Investigations into Socket 939 Athlon 64 Overclocking
by Jarred Walton on October 3, 2005 4:35 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Introduction
Note: This article is an in-depth look at overclocking. We'll cover how to do it, what sort of performance you can achieve, problems and potential solutions, etc. Overclocking can be frustrating, rewarding, fun, and dangerous. We don't mean "burn the house down" dangerous, but you could certainly end up ruining some or all of your computer components. We take no responsibility for any difficulties or losses you may experience by using the information in this article, and we certainly take no responsibility for any damage that may occur to any person, place, or object. The manufacturers of the parts that we are using are also not accountable for any loss/damage that may occur - most companies void your warranty for overclocking. It's a risk, and it's your risk - proceed with caution. Finally, overclocking is never a "guaranteed result". You may or may not match the results that we achieve. We'll be happy to offer suggestions if you need them, as will many of our forum members. Patience and research are part of overclocking as well, so please understand that you may have to do some work on your own. If you can accept those warnings, we hope that you enjoy this article.
Back in the day, overclocking was in some ways simpler than what we see now. You would typically buy a mid-range processor and then try to increase the bus speeds as much as possible in order to get the most performance out of your system. Older Pentium chips also allowed you to change the multiplier, so with some luck, you might get your 2.5X multiplier on a Pentium 166 up to 3.0X, resulting in a 33 MHz overclock. Other than a few special chips like the Pentium M and Athlon FX, increasing multipliers is no longer possible. The modification of bus speeds can still be used, but it isn't necessarily the best or only way to try to overclock your system. We have mentioned overclocking performance in many articles, but we haven't taken the time to really explore all the options out there. We also know that current Intel and AMD setups have very different options and performance when overclocking is used, so we want to look at that as well.
Before we branch out into AMD vs. Intel comparisons, however, let's talk about the past top performers. The Celeron 300A is fondly remembered by many people, and with good reason. Yes, we have had some other good parts in the intervening years, like the 2.4 GHz Northwood cores, the low end Prescott cores, and the Athlon XP-M Barton parts. However, when you look at the 50% overclock of the Celeron 300A (and it wasn't just possible, it was common), none of the other parts have really ever approached that level of overclocking without some serious investment in cooling options. (Some people even managed to get the 300A to 504 MHz - an amazing 68% overclock!) Northwood's 2.4 GHz to 3.2 GHz is still an impressive 33% overclock. The 2.4 GHz to 3.6 GHz Prescott overclock (using the 2.4A) actually matches the 50% of the 300A, but you sacrifice some features (HyperThreading and high FSB speeds) with the lower model parts. Meanwhile, the overclocking darling that was the XP-M 2500+ "only" managed a typical overclock of 1.87 GHz to 2.4 GHz, a 29% overclock.
That brings us to the part that we're investigating today. It is arguably the best overclocking platform since the old Celeron 300A: AMD's Venice core. One thing that we didn't mention above is the role that price plays for many overclockers. Sure, the Athlon-FX can reach clock speeds and performance that most other chips only dream about, but at a cost of roughly $900 just for the processor, a lot of people will only read about it. What made the 300A so attractive was that it was not only a monster overclocking chip, but it cost around $150 and competed with $500 chips. That's why the 2.4C and 2.4A Pentium 4 are also well regarded; they cost under $200 and could compete with chips that cost two to three times as much. The price of entry for the cheapest Venice core (the 3000+) is once again very low; $120 for the OEM model, or $145 for the retail version.
We'll get into the details more in a moment, but for now, we'll just say that the 3200+ may actually be a better choice, and that's what we are using for this article. We are also using the retail model, and some people will say that retail parts tend to overclock better than the OEM chips. We'll simulate 3000+ overclocking using a 9X CPU multiplier, but that may or may not be an entirely accurate representation of 3000+ overclocking performance. In general, though, what we're hearing is that almost all of the Venice cores can run at very high clock speeds with a bit of effort, so there isn't a huge difference between 3000+ parts binned for 1.8 GHz and 3800+ parts binned for 2.4 GHz. AMD has simply set the package to use a maximum 9X multiplier on the former and a 12X multiplier on the latter. Talking about CPU multipliers leads us into the real meat of the discussion, though, so let's get into it.
Note: This article is an in-depth look at overclocking. We'll cover how to do it, what sort of performance you can achieve, problems and potential solutions, etc. Overclocking can be frustrating, rewarding, fun, and dangerous. We don't mean "burn the house down" dangerous, but you could certainly end up ruining some or all of your computer components. We take no responsibility for any difficulties or losses you may experience by using the information in this article, and we certainly take no responsibility for any damage that may occur to any person, place, or object. The manufacturers of the parts that we are using are also not accountable for any loss/damage that may occur - most companies void your warranty for overclocking. It's a risk, and it's your risk - proceed with caution. Finally, overclocking is never a "guaranteed result". You may or may not match the results that we achieve. We'll be happy to offer suggestions if you need them, as will many of our forum members. Patience and research are part of overclocking as well, so please understand that you may have to do some work on your own. If you can accept those warnings, we hope that you enjoy this article.
