purchase as the customs clearance fees, import charges and taxes can amount to quite a significant cost.

We are so confident in the quality of our work that we stand behind every MicroDream Certified Refurbished product with a 12 Month Warranty as standard and we are able to offer our 30 Day Money Back Guarantee with complete confidence.

We guarantee this product against all hardware faults for a period of 12 months from receipt of the product.

If there is a hardware fault within the first 30 days of receipt we will arrange for collection free of charge and replace or repair the product.

If there is a hardware fault after the first 30 days, you are responsible for safely returning the product to us. We can arrange collection for £19 including VAT. We will pay for the carriage of the replacement or repaired product back to you.

WHO IS COVERED? This warranty is non-transferable and covers only the original end purchaser. An original or copy of a sales invoice is required for warranty service.

WHAT IS COVERED? In the event of your PC hardware developing a fault you can return it for repair or replacement (or equivalent).

WHAT IS NOT COVERED?

  • Normal wear and tear of Product use
  • Misuse, lack of care, mishandling, accident, abuse or other abnormal use
  • Use of the Product other than for its intended purpose
  • Damage caused by improper or unauthorized repair or maintenance
  • Warranty is void if repairing without our consent or warranty seal is broken
  • Product that has been modified or altered
  • Software issues (any problems associated with software – whether bundled or installed by user, file corruption, internet setup etc. )
  • Accidental damage like breaking the screen or spilling liquid on it. You would need independent insurance to cover this.
  • Used batteries, although we do guarantee that it will hold at least one hour’s charge. We will replace batteries which do not meet these criteria if reported within one week of receipt and the battery supplied is returned. Batteries are considered as consumable items — as they are expected to degrade over time. Some may require replacement.

Write Your Own Review

You’re reviewing:AMD Athlon 64 3400+ 2.2GHz Socket 939 ADA3400DAA4BY CPU Processor
Your Rating

Price

1 star 2 stars 3 stars 4 stars 5 stars

Value

1 star 2 stars 3 stars 4 stars 5 stars

Quality

1 star 2 stars 3 stars 4 stars 5 stars

Nickname

Summary

Review

0011 12. 0x FSB/ht/qpi 20012 cache L1, KB cache L2, KB 111 Kesh L3, KB, KB, KB, KB, KB, KB, KB, KB, KB, KB, KB, KB, KB, KB, KB

power voltage, in 1.5 TDP, W 89 TOMAL-WRO of transistors, million 68.5 Crystal Square, apt. mm 144

