Legit Reviews

I'm testing some processors (wink wink) and am interested in what you guys would like to see in the review. Information and or testing wise... Let me know ASAP

Clock for clock against skt940, skt 754, and skt A
Memory bandwidth vs Intel 800mhz cpus and Amd 64 arch as well as nForce
Price preformace ratios
Thermal characteristics of the cpu (ie is heat linier with voltage or like the prescott)
Overclocking results.

Basicly tell me why this is the amd platform that makes me want to leave skt A.

infinitevalence wrote:Clock for clock against skt940, skt 754, and skt A
Memory bandwidth vs Intel 800mhz cpus and Amd 64 arch as well as nForce
Price preformace ratios
Thermal characteristics of the cpu (ie is heat linier with voltage or like the prescott)
Overclocking results.

Basicly tell me why this is the amd platform that makes me want to leave skt A.

All that and maybe if you could get your hands on an overclocked barton at like 2.5 or 2.6 Ghz to compare with the A64's would be cool. I've witnessed many an argument about what a Barton running at 2.6 would compare to in A64 land

Would a Barton be even close to an Athlon 64? Only if it was heavily overclocked. In the UK, there's a specialist OC mag, which recently overclocked an XP-M to 3Ghz. Check outh their website: http://www.custompc.co.uk

KingJimi wrote:Would a Barton be even close to an Athlon 64? Only if it was heavily overclocked.

I did a little research of my own with my overclocked barton and by comparing other people's benchmarks in the 3DMark03, Aquamark, and PCMark04 databases with similar systems to mine (same video, RAM, etc.) that had Athlon 64's it looked like a Barton clocked with a high fsb (220mhz) and core speed (2530mhz) is about equal to a stock A64 3000 PR (whether it be a newcastle at 2.0 or a clawhammer at 1.8 ).
I know these are definately approximate guestimations so I was just curious as to what other people thought about this.

I think your about right, it seems that you dont get any real performance increase until you start looking at the 3200+ and up, most people with overclocked XP's and XP-M's are happy with the performance. I am just now starting my move to the A64 platform, until now the cost of a A64 chip was too much as i got plenty of performance from my little XP-M. With 90nm 3000+ hitting 2.5-2.8ghz its time for me to start thinking about an upgrade.

i'd like to see some cpu's without heatspreaders. I know that's asking a bit, but it is not something you see often.

The amd DTR's have no heat spreader, and work in the DFI UT NF3 skt 754, also some people on extremesystems forum have removed the heat spreaders on skt 939 chips.

um, i am running 3 dtr's....one is only 10 weeks old, they all have heatspreaders. the mobiles do not have heatspreaders. I've seen pictures of both, but not in a comparison side-by-side.

my bad

infinitevalence wrote:I think your about right, it seems that you dont get any real performance increase until you start looking at the 3200+ and up, most people with overclocked XP's and XP-M's are happy with the performance. I am just now starting my move to the A64 platform, until now the cost of a A64 chip was too much as i got plenty of performance from my little XP-M. With 90nm 3000+ hitting 2.5-2.8ghz its time for me to start thinking about an upgrade.

I have both a mobile barton @ 2.6ghz, and a 3000+ newcastle@ 2250. In sandra, the scores are about the same, however, in benchmarks, the A64, at lower clocks, outperforms the SKT-A by about 13%(aquamark, et al.)

i think we need some ln2 action too
that had better be a dfi nf4 board your using ;)
but seriously if you can maybe a comparsion between a couple of popular boards to see how much real world difference between them in overclocking (anand's results dont count )