Anandtech 90nm vs 130nm A64 review

[ZobarStyl]

That's the problem Zebo, I already ordered the A64 watercooling setup, it's enroute to me now, but right after I ordered that I went to order my parts and the DFI UT board was sold out on NE. It's either a 3200+ 754 with PC-3700 (I really want to hit 2.6) on the DFI UT or a 3200+ 939 with PC-4200 (lower multi) and who knows what board. Either way, I don't want my nice new watercooling sitting around doing nothing...barring leakproofing.

 

[Zebo]

What watercooling setup? You know you can make lots of SKTA/p4 blocks work just fine by simply flipping the plate and using plate as waterblock holder?

On good water, I can almost guarntee you 2600Mhz for $206... though in chaintech vnf3 and 2800AX box, which you don't really want so $206 wasted? when you really want 3200 939 and this. which is not out yet


But then you also have the issue of K8T890 and ATI RX480 which will follow shortly .....Basically now, and in the next three months is not the time to buy 939 until all the reports are in, doing so is beta buying which I hate and gets expensive real quick.

 

[cbehnken]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I dislike overclcoking reviews that don't show a pentium equivalent in thier test. 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.

They didn't do full thermal tests so theres really no reason to compare with Intel. We already have a world full of Intel benchmarks, both o/c and not. Just find another review with the chips you are interested. This is a preliminary review, anand will probably release what you are talking about soon.

 

[cbehnken]

Originally posted by: Kai920

Originally posted by: stelleg151
God I want it.

My sentiments exactly! :thumbsup:

Too bad no game that's currently out requires me to upgrade my AthlonXP...

? Doom3?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: cbehnken

Originally posted by: Kai920

Originally posted by: stelleg151
God I want it.

My sentiments exactly! :thumbsup:

Too bad no game that's currently out requires me to upgrade my AthlonXP...

? Doom3?

? key word being requires ?

 

[stelleg151]

Thanks sickbeast,
Im thinking all 939 over 754 and either 3200+ or 3000+. To me the 3200+ is really attractive because of that 10x multiplier. On the other hand the 3000+ is significantly cheaper. What to do.... Also, I am definately waiting until NForce 4 with SLI, I have high hopes for it. What a beatuful thing it would be to get a 3200+ to 2.8-3.0 on air....
Also, does anyone know how the SLI deal works, if you could hook a 6600GT with a 6800GT, and have the SLI figure out that the 6800 is more powerful and give it more to do?
I cant wait for NForce 4, please Nvidia come through bigtime. Also I hope DFI makes a board with NForce 4 soon after the release that is as successful as the NF3 Lanpart UT for 754.

 

[Mikeyflan]

I just read that review but I wish they gave more info on the intel setup they used. I might build my next system with one of those new processors mostly the 3000+ because it's cheaper.

 

[TimTheEnchanter25]

Originally posted by: stelleg151
Also, does anyone know how the SLI deal works, if you could hook a 6600GT with a 6800GT, and have the SLI figure out that the 6800 is more powerful and give it more to do?

You can't use a 6600 and a 6800. has to be 2 of the same card. And both will be running at 8x speed.

 

[jm0ris0n]

Yep, you you need 2 X 6600GT . I don't know if Nvidia has said this or not, but they might have to be from the same manufacturer.

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

this is going to seriously hurt sales of the high end cards when 2x6600gt's do so much better than the ultra for less

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
this is going to seriously hurt sales of the high end cards when 2x6600gt's do so much better than the ultra for less

That's not true. 2X6600GT's < 6800U.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
this is going to seriously hurt sales of the high end cards when 2x6600gt's do so much better than the ultra for less

That's not true. 2X6600GT's < 6800U.

The SLI 6600GT wins, but barely.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
this is going to seriously hurt sales of the high end cards when 2x6600gt's do so much better than the ultra for less

That's not true. 2X6600GT's < 6800U.

The SLI 6600GT wins, but barely.

Actually it loses very badly in Doom 3, which is much more valuable as a benchmark than 3DMark05 (or Halo for that matter).

I'm surprised HardOCP even used that benchmark considering the recent fiasco. It makes them look like hypocrites. Even if nVidia ran the benchmarks, they shouldn't be posting them if they think 3DMark is "crap".

