Investigations into Athlon X2 Overclocking
by Jarred Walton on December 21, 2005 12:00 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Introduction
Note: This is the second article in a series of overclocking articles. Our first article looked at overclocking a Venice 3200+ chip using two different types of RAM, and it laid the groundwork for what we're doing in this article. We've updated some of our component choices as well as our benchmarks. The major difference is that we're now using an X2 3800+ for the processor, and we also upgraded to a 7800 GTX graphics card. We'll be looking at performance with several types of RAM as well. These articles are not targeted at the advanced overclockers, nor are we going for extreme performance at any cost. The main objective is to use some cost-effective setups and show what sort of performance level can be achieved.
As we mentioned before, there is a risk in overclocking and we do not recommend it for everyone. A system that appears stable for weeks or even months can suddenly have problems, so we definitely wouldn't recommend overclocking for casual computer users who may not be able to recognize or deal with such issues. We take no responsibility for any difficulties or losses that 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 risk is yours alone, and a little bit of caution won't hurt. Since we are only using a small subset of parts from the available options, this is merely intended as a baseline performance measurement. Finally, there is no such thing as a "guaranteed result"; you may or may not match the results that we achieve.
We started our recent look at overclocking platforms with the Venice 3000+ and 3200+ processors. Using a $130-$180 processor, we showed that it was possible to come near the performance offered by the extremely fast and extremely expensive FX-57. Actually, we came closer to FX-55 performance, but for about 1/6 the price, that’s still very impressive. Having looked at the Venice core, the next worthwhile upgrade to the processor has to be the move to dual cores. The change also comes with a major increase in price, unfortunately, and depending on the task, it may or may not matter. Current games show no benefit from multiple cores, so unless you plan on running some other CPU intensive tasks in the background while gaming, the upgrade may not be worthwhile.
We’re looking at the Athlon X2 3800+, as you can probably already guess. However, we started work on the benchmarks quite a while back and there are actually a couple of newer options that are potentially higher performing. The new Opteron 165/170 chips use the Denmark core, which is basically the workstation version of the Toledo. While the 165 comes with a lower default clock speed, we would venture to say that it has the potential to overclock just as high as the X2 3800+ that we’ll be using in this article, and likely even higher. (The reasoning stems from the way CPUs are binned and tested. Workstation/server parts undergo much more rigorous validation processes, and typically, this means that the parts have more overclocking headroom. Most server chips are rated extremely conservatively, as component failure is far more undesirable – and uncommon – than in desktop computers.) Combined with the increased L2 cache, you potentially end up increasing performance without spending any more money.
Rather than abandoning all of the benchmarks that we’ve already run, though, we’re going to present the results along with some commentary on the overall experience of overclocking the Manchester core. Also note that retail supplies of the Opteron DC parts may dry up in the near future. So, while we have confidence that the X2 3800+ will be available for purchase six months from now, we can't say the same of the Opteron 165.
Our last article contained a massive amount of introductory material, covering the various components that you need to consider when building a system designed for overclocking. We can safely skip all that this time, though newcomers might find it helpful to review the material. Most of our setup remains unchanged, but let’s explain that in more detail.
Note: This is the second article in a series of overclocking articles. Our first article looked at overclocking a Venice 3200+ chip using two different types of RAM, and it laid the groundwork for what we're doing in this article. We've updated some of our component choices as well as our benchmarks. The major difference is that we're now using an X2 3800+ for the processor, and we also upgraded to a 7800 GTX graphics card. We'll be looking at performance with several types of RAM as well. These articles are not targeted at the advanced overclockers, nor are we going for extreme performance at any cost. The main objective is to use some cost-effective setups and show what sort of performance level can be achieved.
As we mentioned before, there is a risk in overclocking and we do not recommend it for everyone. A system that appears stable for weeks or even months can suddenly have problems, so we definitely wouldn't recommend overclocking for casual computer users who may not be able to recognize or deal with such issues. We take no responsibility for any difficulties or losses that 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 risk is yours alone, and a little bit of caution won't hurt. Since we are only using a small subset of parts from the available options, this is merely intended as a baseline performance measurement. Finally, there is no such thing as a "guaranteed result"; you may or may not match the results that we achieve.
