Seems so from Anandtech Radeon 9800XT review. They used Prescott 2.8 GHz for their benchmarks.
In UT2003 Flyby test, it pulled 212 fps with Radeon 9800 Pro 256 MB. With the same card and same settings, P4 3.0C and P4 3.2C scored 226.3 fps and 232.8 fps respectively. If Prescott scales like Northwood "C" in this benchmark, then it should do 218.5 fps @ 3.0 GHz and 226.1 fps @ 3.2 GHz, with is slower than equally clocked Northwood "C". But it's 1 MB L2 cache should offer some performance boost over Northwood "C" in this benchmark if everything else is equal to Northwood "C".
One thing is certain- Athlon 64 isn't losing it's gaming performance crown in this year, and Athlon 64 3200+ should beat (or tie) early Prescott in gaming benchmarks.
----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>
In UT2003 Flyby test, it pulled 212 fps with Radeon 9800 Pro 256 MB. With the same card and same settings, P4 3.0C and P4 3.2C scored 226.3 fps and 232.8 fps respectively. If Prescott scales like Northwood "C" in this benchmark, then it should do 218.5 fps @ 3.0 GHz and 226.1 fps @ 3.2 GHz, with is slower than equally clocked Northwood "C". But it's 1 MB L2 cache should offer some performance boost over Northwood "C" in this benchmark if everything else is equal to Northwood "C".
One thing is certain- Athlon 64 isn't losing it's gaming performance crown in this year, and Athlon 64 3200+ should beat (or tie) early Prescott in gaming benchmarks.
----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A></b>
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>