.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
Wesley Fink - Friday, October 15, 2004 - link
#57 - There were NO tests on Socket 754 processors in this review, since 90nm is only available as 939. This is stated in the review. To see the impact of the new Winchester core and die-shrink on performance we downclocked a 939 .13 CPU to 1.8GHz - the same specs as the 90nm 939. This is clearly stated in bold in the review "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."Akira1224 - Friday, October 15, 2004 - link
#56 can you post an official Nvidia link stating that. I can't seem to find the official word anywhere. I just figured since you stated that they will not support AGP as a fact you have seen something official.Thank you !
Cybercat - Friday, October 15, 2004 - link
AMD .09 Athlon 64 3500+AMD .13 Athlon 64 3500+
AMD .09 Athlon 64 3000+
AMD .09 Athlon 64 3000+ (downclocked .13 CPU)
AMD FX53 A64 (.13-2.4GHz-1MB Cache)
So, does this mean that the Socket 754 3000+ was downclocked to 1.8GHz?
IceWindius - Friday, October 15, 2004 - link
#44Fraid not, nForce 4 will only support PCI-E video cards from this point forward.
thebluesgnr - Friday, October 15, 2004 - link
The 1.8GHz Winchester is faster than the Sempron 3100+ for a few reasons:1) dual channel support;
2) 512KB L2 cache (versus 256KB on the Sempron);
3) small improvements on the Winchester core.
Not to mention the lack of 64-bit support on the Sempron. But that's not so bad for a chip that's half the price (they cost $100 and $199 on newegg). The price difference is too big, the suggested price for the A64 3000+ is $165, so I expect to pay 150-165 for the OEM version. Newegg's logistics is too good. ;)
Wesley Fink - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
#50 - All Athlon 64 processors can be set to lower CPU ratios. Only the FX can be set either lower or higher multipliers. I was testing and had set the 3800+ to a 9 multiplier in BIOS. The 3800+ is at stock a 12 multiplier and runs at 2.4GHz.To minimize confusion we replaced the 9x capture with a 12x 3800+ screen capture in the review.
#52 is correct - the Sempron PR is based on Celeron and not A64. The Sempron 3100+ is actually a bit slower than a 2800+ Athlon 64. The Sempron is also 32-bit only and does not support 64-bit operation even though it will fit in Socket 754.
Wesley Fink - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
#47 - the 3400+ is for Socket 754. The only 90nm chips are for Socket 939 at present. 3500+ is the correct name and you can buy the chip from Monarch Computers for one at http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.... New Egg does have the 3200+ and 3000+ 90nm in stock - but not the 3500+. Look for Core: Winchester and Process: 90nm in the description. I don't have any idea what the 3400+ Socket 939 chip is that is advertised at NewEgg, but it's not Winchester core or 90nm process.#48 - All Athlon 64 processors can be set to lower CPU ratios. Only the FX can be set either lower or higher multipliers. I was testing and had set the 3800+ to a 9 multiplier in BIOS. The 3800+ is at stock a 12 multiplier and runs at 2.4GHz.
Keypo - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
The Sempron PR is based towards the Celeron Performance and the Athlon is PR is for PentiumKeypo - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
Araemo - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
Soemone tell me I'm crazy.. please?Two things: one, on page 1 of the review, look at the second cpu-z screenshot.
Why is the 3800+ running at 1.8?
Anyways..
Amd Athlon64 3000+ on S939 = 1.8 Ghz.
Amd Sempron 3100+ on S754 = 1.8ghz
Why does a sempron have a higher 'rating' than an identically clocked athlon64?