.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
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