Western Digital's Raptor WD1500ADFD hard drive
GeForce 7600 cards go head to head
NVIDIA's GeForce 7950 GX2 graphics card
AMD's Socket AM2 processors
Seagate's Barracuda 7200.10 hard drive
GeForce 7900 series graphics cards compared
Better living through canal systems
NOW THAT THE INITIAL WAVE of dual-core CPU previews is over, we have some time to focus on a new processor that you can actually purchase today. I'm talking, of course, about the new revision E versions of the Athlon 64, and more specifically about the new core code-named "Venice" that has been (ahem) making waves of late. The Venice core brings with it a number of enhancementsincluding SSE3 support, a revised memory controller, and a clear, cream-like substancein order to achieve even better clock-for-clock performance than previous versions of the Athlon 64. Also, through a magical amalgamation of techie terms like "90nm SOI" and "strained silicon," the Venice core delivers one especially elusive quality: heart-stopping overclocking potential.
We have on the bench the 3800+ model of the Venice Athlon 64, and we've compared it against everything from its direct predecessor, the Athlon 64 "Newcastle" 3800+, to the highfalutin' new dual-core processors from Intel and AMD. We've also attempted to overclock the thing into oblivion. Hop into our gondola and come take a brief tour of Venice with us.
One of the first things you need to know about the Venice core is that AMD isn't selling it as anything new or special. In fact, they're not really advertising the changes at all, and we had to goad them into sending one of these puppies out for review. If you go buy a new Athlon 64 with 512K of L2 cache at an online vendor, you may well get the new Venice core, or you might get one of its two predecessors: the "Winchester" core, also built on AMD's 90nm fab process, or the older "Newcastle" core built on a 130nm fab process. These cores sell under some of the same model names, including 3200+, 3500+, and 3800+, depending on clock speed. Fortunately, most of the better online vendors will tell you which version of the K8 core you're buying, so you can pick the right one.
You do want to pick the right one, by the way. Ask AMD, and they will give you a short list of enhancements made to the revision E core that looks like this:
The first of these techniques, silicon-on-insulator (SOI) technology, has been used for all Athlon 64 processors. By situating the silicon layer on the chip on top of a film of silicon oxide, an SOI fab process allows for lower transistor capacitance and faster switching speeds.
The second technique, most widely known as strained silicon, is newer. AMD has used it in limited ways in its 130nm process and is now using it more extensively at 90nm. AMD and IBM jointly developed this process, which they call Dual Stress Liner technology. It's so named because the technique allows the firms to compress or stretch the lattice of silicon molecules on a chip, selectively, by placing the silicon on top of one of two layers of silicon nitride. Some types of transistors (PMOS transistors) benefit from the compressive effect, while others (NMOS transistors) benefit from stretch or strain. NMOS transistors, for instance, have lower resistance with strained silicon. AMD has claimed that Dual Stress Liner technology will allow for transistors that switch up to 24% faster at comparable power levels than transistors manufactured conventionally.
Fortunately, the benefits of the SOI and Dual Stress Liner techniques are additive, so they work together to reduce power consumption and increase the switching speed of transistors on the CPU. The end result is chips like our Venice-based Athlon 64 3800+ that should consume less power and, we hope, be willing to run at higher clock speeds, too.
Friday night topic: Colonizing space? 
We could use a Conroe 
Vista Premium requirements to steepen by June '07 
Poll: How far have you overclocked your CPU? 
Computex 2006 
NVIDIA faces AGP, inventory hurdles 
Analyst says Intel shares are 'dead money' 
Contents copyright © 1999-2006 by The Tech Report, LLC. All rights reserved.|
All trademarks used are property of their respective owners.