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
intellon - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link
I understand how/why the memory quality is not too imoprtant (5-9% increase for 100 bucks = not worthy)What I AM unclear about is the cpu itself. Would all the cpu's based on venice hit a same ceiling. Or would a 3800+ reach a higher, more stable, cooler overclock than the 3200+? There is one line that mentions these two cpu's on the first page but no comment on how they would perform when overclocked. Does a 12x help over 9x? Also am I wrong in assuming that you picked 3200+ over 3000+ because of a higher multiplier?
And like people are asking... how bad/good are the other chips? How'll a San Diego 3500+ fare against a Venice 3500+? They're faster as stock, but can they match or exceed overclock performance of venice?
Questions questions questions...
The article was wicked though. I was skeptical about buying a cheaper RAM... but seeing how another $50 is not going to help, I'll save that money for something else.
gplracer - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link
Very nice article. It appears to be well thought out. Thanks for the time you spent on it. I would also be nice to have an article of this type with some of the more popular power supplies.I to have had several chips that would overclock such as:
P166 @ 200mhz lol
Celeron 300a @ 450mhz
Duron 600 @ 950mhz
Athlon 1700+ (DLTC3) @ 2374mhz
2600+ at 250x10= 2500mhz
There is no way you could add all of the cpus to the review. I look forward to overclocking a dual core athlon64.
PaBlooD - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link
Great Articule.. thanks for that great work.I actually have a A64 3200+ Winchester core with an Epox 9NDA3+ + 512 x2 ocz premier (crap ) and i only can get the procesor to 2150 mhz... i tried with safe memo times.. but nothing..are that bad overclockers the Winchester cores? :S
(excuse my poor english ^_^)
RaulAssis - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link
Didi you try memory deviders like 5/6 ?yacoub - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link
I definitely appreciate all the walk-through of overclocking an A64 system. Very good article. One thing though - the last few pages with the test result charts... the charts make it look like the entire notion of overclocking is rather pointless since all four colored lines are nearly identical in all but a couple tests. You might want to consider a different type of chart next time that gives a -visual- impression of the benefit to better support the written descriptive increases in performance. Maybe some sort of bar chart would have worked better.JarredWalton - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link
I felt the visual impression conveyed exactly what I saw: the difference between the 3000+ and 3200+ in overclocking combined with value and performance RAM is, at best, small. I understand what you're saying, and trust me: I played around with the Excel graphs for many hours. None of the graphs really gave a clear picture, unfortunately. Getting four setups with about 9 settings each into a single chart is messy. Having 80 charts is even worse. Heheh.If someone can show me a preferred chart style, I'll be happy to change the graph for the next installment. The AnandTech graphing engine really wasn't capable of dealing with this type of data set, unfortunately... but Excel was only marginally better.
intellon - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link
I guess you could "ZOOM IN" onto the y-axis. For instance: on the last graph HL2 1024x768 4xAA, since the minimum was above 80 and max was below 140, you could set the min and max ranges of y-axis accordingly. or go GNU plot way for a sharper graph.JarredWalton - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link
Like the 3DMark GPU scores? I really dislike graphs that don't start at 0, because it hides the reality. (That's why I put the extra paragraph on the 3DMark scores noting specifically that they don't start at 0.) I can blow up a graph so that everyone can see the 1 or 2% margin of victory, but what does that really say? Margin of error on several benchmarks is at least 1 or 2%, and in actual use I don't think anyone will really notice even a 5% difference - I know I don't.Some people will be annoyed by this, but too many people worry about the last 1% of performance. Not because they can notice a difference, but because they want meaningless bragging rights. Sitting in the top positions in an online game requires skill. Getting 1% higher FPS usually just involves throwing more money at your PC than the next guy. Some people like to do that - sort of like some people like muscle cars. I want a fast computer, but I'm not going to lose sleep because my PC is marginally slower than my friend's, you know?
Anyway, I may look into a separate graphing tool. Excel looks fine internally, but getting the graphs into image form didn't work perfectly. The text alignment got a little tweaked when I cut and pasted the data into Photoshop.
Regards,
Jarred Walton
RupertS - Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - link
Be careful, I think Muscle Car owners are a protected class.probedb - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link
I'd just like to say cheers for this. It's made me finally get round to trying to OC my system. I purposely bought a 3000+ and Crucial Ballistix for this but have never got round to trying it.I shall give it a go this weekend!!!