DirectX 8 Performance

Unreal Tournament 2003

Unreal Tournament

The flyby benchmark shows the very same moderate but consistent performance gains we have been seeing through out most of this test suite. The 939 pin CPUs are conglomerated near the top of the pack with the occasional visit from the odd socket 940 processor.

Unreal Tournament

In the more highly limited botmatch benchmark, not much changes at all, though the 3800+ slips in just behind the socket 940 FX-53 this time. Again, the 3500+ has a comfortable margin over the 3400+.

Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne

Warcraft 3

This time we see the socket 939 parts all huddled near the top with the exception of the 3500+ which is barely ahead of the 3400+ in this benchmark. Before anyone asks, VSYNC was not on in this benchmark (and besides, we were running 75Hz).

DirectX 9 Performance OpenGL Performance
POST A COMMENT

38 Comments

View All Comments

  • Viditor - Saturday, June 5, 2004 - link

    #37 - "Doesn't seem to me to make any sense spending 5 Grand on a 64 bit system until the OS is available?"

    5 GRAND?!?!?!
    What are you PUTTING in there?
    Even the most expensive (FX53) chip is ~$840, and the ASUS mobo is ~$190...
    Reply
  • tmhartsr - Friday, June 4, 2004 - link

    Hey guys - where is the 64 bit OS? Doesn't seem to me to make any sense spending 5 Grand on a 64 bit system until the OS is available? Also really need PCI Express MOBO. But especially - how about an update on the OS. Perfect opportunity for an Apple OS-64 written especially for the AMD 64?!#* Reply
  • Falco. - Thursday, June 3, 2004 - link

    will the S754/940 heat sink and fans work with 939 ?? Reply
  • XRaider - Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - link

    Thanks Viditor, I appreciate it! :) I will have to keep my eyes open on this heat stuff and see what other people will state about this. Reply
  • TrogdorJW - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link

    Pretty interesting, but I'm not super surprised by the results. I would imagine that the 3700+ CPU would be about the same distance from the 3800+ as the 3400+ is from the 3500+. Given the prices, I really don't see much reason for celebrating the release (finally!) of socket 939.

    I did some speculation on some other forums about some related issues AMD and Intel seem to be encountering, for any who want to read a longer post:
    http://forums.firingsquad.com/firingsquad/board/me...
    Reply
  • Viditor - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link

    XRaider - To be clear, AMD and Intel actually report 2 different numbers when they talk about heat dissapation.
    AMD reports the MAXIMUM TDP FOR THE WHOLE CPU LINE (both now and in the future...) This means that 104watts is the max thermal design power (the absolute worst it could get) for all 939 cpus at 13nm.

    Intel reports ONLY THE "TYPICAL" TDP FOR THE SPECIFIED CHIP. This means that Intel runs a series of software (they won't release WHICH software they use) and measure the power at that time. They don't report the actual maximum theoretical thermal levels. Intel have a different TDP listed for each processor, and often a different TDP for different stepping of processors.

    So, to answer your question (sorry about the length), while the 939 line of parts have an absolute theoretical max of 104 watts, you will probably see it somewhere in the 80's...
    Reply
  • mikeymasta - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link

    These benchmarks look great, but I REALLY would appreciate it if we could see some OpenSSL benchmarks?
    Because I would love to get my boss to get an AMD based server but hes one of those know all "Intel' is always better type people
    In the server enviroment just an openssl benchmark could turn things around.
    Just install linux or FreeBSD, you could even use a live linux CD so you dont have to install and then just type "openssl speed"
    most linux dists would have openssl in
    /usr/bin/openssl
    /usr/bin/openssl speed > speed_log 2>&1
    to log it to a file
    We are thinking about getting the Sun based AMD
    http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/v20z/ but it costs a lot!

    If you could do that for all new CPU benchmarks I would be very happy.
    Reply
  • Pumpkinierre - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link

    #23 The french site said the spec is 104W and found the heatsink temp (applied above) to be 50C under load and 60C@1.8V overclocking (216MHz) on a 3800+ using a MSI K8Nneo2 (nf3-250) and Asus A8V (K8T800pro). Overall they stated that the cpu ran hot compared to S754 a64s:

    http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/cpu/s939/s939-7...

    Both mobos BIOSs defaulted to DDR333 with 4 double sided DIMMS.

    Xbit say that 104W is the overall spec for S939 but present 130nm cpus stay at 89W TDP (Prescott anyone?). However the temps (cpu diode-Asus A8V)are mildly frightening: 41-64 (idle-load) for the 3800+ but the 3500+ is the coolest 38-58. They even get 40-60C with the 3400+ (but dont quote ambient) which still makes me wonder about the coolness of these cpus. They got the 3500+ to 232MHz FSB and the 3800+ to 215 but didnt quote the voltage. They quoted the same AMD info for the DIMMS:
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlo...

    All in all it looks like the heat issues arent confined to Intel biut Cool and Quiet might help out.
    Reply
  • Pollock - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link

    "In the final analysis, we aren't talking about the be all end all of platforms and performance, but, certainly, anyone who wants an Athlon 64 system should look no further than socket 939 for its flexibility, overclockability, and performance."
    I don't remember reading much about overclockability anywhere? Yeah, maybe a statement about the higher HT speed possibly helping, but I want to know more than that!
    Reply
  • SHO235V8 - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - link

    Derek, what about the compatability issues and heat issues? Any news on these fronts and when will these parts be available? I have been waiting for the 939 for some time and my desktop gets slower everyday! Thanks ;) Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now