 

[Zebo]

I for one am not excited about SLI (or dual core CPU for that matter). Serious power problems and more tubing to plumb... if it will even work water cooled. THose cards get too close together? Meh just OC a GT or flash a x800pro, wildly overclcok them. Later get a better card. rinse repaet like Ive always done.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I for one am not excited about SLI (or dual core CPU for that matter). Serious power problems and more tubing to plumb... if it will even work water cooled. THose cards get too close together? Meh just OC a GT or flash a x800pro. Later get a better card. rinse repaet like Ive always done.

Agreed. There's no point in having more power than a 6800U/X800XT offers right now anyways. Besides, R520 is coming in early '05, along with R480 (hopefully at least).

 

[stelleg151]

I agree as well, however for the more budget-minded buyer, the SLI gives future upgrades a major price drop. For example if I get one 6600GT now, which is fine for performance right now for me; Then in a year or two as games get more demanding I get another for not too much money I have a significant boost in performance without spending too much money. Basically, if I want moderate the performance of a mid-range card, I can get it now for a good price, and later for an even better price.

Edit: also on Hard OCP I read that possibility of cheaper slave cards, if that happens thats another bonus for 6600GT SLI users on a budget.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: stelleg151
I agree as well, however for the more budget-minded buyer, the SLI gives future upgrades a major price drop. For example if I get one 6600GT now, which is fine for performance right now for me; Then in a year or two as games get more demanding I get another for not too much money I have a significant boost in performance without spending too much money. Basically, if I want moderate the performance of a mid-range card, I can get it now for a good price, and later for an even better price.

Edit: also on Hard OCP I read that possibility of cheaper slave cards, if that happens thats another bonus for 6600GT SLI users on a budget.

Thing is you can do the same by flipping cards. (budget buy)

Say you bought a 9800xt when they first came out for $400 , flew around for a year or year and a half...right now it's still worth $220. Sell it buy a 800pro or better and your doubling performance in the same way SLI does at about same price as adding another card.


IMO the only place SLI has serious advantages is buy two ultras and just having insane speeds right now.

Otherwise, it's heat, power, and envitable obsolesence and replacement by cheaper parts with time makes it a poor choice.

 

[shadow]

I went through the article trying to find what cooling they were using on the overclocked 939 3000+. Did I just gloss over it?

thx

 

[shadow]

Originally posted by: klah
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...oc.aspx?i=2242&amp;p=1

The new 3500+, 3200+, and 3000+ perform from 1% to 7% faster than comparable 130nm parts.
...
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.
....
As you can see, the 3500+ and the 3000+ both topped out at about 2.6GHz... This means that the new 90nm 3000+ overclocked an outstanding 45% with modest increases in CPU voltage.
...
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+.

oh yeah, did anyone else notice that the .090 CPU's use 1.510v while the older .130 CPUS use 1.472v - does this imply that the new CPUs draw less current at a higher voltage in order to use less watts? Or is this a typo?

See what I'm talking about here on the CPUID screencaps.

thx again

 

[windex256]

All right, so here's the situation I'm in. I was planning to order the following components for my system tomorrow:

NewCastle 3000+
DFI LanParty UT nF3-250Gb
OCZ PC3200 Plat Rev2 2x512
Zalman CNPS-7000 Cu
Antec TruePower 550W

I would expect to be able to OC this to around 2.5GHz, based on what I've gathered from reading this forum. For only about $37 more, I could swap the CPU and mobo for the Winchester 3000+ and MSI Neo2 - and have a system which according to AnandTech's review, would OC to around 2.6GHz, plus the small bonus of dual-channel memory and other 939 perks - not to mention the fact that AT seemed to have much better luck with 2-DIMM memory overclocking on the 939 than on 754. On the surface, it seems like going with 939 is the clear choice - a fairly significant performance improvement for $37. Of course, what if AT just had really good luck with their Winchester 3000? There doesn't seem to be enough of a user base yet to corroborate - I haven't seen anyone piping up on this thread saying "hey, I got a 90nm 3000+, and was able to OC it to 2.6GHz".

