.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
Zar0n - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
Great article.Great CPU, now all we need is PCI-E bords.
PrinceGaz - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
I haven't finished reading the article, but in the overclocking section of the review, you say the 3500+ overclocked from 2200 to 2610MHz at the default core voltage of 1.5V, and that the 3000+ went from 1800 to 2610MHz just by raising the core voltage from the default of 1.5V up to 1.6V.I was under the impression that the default core voltage for the 90nm parts is 1.4V! Was the mobo BIOS version used not correctly setting 1.4V by default, or is the default actually 1.5V?
If as I believe the default is 1.4V, both chips were overvolted to reach 2610MHz, and the 3000+ in particular had to be raised from 1.4V to a much higher 1.6V. Its good that it still seemed to be running at a normal temperature!
xsilver - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
wesley, One more thing -- as a future idea for an article -- a comparison of typical systems running different memory speeds -- I was under the impression that the price / performance ratio is very poor ... eg. ddr600 is 80% more expensive but only gives 10% more performance?KHysiek - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
So this memory (double 512MB pack) was running at 580MHz ?! Wow.What timings then ?
xsilver - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
thanks wesleyalso found this article for those who want to know -- no athlon xp's though , but you can guess -- I look at the ut03 botmatch table, they seem to be comparable over these three articles (correct me if im wrong)
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
For those who cant be bothered here's an interesting stat
prescott 2.8 - ut03 botmatch 67.9 fps
3500+/3000+ OC @290x9 132.7 fps
for those who are mathmatically challenged -- THATS DOUBLE!!! time to upgrade
Zebo - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
I dislike overclcoking reviews that don't show a pentium equivalent in thier test.What I want to know if I buy a 3.2C or E for the same price and overclock it with similar cooling how it would compare too....does'nt everybody?
Reviewers really need to work these ideas in.
Wesley Fink - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
#11 - Mem:FSB was 1:1 in overclocking. At 290 we were still running 1:1.Wesley Fink - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
#3 and #9 -Results for the FX53 and Intel 92X/915 running the nVidia 6800 Ultra are available at http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2128.
To help in comparisons we have added test results for the fastest current CPUs from AMD and Intel. The FX53 runs at 2.4GHz with 1MB of cache compared to the 512k on the 3000+ and 3500+. The Intel 560 runs at 3.6GHz and was tested on an Intel 925X chipset motherboard.
KHysiek - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
What was mem:fsb ratio in this overclocking (benchmarks) ?Wesley Fink - Thursday, October 14, 2004 - link
#1 - Table has been corrected.#4 - Corrections made. It should also be pointed out that Socket 939 nForce3 uses the Ultra chipset which already supports 1000 HT. It is the Socket 754 nF3-250 that normally supports just 800HT. All VIA 939 chipsets also support 1000 HT.