.09 Athlon 64: Value, Speed and Overclocking
by Wesley Fink on October 14, 2004 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
In the last several weeks, AMD has quietly introduced several Athlon 64 processors in the new 90nm die-shrink. The new Socket 939 3000+, 3200+, and 3500+ are based on the new Winchester core. They are also the first Athlon 64 processors to become available at speeds below 3500+ in Socket 939. This is very important, since the biggest news is the fact that the price of entry for a Socket 939 processor is now less than $200. Of course, a successful die-shrink and lower costs are interrelated, and in this case, the model seems to be working as we would expect.
Nothing has really changed on the outside, but if you can find a 3000+ or 3200+ in Socket 939, you can be confident that it is the new 90nm version. Since 3500+ is produced in both 90nm and 130nm versions, you will need to ask if it is a 90nm part. Most resellers that have the new 90nm Athlon 64 have been prominently advertising them.
The latest version 1.24 of CPU-Z can be downloaded at www.cpuid.com. Version 1.24 correctly identifies the die-shrink (.09), the core (Winchester), and the Revision (DH8-D0). Earlier versions of CPU-Z don't recognize the new processors, so make certain that you are using Version 1.24 or later.
A late 3800+ is identified, for comparison, as a NewCastle core, .13 process, and Revision DH7-CG.
There has been a lot of speculation about how important this die-shrink is to AMD. Most of this has revolved around the higher yield and lower cost of production for the smaller chip. Since Intel has already moved to .09, analysts believed AMD needed the yields and lower cost of the .09 shrink to effectively compete with Intel on a cost basis.
There are also potential advantages to the end-user from the die-shrink. These include lower power consumption, cooler processor operation, and greater headroom for higher overclocking. It is these advantages that will interest most of you. We will take a closer look in this review at whether these advantages are realized.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
89 Comments
View All Comments
slashbinslashbash - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
#36 - Athlon 64 processors are unlocked downward, so Wesley was able to go from 11x on the 3500 down to 9x. This downward unlocking allows overclockers to max-out their motherboards and RAM while keeping the CPU running at the same speed. Wesley could have easily achieved the same 2610MHz CPU speed with the 11x multiplier at FSB of 237, but the FSB would have slowed things down.Athlon 64FX processors are unlocked both up and down.
PrinceGaz - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
#34- SSE3 support along with other improvements are planned to be added with the E0 revision of the core. The current part is the D0 revision and the only performance improving features are the improved DRAM page closing policy, and second write-combining buffer. They explain why the 90nm parts were slightly faster than equivalent 130nm parts.#35- thanks for pointing out where it says they used a different HSF to the standard retail one. I guess that explains why he was able to put 1.6V in the 3000+ and take it up to 2610MHz without frying it :)
Entropy531 - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
#34, look at the CPU-Z screenshot. No SSE3.pio!pio! - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
How did you overclock both pieces to 290x9? Dont they have different locked multipliers?fic - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
HS used: Thermaltake Silent Boost K8From "Front Side Bus Overclocking Testbed" table in "Overclocking Results and Heat"
IdahoB - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
Great article, I'm liking what I see and it's definiately on my hot purchase list.However, I noticed you didn't discuss SSE3 support - I read somewhere else this isn't implemented yet - is that true, and if so when is SSE3 pencilled in for A64s?
tr00p - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
I would love for an overclocked SEMPRON 3200+ (939) to be included in this comparison. Initial reviews give this chip high expectations, but I want to see apples-to-apples in a well done review such as this one.SLI - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
What about the FX line? Might (have) asked them when they will transition to 90nm? This is important due to the FX having unlocked multipliers (I use Phase-Change and watercooling together so I'm looking to increase multipliers as well as FSB).AlphaFox - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
Was the retail HSF used for these overclocks?Also, I dont get why temperatures were not documented... maybe you could list the temps that these CPUs were running under prime95.
Spacecomber - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
This information on the overclocking capabilities of the new Atlon 64s is very helpful. The article is much appreciated.It looks like it makes even more important the question of what memories provide the best performance at close to DDR 600 speeds on the Athlon 64 platform. I know this has been addressed looking at the latest PC3200 memories, by Anandtech, but are there other memories with higher speed ratings that might also be considered. For example, what about the Ballistix PC4000; does it pick up where their PC3200 leaves off? Or, is the latest OCZ PC3200 high performance memory that you used the best memory for DDR 600 speeds (or thereabouts) on the NForce3 platform?
Space