I also have to take into account Zebo's comments about buying 939 right now basically being like buying beta. Everyone seems to agree that the current 939 motherboards suck, but I have to wonder - I would be using exactly the same CPU/mobo/RAM that AT used in their review, and a better (from what I gather, anyway) HSF - they seemed to have great luck with their setup, so why shouldn't I? What about the Neo2 is so horrible, when combined with OCZ Rev2, that would render it unusable - or better yet, relegate my system to a lower performance and/or stability level than the 754 setup I was going to purchase?

I can understand that current 939 motherboards might not be great, when compared with boards like the DFI LanParty UT - but are they really so bad that someone in my situation should stay away from them, and stick with 754? The $37 price difference here is a non-issue - as far as I'm concerned, they might as well be the same price. I simply want to know which of these two systems will ultimately come out on top in terms of performance. Which one, when all is said and done, and I'm sitting around playing TFC: Source, will be the better system? Comments, opinions?

windex256

 

[suklee]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: cbehnken

Originally posted by: Kai920

Originally posted by: stelleg151
God I want it.

My sentiments exactly! :thumbsup:

Too bad no game that's currently out requires me to upgrade my AthlonXP...

? Doom3?

? key word being requires ?

Exactly, even on my 'aging' rig I can run D3 at 8x6 medium settings if I so wished. But that's not the point... D3 doesn't exactly interest me very much. I can play my most anticipated game at the moment, Tribes Vengeance, at 1280x1024 just fine. So there is no *real* need for me to upgrade at the moment! Believe me, I'm trying to find a good reason to upgrade... it's just not there

 

[Nyati13]

It says they used a Thermaltake K8 Silent Boost to reach the 2.6GHz for both 3000+ and 3500+ CPUs

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: windex256
All right, so here's the situation I'm in. I was planning to order the following components for my system tomorrow:

NewCastle 3000+
DFI LanParty UT nF3-250Gb
OCZ PC3200 Plat Rev2 2x512
Zalman CNPS-7000 Cu
Antec TruePower 550W

I would expect to be able to OC this to around 2.5GHz, based on what I've gathered from reading this forum. For only about $37 more, I could swap the CPU and mobo for the Winchester 3000+ and MSI Neo2 - and have a system which according to AnandTech's review, would OC to around 2.6GHz, plus the small bonus of dual-channel memory and other 939 perks - not to mention the fact that AT seemed to have much better luck with 2-DIMM memory overclocking on the 939 than on 754. On the surface, it seems like going with 939 is the clear choice - a fairly significant performance improvement for $37. Of course, what if AT just had really good luck with their Winchester 3000? There doesn't seem to be enough of a user base yet to corroborate - I haven't seen anyone piping up on this thread saying "hey, I got a 90nm 3000+, and was able to OC it to 2.6GHz".

I also have to take into account Zebo's comments about buying 939 right now basically being like buying beta. Everyone seems to agree that the current 939 motherboards suck, but I have to wonder - I would be using exactly the same CPU/mobo/RAM that AT used in their review, and a better (from what I gather, anyway) HSF - they seemed to have great luck with their setup, so why shouldn't I? What about the Neo2 is so horrible, when combined with OCZ Rev2, that would render it unusable - or better yet, relegate my system to a lower performance and/or stability level than the 754 setup I was going to purchase?

I can understand that current 939 motherboards might not be great, when compared with boards like the DFI LanParty UT - but are they really so bad that someone in my situation should stay away from them, and stick with 754? The $37 price difference here is a non-issue - as far as I'm concerned, they might as well be the same price. I simply want to know which of these two systems will ultimately come out on top in terms of performance. Which one, when all is said and done, and I'm sitting around playing TFC: Source, will be the better system? Comments, opinions?

windex256

Between those two choices of course get winchester.. I would'nt mess with MSI though but get ASUS instead..per those advice in that all 939 boards suck thread I linked to and ASUS's reputation...


Hardy fair comparison though... your talking a top flight DFI and a faster processor in the 3000 (2.0) vs betawarez and if you're lucky you'll be faster no doubt but giving up excellence.

Or giving up serious cash when you could get a 754 combo for $204 in 2800 and chaintech still be less beta and saving $120.

::SIGH::: no good answers right now... How I miss the Abit NFS-7 days when choice was easy

 

[stelleg151]

Good point Zebo on the flipping cards, but 400 dollars is a lot of money to pay at once, for me anyways.

 

[theinsen1]

call me insane......
but did the new a64 90nm beat a fx 51????
awsome!!