960XRyzen 9 3950XRyzen 9 3900XTRyzen 9 3900XRyzen 7 3800XTRyzen 7 3800XRyzen 7 3700XRyzen 5 3600XTRyzen 5 3600XRyzen 5 3600Ryzen 5 3400GRyzen 3 3300XRyzen 3 3200GRyzen 3 3100Athlon 3000GRyzen 7 2700XRyzen 7 2700Ryzen 5 2600XRyzen 5 2600Ryzen 5 2500XRyzen 5 2400GRyzen 5 2400GERyzen 3 2300XRyzen 3 2200GRyzen 3 2200GEAthlon 240GEAthlon 220GEAthlon 200GERyzen 7 1800XRyzen 7 1700XRyzen 7 1700Ryzen 5 1600XRyzen 5 1600 AFRyzen 5 1600Ryzen 5 1500XRyzen 5 1400Ryzen 3 1300XRyzen 3 1200 AFRyzen 3 1200FX-8350FX-8320FX-8150FX-8120FX-8100FX-6350FX-6100FX-4170FX-4100A10-7870KAthlon 5350A10-7850KAthlon X4 860KAthlon X4 760Kathlon X4 750Kathlon X4 740athlon X2 340A10-5800KA10-5700A8-5600KA8-5500A6-5400KA4-5300A8-3850A8-3650A6-3600A6-3500A4-3400A4-3300PHEL0T BEPhenom II X6 1075TPhenom II X6 1065TPhenom II X6 1055TPhenom II X6 1045TPhenom II X6 1035TAthlon II X4 650Athlon II X4 645Athlon II X4 640Athlon II X4 635Athlon II X4 630Athlon II X4 620eAthlon II X4 620Athlon II X4 615eAthlon II X4 615Athlon II X4 610eAthlon II X4 605eAthlon II X4 605Athlon II X4 600eAthlon II X3 460Athlon II X3 455Athlon II X3 450Athlon II X3 445Athlon II X3 440Athlon II X3 435Athlon II X3 425eAthlon II X3 425Athlon II X3 420Athlon II X3 420eAthlon II X3 415eAthlon II X3 410Athlon II X3 405eAthlon II X3 400Athlon II X2 265Athlon II X2 270uAthlon II X2 260Athlon II X2 255Athlon II X2 250eAthlon II X2 250Athlon II X2 245eAthlon II X2 245Athlon II X2 240eAthlon II X2 240Athlon II X2 235eAthlon II X2 220Athlon II X2 215Athlon II X2 210eAthlon II 160uSempron 180Sempron 150Sempron 145Sempron 140Sempron 130Athlon X2 7850Athlon X2 7750Athlon X2 7550Athlon X2 7450Athlon X2 6500 BEPhenom II X4 980 BEPhenom II X4 975 BEPhenom II X4 970 BE (Zosma)Phenom II X4 970 BEPhenom II X4 965 BEPhenom II X4 960T BEPhenom II X4 955 BEPhenom II X4 945Phenom II X4 940Phenom II X4 925Phenom II X4 920Phenom II X4 IIphenom 910 905ePhenom II X4 900ePhenom II X4 850Phenom II X4 840Phenom II X4 840TPhenom II X4 830Phenom II X4 820Phenom II X4 810Phenom II X4 805Phenom II X3 740 BEPhenom II X3 720Phenom II X3 715 BEPhenom II X3 710Phenom II X3 705ePhenom II X3 700ePhenom II X2 570 BEPhenom II X2 565 BEPhenom II X2 560 BEPhenom II X2 555 BEPhenom II X2 550 BEPhenom II X2 550Phenom II X2 545Phenom II X2 521Phenom II X2 511Phenom X4 9950 BEPhenom X4 9850 BEPhenom X4 9850Phenom X4 9750BPhenom X4 9750Phenom X4 9650Phenom X4 9600 Black EditionPhenom X4 9600BPhenom X4 9600Phenom X4 9550Phenom X4 9500Phenom X4 9450ePhenom X4 9350ePhenom X4 9150ePhenom X4 9100ePhenom X3 8850Phenom X3 8750 BEPhenom X3 8750BPhenom X3 8750Phenom X3 8650Phenom X3 8600BPhenom X3 8600Phenom X3 8550Phenom X3 8450ePhenom X3 8450Phenom X3 8400Phenom X3 8250eAthlon X2 BE-2400Athlon X2 BE-2350Athlon X2 BE-2300Athlon 64 FX-74Athlon 64 FX-72Athlon 64 FX-70Athlon 64 FX-62Athlon 64 FX-60Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Black EditionAthlon 64 X2 6400+ Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Windsor) Athlon 64 X2 5800+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (Brisbane) X2 5400+ (Windsor)Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (Brisbane)Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (Windsor)Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Black EditionAthlon 64 X2 5000+ (Brisbane)Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (Windsor 2MB)Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (Windsor 1MB)Athlon 64 X2 4850eAthlon 64 X2 4800+ (Bris bane)Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (Windsor 2MB)Athlon 64 X2 4600+Athlon 64 X2 4450eAthlon 64 X2 4400+ (Brisbane) Windsor 1MB)Athlon 64 X2 4050eAthlon 64 X2 4000+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (Windsor 2MB) Athlon 64 X2 3800+Athlon 64 X2 3600+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Toledo)Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Manchester)Athlon 64 X2 4400+Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Toledo)Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Manchester) (Manchester)Athlon 64 LE-1660Athlon 64 LE-1640Athlon 64 LE-1620Athlon 64 LE-1600Athlon 64 4000+Athlon 64 3800+Athlon 64 3500+Athlon 64 3200+Athlon 64 3Athlon 64 FX-557 -55Athlon 64 FX-53Athlon 64 FX-51Athlon 64 4200+Athlon 64 4000+ (San Diego)Athlon 64 4000+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3800+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3800+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3700 +Athlon 64 (Manchester)Athlon 64 3500+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3500+ (San Diego)At hlon 64 3500+ (Winchester)Athlon 64 3500+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3500+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3200+ (Manchester)Athlon 64 3200+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3200+ (Winchester)Athlon 64 3000+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3000+ (Winchester)Athlon 64 3700+Athlon 64 3400+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3400+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3200+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3200+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3200+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3000+ ( Venice) Athlon 64 3000+ (Newcastle) Athlon 64 3000+ (Clawhammer) Athlon 64 2800+ (Newcastle) Athlon 64 2800+ (Clawhammer) +Sempron 3000+ (Palermo)Sempron 3400+Sempron 3300+Sempron 3100+ (Palermo)Sempron 3100+ (Paris)Sempron 3000+ (Palermo)Sempron 3000+ (Paris)Sempron 2800+Sempron 2600+ (Winchester)Sernpron 2600+ ( Palermo) Sempron 2500+Sempron 3000+Sempron 2800+ (Thorton) )Athlon XP 3200+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 3100+Athlon XP 3000+ (FSB400)Athlon XP 3000+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2900+Athlon XP 2800+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2800+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2800+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2700+Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2500+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2500+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2400+ (Thorton)Athlon XP 2400+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 2200 + (Thorton)Athlon XP 2200+ (Thorubbred)Athlon XP 2100+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 2100+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 2000+ (Thorton)Athlon XP 2000+ (Thorubbred)Athlon XP 2000+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1900+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1900+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1800+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1800+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1700+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1700+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1600+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1600 + (Palomino) Athlon XP 1500+ Athlon 1400 (FSB266) ATHLON 1400 (FSB200) Athlon 1333athlon 1300athlon 1200 (FSB266) Athlon 1200 (FSB200) Ath26 (FSB200) ATHLON (FSB200) ATHLON (FSB200) ATHLON (FSB200) Athlon (FSB200) Athlon (FSB200) Athlon (FSB200) Athlon) Athlon 950Athlon 900Athlon 850Athlon 800Athlon 750Athlon 700Duron 1800Duron 1600Duron 1400Duron 1300Duron 1200Duron 1100Duron 1000Duron 950 (Morgan)Duron 950 (Spitfire)Duron 900 (Morgan)Duron 900 (Spitfire)Duron 850Duron 800Duron 750Duron 700Duron 650Duron 600Athlon 1000 (Orion)Athlon 1000 (Thunderbird) Athlon 950 (Pluto) Athlon 900 (Thunderbird) Athlon 850 (Pluto) Athlon 850 (Thundebird) Athlon 800 (Pluto) Athlon 800 (Thunderbird) Athlon 750 (Pluto) Athlon 750 (Thunderbird) Athlon 700 (Pluto) Athlon 650 (Pluto) Athlon 650 (Argon) Athlon 650 (Thunderbird) Athlon 600 (Pluto) Athlon 600 (Argon) Athlon 550 (Pluto) -2 533 (CXT)K6-2 500 (CXT)K6-2 475 (CXT)K6-2 450 (CXT)K6-2 400 (CXT)K6-2 380 (CXT)K6-2 366 (CXT)K6- 2 350 (CXT)K6-2 350K6-2 333 (CXT)K6-2 333 (CXT)K6-2 333K6-2 300 (CXT)K6-2 300 (CXT)K6-2 300K6-2 266K6 300K6 266K6 233K6 200K6 166K5 PR166K5 PR150K5 PR133K5 PR120K5 PR100K5 PR90K5 PR75IntelPentium Gold G7400Celeron G6900Core i9-11900KCore i9-11900KFCore i9-11900Core i9-11900FCore i9-11900TCore i7-11700KCore i7-11700KFCore i7-11700Core i7-11700FCore i7-11700TCore i5-11600KCore i5-11600KFCore i5-11600Core i5-11600TCore i5-11500Core i5-11500TCore i5-11400Core i5-11400FCore i5-11400TCore i3-10325Core i3-10305Core i3-10305TCore i3-10105Core i3-10105FCore i3-10105TPentium Gold G6605Pentium Gold G6505Pentium Gold G6505TPentium Gold G6405Pentium Gold G6405TCore i9-10900KCore i9-10900KFCore i9-10900Core i9-10900FCore i7-10700KCore i7-10700KFCore i7-10700Core i7-10700FCore i5-10600KCore i5-10600KFCore i5-10600Core i5-10500Core i5-10400Core i5-10400FCore i3-10320Core i3-10300Core i3-10100Pentium Gold G6600Pentium Gold G6500Pentium Gold G6400Celeron G5925Celeron G5920Celeron G5905Celeron G5900Core i9-9900KCore i7-9700KCore i5-9600KCore i7-8700KCore i7-8700Core i5-8600KCore i5-8400Core i3-8350KCore i3-8100Pentium Gold G5400Core i7-7700KCore i7-7700Core i7-7700TCore i5-7600KCore i5- 7600Core i5-7600TCore i5-7500Core i5-7500TCore i5-7400Core i5-7400TCore i3-7350KCore i3-7320Core i3-7300Core i3-7300TCore i3-7100Core i3-7100TCore i7-6950XCore i7-6700KCore i7-6700Core i7-6700TCore i5-6600KCore i5-6600Core i5-6600TCore i5-6500Core i5-6500TCore i5-6400Core i5-6400TCore i3-6300Core i3-6300TCore i3-6100Core i3-6100TCore i7-5960XCore i7-5775CCore i5 -5675CCore i7-4960XCore i7-4930KCore i7-4820KCore i7-4790KCore i5-4690KCore i7-4770KCore i7-4770Core i5-4670KCore i5-4670Core i5-4570Core i7-3970XCore i7-3960XCore i7-3930KCore i7-3820Core i7-2700KCore i7-2600KCore i7-2600Core i7-2600SCore i5-3330Core i5-2500KCore i5-2500Core i5-2500SCore i5-2500TCore i5-2405SCore i5-2400Core i5-2400SCore i5-2390TCore i5-2320Core i5-2310Core i5-2300Core i3-2130Core i3-2125Core i3-2120Core i3-2105Core i3-2100Core i3-2100TPentium G860Pentium G850Pentium G840Pentium G632Pentium G630Pentium G622Pentium G620Celeron G540Celeron G530Celeron G440Core i7-990XCore i7-980Core i7 980XCore i7-975 ExtremeCore i7 970Core i7 965 ExtremeCore i7 960Core i7 950Core i7 940Core i7 930Core i7 920Core i7-880Core i7-875KCore i7-870Core i7-860SCore i7-860Core i5-760Core i5-750SCore i5-750Core i5-680Core i5-670Core i5-661Core i5- 660Core i5-655KCore i5-650Core i3-560Core i3-550Core i3-540Core i3-530Pentium G6960Pentium G6951Pentium G6950Atom D525Atom D510Atom D425Atom D410Atom 330Atom 230Core 2 Extreme QX9775Core 2 Extreme QX9770Core 2 Extreme QX9650Core 2 Quad Q9650Core 2 Quad Q9550sCore 2 Quad Q9550Core 2 Quad Q9505Core 2 Quad Q9450Core 2 Quad Q9400sCore 2 Quad Q9400Core 2 Quad Q9300Core 2 Quad Q8400sCore 2 Quad Q8400Core 2 Quad Q8300Core 2 Quad Q8200sCore 2 Quad Q8200Core 2 Duo E8600Core 2 Duo E8500Core 2 Duo E8400Core 2 Duo E8300Core 2 Duo E8200Core 2 Duo E8190Core 2 Duo E7600Core 2 Duo E7500Core 2 Duo E7400Core 2 Duo E7300Core 2 Duo E7200Core 2 Extreme QX6850Core 2 Extreme OX6800Core 2 Extreme QX6700Core 2 Quad Q6700Core 2 Quad Q6600Core 2 Extreme X6900Core 2 Extreme X6800Core 2 Duo E6850Core 2 Duo E6800Core 2 Duo E6750Core 2 Duo E6700Core 2 Duo E6600Core 2 Duo E6550Core 2 Duo E6540Core 2 Duo E6420Core 2 Duo E6400 (Allendale)Core 2 Duo E6400 (Conroe 2M)Core 2 Duo E6320Core 2 Duo E6300 ( Allendale)Core 2 Duo E6300 (Conroe 2M)Core 2 Duo E4700Core 2 Duo E4600Core 2 Duo E4500Core 2 Duo E4400Core 2 Duo E4300Pentium Dual-Core E6800Pentium Dual-Core E6700Pentium Dual-Core E6600Pentium Dual-Core E6500Pentium Dual-Core E6300Pentium Dual-Core E5800Pentium Dual-Core E5700Pentium Dual-Core E5500Pentium Dual-Core E5400Pentium Dual-Core E5300Pentium Dual-Core E5200Pentium Dual-Core E2220Pentium Dual-Core E2210Pentium Dual-Core E2200Pentium Dual-Core E2180Pentium Dual-Core E2160Pentium Dual-Core E21 4065 XEPentium D 960Pentium D 955 XEPentium D 950Pentium D 945Pentium D 940Pentium D 935Pentium D 930Pentium D 925Pentium D 920Pentium D 915Pentium D 840 XEPentium D 840Pentium D 830Pentium D 820Pentium D 805Pentium 4 EE 3. 73Pentium 4 EE 3.46Pentium 4 EE 3.4Pentium 4 EE 3.2Pentium 4 672Pentium 4 671Pentium 4 670Pentium 4 662Pentium 4 661Pentium 4 660Pentium 4 651Pentium 4 650Pentium 4 641Pentium 4 640Pentium 4 631Pentium 4 630Pentium 4 620Pentium 4 571Pentium 4 570JPentium 4 561Pentium 4 560JPentium 4 560Pentium 4 551Pentium 4 550JPentium 4 550Pentium 4 541Pentium 4 540JPentium 4 540Pentium 4 531Pentium 4 530JPentium 4 530Pentium 4 521Pentium 4 520JPentium 4 520Pentium 4 519KPentium 4 519JPentium 4 517Pentium 4 516Pentium 4 515JPentium 4 515Pentium 4 511Pentium 4 506Pentium 4 505JPentium 4 505Pentium 4 3.8FPentium 4 3.6FPentium 4 3.4FPentium 4 3.2FPentium 4 3.4EPentium 4 EE 3.4Pentium 4 3.4Pentium 4 3.2EPentium 4 EE 3.2Pentium 4 3.2 Pentium 4 3.06Pentium 4 3.0EPentium 4 3.0Pentium 4 2.8EPentium 4 2.8APentium 4 2.8CPentium 4 2.8Pentium 4 2.8Pentium 4 2.67Pentium 4 2.66Pentium 4 2.6CPentium 4 2.6Pentium 4 2.53Pentium 4 2.5Pentium 4 2.4EPentium 4 2.4APentium 4 2.4CPentium 4 2.4BPentium 4 2.4Pentium 4 2.26APentium 4 2. 26Pentium 4 2.2Pentium 4 2.0APentium 4 2.0Pentium 4 1.9Pentium 4 1.8 APentium 4 1.8 Pentium 4 1.7Pentium 4 1.6 APentium 4 1.6Pentium 4 1.5Pentium 4 1.4Pentium 4 2.0Pentium 4 1.9Pentium 4 1.8Pentium 4 1.7Pentium 4 1.6Pentium 4 1.5Pentium 4 1.4Pentium 4 1.3Pentium III-S 1400Pentium III 1400Pentium III 1333Pentium III-S 1266Pentium III 1200Pentium III-S 1133Pentium III 1133APentium III 1000BPentium III 1133Pentium III 1100Pentium III 1000EBPentium III 1000Pentium III 933Pentium III 900Pentium III 866Pentium III 850Pentium III 800EBPentium III 800Pentium III 750Pentium III 733Pentium III 700Pentium III 667Pentium III 650Pentium III 600EBPentium III 600EPentium III 550EPentium III 533EBPentium III 500EPentium III 1000BPentium III 1000Pentium III 933Pentium III 866Pentium III 850Pentium III 800EBPentium III 800Pentium III 750Pentium III 733Pentium III 700Pentium III 667Pentium III 650Pentium III 600BPentium III 600Pentium III 600EBPentium III 600EPentium III 550Pentium III 550EPentium III 533BPentium III 533EBPentium III 500Pentium III 450Pentium II Overdrive 333Pentium II Overdrive 300Pentium II 450Pentium II 400Pentium II 350Pentium II 333Pentium II 300APentium II 300Pentium II 266APentium II 266Pentium II 233Pentium Overdrive MMX 200Pentium Overdrive MMX 180Pentium Overdrive MMX 166Pentium Overdrive MMX 150Pentium Overdrive 166Pentium Overdrive 150Pentium Overdrive 125Pentium Overdrive 133Pentium Overdrive 120Pentium Pro 200MHz (1024 KB)Pentium Pro 200MHz (512 KB)Pentium Pro 200MHz (256 KB)Pentium Pro 180MHzPentium Pro 166MHzPentium Pro 150MHzPentium 233 MMXPentium 200 MMXPentium 166 MMXPentium 200Pentium 166Pentium 150Pentium 133Pentium 120Pentium 100Pentium 90Pentium 75Pentium 66Pentium 60Celeron G1101Celeron E3500Celeron E3400Celeron E3300Celeron E3200Celeron E1600Celeron E1500Celeron E1400Celeron E1200Celeron 450Celeron 445Celeron 440Celeron 430Celeron 420Celeron 220Celeron D 365Celeron D 360Celeron D 356Celeron D 352Celeron D 355Celeron D 351Celeron D 350Celeron D 346Celeron D 345JCeleron D 345Celeron D 341Celeron D 340JCeleron D 340Celeron D 336Celeron D 335JCeleron D 335Celeron D 331Celeron D 330JCeleron D 330Celeron D 326Celeron D 325JCeleron D 325Celeron D 320Celeron D 315Celeron D 310Celeron 2. 