.09 Athlon 64: Value, Speed and Overclocking
by Wesley Fink on October 14, 2004 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Overclocking Results and Heat
One of the most pressing questions that many are asking about the new 90nm processors is how they overclock. Will the die-shrink deliver the kind of headroom seen on the Intel Northwood chips when they were first introduced? Our first tests with the 90nm 3500+ were quite good, so we bought a 90nm 3000+ to see if results were comparable.| Front Side Bus Overclocking Testbed | ||
| 90nm A64 3500+ | 90nm A64 3000+ | |
| Processor: | 2.2GHz 512k L2 Cache |
1.8Hz 512k L2 Cache |
| CPU Voltage: | Default (1.4V) | +8.3% (1.52V) |
| Cooling: | Thermaltake Silent Boost K8 Heatsink/Fan | Thermaltake Silent Boost K8 Heatsink/Fan |
| Power Supply: | OCZ PowerStream 520 | OCZ PowerStream 520 |
| Memory Timings: | 2.5-4-4-10 1T | 2.5-4-4-10 1T |
| Memory Voltage: | 2.75V | 2.8V |
| Maximum OC: | 2610 (+18.6%) 290x9 |
2610MHz (+45%) 290x9 |
As you can see, the 3500+ and the 3000+ both topped out at about 2.6GHz (anticipated FX55 speed) with default or modestly increased CPU voltage and air cooling. This is a decent overclock of about 20% on the 3500+, but the 3000+ reached the same 2.6GHz overclock from a much lower stock speed of 1.8GHz. This means that the new 90nm 3000+ overclocked an outstanding 45% with modest increases in CPU voltage.
The only real difference in overclocking the 3500+ and 3000+ in our tests was that the 3000+ required a little more CPU voltage and memory voltage to reach the same overclocks achieved with the 3500+. This 45% overclock is exciting, and it gives us reason to expect even better headroom possibilities when AMD gets the 90nm process tweaked. Since these two 90nm parts came from different sources and were purchased from dealers, we feel comfortable that they are representative of the 90nm chips available in the market. Overclocking results are never guaranteed, but these first results with AMD 90nm processors are full of promise. If the 90nm 3000+ performs this well in larger samples, it will become the darling of the Enthusiast community.
All Performance benchmarks were repeated at the highest overclock that we could achieve - 290x9.
The Overclocked Performance results are included in the Performance Comparison charts to show the performance headroom found with the new 90nm chips. For better comparison, results are also included for the fastest processors currently available from AMD (FX53) and Intel (560 - 3.6GHz).
Thermal Performance
AMD claims that their 90nm process generates less heat than the 130nm process and requires lower wattages. Of course, the heat that is generated is concentrated in a much smaller area than the larger 130nm die. We will not likely know the true impact of the 90nm shrink on heat dissipation until AMD produces their fastest CPUs in 90nm, so we decided not to run comprehensive heat tests until the faster processors were available in 90nm.We did check reported temperatures in the BIOS to get an idea of the temperature trends with the new 90nm process. At the same stock speeds, the 90nm and 130nm chips were showing the same CPU temperatures. There was neither improvement from the 90nm nor any indication of running hotter. Overclocked to 290x9, the 90nm parts were 1 to 5 degrees Celsius cooler than a 130nm FX53 chip clocked to the same 290x9. These results are not the objective tests that we will run on high-speed 90nm parts, but they confirmed that the AMD 90nm process appears to run at least as cool as current 130nm processors.
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!