Back in the day, overclocking was in some ways simpler than what we see now. You would typically buy a mid-range processor and then try to increase the bus speeds as much as possible in order to get the most performance out of your system. Older Pentium chips also allowed you to change the multiplier, so with some luck, you might get your 2.5X multiplier on a Pentium 166 up to 3.0X, resulting in a 33 MHz overclock. Other than a few special chips like the Pentium M and Athlon FX, increasing multipliers is no longer possible. The modification of bus speeds can still be used, but it isn't necessarily the best or only way to try to overclock your system. We have mentioned overclocking performance in many articles, but we haven't taken the time to really explore all the options out there. We also know that current Intel and AMD setups have very different options and performance when overclocking is used, so we want to look at that as well.
Before we branch out into AMD vs. Intel comparisons, however, let's talk about the past top performers. The Celeron 300A is fondly remembered by many people, and with good reason. Yes, we have had some other good parts in the intervening years, like the 2.4 GHz Northwood cores, the low end Prescott cores, and the Athlon XP-M Barton parts. However, when you look at the 50% overclock of the Celeron 300A (and it wasn't just possible, it was common), none of the other parts have really ever approached that level of overclocking without some serious investment in cooling options. (Some people even managed to get the 300A to 504 MHz - an amazing 68% overclock!) Northwood's 2.4 GHz to 3.2 GHz is still an impressive 33% overclock. The 2.4 GHz to 3.6 GHz Prescott overclock (using the 2.4A) actually matches the 50% of the 300A, but you sacrifice some features (HyperThreading and high FSB speeds) with the lower model parts. Meanwhile, the overclocking darling that was the XP-M 2500+ "only" managed a typical overclock of 1.87 GHz to 2.4 GHz, a 29% overclock.
That brings us to the part that we're investigating today. It is arguably the best overclocking platform since the old Celeron 300A: AMD's Venice core. One thing that we didn't mention above is the role that price plays for many overclockers. Sure, the Athlon-FX can reach clock speeds and performance that most other chips only dream about, but at a cost of roughly $900 just for the processor, a lot of people will only read about it. What made the 300A so attractive was that it was not only a monster overclocking chip, but it cost around $150 and competed with $500 chips. That's why the 2.4C and 2.4A Pentium 4 are also well regarded; they cost under $200 and could compete with chips that cost two to three times as much. The price of entry for the cheapest Venice core (the 3000+) is once again very low; $120 for the OEM model, or $145 for the retail version.
We'll get into the details more in a moment, but for now, we'll just say that the 3200+ may actually be a better choice, and that's what we are using for this article. We are also using the retail model, and some people will say that retail parts tend to overclock better than the OEM chips. We'll simulate 3000+ overclocking using a 9X CPU multiplier, but that may or may not be an entirely accurate representation of 3000+ overclocking performance. In general, though, what we're hearing is that almost all of the Venice cores can run at very high clock speeds with a bit of effort, so there isn't a huge difference between 3000+ parts binned for 1.8 GHz and 3800+ parts binned for 2.4 GHz. AMD has simply set the package to use a maximum 9X multiplier on the former and a 12X multiplier on the latter. Talking about CPU multipliers leads us into the real meat of the discussion, though, so let's get into it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
101 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Sorry if I missed this in the article. The reason a 3200+ may be better is the 10X multiplier vs. 9X. Sure, the DFI board used worked pretty well at either setting, but there are many boards that won't handle much above 250 MHz CPU bus stably. Needless to say, there's a reason 2800 MHz was only included at one setting. While it still wasn't stable, it would actually run most benchmarks at 10x280. 9x311 wouldn't even load Windows half the time. The extra $50 for added flexibility is also nice: you can try 9x300, 10x270, PC3200, PC2700, etc. to find the most stable, highest performing option.Bakwetu - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Thanks for a great article. I haven't been following the development so carefully since I upgraded last time (with one of the last unlocked Barton 2500+), so this article was a most welcome refresher for me, as I will probably get a x2 3800 rig in the near future.Last time I checked using the naked fingertip to smear out the paste was a big no-no. I have always used either a washed razorblade or fingertip in a clean plastic bag. The Arctic silver once sold without silver was a faked, copied product as far as I know. The real stuff in its many forms over the years has definitely shown that it is a good product.
javalino - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Frist , great article, Jarred.Second, i m an anand fan since i remember (1999-2000).
