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).

Basic Features: Athlon 64 90nm Processors Overclocking Results and Heat
Comments Locked

89 Comments

View All Comments

  • PrinceGaz - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    Thankyou Wesley for correcting the voltage figures. The originally posted required voltages were not at all encouarging imo.

    Being able to get the 3500+ to 2610MHz on default voltage, and the 3000+ to the same speed with an acceptable 1.52V is good to know.

    I'm a lot happier now :)
  • FinalFantasy - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    This comment is a response to a lot of post i've seen across different forums.

    People are really getting confused on which chip can OC better. I'm hearing people say "the 3000+ can OC just as far as the 3500+ so what's the point of getting a 3500+" they say...

    The point is the 3500+ made it to 290 FSB on stock voltages, while the 3000+ had to get an 8.3% voltage increase, which means the 3500+ has a lot more headroom to OC, as compared to the 3000+ which already will be running at higher temps due to the 8.3% voltage increase.

    But either way I'm still stoked that the OC'd 3000+ is beating a $600-700 FX chip!!!
  • 330Pilot - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    Looking at the Newegg site, I notice that the 90nm 2.2GHz version is known as the 3400+ and not the 3500+.

    Is there a difference between what Anandtech reviewed the the vesion available on Newegg, or is one of them mistaken?
  • kmmatney - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    Great review!

    The whole bang-for-buck idea doesn't quite work when you have to spend a lot of money on memory, though. Is there a good bang-for-buck memory that can be paired with this cpu?
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    I have corrected the CPU voltages for overclocking in the review. The MSI K8N Neo2 increments voltages by % - default, +3.3%, +5%, +8.3%, +10.0%. After talking with AMD the correct default voltage is 1.4V. Reviewing my notes and screen captures, the correct overclock voltages for 290x9 were Default for the 90nm 3500+ and +8.3% for the 90nm 3000+. I had incorrectly assumed 1.5V as the default voltage instead of the correct 1.4V.

    The charts have now been corrected. Thank you for helping me get the voltages corrected. If you notice the screen capture for the 3000+ at 290x9 on the Overclock page it is showing just over 1.5V, which is consistent with a +8.3% CPU voltage of 1.52V.
  • DEMO24 - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    #8 Nforce WILL have AGP dunno what your talking about.

    (hope that wasnt answered before cuase I didnt read them all)
  • ThePlagiarmaster - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    Wesley:

    I'm wondering if the board you guys used can set the memory ratios to keep memory around 400fsb? Just wondering if we all have to buy this expensive ram, or can we use our current Corsair C2 DDR400 stuff? Can you do something like this:
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempr...

    Which allows everyone to use older memory (decent stuff anyway) and still get a LOT out of these cpus. Let's face it, A64 isn't memory starved (or the 754's wouldn't be so good, including the sempron) so could we get a chart similar to the one on xbit labs (for the Epox 8KDA3+ I think) for the k8n neo2 you used? Or is the Epox just better for people that don't want to rush out to buy $281 memory?
  • glennpratt - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    Better hurry, the dual cores will come out and you will have to change you mind again!
  • FinalFantasy - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    Wow...I guess I take back what I said about getting a S754 AMD64 Mobile w/a DFI LanParty NF3-Gb and overclocking it. From the looks of things a I'm going to wait for the 90nm core revision w/SSE3 and pair it with a NF4 mobo...DFI should have their S939 LanParty NF4 board out by then ^^ Looks like the memory controllers on these new chips are a lot better then their predecessors.

    290 FSB on just 1.6V is awesome! 1.75V and a decent vatercooling system should yield some nice FSB speeds...325 FSB anyone?
  • Araemo - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link

    #36 -
    Beause of cool'n'quiet, you can lower the multiplier. They're only locked to a max. The 3000+ is 1.8ghz, 200x9.
    the 3500+ is 2.2, 200x11

    They just lowered the multiplier on the 3500+ to 9.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now