8Celeron 2.7Celeron 2.6Celeron 2.5Celeron 2.4Celeron 2.3Celeron 2.2Celeron 2.1Celeron 2.0Celeron 1.8Celeron 1.7Celeron 1400Celeron 1300Celeron 1200Celeron 1100ACeleron 1000ACeleron 1100Celeron 1000Celeron 960XRyzen 9 3950XRyzen 9 3900XTRyzen 9 3900XRyzen 7 3800XTRyzen 7 3800XRyzen 7 3700XRyzen 5 3600XTRyzen 5 3600XRyzen 5 3600Ryzen 5 3400GRyzen 3 3300XRyzen 3 3200GRyzen 3 3100Athlon 3000GRyzen 7 2700XRyzen 7 2700Ryzen 5 2600XRyzen 5 2600Ryzen 5 2500XRyzen 5 2400GRyzen 5 2400GERyzen 3 2300XRyzen 3 2200GRyzen 3 2200GEAthlon 240GEAthlon 220GEAthlon 200GERyzen 7 1800XRyzen 7 1700XRyzen 7 1700Ryzen 5 1600XRyzen 5 1600 AFRyzen 5 1600Ryzen 5 1500XRyzen 5 1400Ryzen 3 1300XRyzen 3 1200 AFRyzen 3 1200FX-8350FX-8320FX-8150FX-8120FX-8100FX-6350FX-6100FX-4170FX-4100A10-7870KAthlon 5350A10-7850KAthlon X4 860KAthlon X4 760Kathlon X4 750Kathlon X4 740athlon X2 340A10-5800KA10-5700A8-5600KA8-5500A6-5400KA4-5300A8-3850A8-3650A6-3600A6-3500A4-3400A4-3300PHEL0T BEPhenom II X6 1075TPhenom II X6 1065TPhenom II X6 1055TPhenom II X6 1045TPhenom II X6 1035TAthlon II X4 650Athlon II X4 645Athlon II X4 640Athlon II X4 635Athlon II X4 630Athlon II X4 620eAthlon II X4 620Athlon II X4 615eAthlon II X4 615Athlon II X4 610eAthlon II X4 605eAthlon II X4 605Athlon II X4 600eAthlon II X3 460Athlon II X3 455Athlon II X3 450Athlon II X3 445Athlon II X3 440Athlon II X3 435Athlon II X3 425eAthlon II X3 425Athlon II X3 420Athlon II X3 420eAthlon II X3 415eAthlon II X3 410Athlon II X3 405eAthlon II X3 400Athlon II X2 265Athlon II X2 270uAthlon II X2 260Athlon II X2 255Athlon II X2 250eAthlon II X2 250Athlon II X2 245eAthlon II X2 245Athlon II X2 240eAthlon II X2 240Athlon II X2 235eAthlon II X2 220Athlon II X2 215Athlon II X2 210eAthlon II 160uSempron 180Sempron 150Sempron 145Sempron 140Sempron 130Athlon X2 7850Athlon X2 7750Athlon X2 7550Athlon X2 7450Athlon X2 6500 BEPhenom II X4 980 BEPhenom II X4 975 BEPhenom II X4 970 BE (Zosma)Phenom II X4 970 BEPhenom II X4 965 BEPhenom II X4 960T BEPhenom II X4 955 BEPhenom II X4 945Phenom II X4 940Phenom II X4 925Phenom II X4 920Phenom II X4 IIphenom 910 905ePhenom II X4 900ePhenom II X4 850Phenom II X4 840Phenom II X4 840TPhenom II X4 830Phenom II X4 820Phenom II X4 810Phenom II X4 805Phenom II X3 740 BEPhenom II X3 720Phenom II X3 715 BEPhenom II X3 710Phenom II X3 705ePhenom II X3 700ePhenom II X2 570 BEPhenom II X2 565 BEPhenom II X2 560 BEPhenom II X2 555 BEPhenom II X2 550 BEPhenom II X2 550Phenom II X2 545Phenom II X2 521Phenom II X2 511Phenom X4 9950 BEPhenom X4 9850 BEPhenom X4 9850Phenom X4 9750BPhenom X4 9750Phenom X4 9650Phenom X4 9600 Black EditionPhenom X4 9600BPhenom X4 9600Phenom X4 9550Phenom X4 9500Phenom X4 9450ePhenom X4 9350ePhenom X4 9150ePhenom X4 9100ePhenom X3 8850Phenom X3 8750 BEPhenom X3 8750BPhenom X3 8750Phenom X3 8650Phenom X3 8600BPhenom X3 8600Phenom X3 8550Phenom X3 8450ePhenom X3 8450Phenom X3 8400Phenom X3 8250eAthlon X2 BE-2400Athlon X2 BE-2350Athlon X2 BE-2300Athlon 64 FX-74Athlon 64 FX-72Athlon 64 FX-70Athlon 64 FX-62Athlon 64 FX-60Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Black EditionAthlon 64 X2 6400+ Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Windsor) Athlon 64 X2 5800+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (Brisbane) X2 5400+ (Windsor)Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (Brisbane)Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (Windsor)Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Black EditionAthlon 64 X2 5000+ (Brisbane)Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (Windsor 2MB)Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (Windsor 1MB)Athlon 64 X2 4850eAthlon 64 X2 4800+ (Bris bane)Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (Windsor 2MB)Athlon 64 X2 4600+Athlon 64 X2 4450eAthlon 64 X2 4400+ (Brisbane) Windsor 1MB)Athlon 64 X2 4050eAthlon 64 X2 4000+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 4000+ (Windsor 2MB) Athlon 64 X2 3800+Athlon 64 X2 3600+ (Brisbane) Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Toledo)Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (Manchester)Athlon 64 X2 4400+Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Toledo)Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (Manchester) (Manchester)Athlon 64 LE-1660Athlon 64 LE-1640Athlon 64 LE-1620Athlon 64 LE-1600Athlon 64 4000+Athlon 64 3800+Athlon 64 3500+Athlon 64 3200+Athlon 64 3Athlon 64 FX-557 -55Athlon 64 FX-53Athlon 64 FX-51Athlon 64 4200+Athlon 64 4000+ (San Diego)Athlon 64 4000+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3800+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3800+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3700 +Athlon 64 (Manchester)Athlon 64 3500+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3500+ (San Diego)At hlon 64 3500+ (Winchester)Athlon 64 3500+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3500+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3200+ (Manchester)Athlon 64 3200+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3200+ (Winchester)Athlon 64 3000+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3000+ (Winchester)Athlon 64 3700+Athlon 64 3400+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3400+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3200+ (Venice)Athlon 64 3200+ (Newcastle)Athlon 64 3200+ (Clawhammer)Athlon 64 3000+ ( Venice) Athlon 64 3000+ (Newcastle) Athlon 64 3000+ (Clawhammer) Athlon 64 2800+ (Newcastle) Athlon 64 2800+ (Clawhammer) +Sempron 3000+ (Palermo)Sempron 3400+Sempron 3300+Sempron 3100+ (Palermo)Sempron 3100+ (Paris)Sempron 3000+ (Palermo)Sempron 3000+ (Paris)Sempron 2800+Sempron 2600+ (Winchester)Sernpron 2600+ ( Palermo) Sempron 2500+Sempron 3000+Sempron 2800+ (Thorton) )Athlon XP 3200+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 3100+Athlon XP 3000+ (FSB400)Athlon XP 3000+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2900+Athlon XP 2800+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2800+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2800+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2700+Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2600+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2500+ (FSB333)Athlon XP 2500+ (FSB266)Athlon XP 2400+ (Thorton)Athlon XP 2400+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 2200 + (Thorton)Athlon XP 2200+ (Thorubbred)Athlon XP 2100+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 2100+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 2000+ (Thorton)Athlon XP 2000+ (Thorubbred)Athlon XP 2000+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1900+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1900+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1800+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1800+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1700+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1700+ (Palomino)Athlon XP 1600+ (Thoroughbred)Athlon XP 1600 + (Palomino) Athlon XP 1500+ Athlon 1400 (FSB266) ATHLON 1400 (FSB200) Athlon 1333athlon 1300athlon 1200 (FSB266) Athlon 1200 (FSB200) Ath26 (FSB200) ATHLON (FSB200) ATHLON (FSB200) ATHLON (FSB200) Athlon (FSB200) Athlon (FSB200) Athlon (FSB200) Athlon) Athlon 950Athlon 900Athlon 850Athlon 800Athlon 750Athlon 700Duron 1800Duron 1600Duron 1400Duron 1300Duron 1200Duron 1100Duron 1000Duron 950 (Morgan)Duron 950 (Spitfire)Duron 900 (Morgan)Duron 900 (Spitfire)Duron 850Duron 800Duron 750Duron 700Duron 650Duron 600Athlon 1000 (Orion)Athlon 1000 (Thunderbird) Athlon 950 (Pluto) Athlon 900 (Thunderbird) Athlon 850 (Pluto) Athlon 850 (Thundebird) Athlon 800 (Pluto) Athlon 800 (Thunderbird) Athlon 750 (Pluto) Athlon 750 (Thunderbird) Athlon 700 (Pluto) Athlon 650 (Pluto) Athlon 650 (Argon) Athlon 650 (Thunderbird) Athlon 600 (Pluto) Athlon 600 (Argon) Athlon 550 (Pluto) -2 533 (CXT)K6-2 500 (CXT)K6-2 475 (CXT)K6-2 450 (CXT)K6-2 400 (CXT)K6-2 380 (CXT)K6-2 366 (CXT)K6- 2 350 (CXT)K6-2 350K6-2 333 (CXT)K6-2 333 (CXT)K6-2 333K6-2 300 (CXT)K6-2 300 (CXT)K6-2 300K6-2 266K6 300K6 266K6 233K6 200K6 166K5 PR166K5 PR150K5 PR133K5 PR120K5 PR100K5 PR90K5 PR75IntelPentium Gold G7400Celeron G6900Core i9-11900KCore i9-11900KFCore i9-11900Core i9-11900FCore i9-11900TCore i7-11700KCore i7-11700KFCore i7-11700Core i7-11700FCore i7-11700TCore i5-11600KCore i5-11600KFCore i5-11600Core i5-11600TCore i5-11500Core i5-11500TCore i5-11400Core i5-11400FCore i5-11400TCore i3-10325Core i3-10305Core i3-10305TCore i3-10105Core i3-10105FCore i3-10105TPentium Gold G6605Pentium Gold G6505Pentium Gold G6505TPentium Gold G6405Pentium Gold G6405TCore i9-10900KCore i9-10900KFCore i9-10900Core i9-10900FCore i7-10700KCore i7-10700KFCore i7-10700Core i7-10700FCore i5-10600KCore i5-10600KFCore i5-10600Core i5-10500Core i5-10400Core i5-10400FCore i3-10320Core i3-10300Core i3-10100Pentium Gold G6600Pentium Gold G6500Pentium Gold G6400Celeron G5925Celeron G5920Celeron G5905Celeron G5900Core i9-9900KCore i7-9700KCore i5-9600KCore i7-8700KCore i7-8700Core i5-8600KCore i5-8400Core i3-8350KCore i3-8100Pentium Gold G5400Core i7-7700KCore i7-7700Core i7-7700TCore i5-7600KCore i5- 7600Core i5-7600TCore i5-7500Core i5-7500TCore i5-7400Core i5-7400TCore i3-7350KCore i3-7320Core i3-7300Core i3-7300TCore i3-7100Core i3-7100TCore i7-6950XCore i7-6700KCore i7-6700Core i7-6700TCore i5-6600KCore i5-6600Core i5-6600TCore i5-6500Core i5-6500TCore i5-6400Core i5-6400TCore i3-6300Core i3-6300TCore i3-6100Core i3-6100TCore i7-5960XCore i7-5775CCore i5 -5675CCore i7-4960XCore i7-4930KCore i7-4820KCore i7-4790KCore i5-4690KCore i7-4770KCore i7-4770Core i5-4670KCore i5-4670Core i5-4570Core i7-3970XCore i7-3960XCore i7-3930KCore i7-3820Core i7-2700KCore i7-2600KCore i7-2600Core i7-2600SCore i5-3330Core i5-2500KCore i5-2500Core i5-2500SCore i5-2500TCore i5-2405SCore i5-2400Core i5-2400SCore i5-2390TCore i5-2320Core i5-2310Core i5-2300Core i3-2130Core i3-2125Core i3-2120Core i3-2105Core i3-2100Core i3-2100TPentium G860Pentium G850Pentium G840Pentium G632Pentium G630Pentium G622Pentium G620Celeron G540Celeron G530Celeron G440Core i7-990XCore i7-980Core i7 980XCore i7-975 ExtremeCore i7 970Core i7 965 ExtremeCore i7 960Core i7 950Core i7 940Core i7 930Core i7 920Core i7-880Core i7-875KCore i7-870Core i7-860SCore i7-860Core i5-760Core i5-750SCore i5-750Core i5-680Core i5-670Core i5-661Core i5- 660Core i5-655KCore i5-650Core i3-560Core i3-550Core i3-540Core i3-530Pentium G6960Pentium G6951Pentium G6950Atom D525Atom D510Atom D425Atom D410Atom 330Atom 230Core 2 Extreme QX9775Core 2 Extreme QX9770Core 2 Extreme QX9650Core 2 Quad Q9650Core 2 Quad Q9550sCore 2 Quad Q9550Core 2 Quad Q9505Core 2 Quad Q9450Core 2 Quad Q9400sCore 2 Quad Q9400Core 2 Quad Q9300Core 2 Quad Q8400sCore 2 Quad Q8400Core 2 Quad Q8300Core 2 Quad Q8200sCore 2 Quad Q8200Core 2 Duo E8600Core 2 Duo E8500Core 2 Duo E8400Core 2 Duo E8300Core 2 Duo E8200Core 2 Duo E8190Core 2 Duo E7600Core 2 Duo E7500Core 2 Duo E7400Core 2 Duo E7300Core 2 Duo E7200Core 2 Extreme QX6850Core 2 Extreme OX6800Core 2 Extreme QX6700Core 2 Quad Q6700Core 2 Quad Q6600Core 2 Extreme X6900Core 2 Extreme X6800Core 2 Duo E6850Core 2 Duo E6800Core 2 Duo E6750Core 2 Duo E6700Core 2 Duo E6600Core 2 Duo E6550Core 2 Duo E6540Core 2 Duo E6420Core 2 Duo E6400 (Allendale)Core 2 Duo E6400 (Conroe 2M)Core 2 Duo E6320Core 2 Duo E6300 ( Allendale)Core 2 Duo E6300 (Conroe 2M)Core 2 Duo E4700Core 2 Duo E4600Core 2 Duo E4500Core 2 Duo E4400Core 2 Duo E4300Pentium Dual-Core E6800Pentium Dual-Core E6700Pentium Dual-Core E6600Pentium Dual-Core E6500Pentium Dual-Core E6300Pentium Dual-Core E5800Pentium Dual-Core E5700Pentium Dual-Core E5500Pentium Dual-Core E5400Pentium Dual-Core E5300Pentium Dual-Core E5200Pentium Dual-Core E2220Pentium Dual-Core E2210Pentium Dual-Core E2200Pentium Dual-Core E2180Pentium Dual-Core E2160Pentium Dual-Core E21 4065 XEPentium D 960Pentium D 955 XEPentium D 950Pentium D 945Pentium D 940Pentium D 935Pentium D 930Pentium D 925Pentium D 920Pentium D 915Pentium D 840 XEPentium D 840Pentium D 830Pentium D 820Pentium D 805Pentium 4 EE 3. 73Pentium 4 EE 3.46Pentium 4 EE 3.4Pentium 4 EE 3.2Pentium 4 672Pentium 4 671Pentium 4 670Pentium 4 662Pentium 4 661Pentium 4 660Pentium 4 651Pentium 4 650Pentium 4 641Pentium 4 640Pentium 4 631Pentium 4 630Pentium 4 620Pentium 4 571Pentium 4 570JPentium 4 561Pentium 4 560JPentium 4 560Pentium 4 551Pentium 4 550JPentium 4 550Pentium 4 541Pentium 4 540JPentium 4 540Pentium 4 531Pentium 4 530JPentium 4 530Pentium 4 521Pentium 4 520JPentium 4 520Pentium 4 519KPentium 4 519JPentium 4 517Pentium 4 516Pentium 4 515JPentium 4 515Pentium 4 511Pentium 4 506Pentium 4 505JPentium 4 505Pentium 4 3.8FPentium 4 3.6FPentium 4 3.4FPentium 4 3.2FPentium 4 3.4EPentium 4 EE 3.4Pentium 4 3.4Pentium 4 3.2EPentium 4 EE 3.2Pentium 4 3.2 Pentium 4 3.06Pentium 4 3.0EPentium 4 3.0Pentium 4 2.8EPentium 4 2.8APentium 4 2.8CPentium 4 2.8Pentium 4 2.8Pentium 4 2.67Pentium 4 2.66Pentium 4 2.6CPentium 4 2.6Pentium 4 2.53Pentium 4 2.5Pentium 4 2.4EPentium 4 2.4APentium 4 2.4CPentium 4 2.4BPentium 4 2.4Pentium 4 2.26APentium 4 2. 26Pentium 4 2.2Pentium 4 2.0APentium 4 2.0Pentium 4 1.9Pentium 4 1.8 APentium 4 1.8 Pentium 4 1.7Pentium 4 1.6 APentium 4 1.6Pentium 4 1.5Pentium 4 1.4Pentium 4 2.0Pentium 4 1.9Pentium 4 1.8Pentium 4 1.7Pentium 4 1.6Pentium 4 1.5Pentium 4 1.4Pentium 4 1.3Pentium III-S 1400Pentium III 1400Pentium III 1333Pentium III-S 1266Pentium III 1200Pentium III-S 1133Pentium III 1133APentium III 1000BPentium III 1133Pentium III 1100Pentium III 1000EBPentium III 1000Pentium III 933Pentium III 900Pentium III 866Pentium III 850Pentium III 800EBPentium III 800Pentium III 750Pentium III 733Pentium III 700Pentium III 667Pentium III 650Pentium III 600EBPentium III 600EPentium III 550EPentium III 533EBPentium III 500EPentium III 1000BPentium III 1000Pentium III 933Pentium III 866Pentium III 850Pentium III 800EBPentium III 800Pentium III 750Pentium III 733Pentium III 700Pentium III 667Pentium III 650Pentium III 600BPentium III 600Pentium III 600EBPentium III 600EPentium III 550Pentium III 550EPentium III 533BPentium III 533EBPentium III 500Pentium III 450Pentium II Overdrive 333Pentium II Overdrive 300Pentium II 450Pentium II 400Pentium II 350Pentium II 333Pentium II 300APentium II 300Pentium II 266APentium II 266Pentium II 233Pentium Overdrive MMX 200Pentium Overdrive MMX 180Pentium Overdrive MMX 166Pentium Overdrive MMX 150Pentium Overdrive 166Pentium Overdrive 150Pentium Overdrive 125Pentium Overdrive 133Pentium Overdrive 120Pentium Pro 200MHz (1024 KB)Pentium Pro 200MHz (512 KB)Pentium Pro 200MHz (256 KB)Pentium Pro 180MHzPentium Pro 166MHzPentium Pro 150MHzPentium 233 MMXPentium 200 MMXPentium 166 MMXPentium 200Pentium 166Pentium 150Pentium 133Pentium 120Pentium 100Pentium 90Pentium 75Pentium 66Pentium 60Celeron G1101Celeron E3500Celeron E3400Celeron E3300Celeron E3200Celeron E1600Celeron E1500Celeron E1400Celeron E1200Celeron 450Celeron 445Celeron 440Celeron 430Celeron 420Celeron 220Celeron D 365Celeron D 360Celeron D 356Celeron D 352Celeron D 355Celeron D 351Celeron D 350Celeron D 346Celeron D 345JCeleron D 345Celeron D 341Celeron D 340JCeleron D 340Celeron D 336Celeron D 335JCeleron D 335Celeron D 331Celeron D 330JCeleron D 330Celeron D 326Celeron D 325JCeleron D 325Celeron D 320Celeron D 315Celeron D 310Celeron 2. 8Celeron 2.7Celeron 2.6Celeron 2.5Celeron 2.4Celeron 2.3Celeron 2.2Celeron 2.1Celeron 2.0Celeron 1.8Celeron 1.7Celeron 1400Celeron 1300Celeron 1200Celeron 1100ACeleron 1000ACeleron 1100Celeron 1000Celeron 950Celeron 900Celeron 850Celeron 800Celeron 766Celeron 733Celeron 700Celeron 667Celeron 633Celeron 600Celeron 566Celeron 533ACeleron 533Celeron 500Celeron 466Celeron 433 (S370)Celeron 433 (Slot 1)Celeron 400 (S370)Celeron 400 (Slot 1)Celeron 366 (S370)Celeron 366 (Slot 1)Celeron 333 ( S370)Celeron 333 (Slot 1)Celeron 300A (S370)Celeron 300A (Slot 1)Celeron 300Celeron 266

