.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
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.