Archer57 wrote on 2025-07-04, 17:00:
Yeah, it is not a very big deal and it can be OCd, but still a small extra difference. Also 6400+ is supposedly unlocked, but i've seen different opinions on that. Need to try it...
And then again - i am not a huge fan of overclocking this old HW outside of short experiment...
It's just 100Mhz to fix the RAM issue. Buying a 5600+ and trying to turn it into 6400+ makes no sense.
Testbench 2:
- Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3 v2.0
- Athlon 64 X2 6000+ ADX6000IAA6CZ (Windsor)
- Gainward GeForce GTX 260 Golden Sample (factory clocks, 625 GPU, 1100 memory, 1350 shader). This card has two big fans, unlike many period correct cards, which is probably why it survived. NVidia driver 177.83
3d mark 2003 breakdown, 1024x768, Athlon 64 3400+, GeForce GTX 260:
- Wings of Fury - 326 fps
- Battle of Proxycon - 334 fps
- Troll's Lair - 247 fps
- Mother Nature - 240 fps
3d mark 2003 breakdown, 1024x768, Athlon 64 X2 6000+, GeForce GTX 260:
- Wings of Fury - 561 fps
- Battle of Proxycon - 433 fps
- Troll's Lair - 320 fps
- Mother Nature - 274 fps
3d mark 2003 breakdown, 1600x900, Athlon 64 X2 6000+, GeForce GTX 260:
- Wings of Fury - 523 fps
- Battle of Proxycon - 331 fps
- Troll's Lair - 257 fps
- Mother Nature - 245 fps
3d mark 2003 breakdown, 1600x1200, Athlon 64 3400+, GeForce GTX 260:
- Wings of Fury - 307 fps
- Battle of Proxycon - 244 fps
- Troll's Lair - 196 fps
- Mother Nature - 206 fps
3d mark 2003 breakdown, 1600x1200, Athlon 64 X2 6000+, GeForce GTX 260:
- Wings of Fury - 504 fps
- Battle of Proxycon - 286 fps
- Troll's Lair - 223 fps
- Mother Nature - 228 fps
3d mark 2003 represents games with low CPU load that were already well playable on Athlon XP / 64. Scores in 1600x1200 were included for comparison with Athlon 64 3400+. Because the scores are too high, it makes little sense to use 3d mark 2003 for testing of further GPU upgrades.
3d mark 2005 breakdown, 1024x768, Athlon 64 3400+, GeForce GTX 260:
- Return To Proxycon - 35 fps
- Firefly Forest - 28 fps
- Canyon Flight - 76 fps
3d mark 2005 breakdown, 1024x768, Athlon 64 X2 6000+, GeForce 9800 GT:
- Return To Proxycon - 57 fps
- Firefly Forest - 45 fps
- Canyon Flight - 107 fps
3d mark 2005 breakdown, 1024x768, Athlon 64 X2 6000+, GeForce GTX 260:
- Return To Proxycon - 57 fps
- Firefly Forest - 45 fps
- Canyon Flight - 120 fps
3d mark 2005 breakdown, 1600x900, Athlon 64 X2 6000+, GeForce GTX 260:
- Return To Proxycon - 56 fps
- Firefly Forest - 45 fps
- Canyon Flight - 113 fps
3d mark 2005 represents more CPU heavy games from year 2005. We see a performance improvement over GeForce 9800 GT in Canyon Flight only.
3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1024x768, Athlon 64 X2 6000+, GeForce 9800 GT:
- Return To Proxycon - 42 fps
- Firefly Forest - 43 fps
- Canyon Flight - 59 fps
- Deep Freeze - 53 fps
3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1024x768, Athlon 64 X2 6000+, GeForce GTX 260:
- Return To Proxycon - 42 fps
- Firefly Forest - 43 fps
- Canyon Flight - 81 fps
- Deep Freeze - 53 fps
3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1600x900, Athlon 64 X2 6000+, GeForce 9800 GT:
- Return To Proxycon - 41 fps
- Firefly Forest - 41 fps
- Canyon Flight - 47 fps
- Deep Freeze - 50 fps
3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1600x900, Athlon 64 X2 6000+, GeForce GTX 260:
- Return To Proxycon - 41 fps
- Firefly Forest - 42 fps
- Canyon Flight - 70 fps
- Deep Freeze - 52 fps
3d mark 2006 represents even more CPU heavy games from 2006. We get benefit in SM3.0 benchmarks only, SM2.0 is the same. The upgrade may pay off in titles using shader model 3.