Up to 10 processors can be simultaneously selected
by holding Ctrl

AMD Athlon 64 3400+ compared to other top Intel and AMD9 processors0001

The recently released AMD Athlon 3400+ desktop processor does not contain any unexpected changes in fact, it is just an Athlon 64 3200+ with a core clock increased by 200 MHz. Therefore, for those who wish to become more familiar with the Athlon 64 architecture (and AMD K8 processors in general), we recommend that you familiarize yourself with our previous materials: both test and theoretical, and in the introductory part of this article we will draw readers’ attention to only a few not entirely obvious (and rather funny) facts that accompany the appearance of the 3400+ model.

First of all, the core frequency of Athlon 64 3400+ is exactly the same as that of Athlon 64 FX-51. Thus, the “extreme” (thanks to Intel for the epithet) AMD desktop processor got an unexpected competitor in the face of a regular (and cheaper) honest desktop CPU, and now the only advantage of the FX-51 is the dual-channel Registered DDR400 SDRAM controller. But we have long known that not all applications are critical to the speed of working with memory.

Second, and no less important, we are probably the first to observe such a strange change in the index for a new AMD processor model. Indeed: the frequency of Athlon 64 3400+ is 200 MHz higher than that of Athlon 64 3200+, with other absolutely identical characteristics And its model index has increased by exactly the same amount! A situation that we have not encountered for a very long time because AMD has always claimed that the increase in performance (namely, in theory, it is symbolized by «XXXX+» in the name of the processor) in the case of its architecture «overtakes» the increase in frequency! For example: Athlon XP 3000+ has a frequency of 2100 or 2167 MHz (there are two models), and Athlon XP 3200+ (plus 200 to the index) 2200 MHz, that is, 100 or even just 33 MHz more! Funny, right? Either the indexing policy was revised once again, or However, let’s not guess, because we have much more powerful ways to evaluate performance tests.

  • Windows XP Professional SP1
  • DirectX 9.0b
  • Intel Chipset Installation Utility 5.0.2.1003
  • NVIDIA UDP 3.13
  • VIA Hyperion 4.51
  • VIA SATA Driver 2.10a
  • Silicon Image Driver 1.1.0.52
  • Terratec DMX 6fire Drivers 5.40
  • ATI Catalyst 3.9
  • Gray Matter Studios & Nerve Software Return To Castle Wolfenstein v1.1, demo checkpoint.dm_57
  • Croteam/GodGames Serious Sam: The Second Encounter 1.07, demo Grand Cathedral
    BIOS 4 Mbit Award BIOS v 6.00.PG 4 Mbit AMI BIOS v. 2.51 4 Mbit Award BIOS v. 6.00pg Form factor, dimensions ATX, 30.5×24.5 cm ATX, 30.5×24.5 cm ATX, 30.5×24.5 cm

    Low-level tests

    Productive Production Productive

    We haven’t paid attention to CPU RightMark for a long time, which, in general, is very unfair to this test (and especially active readers have hinted at this more than once, by the way). Well, today’s «collection of all the monsters» is a good enough reason to update the results, and at the same time try out the latest version of the benchmark. However, due to the presence of a rather large number of options in the test, we had to limit ourselves to something. According to the results of the analysis of all the results obtained we settled on the most revealing ones: the used instruction sets SSE/SSE2, the number of threads 1 and 2 (taking into account the presence of virtual multiprocessing support in Pentium 4 family CPUs). Let’s say right away that this choice is optimal even for the Athlon 64 family: these processors demonstrated the best results when working with these instruction sets (combinations MMX/SSE2, MMX/FPU, SSE/FPU were also studied). The sign itself is good: it turns out that SSE/SSE2 support in the AMD64 architecture is done well, at least its activation gives the best possible result.

