.09 Athlon 64: Value, Speed and Overclocking
by Wesley Fink on October 14, 2004 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Overclocking Results and Heat
One of the most pressing questions that many are asking about the new 90nm processors is how they overclock. Will the die-shrink deliver the kind of headroom seen on the Intel Northwood chips when they were first introduced? Our first tests with the 90nm 3500+ were quite good, so we bought a 90nm 3000+ to see if results were comparable.| Front Side Bus Overclocking Testbed | ||
| 90nm A64 3500+ | 90nm A64 3000+ | |
| Processor: | 2.2GHz 512k L2 Cache |
1.8Hz 512k L2 Cache |
| CPU Voltage: | Default (1.4V) | +8.3% (1.52V) |
| Cooling: | Thermaltake Silent Boost K8 Heatsink/Fan | Thermaltake Silent Boost K8 Heatsink/Fan |
| Power Supply: | OCZ PowerStream 520 | OCZ PowerStream 520 |
| Memory Timings: | 2.5-4-4-10 1T | 2.5-4-4-10 1T |
| Memory Voltage: | 2.75V | 2.8V |
| Maximum OC: | 2610 (+18.6%) 290x9 |
2610MHz (+45%) 290x9 |
As you can see, the 3500+ and the 3000+ both topped out at about 2.6GHz (anticipated FX55 speed) with default or modestly increased CPU voltage and air cooling. This is a decent overclock of about 20% on the 3500+, but the 3000+ reached the same 2.6GHz overclock from a much lower stock speed of 1.8GHz. This means that the new 90nm 3000+ overclocked an outstanding 45% with modest increases in CPU voltage.
The only real difference in overclocking the 3500+ and 3000+ in our tests was that the 3000+ required a little more CPU voltage and memory voltage to reach the same overclocks achieved with the 3500+. This 45% overclock is exciting, and it gives us reason to expect even better headroom possibilities when AMD gets the 90nm process tweaked. Since these two 90nm parts came from different sources and were purchased from dealers, we feel comfortable that they are representative of the 90nm chips available in the market. Overclocking results are never guaranteed, but these first results with AMD 90nm processors are full of promise. If the 90nm 3000+ performs this well in larger samples, it will become the darling of the Enthusiast community.
All Performance benchmarks were repeated at the highest overclock that we could achieve - 290x9.
The Overclocked Performance results are included in the Performance Comparison charts to show the performance headroom found with the new 90nm chips. For better comparison, results are also included for the fastest processors currently available from AMD (FX53) and Intel (560 - 3.6GHz).
Thermal Performance
AMD claims that their 90nm process generates less heat than the 130nm process and requires lower wattages. Of course, the heat that is generated is concentrated in a much smaller area than the larger 130nm die. We will not likely know the true impact of the 90nm shrink on heat dissipation until AMD produces their fastest CPUs in 90nm, so we decided not to run comprehensive heat tests until the faster processors were available in 90nm.We did check reported temperatures in the BIOS to get an idea of the temperature trends with the new 90nm process. At the same stock speeds, the 90nm and 130nm chips were showing the same CPU temperatures. There was neither improvement from the 90nm nor any indication of running hotter. Overclocked to 290x9, the 90nm parts were 1 to 5 degrees Celsius cooler than a 130nm FX53 chip clocked to the same 290x9. These results are not the objective tests that we will run on high-speed 90nm parts, but they confirmed that the AMD 90nm process appears to run at least as cool as current 130nm processors.
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?