Summary: So do I think that the Athlon 64 3200+ (Socket 939 Venice core) is a good buy? Well, it depends on what is in your rig at the moment. For instance, if you already have a Socket 939 system and an Athlon 64 2800+, or Athlon 64 3000+ I would say no; barring some extreme overclocking the speed increase is likely to be minimal. On the other hand, if you are still running a Socket 754--or worse yet--Socket 462 system, and are looking to upgrade, the time is perfect to do so.
Pros: Good performance, Runs cool, Overclocks well, Low price
Cons: Stock S939 A64 3200+ not any faster than S754 A64 3200+
Summary: There is not doubt that AMD's Athlon64 line is a huge success. Everyone from system builders to power users to gamers have embraced its 64-bit architecture and serious processing power. The move from a 130nm to a 90nm die was also a success. This process has displaced a number of processors, namely the Newcastles, and made consumers look past socket 754, but it will make for cheaper processors, better performance, and CPU speeds that could not be reached at 130nm.
Summary: AMD’s transition to the 90 nm SOI
process appears relatively painless as compared to the issues that Intel
has encountered with its Prescott based Pentium 4. The 90 nm Athlon
64’s are very cool running at any given speed, and other 3
party figures show that it consumes a solid 10% less power than the 130
nm SOI Athlon 64. AMD also has the luxury of transitioning its lineup
to 90 nm at its own pace due to the current performance advantage AMD
seems to hold over Intel.
Pros: Cooler, Faster, Less Power, Great Price
Cons: Availability is not fantastic, Was not stable at 2.5 GHz, A big thanks to the folks at AMD for providing the sample!
Excerpt: CPU speeds have been increasing very quickly over the past few years and have now reached the 64-bit mark. AMD’s release of their Athlon 64 3200+ was a landmark for the computing world. AMD released two models, the Clawhammer which is a socket 754 Athlon 64 and the Sledgehammer which is a socket 940 Athlon […]
Summary: We have just reviewed a new 64bit processor from AMD targeted for the mass market. It is AMD Athlon 64 3200+. In this review you will find a lot of info on its performance, overclockability and a detailed coverage of the new Cool’n’Quiet technology implemented in this processor.
Excerpt: There should be no surprise that the Athlon 64 3200+ processor will not be the fastest processor in AMD’s lineup – after all, that is what AMD is planning on; leaving the Athlon FX line to be the cream of the crop. But if you have looked for any Athlon 64 motherboards before launch, you’ll see that there are precious few motherboards for the Athlon 64 FX-51, but numerous for the 754-pin Athlon 64 processor.
Summary: A couple of weeks ago AMD introduced their long awaited 64bit processor for the desktop market, Athlon 64 and Athlon FX. At that time we unfortunately got no opportunity to look closer at it the way we did with the new flagship from Intel, Pentium 4 3.2 GHz Extreme Edition. The processor is intended as Intel's "temporary" reply to Athlon 64 and proved to have an impressive performance with its huge 2 MB L3-cache.
Conclusion: Fazit Der Athlon 64 soll AMD in eine bessere, soll heißen, bilanztechnisch tiefschwarze Zukunft führen. Dass der Neuling seine Sache augenscheinlich nicht schlecht macht, belegen die Benchmarkwerte: Der A64 gewinnt ausnahmslos jeden Spielebenchmark! Und dies, obwohl die Taktfrequenz momentan auf einem bescheidenen Niveau von 2000 MHz liegt. Schafft es AMD endlich die Taktrate rasch zu steigern, könnte AMD sich weiter vom Mitbewerber absetzen.
Summary: För ett par veckor sedan lanserade AMD deras minst sagt efterlängtade 64bit-processorer för desktopmarknaden, Athlon 64 och Athlon 64 FX. Tyvärr hade vi då ingen möjlighet att titta närmare på AMDs alster men vi lät Intels nya flaggskepp, Pentium 4 3.2 GHz Extreme Edition, bekänna färg. Processorn är tänkt som Intels "tillfälliga" svar på Athlon 64 och visade upp imponerande prestanda med sin enorma L3-cache på 2 MB.