    On this diagram, we see one of two intermediate results: the speed of the physical model calculation module. Recall that the results of the solver are used as input for the second rendering CPU RM. From the very beginning, the results are already quite interesting: in a purely mathematical problem, all AMD processors without exception are confidently leading. True, not by a huge margin, but still there is some advantage. Something else is a little alarming: the results of both Pentium 4s with two threads (that is, with Hyper-Threading enabled) fall! As it turned out, this is a consequence of the features of the current module unified for Performance and Stability tests, in the future this phenomenon will be removed, so you should not pay attention to it (recall that CPU RM 2003 has not yet left the beta stage).

    But the rendering module behaves as expected: with two threads, the speed of both Pentium 4s increases significantly. Not twice, of course well, no one promised that two virtual processors would work at the speed of two physical ones. In this module, the situation with performance is quite predictable: without Hyper-Threading, the Intel platform loses to AMD, and with its use, it starts to win.

    The overall score (actually, the final, main result) also leaves the palm for the Intel platform, although due to the advantage in the solver block, Athlons get a little closer to the leader. In general, we are clearly witnessing the struggle of architectures: within one of them, the results of different CPUs are almost the same, everything depends only on the frequency. The Pentium 4 EE’s large L3 cache doesn’t help in any way, nor does the Athlon 64 FX-51’s dual-channel memory controller help either. Moreover Athlon 64 3400+, running at the same frequency as FX-51, but with regular, non-registered/ECC memory, is even slightly ahead (latency?..).

    Memory subsystem performance

    We will evaluate it using another low-level benchmark CacheBurst32. Traditionally, we are interested in three parameters: memory read speed, write speed and latency. Let’s forget that in the last case the smaller result is the best.

    We do not observe anything surprising: whoever has which tire reads like that. Here the Pentium 4, with its Quad Pumped Bus (equivalent to 800 MHz bandwidth), is out of competition. Something else is more interesting: note that the Athlon 64 3400+ outperformed the Athlon 64 3200+ by only 1%. Meanwhile, the difference in frequency between them is greater: as much as 10%. It turns out that Athlon 64 with its single-channel DDR400 controller has almost “rested” on the memory subsystem, that is, the reading bandwidth value of around 3000 MB / s is already the limit for it at this RAM frequency? Logically, this result indicates exactly this

    Recording results are more difficult. Here the Pentium 4 EE was clearly helped by its large cache, and the Athlon 64 FX-51, respectively, was greatly helped out by the dual-channel controller (after all, we have already said that it is the main difference between the FX-51 and 3400+ and you can see for yourself which it played a role in this test). And again, the comparison of Athlon 64 3200+ and 3400+ is depressing there is practically no increase in speed, despite the increased core frequency. It seems that the single-channel controller is already «choking».

    The high (relative to the AMD64 platform) latency of systems based on Pentium 4 is not a special secret for anyone, so there is not much to say here. The FX-51 demonstrates the highest latency in the AMD subgroup. Which is not surprising a more reliable and stable registered/ECC memory is not a free gingerbread, its latency, in comparison with a non-registered memory of the same characteristics, is always a little more.

    Real world tests

    Graphics

    Starting from version 4.26, 3ds max moved into the category of «intellectual» applications, and after version 5.0 introduced additional optimization for Hyper-Threading, this effect became even more pronounced. However, we recall that in our case, an external renderer is used, so the rendering engine of 3ds max itself has nothing to do with the results. But we don’t know anything about optimization for the Pentium 4 Brazil Rendering System yes, it supports SMP and SSE, but nothing more. However, the Pentium 4 is still ahead. Not that it would be very significant, but quite enough for a confident statement of the win. But that’s not all, and perhaps even not the most interesting. Note that the Athlon 64 3400+ is again marginally ahead of the Athlon 64 FX-51. And get used to it, gentlemen. Get used to it. Little by little, little by little, but this trend will continue to manifest itself in many tests.

    The last time we tested the Athlon 64 FX-51 in this application, it was noted that for Photoshop it turned out to be just the same processor. However, at that time, the Intel platform at least managed to wrest victory from the hands of a purely desktop Athlon 64 3200+. Today it has lost this gain too: Athlon 64 3400+ is already a completely honest desktop processor, and it confidently outperforms Pentium 4 3.2 GHz and even outperforms Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition by 3 seconds. In fact, we are witnessing the consolidation of the leadership of one of the competing platforms in this application, now it can be called unconditional. It is worth paying attention to the fact that the Athlon 64 FX-51 is significantly ahead of the 3400+. This can only indicate one thing: Adobe Photoshop is very sensitive to the speed of streaming memory operations, and for him this characteristic is more important than latency. However, the most important thing is the core architecture otherwise the Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition, which works the fastest with RAM, would have won.

    Audio encoding

    Our audio encoding methodology is quite wide and varied, but it is precisely for this reason that listing the results of all tests in combined hodgepodges from the category of “a little about everything” hardly makes sense. Therefore, we decided to limit ourselves to two tests from the general set: encoding to MP3 format using LAME and encoding to OGG Vorbis format using the appropriate encoder from the Vorbis Tools set.

    The tests shade each other well, showing a similar picture, but with inverted accents in LAME the Intel platform is in the lead, in Oggenc the AMD platform. Fairly quiet and calm rivalry, no huge gaps. Pay attention to the accentuated indifference of both subtests to anything other than frequency: the Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition is on a par with the usual one, as well as the second single-frequency pair Athlon 64 FX-51 and Athlon 64 3400+. In principle, until the release of processors of other (or significantly modified) architectures, we will probably refuse to include audio encoding tests in non-specialized materials the situation there is outrageously transparent and the results can be predicted with fairly high accuracy, having only processor specifications (data on core frequency) and a calculator.

    Video encoding

    From this method, we took a larger number of tests two each from the «ripper» and «director’s» subgroups. I would like to note that the seemingly not very logical inclusion of the Windows Media Video 9 encoding test in the first group, as opposed to the more popular XviD, is primarily due to some features of the latter. True, a new version of this codec has already been released, but we have not yet had time to adjust our test package for it, moreover, the study of the issue with XviD deserves a small separate article. As for the director’s (MPEG2) part, the choice was unequivocal here of course, Mainconcept and Canopus, who else?

    The situation is completely similar to LAME + Oggenc in one test, some advantage of AMD processors, in another Intel. It’s funny that the AMD64 platform was preferred by a product from Microsoft, which is so often reproached for being almost a united front with Intel. This fact is aggravated by the fact that the Windows Media Video 9 codec supports Hyper-Threading (and, accordingly, SMP), but in this case it did not help Intel processors. The differences between «extreme» and regular desktop processors in each group are traditionally minimal. In this connection, more and more often the question arises of the expediency of releasing all these extreme hmm whatever word you choose better however, pick it yourself.

    Positively, we will obviously be reproached for the fact that the tests were selected specifically to create the required picture. It remains to be assured that this is not the case, and we ourselves are amazed at how clearly the results have decomposed: as soon as you take some pair of applications united by a certain common meaning it immediately turns out that one architecture is leading in one of them, and in the other another. Or maybe everything is simpler that’s how it is? Pay attention to the repeating effect that we talked about above Athlon 64 3400+ once again for some seconds, but still outperforms its extreme brother FX-51. Of course, if we take the results of one test and consider them separately from the rest, such a phenomenon should definitely be attributed to measurement error. But after all, it is observed in a very large number of cases and in tests that are completely different in meaning!

    Archiving

    Starting from this point, we switched to using the latest version of 7-zip (3. 13) in the tests, so the differences in the distribution of places compared to previous tests are quite understandable. We also abandoned the use of a special (and rather complicated) set of options in favor of the commonly used ones: for Intel processors and simply for AMD CPUs (the -mmt option enables multithreading support and is not recommended for processors without Hyper-Threading by the author of the program).

    Finally, in WinRAR Athlon 64 3400+ was able to win not just one or two seconds over FX-51, but something more significant — five whole seconds. However, we have become accustomed to this alignment. The results of 7-zip are more interesting: we decided to check how well Hyper-Threading support is implemented in this archiver, so measurements on systems with Pentium 4 were carried out both with and without HT enabled. The effect is amazing: it is Hyper-Threading that allows both Pentium 4s to win in this subtest; without it, their performance decreases catastrophically. By the way, we were also interested in the following question: do both Intel processors react in the same way to forced single-processor operation? Maybe it affects some of them less? But no — in both cases, about 17% of the speed is lost.

    Games

    We (traditionally) give game tests in processor articles in a single block, and, as a rule, with a minimum of comments. Just in case, let’s clarify the official position on this issue once again: practically no one buys top-end processors in order to play on them. This, firstly, is not economically feasible, and secondly, it is also simply stupid: if there is an excess of money and you want to spend it on making toys run faster, it is better to buy a more powerful video card. Of course, a powerful video card, in turn, needs a powerful processor, but powerful does not mean top . But the difference in price between a CPU at the top frequency step and one just a couple of steps below is usually quite significant. And in any case, those who buy something like the Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition or Athlon 64 FX-51/3400+ for gaming machines do not do so because they are fast, but simply because «it’s, like, cool!» :).

    And here is another «effect of new drivers». It is easy to see that now the 64-bit (albeit working in 32-bit mode) AMD platform is the undisputed leader in the gaming tests we use. Moreover, the idea that it is the video card drivers that are “to blame” (apparently, they received additional optimization) is first of all suggested by the results of Return to Castle Wolfenstein. Pay attention: in the «Fast» mode with a low resolution, which is traditionally used just to evaluate the performance of processors and chipsets, the Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition just wins. But with increasing resolution and detailing, when the load on the video card increases it starts losing to Athlon 64 FX-51 and 3400+! We can only assume that an increase in the load on the card means an increase in the amount of work performed by its drivers, and their code is executed faster on Athlon 64. However, once again we will quote the standard disclaimer of all testers who are unable to evaluate the software sources: «We can’t be 100% sure about this assumption, but it seems logical enough to us.»

    Summary charts for all tests

    This time we decided to split the summary charts into groups of tests, they are very different. As always, comments on pivot charts will be kept as short as possible, as everything is clearly visible on them. Recall that the worst result is taken as 100%. We also recall that if the value obtained as a result of the test is the reciprocal of the speed (for example, this is time), then the ratio of not the best result to the worst is calculated, but vice versa (K/X)/(K/Y) quite correctly shortens to Y/X. Accordingly, in summary charts, «more» always means «better», unlike the previous ones.

    The superiority of the Intel platform, which, however, can not be called stunning.

    A more complicated situation: each platform pulls ahead significantly exactly where it is strong. For Intel, this is the line access speed, for AMD, latency. It is simply impossible to compare these characteristics directly. one is important for one type of program and the other for another (and only in very rare cases are both equally important).

