.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
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.