.09 Athlon 64: Value, Speed and Overclocking
by Wesley Fink on October 14, 2004 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
We were impressed with the performance and overclocking that we found with the 90nm 3500+. However, it is very difficult to draw any conclusions based on a single sample, so we also bought a 90nm 3000+ from another vendor. These two processors, at different speeds and from different sources, performed similarly enough to allow us to draw some broad conclusions about the performance of the new 90nm Athlon 64 processors. The new 3500+, 3200+, and 3000+ perform from 1% to 7% faster than comparable 130nm parts. We still don't know if this is the result of the die-shrink or the new DH8-D0 revision. We checked all recent Athlon 64 in the lab and we could not find a D0 A64 for comparison. We have asked AMD to shed some light on what we found in our testing, and we will report what AMD says about the performance improvements as soon as we receive the information from AMD.Based on the Performance tests alone, there is reason to be pleased with what we know of the AMD die-shrink so far. If you also consider the fact that AMD appears to have accomplished the shrink to 90nm without an increase in heat, the process move should be considered a big success. We won't know this for sure until we see the fastest AMD chips in 90nm clothes - that is where the thermal impact of the shrink will be most visible.
The other side of the equation is headroom or overclocking. AMD enthusiasts have always seemed to flock to value chips in the AMD family. More than Intel users, AMD enthusiasts seem to always want something for nothing. It's not because they are cheap necessarily, but because AMD won them over by providing outstanding value points in their product line. In fact, many AMD users have hung on to Socket A technology long after it was significantly outperformed in the market because they could buy the Athlon XP cheap and overclock the heck out of it. Those users will love the new 90nm chips in general - and the 90nm 3000+ in particular.
They will love the new 90nm chips because they can buy a 3000+ running at 1.8GHz for less than $200 and still have a good chance of reaching 2.6GHz with very little effort with the same chip. 2.6GHz is faster than any current Athlon 64, and it is, in fact, the speed that we expect from the upcoming FX55 - the new Athlon 64 top-of-the-line. It's been a while since we've seen this kind of headroom on an AMD chip, and those who were waiting for 90nm to get a magic overclocker will get in line to buy the new 90nm 3000+.
The major impact of the new 90nm Athlon 64 chips may not be quite as obvious. Prior to the new 3000+, 3200+, and 3500+ 90nm chips, the entry point to dual-channel 939 was the $400 3500+. As a result, buyers saw the Socket 754 as the value solution for Athlon 64 shoppers, where they could buy a 754 Sempron 3100+ for about $120 or a full 64-bit 2800+ for around $140. The new 3000+ should cost about the same as the 130nm 3000+ once the new settles into the market. That will make the cost of entry for the top 939 chipset well below $200 for the CPU. Many buyers who would have bought 939 if it had been cheaper will now be able to buy 939.
This leads us to future directions for 754 and 939. Roadmaps show 754 ending in late 2005, but 5 quarters is still a lifetime in CPU sockets. AMD plans to discontinue Socket A and move all processors to Socket 754/939/940. This will likely mean that we will see even cheaper 754 processors to entice buyers who found Athlon XP prices attractive. 754 will likely move much lower before it goes away in a year or so, and 939 will also likely move down a bit further as 90nm is fully implemented and production costs go down. All-in-all, it's becoming a very good time to be in the market for an Athlon 64 processor.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
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
#44Fraid 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 PentiumKeypo - 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?