    Approximate parity, but the gap between the best AMD processor and the best member of the Pentium 4 family in Adobe Photoshop is higher than the gap between the best Pentium 4 and the best Athlon 64 in 3ds max. AMD wins on points.

    On points, the Intel platform wins due to its significant superiority in LAME.

    On points, the victory again belongs to the Intel platform, but, nevertheless, we would have awarded a draw anyway: both Pentium 4s demonstrated really significant superiority in only one program out of four Mainconcept MPEG Encoder.

    In WinRAR the platforms are on a par, but in 7-zip the win is for Intel. True, as always, it is not so big that one can talk about the “defeat of AMD”.

    A convincing victory for the AMD platform, and doubly convincing due to the fact that it demonstrated its advantage in all tests without exception.

    Conclusions

    First, let’s state the obvious: Athlon 64 3400+ still managed to win the title of the fastest of the «honest» desktop processors Pentium 4 3.2 GHz, though not by much, but outperformed. On points, so to speak. Those who wish (or are especially incredulous) can arm themselves with summary charts and a calculator and check it out on their own. However, only those who pray for the same calculator can take this title seriously, because the winnings are very small. By the way, the previous victory of the Pentium 4 3.2 GHz over the Athlon 64 3200+ could not boast of significance either, so the situation repeats itself. Therefore, we see no reason to devote more than one paragraph to this fact.

    It’s much more interesting that the appearance of Athlon 64 3400+ practically eliminates the effect of Athlon 64 FX-51’s presence on the market. Indeed: the 3400+ is not only cheaper, but it is also in no way inferior to the FX-51 in terms of speed in most cases. In addition, it is installed in normal desktop boards and does not require expensive and scarce Registered ECC DDR400. In fact, if we exclude especially exotic, «piece» applications for a specific task, the appearance of the Athlon 64 3400+ is the death of the Athlon 64 FX-51. And since according to AMD «there is always only one FX!», it looks like we should wait for the release of the FX-53 soon. It’s not that we were too unbearable, but then we’ll at least get visible evidence that the frequency of more than 2200 MHz is not a problem for the K8 core.

    Well, if you try to analyze the current situation in the final, comparing it with the events of the last few years, one simple thing becomes clear: despite the fact that thousands of fans of both companies still continue to break spears in the fields with perseverance worthy of better use virtual battles, throughout the entire time of intense rivalry between Intel and AMD (it began with the release of Athlon in 1999), none of the competitors was able to demonstrate serious and long-term technological and / or engineering superiority .

    AMD releases Athlon Intel releases Coppermine. AMD announces Thunderbird and then Palomino Intel starts pushing the Pentium 4 (here we really see a backlog before Northwood, but you can’t call it a long one). Next comes Northwood, and then Northwood with Hyper-Threading and here AMD starts to lag a little behind. However, Opteron and Athlon 64 are announced, and AMD is again catching up with Intel, and now it is even slightly ahead (in the desktop sector, at least). Constant «swing», but nothing more. And if Prescott doesn’t turn out to be fantastically fast (does anyone else believe in fairy tales?) then, with the exception of a possible formal change of the owner of the first step of the podium, we will not see anything stunning in the desktop x86 CPU sector in the near future.

    Thus, if one of the companies does not suddenly go bankrupt (which is hard to believe), the super popular soap series “Intel vs. AMD» you can safely predict a long and happy life on the screens of our monitors. «The year 2004 in the x86 sector was marked by fierce competition between the two main rivals, bringing each of them a few minor victories, but there was no fundamental change in the situation» I already typed this phrase into the final article

    Athlon 64 3400+ processor [in 1 benchmark]

    AMD
    Athlon 64 3400+

    • Interface
    • Core frequency
    • Video memory size
    • Memory type
    • Memory frequency
    • Maximum resolution

    Description

    AMD started AMD Athlon 64 3400+ sales in January 2001. This is Clawhammer architecture desktop processor primarily aimed at home systems. It has 1 core and 1 thread and is manufactured in 130 nm process technology, the maximum frequency is 2400 MHz, the multiplier is locked.

    In terms of compatibility, this is an AMD Socket 754 processor with a TDP of 89W.

    We don’t have any test results for the Athlon 64 3400+.

    General information


    • Passmark
    Passmark

    Passmark CPU Mark is a widely used benchmark that consists of 8 different tests, including integer and floating point calculations, extended instruction tests, compression, encryption, and game physics calculations. Also includes a separate single-threaded test.

    Benchmark coverage: 68%

    Athlon 64 3400+
    317


    Other processors

    Here we recommend several processors that are more or less similar in performance to the one considered.

    Recommended video cards

    According to our statistics, these video cards are most often used with Athlon 64 3400+:


    GeForce
    8400GS

    23.1%


    Radeon
    X1600

    15.4%


    Radeon HD
    7770

    7. 7%


    GeForce
    6600

    7.7%


    Radeon
    Xpress 200M

    7.7%


    Radeon X700
    SE

    7.7%


    GeForce
    9600 GT

    7.7%


    Radeon RX
    Vega 7

    7.7%


    Radeon HD
    3650

    7.7%


    HD
    Graphics 630

    7.7%

    User rating

    Here you can see the evaluation of the processor by users, as well as put your own rating.


    Tips and comments

    Here you can ask a question about the Athlon 64 3400+, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.


    Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

    Athlon 64 3400+ in Socket

    of the third level cache (L3) 0 MB of the third level cache on the core (L3) 0 MB/Core Technological process 130 nm

    9000 9000 9000

    1 Operating temperature It is unknown — 70 ° C

    Athlon 3700+

    0012

    CLAM0012

    Clawhammer
    The number of nuclei 1
    Type of supported memory DDR SDRAM, single -channel controller
    max 3 GB. Modules from 32 MB to 1 GB are supported (up to 3 modules per processor)
    Supply voltage 1.50 V
    Power dissipation 89 W
    70°C
    Technology 0.13 µm, copper connections, SOI
    Others virus protection).

    999999

    Production for 1 kernel

    Basic productivity 1 core of the processor.

    Processor tested on: PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core, Geekbench 3 AES Single Core.

    New drivers Top DLLs Top manuals0011 2.8 of 10
    Core2 QUAD Q6600 4.1 of 10
    Core i7 3770 7.4 Of 10

    4

    It will do, but now 4Gb of RAM is at least for an office computer, at least 8Gb for a gaming computer. Increase it if possible, you will save a lot of nerves, and the load on the hard disk is less, because with a lack of RAM memory, everything will be swapped to it and slowdowns in games begin.

    The top single-core one can be made what it would be in 2021 if the most productive processor from Intel per core is overclocked to the maximum by disabling all cores artificially in the BIOS, thereby we will find out what a single-core percent would be capable of if it were released in 2021 ))

    This is the real Nitroxsenys — it squeezes everything it can out of junk! I have an Athlon 5000 of 2008, I can’t find the whole mother to open the core, I don’t want to take Asrock, you said overclocking is impossible on it — in general, one dick these games are not stupidly pulled by the GT video card, at least 550GTS buy

    Tags: 2. 4 GHz, 89W, AMD , Athlon 3700+, CPU

    AMD Athlon 64 3400+ compared to other top Intel processors and AMD

    The recently released new AMD Athlon 3400+ desktop processor does not contain any unexpected changes in fact, it’s just an Athlon 64 3200 + with a core frequency increased by 200 MHz. Therefore, for those who wish to become more familiar with the Athlon 64 architecture (and AMD K8 processors in general), we recommend that you familiarize yourself with our previous materials: both test and theoretical, and in the introductory part of this article we will draw readers’ attention to only a few not entirely obvious (and rather funny) facts that accompany the appearance of the 3400+ model.

    First of all, the core frequency of Athlon 64 3400+ is exactly the same as that of Athlon 64 FX-51. Thus, the “extreme” (thanks to Intel for the epithet) AMD desktop processor got an unexpected competitor in the face of a regular (and cheaper) honest desktop CPU, and now the only advantage of the FX-51 is the dual-channel Registered DDR400 SDRAM controller. But we have long known that not all applications are critical to the speed of working with memory.

    Second, and no less important, we are probably the first to observe such a strange change in the index for a new AMD processor model. Indeed: the frequency of Athlon 64 3400+ is 200 MHz higher than that of Athlon 64 3200+, with other absolutely identical characteristics And its model index has grown by exactly the same amount! A situation that we have not seen for a very long time after all, AMD has always argued that the increase in performance (namely, in theory, it is symbolized by «XXXX+» in the name of the processor) in the case of its architecture «overtakes» the increase in frequency! For example: Athlon XP 3000+ has a frequency of 2100 or 2167 MHz (there are two models), and Athlon XP 3200+ (plus 200 to the index) 2200 MHz, that is, 100 or even just 33 MHz more! Funny, right? Either the indexing policy was revised once again, or However, let’s not guess, because we have much more powerful ways to evaluate performance tests.

    Bench configurations and software

    Test bench
    • Processors: AMD Athlon 64 3200+ (2000 MHz), Socket 754
    • AMD Athlon 64 3400+ (2200 MHz), Socket 754
    • Athlon 42 FX-16 AMD

      2200 MHz), Socket 940

    • Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.2 GHz, Socket 478
    • Intel Pentium 4 3.2 GHz, Socket 478
  • Motherboards:
      Gigabyte K8NNXP-940 (BIOS version F3) on chipset NVIDIA nForce3 Pro 150
  • ASUS P4C800 Deluxe (BIOS version 1014) based on Intel 875P 9 chipset0145
  • NVIDIA UDP 3.13
  • VIA Hyperion 4.51
  • VIA SATA Driver 2.10a
  • Silicon Image Driver 1.1.0.52
  • Terratec DMX 6fire Drivers 5.40
  • ATI Catalyst 3.9
  • Gray Matter Studios & Nerve Software Return To Castle Wolfenstein v1 .1, demo checkpoint.dm_57
  • Croteam/GodGames Serious Sam: The Second Encounter 1.07, demo Grand Cathedral
  • Digital Extremes/Epic Games/Atari Unreal Tournament 2003 v2225, botmatch antalus
  • DISTORITS

    9 we did not pay attention to CPU RightMark, which, in general, is very unfair in relation to this test (and especially active readers have hinted at this more than once, by the way). Well, today’s «collection of all the monsters» is a good enough reason to update the results, and at the same time try out the latest version of the benchmark. However, due to the presence of a rather large number of options in the test, we had to limit ourselves to something. Based on the analysis of all the results obtained, we settled on the most revealing: the used instruction sets SSE / SSE2, the number of threads 1 and 2 (taking into account the support for virtual multiprocessing in Pentium 4 family CPUs). Let’s say right away that this choice is optimal even for the Athlon 64 family: these processors showed the best results when working with these instruction sets (combinations MMX/SSE2, MMX/FPU, SSE/FPU were also studied). The sign itself is good: it turns out that SSE/SSE2 support in the AMD64 architecture is done well, at least its activation gives the best possible result.

    On this diagram, we see one of two intermediate results: the speed of the physical model calculation module. Recall that the results of the solver are used as input for the second rendering CPU RM. From the very beginning, the results are already quite interesting: in a purely mathematical problem, all AMD processors without exception are confidently leading. True, not by a huge margin, but still there is some advantage. Something else is a little alarming: the results of both Pentium 4s with two threads (that is, with Hyper-Threading enabled) fall! As it turned out, this is a consequence of the features of the current module unified for Performance and Stability tests, in the future this phenomenon will be removed, so you should not pay attention to it (recall that CPU RM 2003 has not yet left the beta stage).