Third, Since yours conclusion focus on a dilema about overclock, why spend to much in an overclock symtem(or on a powerfull system) if you target is at games ? (wich is a GPU limited). An 125 bucks , like you said, will be more usefull in a video card.
My idea is an article, about "Benefits, Costs, and Lessons Learned" about build a system for games. How much will be a performance gain from systems running high end cards ,at high resoltion and configurations ( like 1600 x 1200, and with an extra 4xAA 16XAF), with differents system . A FX VS 64(overclock) VS P4 (over) VS P-M VS AMD XP (over of course), for example. The conclusion will be, how much is "needed" to pay for a decent game machine wich is possible to play all current games(and maybe future) with great image quality and performance.
Maybe the answer is obvious, go with the best FPS/price option possible, or maybe not.
AtaStrumf - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link
Great article Jarred!!! I really like your choice of value parts and how you criticaly assesed the results based on the bang-for-the-buck. And finally you did away with pages and pages of bar charts, and combined them into line-scaling charts. How long have I been asking for something like that??? Now we can finally see the REAL difference (or lack of it), and analyse results properly, without having to go back and forth between tens of bar charts. Tell Anand to upgrade your graphing engine ASAP.I am a little worried about those voltages though. This sure looks like a bad chip to me (OC wise). WAY too high voltages. I would not go over 1,45 - 1,50 V or else you risk screwing up the chip. You see the memory controller on the chip doesn't like too high voltages and though it will still work, the chip will get slower eventually. Hard to explain really but I know my new 2,2 GHz A64 is faster and much cooler than my old 2,4 GHz A64 (same core - Newcastle, same cooer, same RPM, same case, same ...), which I bought from some crazy overclocker (last time BTW). The 2,4 GHz one gave me really shitty results in FAH for weeks. That's the only explanation a have so far anyway. Maybe you can do an investigaion into this -- burn in one A64 Venice at say 1,6V 24/7 for a few weeks and let's see what happens. I just don't have the $$$ and time to take the risk. I'd be very happy to hear from other forum members on this as well.
Anyway, glad to see at least part of AT is back to the high quality standards we were used to.
AtaStrumf - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link
Or maybe it's the SOI process that is to blame for not taking high voltages too kindly, or maybe both, don't know yet, but I would definitely advice caution goint over 1,5V (default for 0,13 mikron SOI chips). Just think about it, that's already a 15% increase. +10% is usualy max that is still considered safe.You just posted that this chip seems to have changed it's behavior (better OC). That may have something to do with the high voltages and it may not be all good. I'd suggest testing it again in a few benchmarks and comparing the results.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Working on it. I think I ended up benching at 1.850V for the 10x280 setting and then not dropping voltages as much as I was supposed to. I'm a little skeptical that a CPU would get slower, though. Usually, they work or they fail. We'll see.My thought on the "safe limit" though: what voltage does the FX-57 run at? Whatever it is, at 10 to 15% to that and you're probably still okay. Good cooling will also help; on the stock HSF, I'd be a lot more nervous going over 1.550V.
OvErHeAtInG - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link
Very useful article - thorough yet concise. And I would like to toss in another request: Add to the test a ULi-based motherboard (such as the recently reviewed ASRock 939Dual-SATA2). How do these Venices overclock when you can only feed them +.05v? As I recall the standard AT Clawhammer was used in that review.That would be hugely useful to a lot of us wanting to transition to A64. While the thing to do is probably just get a DFI or other top-end oc'er, what to do for those of us who are not yet ready to upgrade GPUs? On second thought: you could simulate the ASRock motherboard by simply setting the Venices to the lower voltage, on the DFI board, and testing for the max overclock on that. I think that would vary quite a bit from chip to chip, but just to get an idea - how much of a disadvantage is being limited in your voltage? Food for thought.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link
I played around with voltages a bit more last night. It seems like I can hit about 2.40 GHz with only increasing the CPU voltage to 1.40V, though I didn't run all of the benchmarks to fully test that config. I'm not sure if the CPU has changed behavior over the past month, or if I was just too liberal with the voltages initially.For the ASRock, that Wes managed to get a 500 MHz OC even with the minimal voltage adjustments is promising. Truth be told, the DFI Infinity seems to undervolt the CPU slightly, so 1.500V actually shows up as closer to 1.455V. If the ASRock is exact with the voltages, or even a bit high, I think a 2.4+ GHz overclock is a reasonably safe bet.
OvErHeAtInG - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Thanks for the info, Jarred. I'm sure there's a thread on this somewhere.... :)araczynski - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link
i haven't seen a better argument for not wasting money on the 'better' memory in ages.with those kinds of 'gains' i congratulate the companies for milking everyone with their markups for the 'higher end' components.