.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
Zar0n - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
Great article.Great CPU, now all we need is PCI-E bords.
PrinceGaz - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
I haven't finished reading the article, but in the overclocking section of the review, you say the 3500+ overclocked from 2200 to 2610MHz at the default core voltage of 1.5V, and that the 3000+ went from 1800 to 2610MHz just by raising the core voltage from the default of 1.5V up to 1.6V.I was under the impression that the default core voltage for the 90nm parts is 1.4V! Was the mobo BIOS version used not correctly setting 1.4V by default, or is the default actually 1.5V?
If as I believe the default is 1.4V, both chips were overvolted to reach 2610MHz, and the 3000+ in particular had to be raised from 1.4V to a much higher 1.6V. Its good that it still seemed to be running at a normal temperature!
xsilver - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
wesley, One more thing -- as a future idea for an article -- a comparison of typical systems running different memory speeds -- I was under the impression that the price / performance ratio is very poor ... eg. ddr600 is 80% more expensive but only gives 10% more performance?KHysiek - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
So this memory (double 512MB pack) was running at 580MHz ?! Wow.What timings then ?
xsilver - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
thanks wesleyalso found this article for those who want to know -- no athlon xp's though , but you can guess -- I look at the ut03 botmatch table, they seem to be comparable over these three articles (correct me if im wrong)
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
For those who cant be bothered here's an interesting stat
prescott 2.8 - ut03 botmatch 67.9 fps
3500+/3000+ OC @290x9 132.7 fps
for those who are mathmatically challenged -- THATS DOUBLE!!! time to upgrade
Zebo - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
I dislike overclcoking reviews that don't show a pentium equivalent in thier test.What I want to know if I buy a 3.2C or E for the same price and overclock it with similar cooling how it would compare too....does'nt everybody?
Reviewers really need to work these ideas in.
Wesley Fink - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
#11 - Mem:FSB was 1:1 in overclocking. At 290 we were still running 1:1.Wesley Fink - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
#3 and #9 -Results for the FX53 and Intel 92X/915 running the nVidia 6800 Ultra are available at http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2128.
To help in comparisons we have added test results for the fastest current CPUs from AMD and Intel. The FX53 runs at 2.4GHz with 1MB of cache compared to the 512k on the 3000+ and 3500+. The Intel 560 runs at 3.6GHz and was tested on an Intel 925X chipset motherboard.
KHysiek - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
What was mem:fsb ratio in this overclocking (benchmarks) ?Wesley Fink - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
#1 - Table has been corrected.#4 - Corrections made. It should also be pointed out that Socket 939 nForce3 uses the Ultra chipset which already supports 1000 HT. It is the Socket 754 nF3-250 that normally supports just 800HT. All VIA 939 chipsets also support 1000 HT.