.09 Athlon 64: Value, Speed and Overclocking
by Wesley Fink on October 14, 2004 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Performance Test: Configuration
To provide you with the best picture of the performance of the new Athlon64 90nm processors, we decided to compare it to other processors using a cross-section of our standard Motherboard tests. The same Socket 939 motherboard, the MSI K8N Neo2, was used to benchmark the 90nm Athlon 64 3000+, the 90nm Athlon 64 3500+, and the 130nm Athlon 64 3500+. We also ran benchmarks of the 130nm processor at Socket 939 3000+ speeds, but these results are theoretical. There is no production 130nm Socket 939 3000+, so these results were just to compare the impact of the die-shrink and Winchester core on performance.| Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s): | AMD .09 Athlon 64 3500+ AMD .13 Athlon 64 3500+ AMD .09 Athlon 64 3000+ AMD .13 Athlon 64 3000+ (downclocked .13 939 CPU) AMD FX53 A64 (.13-2.4GHz-1MB Cache) |
| RAM: | 2 x 512Mb OCZ 3200 Platinum Rev. 2 |
| Memory Timings: | 2-2-2-10 1T |
| Memory Voltage: | 2.6V |
| Hard Drive(s): | Seagate 120GB PATA (IDE) 7200RPM 8MB Cache |
| PCI/AGP Speed: | Fixed at 33/66 |
| Bus Master Drivers: | nVidia nForce Platform Driver 4.24 (5-10-2004) |
| Video Card(s): | nVidia 6800 Ultra 256MB, 256MB aperture, 1024x768x32 |
| Video Drivers: | nVidia Forceware 61.77 |
| Power Supply: | OCZ Power Stream 520W |
We have found the fastest performance on AMD Athlon 64 chipsets (nForce3, VIA K8T800 PRO) to be achieved at Cycle Time or tRAS of 10. Athlon 64 platform benchmarks were therefore run with the tRAS timing of 10 for all A64 benchmarks.
To illustrate better the comparative performance of the 130nm and 90nm processors, we have displayed results for both in the Performance Comparison charts. Benchmarks were also repeated at the highest overclock that we could achieve on the 90nm processors. For better comparison, results are also included for the fastest processors currently available from AMD (FX53) and Intel (560 - 3.6GHz).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
89 Comments
View All Comments
athlon2004 - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
Err.....i'm really a noob....didn't see my post so i thought that there was a problem, but apparently it doesn't reload page 4, but page one. Feel free to delete the other responses.athlon2004 - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
Are those speed prime stable?athlon2004 - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
Are those speeds prime stable?athlon2004 - Sunday, October 31, 2004 - link
nitenichiryu1 - Saturday, October 30, 2004 - link
great article. what was the core of the 3500+ chip? was it newcastle or winchester for the 90nm? and is there any difference between these two cores? on sites such as newegg and zipzoomfly, the 90nm 3500+ are advertised as winchester on zipzoomfly and neweggs are advertised as newcastles. thanksWesley Fink - Saturday, October 23, 2004 - link
#73 -You normally have to drop HT at higher overclocks, to keep the aggregate somewhere in the 1000HT range. Some boards handle higher HT than others. Since x3 HT was used for the 290x9 benchmarks in the review, I think it should be clear that the lower HT ratio does not adversely affect performance as long as the HT is somewhere around 800 or greater. 290x3 is an HT of 870.
4X HT usually stops working around 260 to 275 (1040 to 1100) on most boards that support 1000HT (5X) and you need to drop to x3. As a side note, none of the 1000HT boards we have tested work well at 2x HT.
DaveHull - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
Wesley,One thing I've noticed when overclocking the MSI board with the 3000+ A64 (same as in the review) is that you have to lower the Hyper Transport (HT) from x5 to x3 to get the overclock of 290 FSB, giving an HT speed of 870 mhz instead of the stock 1000 mhz. My cpu/board refuses to run at a HT speed of over 1070.
Is this true of the overclock in the article? Will the decreased HT speed negate the performance benefits of the overclock in any practical areas?
Thank you,
Dave
Furen - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
actually, disregard the above. The PQI 1024DP has a higher latency rating, the one you'd need for DDR570 is the 1024DBU, which is $245... stupid dealtime and it's incorrect linking ^^ (yeah, I'll blame it on dealtime)Furen - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
For all you people asking questions about ram, here's an alternative: =)You could always use the PQI 3200 Turbo, which supports speeds of up to DDR570 and goes for $172.00 at newegg, here's the link:
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?DEPA...
This ram was reviewed here at anandtech and while not as insanely good as the OCZ EL Platinum, the performance compared to other ram was not too bad. As mentioned in the review, though it has lifetime warranty, the manufacturer is a new name, so the support service is a big unknown.
Furthermore, running the FSB at 285MHz instead of 290MHz will give you an overclock that is 45Mhz lower (2.565GHz) but the ram being 100 dollars cheaper is worth it, in my opinion.
AlphaFox - Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - link
anyone notice the price for these things is going UP after AMD just lowered their price? newegg had them for $199, up from $189 a few days ago, now its $215!!! HELLO, the prices are supposed to go DOWN after AMD loweres the price!