.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).
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.