Gaming Performance


Gaming Performance

Gaming Performance

Gaming Performance

Gaming Performance

Gaming Performance

Gaming Performance

Gaming Performance

Gaming Performance

Gaming Performance

Gaming Performance was consistently faster on the new 90nm than the existing 130nm processors. This varied from 2% in Aquamark3 and Doom3 to 7% in Quake 3. Overall, gaming averaged about 3% faster on the new 90nm chips. While 3% is not a huge increase and it will likely not even be noticed by the average user, it was still impressive to see the new 90nm chips perform a little better than the older 130nm chips.

We have talked in past reviews about how some games respond well to CPU and memory speed increases, while others seem to be most influenced by the graphics card. This is nicely illustrated in comparing benchmarks of the 3000+ at stock speed to the same benches at 2.6GHz (290x9). Here, we see games like Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Unreal Tournament 2003, Quake 3, and Comanche 4 improve 34% to 42% as we move from 1.8Ghz to 2.6Ghz. At the other end of the spectrum, Halo and Aquamark 3 only improve 12% to 13% while the CPU speed increases 45%. Doom 3 falls in the middle with a 24% increase in frame rate for the 45% boost in CPU speed.

General Performance Final Words
Comments Locked

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

    #44

    Fraid 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 Pentium
  • Keypo - 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?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now