We do not use 3d mark vantage as that is a dx10 benchmark.
Performance gains from GeForce GTX 260 are unconvincing in benchmarks but we will see in real games. In Athlon 64 3400+, GeForce GTX 260 does help with CPU light scenes like stadium views in Fifa 2007.
Games tested:
- F.E.A.R. (2005) - in 1600x1200 with max settings we get 119 fps average, 58 fps minimum in built-in benchmark
- Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfar (2007) - in 1600x1200 we get 85-200 fps (lowest when aiming at tower with scope)
- World in Conflict (2007) - in 1600x1200 we get 38 average fps in built-in benchmark with same settings as before. The game does allow us to increase visual quality further compared to 9800 GT, we then geet 30 average fps in built-in benchmark.
- Crysis (2007) - in 1280x960 we get in built-in benchmark 49 fps average, 27 fps minimum. We are getting into playable territory in 1280x960, but our target is 1600x1200. In 1600x1200 average fps in benchmark is 45, min fps 24.
- STALKER (2007) - in 1600x1200, first mission outside we get about 45-80 fps. We are in playable territory.
- Far Cry 2 (2008) - with max settings, in 1280x960 we get about 30-40 fps in the initial jeep ride.
- Witcher (2008) - in 1600x1200 we get about 40-45 fps during the initial fight.
- Need for Speed: Undercover (2008) - in 1600x1200 we get 32-40 fps in the city at the main menu. 100% cpu utilization and lowering resolution does not help.
- Need for Speed: Shift (2009) - 1600x1200 we get 55-70 fps during race from inside car
Conclusion about Athlon 64X2 6000+ (Windsor) with GeForce GTX 260 :
- it is a good choice for Windows XP era games (2002-2006)
- mediocre coverage of Windows Vista era (2007-2009) due to slow CPU. We didn't improve Need for Speed: Undercover or Far Cry 2. Crysis improved but not enough.
- we saw improvement in titles such as F.E.A.R., Call of Duty 4, World in Conflict, Crysis, STALKER, Need for Speed: Shift. GeForce GTX 260 helped to make the gaming experience visibly more enjoyable over 9800 GT.
- GeForce GTX 260 may be sufficient for Windows Vista era with a fast Intel core 2 duo.
- we are not happy with performance in Crysis, Far Cry 2, Need for Speed: Undercover.
Next steps:
- upgrade GPU to GeForce GTX 480 to see how it helps
- retest 3d mark 2005/2006 and problematic titles where GeForce GTX 260 struggled
- very minor improvement is expected as specs of GeForce GTX 480 are only marginally better than Gainward GeForce GTX 260 golden sample
Archer57 wrote on 2025-07-04, 17:00:
I'll probably just pair mine with GTX660 and see how it compares to E8600. I may be weird, but to me once it's pci-e it feels modern and i see no point trying to mess with period-correct pci-e cards, especially considering bumpgate...
My guess would be - with fast enough GPU this can run pretty much any XP game. What would be interesting to see if there is any practical difference between it and E8600 for XP games...
I do it gradually as I would like to see effect of both CPU and GPU upgrades. I will not be testing all combinations. The last GPU for Athlon 64 X2 6000+ will probably be GeForce GTX 480 as game benchmarks clearly show we need a faster CPU. I will then switch to Brisbane and Athlon 64 X2 6400+ with GTX 580. That should be more comparable to your setup. Brisbane has slightly higher L2 cache latency, lower clocks and smaller cache. GTX 770 will be more of Phenom 1 territory.
Pentium III 900E, ECS P6BXT-A+, 384MB RAM, GeForce FX 5600 128MB, Voodoo 2 12MB, Yamaha SM718 ISA
Athlon 64 3400+, Gigabyte GA-K8NE, 2GB RAM, GeForce GTX 260 896MB, Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS
Phenom II X6 1100, Asus 990FX, 32GB RAM, GeForce GTX 980 Ti