We started our recent look at overclocking platforms with the Venice 3000+ and 3200+ processors. Using a $130-$180 processor, we showed that it was possible to come near the performance offered by the extremely fast and extremely expensive FX-57. Actually, we came closer to FX-55 performance, but for about 1/6 the price, that’s still very impressive. Having looked at the Venice core, the next worthwhile upgrade to the processor has to be the move to dual cores. The change also comes with a major increase in price, unfortunately, and depending on the task, it may or may not matter. Current games show no benefit from multiple cores, so unless you plan on running some other CPU intensive tasks in the background while gaming, the upgrade may not be worthwhile.
We’re looking at the Athlon X2 3800+, as you can probably already guess. However, we started work on the benchmarks quite a while back and there are actually a couple of newer options that are potentially higher performing. The new Opteron 165/170 chips use the Denmark core, which is basically the workstation version of the Toledo. While the 165 comes with a lower default clock speed, we would venture to say that it has the potential to overclock just as high as the X2 3800+ that we’ll be using in this article, and likely even higher. (The reasoning stems from the way CPUs are binned and tested. Workstation/server parts undergo much more rigorous validation processes, and typically, this means that the parts have more overclocking headroom. Most server chips are rated extremely conservatively, as component failure is far more undesirable – and uncommon – than in desktop computers.) Combined with the increased L2 cache, you potentially end up increasing performance without spending any more money.
Rather than abandoning all of the benchmarks that we’ve already run, though, we’re going to present the results along with some commentary on the overall experience of overclocking the Manchester core. Also note that retail supplies of the Opteron DC parts may dry up in the near future. So, while we have confidence that the X2 3800+ will be available for purchase six months from now, we can't say the same of the Opteron 165.
Our last article contained a massive amount of introductory material, covering the various components that you need to consider when building a system designed for overclocking. We can safely skip all that this time, though newcomers might find it helpful to review the material. Most of our setup remains unchanged, but let’s explain that in more detail.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
46 Comments
View All Comments
TheHolyLancer - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link
i that since this is an OC thread, they should have used a DFI NF4 Ultra-D or a Expert, they have a 4V jumper that allows you to take DRAM voltage into 4 V (i hope no one does though)JarredWalton - Thursday, December 22, 2005 - link
The higher voltages would have helped the VX RAM a bit. I may shift to a LanParty SLI-DR for the cooling test... or at least try it at some point to see how much of a difference it makes in performance.KingofCamelot - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link
I noticed that the BF2 demo file for v1.12 did not work. The bf2bench.demo file needs to be changed for it to work. The bf2bench.demo file can be opened in Notepad, and the following changes need to be made.These lines:
demo.camerafile mods\bf2\Demos\jw112.bf2cam
demo.demofile mods\bf2\Demos\jw112.bf2demo
Need to be changed to:
demo.camerafile mods\bf2\Demos\jwanandtech112.bf2cam
demo.demofile mods\bf2\Demos\jwanandtech112.bf2demo
JarredWalton - Thursday, December 22, 2005 - link
Thanks! I've corrected the file and uploaded the new version.--Jarred Walton
tayhimself - Thursday, December 22, 2005 - link
Hey Jared,This was a very well written article. You were thorough with the benchmarks almost to a fault. I liked your introductory and ending commentary. Your first article was just as good.
Props!
sxr7171 - Thursday, December 22, 2005 - link
Agreed. This was a quality job for sure and the questions he raises at the end are very pertinent. I'm sure he'll come up with the answers.ElFenix - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link
i assume you used the stock heat sink/fan unit?JarredWalton - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link
Er, sorry I forgot to mention that. I used an XP-90 with a 3000 RPM 92mm fan (generic fan). I'll make a note of that, since that's important information. The followup looking at cooling options will use a retail HSF as well as the XP-90, an Asetek MicroChill, and an Asetek WaterChill. (Why Asetek? Because they asked me to review their two products.)Furen - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link
How come the graphs arent zeroed? I suppose it'd be pretty much a bunch of overlapping straight lines if they were but having a graph that shows framerate from 63.5 to 65.0 is not much better.JustAnAverageGuy - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link
Yeah, the graphs could be a bit misleading unless you look at what the lines actually represent.The difference between the OCZ PC4800 and everything else looks huge in the http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/amd/athlon...">Doom 3 graph @ 1600x1200 4xAA, but if you actually look at the lines, the difference is less than 1 frame per second.