Overclocking Results
It is important to state that in all cases we are using the stock retail heatsinks (except with the simulated X2 3800+, which used a Zalman CNPS9500). Again, adding a nice aftermarket cooling solution might improve overclocking results a bit, but for the extra $30-$50 you could simply upgrade to a faster processor instead. Here are the overclocking results we achieved as well as the settings that were used. We tried for 100 MHz increments on the CPU overclock, so if we could get a system running at 2.5 GHz but not 2.6 GHz, we stopped at 2.5 GHz. With additional time and effort, we could improve the final results and increase performance a few percent, but searching for the elusive last 3%-5% is beyond the scope of this article. (CPU speeds are approximate to within 10 MHz -- slight differences between the specified bus speed and the actual bus speed can affect clock speed slightly.)
Starting with the percent overclocks achieved, the two Sempron offerings tie for first place with a 39% overclock when using the budget motherboards (we were able to get a 50% overclock with the Sempron AM2 using the Gigabyte nForce 590 SLI motherboard), while the Pentium D 805 falls behind with "only" a 35% overclock. However, getting a 35% overclock out of a budget dual core platform is in some ways more impressive than a 40% overclock of a single core CPU. If you happen to run applications that take advantage of multiple processors, you can probably already guess that the Pentium D 805 is going to easily beat anything that the two Sempron platforms can put up in SMP-aware benchmarks. It's also important to note that the Pentium D would actually load Windows at 3.8 GHz and POST at up to 4.0 GHz. Better cooling (and a better power supply) would have almost certainly allowed a higher overclock, but as mentioned for the price you may as well start with a better CPU.
The Sempron systems were far less likely to POST at higher overclocks, at least with the budget motherboards. The Biostar TForce AM2 motherboard in particular hit a brick wall with a HyperTransport bus speed of 280 MHz; below that it would POST, but above that it required the use of the CMOS clear jumper to get the motherboard back online. Given our experience with other AM2 motherboards, we would venture to guess that a BIOS update could improve the Biostar motherboard. However, we are currently using the latest Biostar TForce 550 BIOS, and the motherboard has been available for about six weeks now. Hopefully, Biostar will release an improved BIOS for the motherboard that addresses performance and overclocking, but we don't make purchase recommendations based on hope.
In terms of ease of overclocking, the Biostar TForce4U-775 was actually the most difficult system to deal with. The difficulty wasn't so much in actual capability, but more in terms of understanding the BIOS options. We ended up using "expert" mode for the bus and memory settings, then we specified a front side bus value of 720 MHz and a memory speed of 540-720 MHz dependent on which memory was used. CPU-Z doesn't always report the correct memory speed on the motherboard, which caused some confusion on our part. For example, the 720 FSB speed and 720 MHz memory speed shows up in CPU-Z as a 1:1 memory ratio and a 360 MHz memory speed. However, benchmarks confirm that the memory is indeed running at a 1:2 ratio.
So now we've set the stage with the processors used and the overclocks achieved. Let's find out how things shake down in the actual benchmarks. We have run most of our typical motherboard benchmarks, and all benchmarking was conducted at 1280x1024 resolution with settings appropriate for a midrange graphics card, with the exception of 3DMark03/05 which were run at the default 1024x768.
It is important to state that in all cases we are using the stock retail heatsinks (except with the simulated X2 3800+, which used a Zalman CNPS9500). Again, adding a nice aftermarket cooling solution might improve overclocking results a bit, but for the extra $30-$50 you could simply upgrade to a faster processor instead. Here are the overclocking results we achieved as well as the settings that were used. We tried for 100 MHz increments on the CPU overclock, so if we could get a system running at 2.5 GHz but not 2.6 GHz, we stopped at 2.5 GHz. With additional time and effort, we could improve the final results and increase performance a few percent, but searching for the elusive last 3%-5% is beyond the scope of this article. (CPU speeds are approximate to within 10 MHz -- slight differences between the specified bus speed and the actual bus speed can affect clock speed slightly.)
