Investigations into Socket 939 Athlon 64 Overclocking
by Jarred Walton on October 3, 2005 4:35 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Synthetic Gaming Performance
We've already looked at some Futuremark performance numbers, and most people are already familiar with 3DMark. You'll note that we list 3DMark as a Synthetic Gaming benchmark. This is not meant as a slam on the application, but the truth is that games and graphics are so complex these days that the only thing that any benchmark can really tell you is how well that benchmark runs. Doom 3 says nothing about how Quake 4 will actually run on the same system; we'd assume it will be similar, but we won't know until it comes out and we can test it. If a game can't even give you sure knowledge of how other licensees of the engine will run, how can it possibly give you an insight into how a different engine will run? That's 3DMark in a nutshell: some games will correlate very well with the performance results and scaling that we see in 3DMark, and others will be completely different. The only thing that the benchmark shows for sure is how well it runs.
The good news is that we also get CPUMarks that largely remove the graphics card from the picture. The CPUMarks render a couple of the same tests as the 3DMarks portions of the tests, but they compute the transform and lighting operations and some other areas on the CPU rather than the GPU. The CPU tests are also multi-threaded, but the Venice chips don't gain anything from that. (If we were to compare the results with a Pentium 4 HT, the P4 tends to perform very well relative to actual gaming results.) The CPU scores are more in line with the other results that we've already seen, gaining 46% and 42% in 03 and 05, respectively.
Being able to run the entire 3DMarks03/05 tests from start to finish without crashing is once again a good indication of stability. We went a step further and looped the tests for eight hours or more on the top overclocks, without trouble... at least, without incident on everything 2700 MHz and below. The 2800 MHz overclock would crash after 30 to 60 minutes of looping, usually during the CPU portion of the test.
We've already looked at some Futuremark performance numbers, and most people are already familiar with 3DMark. You'll note that we list 3DMark as a Synthetic Gaming benchmark. This is not meant as a slam on the application, but the truth is that games and graphics are so complex these days that the only thing that any benchmark can really tell you is how well that benchmark runs. Doom 3 says nothing about how Quake 4 will actually run on the same system; we'd assume it will be similar, but we won't know until it comes out and we can test it. If a game can't even give you sure knowledge of how other licensees of the engine will run, how can it possibly give you an insight into how a different engine will run? That's 3DMark in a nutshell: some games will correlate very well with the performance results and scaling that we see in 3DMark, and others will be completely different. The only thing that the benchmark shows for sure is how well it runs.
The good news is that we also get CPUMarks that largely remove the graphics card from the picture. The CPUMarks render a couple of the same tests as the 3DMarks portions of the tests, but they compute the transform and lighting operations and some other areas on the CPU rather than the GPU. The CPU tests are also multi-threaded, but the Venice chips don't gain anything from that. (If we were to compare the results with a Pentium 4 HT, the P4 tends to perform very well relative to actual gaming results.) The CPU scores are more in line with the other results that we've already seen, gaining 46% and 42% in 03 and 05, respectively.
Being able to run the entire 3DMarks03/05 tests from start to finish without crashing is once again a good indication of stability. We went a step further and looped the tests for eight hours or more on the top overclocks, without trouble... at least, without incident on everything 2700 MHz and below. The 2800 MHz overclock would crash after 30 to 60 minutes of looping, usually during the CPU portion of the test.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
101 Comments
View All Comments
photoguy99 - Monday, October 3, 2005 - link
Dual Core was not mentioned -Anyone know how difficult it is to get a stable dual-core to 2.8Ghz with water-cooling?
Easy, difficult, impossible?
JarredWalton - Monday, October 3, 2005 - link
Part two/three will cover other chips. I wanted to get the base overclocking article out, and I will be looking at both Sempron and X2 overclocking in the near future. 2.80 GHz wasn't stable on my Venice, though - not entirely - and it won't even post on my X2 3800+. Your mileage may vary, naturally, but I'm getting about 100MHz less from my X2 vs. Venice. (I'd take the second core over the extra 100MHz any day, however!)MemberSince97 - Monday, October 3, 2005 - link
Thanks for the detailed explanation and charts. Thanks for the hard work.Nunyas - Monday, October 3, 2005 - link
I'm a bit supprised that you guys forgot to mention the overclocking abilities of the venerable Athlon Thunderbirds with the AXHA and AXIA steppings. I had a 1GHz T-Bird with AXHA stepping that allowed me to OC it to 1.533 GHz (53%), and it's documented all over the place with people achieving even better results with the same model CPU. At the time that the 1GHz became a great OC'er it was around $99 and gave you the performance of the then high end Athlons and P4's. Thus, by far a better OC'er than the Celeron 300A.OvErHeAtInG - Monday, October 3, 2005 - link
Meh, my AXIA 1.2 would do 1.4 or 1.33 sorta stable, with really good cooling, tweaked voltage, and so forth. When I sold it to my friend I had to put it back to stock speeds just so it would stay stable in the hands of someone who doesn't monitor her CPU temperature all the time ;) My "B" Northwood, IMO, is a more stable OC'er. Having said that, I guess others were more lucky than me... but yeah no 300A killer IMO.kmmatney - Monday, October 3, 2005 - link
The celeron 300A set the standard for overclocking. It was less the $100 (oem version) and performed better than any stock cpu you could buy, including those costing 3 times more. It really sparked the whole overclocking phenonema. Another good one was the Celeron II 500, which could easily overclock to 800 MHz. I had both of those.I had a cyrix 486DX-66 overclocked to 80 Mhz, and an AMD 586 DX4-133 overclocked to 150 MHz, but the celeron 300A was simply unbelievable at the time.
JarredWalton - Monday, October 3, 2005 - link
I didn't bother to try and include everything, especially where it was only specific steppings of a CPU. (I.e. not all T-birds did a 53% OC, right?) Anyway, I was basically an Intel user up until the Athlon XP era. I went from socket 478 with a Celeron 1.1A (OC'ed to 1.47 GHz) to the XP-M 2500+. The "history lesson" was just an introduction anyway, setting the stage. :)Aquila76 - Monday, October 3, 2005 - link
I've been waiting for a reputable site to post OC testing like this. I feel pretty good with the OC I get out of my rig (3500+ Winch @ 2.7GHz, Mem on divider) - thanks to the forums here - and it's close to what you guys acheived. I may swap to that DFI board instead as I know the A8N-SLI is holding me back.Garyclaus16 - Monday, October 3, 2005 - link
Job well done. I like how the benchmarks showed overclocking for anything 1024x768+ means nothing for games. I was aware the increase was small with high resolution..but an almost null increase in performance kind of makes me want to leave my 3200+ winchester the way it is. Do the venice cores OC better than winchesters?...JarredWalton - Monday, October 3, 2005 - link
Venice and Winchester should be about the same, though you might get an extra 100 MHz out of Venice (?). You can get higher performance at resolutions above 1024x768, but you'll need a much faster graphics card than the X800 Pro (or a 6800GT) for most of that. It depends on the game being tested as well.