Investigations into Socket 939 Athlon 64 Overclocking
by Jarred Walton on October 3, 2005 4:35 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
The Overclocking Platform
While the choice of processor certainly plays a major role in any overclocking endeavor, it is by no means the only meaningful part. Anyone who has tried their hand at overclocking can attest to the importance of choosing the proper motherboard. The motherboard choice also dictates the chipset and BIOS, and while many chipsets for Athlon 64 do well with overclocking, NVIDIA's nForce4 remains the current champion. (ATI's upcoming Crossfire chipsets hold a lot of promise, but they're only just becoming available at retail, so we will be using nForce4 for this article.)
The chipset still plays a secondary role to the BIOS, however. ASUS' A8V Deluxe showed that a great BIOS implementation could achieve good overclocking results with a VIA chipset. Conversely, a great chipset with a poor BIOS can seriously limit overclocking potential. We saw this in our nForce4 Ultra Motherboard Roundup, where despite using the same chipset, the maximum overclocks were relatively scattered. The design of the motherboards also played a part in those results, of course, as better voltage regulation, cooling, layout, etc. can impact stability. The good news is that BIOS updates are possible and can improve performance without changing the motherboard. The bad news is that it is rare to actually get substantially improved overclocking performance with a BIOS update. If the board manufacturer didn't feel that it was important enough to really focus on overclocking performance with the initial BIOS, they aren't likely to change their mind.
The above points all combine to create the idea of choosing a board maker that has a reputation for overclocking. That's generally sound advice, and there are quite a few companies that do more than pay lip service to the enthusiast market. Abit, ASUS, DFI, EPoX, Gigabyte, and MSI are all pretty good about catering to the overclocking crowd, although some products might still fall a bit short. Albatron, Aopen, Biostar, Chaintech, ECS, Foxconn, Jetway and Soltek (and any others that we failed to list) are less of a sure thing with overclocking support, though we would probably place Albatron, Chaintech, and Soltek above the others in that list. The final word can only be found on a board by board basis, of course, so look around for reviews before purchasing a motherboard with the intent to overclock.
At this point in time, the favored overclocking boards for AMD systems are all from the same place: DFI. We're comfortable in saying that's no accident, as DFI has pushed the limits in supported voltage levels for CPUs and RAM, and they have consistently come out at or near the top of our overclocking tests. Are you guaranteed to reach high overclocks with a DFI board? No. Could you reach higher speeds with a different brand? It's entirely possible - there is an element of luck involved with overclocking, as even two parts off the same assembly line one after the other may not reach identical performance levels. We're going to use a DFI board in this article. The EPoX 9NPA+ Ultra also received our Gold Editor's Choice award in the nForce 4 Ultra roundup, so it should offer similar results. If another board provides the necessary options, you can likely get roughly the same results; however, this article is not intended to be a full motherboard roundup/review. Let's take a minute to look a little closer at the motherboard features.
While the choice of processor certainly plays a major role in any overclocking endeavor, it is by no means the only meaningful part. Anyone who has tried their hand at overclocking can attest to the importance of choosing the proper motherboard. The motherboard choice also dictates the chipset and BIOS, and while many chipsets for Athlon 64 do well with overclocking, NVIDIA's nForce4 remains the current champion. (ATI's upcoming Crossfire chipsets hold a lot of promise, but they're only just becoming available at retail, so we will be using nForce4 for this article.)
The chipset still plays a secondary role to the BIOS, however. ASUS' A8V Deluxe showed that a great BIOS implementation could achieve good overclocking results with a VIA chipset. Conversely, a great chipset with a poor BIOS can seriously limit overclocking potential. We saw this in our nForce4 Ultra Motherboard Roundup, where despite using the same chipset, the maximum overclocks were relatively scattered. The design of the motherboards also played a part in those results, of course, as better voltage regulation, cooling, layout, etc. can impact stability. The good news is that BIOS updates are possible and can improve performance without changing the motherboard. The bad news is that it is rare to actually get substantially improved overclocking performance with a BIOS update. If the board manufacturer didn't feel that it was important enough to really focus on overclocking performance with the initial BIOS, they aren't likely to change their mind.
The above points all combine to create the idea of choosing a board maker that has a reputation for overclocking. That's generally sound advice, and there are quite a few companies that do more than pay lip service to the enthusiast market. Abit, ASUS, DFI, EPoX, Gigabyte, and MSI are all pretty good about catering to the overclocking crowd, although some products might still fall a bit short. Albatron, Aopen, Biostar, Chaintech, ECS, Foxconn, Jetway and Soltek (and any others that we failed to list) are less of a sure thing with overclocking support, though we would probably place Albatron, Chaintech, and Soltek above the others in that list. The final word can only be found on a board by board basis, of course, so look around for reviews before purchasing a motherboard with the intent to overclock.
At this point in time, the favored overclocking boards for AMD systems are all from the same place: DFI. We're comfortable in saying that's no accident, as DFI has pushed the limits in supported voltage levels for CPUs and RAM, and they have consistently come out at or near the top of our overclocking tests. Are you guaranteed to reach high overclocks with a DFI board? No. Could you reach higher speeds with a different brand? It's entirely possible - there is an element of luck involved with overclocking, as even two parts off the same assembly line one after the other may not reach identical performance levels. We're going to use a DFI board in this article. The EPoX 9NPA+ Ultra also received our Gold Editor's Choice award in the nForce 4 Ultra roundup, so it should offer similar results. If another board provides the necessary options, you can likely get roughly the same results; however, this article is not intended to be a full motherboard roundup/review. Let's take a minute to look a little closer at the motherboard features.
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.