| AMD Sempron 754 System | ||
| Stock Setting | Overclocked Setting (39%) | |
| HyperTransport Speed | 200 MHz | 278 MHz |
| HyperTransport Multiplier | 5X | 3X |
| CPU Multiplier | 9X | 9X |
| CPU Speed | 1800 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory Ratio | DDR-400 | DDR-400 |
| Actual Memory Speed | DDR-400 | DDR-556 |
| Memory Timings | 2-3-2-10-2T | 2.5-3-3-10-2T |
| CPU Voltage | 1.350 V | 1.550 V |
| Memory Voltage | 2.800 V | 2.800 V |
| AMD Sempron AM2 System | ||
| Stock Setting | Overclocked Setting (50%) | |
| HyperTransport Speed | 200 MHz | 300 MHz (278 MHz Biostar) |
| HyperTransport Multiplier | 5X | 4X |
| CPU Multiplier | 9X | 9X |
| CPU Speed | 1800 MHz | 2700 MHz (2500 MHz Biostar) |
| Memory Ratio | DDR2-800 | DDR2-533 |
| Actual Memory Speed | DDR2-720 | DDR2-772 (DDR2-714 Biostar) |
| Memory Timings | 4-4-4-12-2T | 4-4-4-12-2T |
| CPU Voltage | 1.350 V | 1.550 V |
| Memory Voltage | 2.100 V | 2.100 V |
| Intel Budget System | ||
| Stock Setting | Overclocked Setting (35%) | |
| Front Side Bus Speed | 533 MHz | 720 MHz |
| CPU Multiplier | 20X | 20X |
| CPU Speed | 2667 MHz | 3600 MHz |
| Memory Ratio | DDR2-667 (2:5) | DDR2-720 (1:2) |
| Actual Memory Speed | DDR2-667 | DDR2-720 |
| Memory Timings | 4-4-4-12-2T | 4-4-4-12-1T |
| CPU Voltage | 1.125 V | 1.400 V |
| Memory Voltage | 2.100 V | 2.100 V |
| Simulated AMD X2 3800+ AM2 System | ||
| Stock Setting | Overclocked Setting (30%) | |
| HyperTransport Speed | 200 MHz | 260 MHz |
| HyperTransport Multiplier | 5X | 5X |
| CPU Multiplier | 10X | 10X |
| CPU Speed | 1800 MHz | 2600 MHz |
| Memory Ratio | DDR2-800 | DDR2-533 |
| Actual Memory Speed | DDR2-720 | DDR2-650 |
| Memory Timings | 4-4-4-12-2T | 4-4-4-12-1T |
| CPU Voltage | 1.350 V | 1.500 V |
| Memory Voltage | 2.100 V | 2.100 V |
Starting with the percent overclocks achieved, the two Sempron offerings tie for first place with a 39% overclock when using the budget motherboards (we were able to get a 50% overclock with the Sempron AM2 using the Gigabyte nForce 590 SLI motherboard), while the Pentium D 805 falls behind with "only" a 35% overclock. However, getting a 35% overclock out of a budget dual core platform is in some ways more impressive than a 40% overclock of a single core CPU. If you happen to run applications that take advantage of multiple processors, you can probably already guess that the Pentium D 805 is going to easily beat anything that the two Sempron platforms can put up in SMP-aware benchmarks. It's also important to note that the Pentium D would actually load Windows at 3.8 GHz and POST at up to 4.0 GHz. Better cooling (and a better power supply) would have almost certainly allowed a higher overclock, but as mentioned for the price you may as well start with a better CPU.
The Sempron systems were far less likely to POST at higher overclocks, at least with the budget motherboards. The Biostar TForce AM2 motherboard in particular hit a brick wall with a HyperTransport bus speed of 280 MHz; below that it would POST, but above that it required the use of the CMOS clear jumper to get the motherboard back online. Given our experience with other AM2 motherboards, we would venture to guess that a BIOS update could improve the Biostar motherboard. However, we are currently using the latest Biostar TForce 550 BIOS, and the motherboard has been available for about six weeks now. Hopefully, Biostar will release an improved BIOS for the motherboard that addresses performance and overclocking, but we don't make purchase recommendations based on hope.
In terms of ease of overclocking, the Biostar TForce4U-775 was actually the most difficult system to deal with. The difficulty wasn't so much in actual capability, but more in terms of understanding the BIOS options. We ended up using "expert" mode for the bus and memory settings, then we specified a front side bus value of 720 MHz and a memory speed of 540-720 MHz dependent on which memory was used. CPU-Z doesn't always report the correct memory speed on the motherboard, which caused some confusion on our part. For example, the 720 FSB speed and 720 MHz memory speed shows up in CPU-Z as a 1:1 memory ratio and a 360 MHz memory speed. However, benchmarks confirm that the memory is indeed running at a 1:2 ratio.
So now we've set the stage with the processors used and the overclocks achieved. Let's find out how things shake down in the actual benchmarks. We have run most of our typical motherboard benchmarks, and all benchmarking was conducted at 1280x1024 resolution with settings appropriate for a midrange graphics card, with the exception of 3DMark03/05 which were run at the default 1024x768.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
56 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - link
I thought about it, but figured for true budget I would go as low as I felt was possible without completely crippling the systems. :)Ealdric - Thursday, July 13, 2006 - link
I would be interested in some more recommmendations for socket 775 mobos with integrated graphics. I don't play gamnes at all, but I will be doing some video editing. I gather what I need is cpu speed and ram. I would like to be able to add a graphics card when/if Vista ever comes along, without having to replace the mobo.Thanks!
mindless1 - Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - link
The article makes some rather contrived presumptions about what a budget PC is, or forgot to put the word "gaming" in the article title.Many don't consider a $200 video card even a budget gaming card so the overall system config looks like a sacrifice of overall system specs and higher price just to game... which is fine if that's what you want but again it's not a budget system, rather a cost-optimized gaming system.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - link
Page 3:"If you're thinking that $140-$195 on a graphics card is far from being a "budget" selection, our reasoning is that you're building a budget PC, but you also want to be able to play games. We assume that most people need a PC in their home these days, so when people consider a gaming PC versus one of the consoles like an Xbox 360, they often end up concluding that the consoles cost a lot less. We figure you're already spending about $500 for a PC whether or not you have a gaming console, so really you're only spending another $150 to turn your PC into something that can play most of today's games. If you would like better video performance, of course, you could also go with a faster graphics card and spend more money. Prices on the 7900 GT cards have dropped to $265 before rebates (about $240 after rebate), so graphics performance scales almost linearly with additional money. If you don't need graphics performance at all, you can of course go with an integrated graphics solution or something cheaper."