    But the rendering module behaves as expected: with two threads, the speed of both Pentium 4s increases significantly. Not twice, of course well, no one promised that two virtual processors would work at the speed of two physical ones. In this module, the situation with performance is quite predictable: without Hyper-Threading, the Intel platform loses to AMD, and with its use, it starts to win.

    The overall score (actually, the final, main result) also leaves the palm for the Intel platform, although due to the advantage in the solver block, Athlons get a little closer to the leader. In general, we are clearly witnessing the struggle of architectures: within one of them, the results of different CPUs are almost the same, everything depends only on the frequency. The Pentium 4 EE’s large L3 cache doesn’t help in any way, nor does the Athlon 64 FX-51’s dual-channel memory controller help either. Moreover Athlon 64 3400+, running at the same frequency as FX-51, but with regular, non-registered/ECC memory, is even slightly ahead (latency?..).

    Memory subsystem performance

    We will evaluate it using another low-level benchmark CacheBurst32. Traditionally, we are interested in three parameters: memory read speed, write speed and latency. Let us remind the forgetful that in the latter case, the smaller result is the best.

    We do not observe anything surprising: whoever has which tire reads like that. Here the Pentium 4, with its Quad Pumped Bus (equivalent to 800 MHz bandwidth), is out of competition. Something else is more interesting: note that the Athlon 64 3400+ outperformed the Athlon 64 3200+ by only 1%. Meanwhile, the difference in frequency between them is greater: as much as 10%. It turns out that Athlon 64 with its single-channel DDR400 controller has almost “rested” on the memory subsystem, that is, the reading bandwidth value of around 3000 MB / s is already the limit for it at this RAM frequency? Logically, this result indicates exactly this

    Recording results are more difficult. Here the Pentium 4 EE was clearly helped by its large cache, and the Athlon 64 FX-51, respectively, was greatly helped out by the dual-channel controller (after all, we have already said that it is the main difference between the FX-51 and 3400+ and you can see for yourself which it played a role in this test). And again, the comparison of Athlon 64 3200+ and 3400+ is depressing there is practically no increase in speed, despite the increased core frequency. It seems that the single-channel controller is already «choking».

    The high (relative to the AMD64 platform) latency of systems based on Pentium 4 is not a special secret for anyone, so there is not much to say here. The FX-51 demonstrates the highest latency in the AMD subgroup. Which is not surprising a more reliable and stable registered/ECC memory is not a free gingerbread, its latency, in comparison with a non-registered memory of the same characteristics, is always a little more.

    Real world tests

    Graphics

    Starting from version 4.26, 3ds max moved into the category of «intellectual» applications, and after version 5.0 introduced additional optimization for Hyper-Threading, this effect became even more pronounced. However, we recall that in our case, an external renderer is used, so the rendering engine of 3ds max itself has nothing to do with the results. But we don’t know anything about optimization for the Pentium 4 Brazil Rendering System yes, it supports SMP and SSE, but nothing more. However, the Pentium 4 is still ahead. Not that it would be very significant, but quite enough for a confident statement of the win. But that’s not all, and perhaps even not the most interesting. Note that the Athlon 64 3400+ is again marginally ahead of the Athlon 64 FX-51. And get used to it, gentlemen. Get used to it. Little by little, little by little, but this trend will continue to manifest itself in many tests.

    The last time we tested the Athlon 64 FX-51 in this application, it was noted that for Photoshop it turned out to be just the same processor. However, at that time, the Intel platform at least managed to wrest victory from the hands of a purely desktop Athlon 64 3200+. Today it has lost this gain too: Athlon 64 3400+ is already a completely honest desktop processor, and it confidently outperforms Pentium 4 3.2 GHz and even outperforms Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition by 3 seconds. In fact, we are witnessing the consolidation of the leadership of one of the competing platforms in this application, now it can be called unconditional. It is worth paying attention to the fact that the Athlon 64 FX-51 is significantly ahead of the 3400+. This can only indicate one thing: Adobe Photoshop is very sensitive to the speed of streaming memory operations, and for him this characteristic is more important than latency. However, the most important thing is the core architecture otherwise the Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition, which works the fastest with RAM, would have won.

    Audio encoding

    Our audio encoding methodology is quite wide and varied, but it is precisely for this reason that listing the results of all tests in combined hodgepodges from the category of “a little about everything” hardly makes sense. Therefore, we decided to limit ourselves to two tests from the general set: encoding to MP3 format using LAME and encoding to OGG Vorbis format using the appropriate encoder from the Vorbis Tools set.

    The tests shade each other well, showing a similar picture, but with inverted accents in LAME the Intel platform is in the lead, in Oggenc the AMD platform. Fairly quiet and calm rivalry, no huge gaps. Pay attention to the accentuated indifference of both subtests to anything other than frequency: the Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition is on a par with the usual one, as well as the second single-frequency pair Athlon 64 FX-51 and Athlon 64 3400+. In principle, until the release of processors of other (or significantly modified) architectures, we will probably refuse to include audio encoding tests in non-specialized materials the situation there is outrageously transparent and the results can be predicted with fairly high accuracy, having only processor specifications (data on core frequency) and a calculator.

    Video encoding

    From this method, we took a larger number of tests two each from the «ripper» and «director’s» subgroups. I would like to note that the seemingly not very logical inclusion of the Windows Media Video 9 encoding test in the first group, as opposed to the more popular XviD, is primarily due to some features of the latter. True, a new version of this codec has already been released, but we have not yet had time to adjust our test package for it, moreover, the study of the issue with XviD deserves a small separate article. As for the director’s (MPEG2) part, the choice was unequivocal here of course, Mainconcept and Canopus, who else?

    The situation is completely similar to LAME + Oggenc in one test, some advantage of AMD processors, in another Intel. It’s funny that the AMD64 platform was preferred by a product from Microsoft, which is so often reproached for being almost a united front with Intel. This fact is aggravated by the fact that the Windows Media Video 9 codec supports Hyper-Threading (and, accordingly, SMP), but in this case it did not help Intel processors. The differences between «extreme» and regular desktop processors in each group are traditionally minimal. In this connection, more and more often the question arises of the expediency of releasing all these extreme hmm whatever word you choose better however, pick it yourself.

    Positively, we will obviously be reproached for the fact that the tests were selected specifically to create the required picture. It remains to be assured that this is not the case, and we ourselves are amazed at how clearly the results have decomposed: as soon as you take some pair of applications united by a certain common meaning it immediately turns out that one architecture is leading in one of them, and in the other another. Or maybe everything is simpler that’s how it is? Pay attention to the repeating effect that we talked about above Athlon 64 3400+ once again for some seconds, but still outperforms its extreme brother FX-51. Of course, if we take the results of one test and consider them separately from the rest, such a phenomenon should definitely be attributed to measurement error. But after all, it is observed in a very large number of cases and in tests that are completely different in meaning!

    Archiving

    Starting from this point, we switched to using the latest version of 7-zip (3.13) in the tests, so the differences in the distribution of places compared to previous tests are quite understandable. We also abandoned the use of a special (and rather complex) set of options in favor of the commonly used ones: for Intel processors and just for AMD CPUs (the -mmt option enables multithreading support and is not recommended by the author of the program for processors without Hyper-Threading).

    Finally, in WinRAR Athlon 64 3400+ was able to win not just one or two seconds over FX-51, but something more significant — five whole seconds. However, we have become accustomed to this alignment. The results of 7-zip are more interesting: we decided to check how well Hyper-Threading support is implemented in this archiver, so measurements on systems with Pentium 4 were carried out both with and without HT enabled. The effect is amazing: it is Hyper-Threading that allows both Pentium 4s to win in this subtest; without it, their performance decreases catastrophically. By the way, we were also interested in the following question: do both Intel processors react in the same way to forced single-processor operation? Maybe it affects some of them less? But no — in both cases, about 17% of the speed is lost.

    Games

    We (traditionally) give game tests in processor articles in a single block, and, as a rule, with a minimum of comments. Just in case, let’s clarify the official position on this issue once again: practically no one buys top-end processors in order to play on them. This, firstly, is not economically feasible, and secondly, it’s also just stupid: if you have an excess of money and want to spend it on making toys run faster, it’s better to buy a more powerful video card. Of course, a powerful video card, in turn, needs a powerful processor, but powerful does not mean top-end. But the difference in price between a CPU at the top frequency step and one just a couple of steps below is usually quite significant. And in any case, those who buy something like the Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition or Athlon 64 FX-51/3400+ for gaming machines do not do so because they are fast, but simply because «it’s, like, cool!» :).

    And here is another «effect of new drivers». It is easy to see that now the 64-bit (albeit working in 32-bit mode) AMD platform is the undisputed leader in the gaming tests we use. Moreover, the idea that it is the video card drivers that are “to blame” (apparently, they received additional optimization) is first of all suggested by the results of Return to Castle Wolfenstein. Pay attention: in the «Fast» mode with a low resolution, which is traditionally used just to evaluate the performance of processors and chipsets, the Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition just wins. But with increasing resolution and detailing, when the load on the video card increases it starts losing to Athlon 64 FX-51 and 3400+! We can only assume that an increase in the load on the card means an increase in the amount of work performed by its drivers, and their code is executed faster on Athlon 64. However, once again we will quote the standard disclaimer of all testers who are unable to evaluate the software sources: we cannot be 100% sure of this assumption, but it seems to us quite logical.”

    Summary charts for all tests

    This time we decided to break the summary charts into groups of tests, they are very different. As always, comments on pivot charts will be kept as short as possible, as everything is clearly visible on them. Recall that the worst result is taken as 100%. We also recall that if the value obtained as a test result is the reciprocal of the speed (for example, this is time), then the ratio of not the best result to the worst is calculated, but vice versa (K/X)/(K/Y) is quite correctly reduced to Y/ x. Accordingly, in summary charts, «more» always means «better», unlike the previous ones.

    The superiority of the Intel platform, which, however, can not be called stunning.

    A more complicated situation: each platform pulls ahead significantly exactly where it is strong. For Intel, this is the line access speed, for AMD, latency. It is simply impossible to compare these characteristics directly. one is important for one type of program and the other for another (and only in very rare cases are both equally important).

    Approximate parity, but the gap between the best AMD processor and the best member of the Pentium 4 family in Adobe Photoshop is higher than the gap between the best Pentium 4 and the best Athlon 64 in 3ds max. AMD wins on points.

    On points, the Intel platform wins due to its significant superiority in LAME.

    On points, the Intel platform wins again, but, nevertheless, we would have awarded a draw anyway: both Pentium 4s demonstrated really significant superiority only in one program out of four Mainconcept MPEG Encoder.

    In WinRAR the platforms are on a par, but in 7-zip the win is for Intel. True, as always, it is not so big that one can talk about the “defeat of AMD”.

    A convincing victory for the AMD platform, and doubly convincing due to the fact that it demonstrated its advantage in all tests without exception.

    Conclusions

    First, let’s state the obvious: Athlon 64 3400+ still managed to win the title of the fastest of the «honest» desktop processors Pentium 4 3.2 GHz, though not by much, but outperformed. On points, so to speak. Those who wish (or are especially incredulous) can arm themselves with summary charts and a calculator and check it out on their own. However, only those who pray for the same calculator can take this title seriously, because the winnings are very small. By the way, the previous victory of the Pentium 4 3.2 GHz over the Athlon 64 3200+ could not boast of significance either, so the situation repeats itself. Therefore, we see no reason to devote more than one paragraph to this fact.

