The Stock and Overclock Tests
To make our performance data as useful as possible, we decided to run the stock 4200+ and the overclocked CPU through our standard motherboard test suite. As Anand has already shown in the launch article for AMD Dual-Core these are not the most revealing tests you can run on dual core. However, the test suite is a fair representation of the types of applications you run today, and it is a set of benchmarks that are very familiar to regular readers. This makes it a revealing set of tests for dual-core and overclocked dual-core performance.Performance tests were run at stock speed with the 4200+ and at the highest stable overclocked speed that could be achieved with basic air cooling on our test bed. For comparison the same suite of benchmarks were run using the single core 4000+ CPU. In looking at comparisons in the graphs, keep in mind that the 4000+ runs at 2.4GHz versus 2.2GHz for the 4200+. The 4000+ also features 1MB L2 cache compared to 512KB cache on each core in the 4200+.
The test configuration is our most recent DDR memory test bed built around the DFI LANParty nF4.
Performance Test Configuration | |
Processor(s) | AMD Athlon64 x2 4200+ (2.2GHz 512KB cache each) 939 AMD Athlon64 4000+ (2.4GHz 1MB Cache) Socket 939 |
RAM | 2 x 512MB OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev. 2 |
Power Supply | OCZ 520 watt PowerStream |
CPU Cooling | Thermaltake Silent Boost K8 HeatSink/Fan |
Hard Drive | Seagate 120GB 7200 RPM SATA (8MB Buffer) |
Video AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers | nVidia nForce 6.39 |
Video Card | nVidia 6800 Ultra (PCIe) |
Video Driver | nVidia nForce 71.89 |
Operating System | Windows XP Professional SP2; Direct X 9.0c |
Motherboard | DFI LANParty nF4 SLI-DR |
For CPU cooling we used the same Thermaltake Silent Boost K8 HSF fan we have used for recent overclocking tests in motherboard reviews. In looking at our overclock numbers, keep in mind that cooling is just a decent stock Heatsink/Fan. Higher overclock will be achieved with more aggressive cooling like liquid cooling or phase-change.
53 Comments
View All Comments
Googer - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
Correction:This is not an Apples to Apples compairison, This article should have compaired a 90nm Venice 2.2GHz 512k to a Manchester Dual Core 512k 2.2Ghz. Why was the 4000+ used as the compairison in an overclockability aricle? It does not even come from the same die.
Googer - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
This is not an Apples to Apples compairison, This article should have compaired a 90nm Venice 2.2GHz 512k to a Dual Core 512k x2 2.2Ghz. Why was the 4000+ used as the compairison for overclockability aricle?Googer - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link
Lets get First POST Cr*P out of the way