Basic Features: Athlon 64 90nm Processors

The new 90nm Athlon 64 processors were only introduced for Socket 939. Since 939 supports Dual-Channel memory, the speed ratings are a bit different than Socket 754 processors.

 Athlon 64 Socket 939 - Specifications of New 90nm Processors
   Athlon 64 3000+  Athlon 64 3200+  Athlon 64 3500+
Speed Rating 3000+ 3200+ 3500+
Actual CPU Speed 1.8Ghz 2.0GHz 2.2GHz
L1 Cache 128k
64k Code Cache + 64k Data Cache
128k
64k Code Cache + 64k Data Cache
128k
64k Code Cache + 64k Data Cache
L2 Cache 512kb 512kb 512kb
Memory Type Dual-Channel Unbuffered DDR Dual-Channel Unbuffered DDR Dual-Channel Unbuffered DDR
Memory Speed Supported Up to DDR400 Up to DDR400 Up to DDR400
Maximum CPUs 1 1 1

It is interesting that AMD rates the 1.8GHz Socket 939 90nm 512k CPU as 3000+, while the Socket 754 1.8GHz 512k 130nm is rated as 2800+. Speed ratings for 939 chips are generally higher than their 754 counterparts. AMD believes that the higher performance of the Dual-Channel memory controller justifies these rating differences.

AMD Q&A Performance Test: Configuration
Comments Locked

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 wesley

    also 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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now