I tried to make it clear that the GPU isn't required unless you plan on gaming, though Vista will certainly change things in another 6-8 months. This is one option, and I expect people to read the whole article as advice rather than a firm recommendation. You can use different HDDs (I used WD becuase I had a couple available for benchmarks), GPUs (I had two XFX XXX cards), case, PSU, mobo, etc. In general performance will be similar, so this is a look at what performance you can get for $650 in games... or $500 if you drop the GPU and don't bother with games.
Paladin165 - Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - link
Everyone here seems to be mentioning WD hard drives, but I just had one fail on me after barely more than one year. It was one of their 1 year warranty drives too =(. So I replaced it with the Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS 320GB with perpendicular recording. In reviews it has very high peak data transfer rates, and its only about $20 more than the WD 250 GB mentioned in the article, and it has a 5 year warranty.Also I was wondering if anyone had any ideas about how to build a case like Dell's big Optiplex cases. They are set up where the whole front and back of the case is perforated, the HS on the CPU is huge and has a 120mm fan on the side which pulls air right in the front of the case and right out the back. These things don't make a whisper, we have whole labs full of them at my university and they are completely silent. Does anyone know of a cheap case and HS with this kind of design?
DrMrLordX - Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - link
Not a bad article, but I don't understand the point. This is about the worst possible time to be building a new system, much less speccing one out with available parts. Unless that motherboard on the 805 system is Conroe-ready, I would't touch it with a 10-foot pole. Buying an 805 now is foolish on many different levels. The 915 is coming, and the 805 will be getting a price cut. X2s will be getting price cuts, too.JarredWalton - Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - link
Part of the idea is to cover X2 performance prior to the price cut. 915 isn't dramatically different (a bit faster, but really a budget PC is rarely bottlenecked by CPU unless you are doing serious number crunching). I'm certainly not suggesting people go out and buy right now, but given that we will be putting out reviews of Core 2 Duo soon, I figured a nice non-NDA look at the budget sector might be interesting. Anyway, Intel isn't really coming out with any truly *new* budget chips (i.e. based off of Core architecture) for a while, and the only thing on the horizon for AMD budget right now is price cuts (AFAIK).Calin - Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - link
I agree with that - the only thing that will change for the sample systems will be the price (maybe better mainboards). As Intel will have little production (about 30% of total) of the new microprocessors, they will probably be reserved to the likes of Dell, and retail market will see little availability and higher prices. Not at all something for the budget machines.Mozee - Monday, July 10, 2006 - link
Recently I've done a little looking around to see what kind of a budget gaming system I could build relatively cheap. Take a look at this little setup:(All parts priced at Newegg.com, except optical drive and case borrowed from article)
Processor: AMD Athlon 64 - 3800+ (2.4ghz/512k) Socket AM2 $141.99
Motherboard: MSI K9N NEO-F Socket AM2 (AMD 550 Chipset) $ 78.99
Graphics Card: eVGA e-GeForce 7600GT PCI-e 256MB $169.99
Hard Drive: Western Digital Caviar RE WD2500YD 250GB $ 84.99
Memory: GeiL GX21GB5300LDC DDR2-667 Dual Channel Kit $ 91.29
2x512MB 4-4-4-12
Optic Drive: NEC 3550A 16X DVD+/-RW $ 35.00
Case/PSU: Generic case with iCute 400W PSU $ 50.00
____________________________________________________________________________
Total Cost: $652.25
I picked the WD hard drive after the strong showing it had in a recent Anandtech article. The eVGA card wasn't the absolute cheapest 7600GT I found, but with a listed stock speed of 780/1560 nothing cheaper offered better than 700/1400 stock. If you would rather pick DDR2-800, I found Patriot eXtreme PDC21G6400LLK DDR2-800 1GB 4-4-4-12 sticks at NewEgg.com for $112.99, or the same in a 2x512MB kit for $117.99
Just some food for thought for anyone looking to build a budget gaming box.
kmmatney - Monday, July 10, 2006 - link
That's a pretty good setup. I'd save $30 or so and get an Athlon 64 3500+ Orleans, which only runs 200 MHz slower and can easily overclock. If you go down to a 3200+ in the cpu, you could possibly save enough money to get to a better class of graphics card - too bad there's no upgrade you can go to in the $200 price range (maybe the X1800GTO).