.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).
89 Comments
View All Comments
gchen77 - Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - link
Can someone please explain the effects of raising vcore?I'm a relatively newbie to overclocking but I remember in the past (with Athlon XPs) raising vcore was almost certain death unless you had water cooling or your pc running in a freezer :)
jer - Wednesday, December 8, 2004 - link
Wesley Fink,could u make a screenshot of the Memory tab in CPU-Z of the 90nm A64 3000+ cpu ??
thx so much
Goomzz - Saturday, December 4, 2004 - link
Just got my winchester 3000+ and my MSI K8N MSI Neo2 Plat. Since it's an x-mas gift can put it together until then. Putting it with Corsair XMS DDR 400 memory. I'll let you guys know how it goes.Goomzz - Saturday, December 4, 2004 - link
romano25 - Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - link
I dont get it...1)IS 3500 64 voltage 1.5 Volts?
2)Looks like the decreased the CPu multiplier on 3500 coz by default it is 11? Why? Does it affect ur performance?
romano25 - Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - link
bobbozzo - Monday, November 22, 2004 - link
#82: it's been answered: get a board (MSI) that allows the Memory & FSB to run at an adjustable ratio, so the memory can run slower than the FSB.scius - Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - link
Cheaper Ram Altnernatives:A few other readers have mentioned this, but it seems there hasn't been much of an answer (though a few worthy attempts, notably that the 3200+ is probably a better choice).
The Question: What ram would let us run at the highest FSB for the least $.
Obviously you can just buy the faster stuff (DDR500, or whatever), but there must be sticks that, with looser timings(small cost), can let your processor scream(huge gains) while staying relatively stable.
Anyway, I haven't found any articles about it, but if anyone has, or has some personal experience here, i'm sure we're all eager to hear it.
VoodooGamez - Thursday, November 4, 2004 - link
Great article Wesley!cryptonomicon - Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - link
great article anand!The 90nm process sounds like a great improvement (especially for oc).