    It’s much more interesting that the appearance of Athlon 64 3400+ practically eliminates the effect of Athlon 64 FX-51’s presence on the market. Indeed: the 3400+ is not only cheaper, but it is also in no way inferior to the FX-51 in terms of speed in most cases. In addition, it is installed in normal desktop boards and does not require expensive and scarce Registered ECC DDR400. In fact, if we exclude especially exotic, «piece» applications for a specific task, the appearance of the Athlon 64 3400+ is the death of the Athlon 64 FX-51. And since according to AMD «there is always only one FX!», it looks like we should wait for the release of the FX-53 soon. It’s not that we were too unbearable, but then we’ll at least get visible evidence that the frequency of more than 2200 MHz is not a problem for the K8 core.

    Well, if you try to analyze the current situation in the final, comparing it with the events of the last few years, one simple thing becomes clear: despite the fact that thousands of fans of both companies still continue to break spears in the fields with perseverance worthy of better use virtual battles, throughout the entire period of intense rivalry between Intel and AMD (which began with the release of Athlon in 1999), none of the competitors could demonstrate serious and lasting technological and / or engineering superiority.

    AMD releases Athlon Intel releases Coppermine. AMD announces Thunderbird and then Palomino Intel starts pushing the Pentium 4 (here we really see a backlog before Northwood, but you can’t call it a long one). Next comes Northwood, and then Northwood with Hyper-Threading and here AMD starts to lag a little behind. However, Opteron and Athlon 64 are announced, and AMD is again catching up with Intel, and now it is even slightly ahead (in the desktop sector, at least). Constant «swing», but nothing more. And if Prescott doesn’t turn out to be fantastically fast (does anyone else believe in fairy tales?), then except for a possible formal change of the owner of the first step of the podium, we won’t see anything stunning in the desktop x86 CPU sector in the near future.

    Thus, if one of the companies does not suddenly go bankrupt (which is hard to believe), the extremely popular soap series “Intel vs. AMD» you can safely predict a long and happy life on the screens of our monitors. “The year 2004 in the x86 sector was marked by fierce competition between the two main rivals, bringing each of them a few minor victories, but there was no fundamental change in the situation” I have already typed this phrase into the final article

    Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ [in 2 benchmarks]

    AMD
    Mobile Athlon 64 3400+

    • Interface
    • Core frequency
    • Video memory size
    • Memory type
    • Memory frequency
    • Maximum resolution

    Description

    AMD started AMD Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ sales in August 2005. This is Clawhammer architecture notebook processor primarily aimed at home systems.

    In terms of compatibility, this is an AMD Socket 754 processor with a TDP of 62W. It supports DDR1 memory.

    We don’t have any test results for the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+.

    General information

    Information about the type (desktop or laptop) and architecture of the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+, as well as when sales started and cost at that time.

    Athlon 3700+ 2.6 out of 10
    Core2 Quad Q6600 3.2 out of 10

    Tested on: CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining, CompuBench 1.5 Face detection, CompuBench 1.5 Ocean Surface Simulation, CompuBench 1.5 T-Rex, CompuBench 1.5 Video composition.

    999

    Athlon 3700+ 0.0 of 10
    Core2 QUAD Q6600 0.0 from 10
    Core 3770 3.7 of 10

    9013 the processor uses electricity.

    Tests used: Fire Strike, CompuBench 1. 5 Bitcoin mining, CompuBench 1.5 Face detection, CompuBench 1.5 Ocean Surface Simulation, CompuBench 1.5 T-Rex, CompuBench 1.5 Video composition, PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark, Geekbench 3 Multi-Core, PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core, Geekbench 3 AES Single Core, TDP.

    Athlon 3700+ 4.3 out of 10
    Core2 Quad Q6600 4.4 out of 10
    Core i7 3770 8.6 out of 10

    Price-performance ratio

    How much you overpay for performance.

    Tested on: Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining, CompuBench 1.5 Face detection, CompuBench 1.5 Ocean Surface Simulation, CompuBench 1.5 T-Rex, CompuBench 1.5 Video composition, PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark, Geekbench 3 Multi-Core, PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core, Geekbench 3 AES Single Core, Price.

    Athlon 3700+ 1,622
    Core i7 3770 16,134
    Core2 Quad Q6600 5,918

    PassMark

    Athlon 3700+ 435
    Core I7 3770 9. 449
    Core2 Q6600 2.970

    Passmark (Single Core)

    ATHLON 3700+
    Memory connectors 3 DDR 4 DDR 4 DDR
    Expansion slots AGP / 5 PCI AGP / AGP / AGP / AGP / AGP / AGP / AGP / AGP / AGP / AGP 1 FDD, 2 PS/2, 3 FireWire 1 FDD, 2 COM, 1 LPT, 2 PS/2, 2 IEEE1394 1 FDD, 1 LPT, 2 COM, 2 PS/2, 2 FireWire- 800
    USB 4 USB 2. 0 + 2 x 2 USB 2.0 4 USB 2.0 + 2 connectors for 2 USB 2.0 2 USB 2.0 + 2 USB 2.0
    Contagired IDE Controller ATA133 + SATA RAID

    ATA100 + SATA Ata133 Ata133 Ata133 External IDE / SATA Controller Silicon Image SII3114CT176 Promise PDC20378 Silicon Image SII3114CT176 + ITE IT8212F 9000 9000 9000

    Sound AC’970012

    4 Mbit Award BIOS v. 6.00pg
    Form factor, dimensions ATX, 30.5 × 24.5 cm ATX, 30.5 × 24.5 cm ATX, 30.5 × 24.5 cm
    Place in the performance rating does not participate

    $30 of 14999 (Xeon Platinum 9282)

    Features

    Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ quantitative parameters such as number of cores and threads, clock speeds, manufacturing process, cache size and multiplier lock state. They indirectly speak about the performance of the processor, but for an accurate assessment, you need to consider the results of the tests.

    Core 1

    Compatible

    Information on Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ compatibility with other computer components. Useful, for example, when choosing the configuration of a future computer or to upgrade an existing one.

    Please note that the power consumption of some processors can significantly exceed their nominal TDP even without overclocking. Some may even double their claims if the motherboard allows you to adjust the power settings of the processor.

    9

    Types of RAM DDR1 of 5200 (Ryzen 5 7600x)

    Tests in the benchmarks

    These are the results of Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ performance tests in non-gaming benchmarks. The overall score is set from 0 to 100, where 100 corresponds to the fastest processor at the moment.


    • Passmark
    Passmark

    Passmark CPU Mark is a widely used benchmark that consists of 8 different tests, including integer and floating point calculations, extended instruction checks, compression, encryption, and game physics calculations. Also includes a separate single-threaded test.

    Benchmark coverage: 68%

    Mobile Athlon 64 3400+
    333


    Other processors

    Here we recommend several processors that are more or less similar in performance to the reviewed one.

    Recommended video cards

    According to our statistics, these video cards are most often used with Mobile Athlon 64 3400+:


    Radeon
    Xpress 200M

    100%

    User rating

    Here you can see the evaluation of the processor by users, as well as put your own rating.


    Tips and comments

    Here you can ask a question about the Mobile Athlon 64 3400+, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.

    The speed of caches and working with RAM is also important.

    Speed ​​in office use

    Performance in everyday work such as browsers and office applications.

    The performance of 1 core has the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications use only one, ignoring the rest.

    Similarly, many professional applications such as various CADs ignore multi-threaded performance.

    Speed ​​in heavy applications

    Performance in resource-intensive tasks loading a maximum of 8 cores.

    The performance of all cores and their number has the greatest impact on the result, since most of these applications willingly use all the cores and increase the speed accordingly.

    At the same time, certain periods of work can be demanding on the performance of one or two cores, for example, applying filters in the editor.

    Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems with and without overclocking. Thus, you see the average values ​​corresponding to the processor.

    Speed ​​of numerical operations

    Simple household tasks

    Minimum Average Maximum
    36 Memory: 63 80

    Memory

    66. 7

    16 1 core: 36 41

    1 core

    17.6

    22 2 cores: 35 41

    2 cores

    8.7

    Demanding games and tasks

    Minimum Average Maximum
    19 4 cores: 35 41

    4 cores

    4. 5

    10 8 cores: 36 41

    8 cores

    2.3

    Extreme

    Minimum Average Maximum
    7 All cores: 37 42

    All cores

    0.7

    Different tasks require different CPU strengths. A system with few fast cores and low memory latency will be fine for the vast majority of games, but will be inferior to a system with a lot of slow cores in a rendering scenario.

    We believe that a minimum 4/4 (4 physical cores and 4 threads) processor is suitable for a budget gaming PC. At the same time, some games can load it at 100%, slow down and freeze, and performing any tasks in the background will lead to a drop in FPS.

    Ideally, the budget shopper should aim for a minimum of 4/8 and 6/6. A gamer with a big budget can choose between 6/12, 8/8 and 8/16. Processors with 10 and 12 cores can perform well in games with high frequency and fast memory, but are overkill for such tasks. Also, buying for the future is a dubious undertaking, since in a few years many slow cores may not provide sufficient gaming performance.

    When choosing a processor for your work, consider how many cores your programs use. For example, photo and video editors can use 1-2 cores when working with filtering, and rendering or converting in the same editors already uses all threads.

    Data obtained from tests by users who tested their systems both with overclocking (maximum value in the table) and without (minimum). A typical result is shown in the middle, the more filled in the color bar, the better the average result among all tested systems.

    Benchmarks

    Benchmarks were run on stock hardware, that is, without overclocking and with factory settings. Therefore, on overclocked systems, the points can noticeably differ upwards. Also, small performance changes may be due to the BIOS version.

    Passmark

    Intel Atom N2800

    408

    Intel Atom D510

    385

    Intel Celeron 900

    384

    AMD E1-1200 APU

    383

    Intel Atom Z2760

    375

    AMD Athlon 64 3400+

    375

    Intel Atom Z2760

    375

    AMD V140

    372

    Intel Atom 330

    371

    AMD Athlon 64 3500+

    366

    AMD Sempron 3600+

    364

    Tests in games

    FPS measured by us in popular games on AMD Athlon 64 3400+ and compliance with system requirements. Please note that the official requirements of developers in games do not always match the data of real tests. Also, the result is strongly influenced by the overclocking of the system and the graphic settings in the game. We test at high settings in FullHD resolution to get numbers close to real gameplay.

    On average for all gaming tests, the processor scored 2

    • n/a

    We’ve put together a list of the parts that users most frequently choose when building an Athlon 64 3400+ based computer. Also with these components, the best results in tests and stable operation are achieved.

    The most popular config: motherboard for AMD Athlon 64 3400+ — Viak8m AWRDACPI, video card — Radeon HD 6410D.

    Characteristics

    The data is not yet complete, so the tables may be missing information or missing existing features.

    Basic

    Manufacturer AMD
    Release dateMonth and year of the processor’s availability. 09-2016
    Cores The number of physical cores. Yes
    ThreadsNumber of threads. The number of logical processor cores that the operating system sees. Yes
    Multi-Threading Technology With Intel’s Hyper-threading and AMD’s SMT technology, one physical core is recognized as two logical cores in the operating system, thereby increasing processor performance in multi-threaded applications. Missing
    Base frequencyGuaranteed frequency of all processor cores at maximum load. Performance in single-threaded and multi-threaded applications and games depends on it. It is important to remember that speed and frequency are not directly related. For example, a new processor at a lower frequency may be faster than an old one at a higher one. 2.2 GHz
    Embedded Options Available Two enclosure versions.

    2022 © All rights reserved