The Stock and Overclock Tests
To make our performance data as useful as possible, we decided to run the stock 4200+ and the overclocked CPU through our standard motherboard test suite. As Anand has already shown in the launch article for AMD Dual-Core these are not the most revealing tests you can run on dual core. However, the test suite is a fair representation of the types of applications you run today, and it is a set of benchmarks that are very familiar to regular readers. This makes it a revealing set of tests for dual-core and overclocked dual-core performance.Performance tests were run at stock speed with the 4200+ and at the highest stable overclocked speed that could be achieved with basic air cooling on our test bed. For comparison the same suite of benchmarks were run using the single core 4000+ CPU. In looking at comparisons in the graphs, keep in mind that the 4000+ runs at 2.4GHz versus 2.2GHz for the 4200+. The 4000+ also features 1MB L2 cache compared to 512KB cache on each core in the 4200+.
The test configuration is our most recent DDR memory test bed built around the DFI LANParty nF4.
| Performance Test Configuration | |
| Processor(s) | AMD Athlon64 x2 4200+ (2.2GHz 512KB cache each) 939 AMD Athlon64 4000+ (2.4GHz 1MB Cache) Socket 939 |
| RAM | 2 x 512MB OCZ PC3200 Platinum Rev. 2 |
| Power Supply | OCZ 520 watt PowerStream |
| CPU Cooling | Thermaltake Silent Boost K8 HeatSink/Fan |
| Hard Drive | Seagate 120GB 7200 RPM SATA (8MB Buffer) |
| Video AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers | nVidia nForce 6.39 |
| Video Card | nVidia 6800 Ultra (PCIe) |
| Video Driver | nVidia nForce 71.89 |
| Operating System | Windows XP Professional SP2; Direct X 9.0c |
| Motherboard | DFI LANParty nF4 SLI-DR |
For CPU cooling we used the same Thermaltake Silent Boost K8 HSF fan we have used for recent overclocking tests in motherboard reviews. In looking at our overclock numbers, keep in mind that cooling is just a decent stock Heatsink/Fan. Higher overclock will be achieved with more aggressive cooling like liquid cooling or phase-change.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
53 Comments
View All Comments
Qarl - Sunday, June 26, 2005 - link
As others have already posted, my two biggest questions are:Why wasn't the overclocked 4200+ benchmarked against a stock 4800+?
Why wasn't a 4400+ used instead of a 4200+? It has double the cache and is only slightly more expensive.
redhatlinux - Sunday, June 26, 2005 - link
Another great review from the BossDigitalDivine - Sunday, June 26, 2005 - link
What paper launch, the x2s have been in newegg for a weekval - Saturday, June 25, 2005 - link
paper launches sucks!AMD have no cpus
at80eighty - Saturday, June 25, 2005 - link
#45 Wesley:- "Specializing in certain review areas, as we do at AnandTech, makes you a lot less stupid and easily duped than you might imagine"a very nicely veiled jab there Wesley. Hope the recepients have skulls thin enough for it to trickle in!! Kudos!
at80eighty - Saturday, June 25, 2005 - link
wtf is up with these bitchy bitches bitching about the 'integrity' of AT these days?is it the replacement for the 'Soviet Russia.." cliche ???
boban10 - Saturday, June 25, 2005 - link
very nice review, im very happy that you tested this cpu and overclocked it. thanks.Icehawk - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
Sheesh, I thought we'd put Anandtech's integrity to bed by now? I have no concerns.Wesley - I hope you can get a 4400+ as I am very curious to see what the results look like. The small price bump over the 4200+ makes it pretty appealing, especially if it can OC as well and provides a but of a performance bump.
I too would LOVE to see some 1gb vs 2gb RAM comparisons with various configurations.
Wesley Fink - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
#42 & #35 - To bring the news to you first, our ONLY choice is manufacturer-supplied samples. When we test there is usually nothing available in the retail channel.In this case we had one one Retail 4200+ and one manufacturer-supplied 4200+. They performed within 5MHz of each other in overclocking, which is equal performance. Our performance with both processors is lower than sites that publish a screen capture of an OC speed and don't run any benches, so we stand by our results on air cooling.
The "Conspiracy" theory sounds good, and is usually spouted by the manufacturers who didn't do well in a roundup. In a truly competitive world like computer components there is no point to providing "cherry" parts to reviewers. If people buy a product due to a review that shows x performance and their part won't do the same they RMA the part. RMA's cost manufacturers lots of money. A high RMA rate will quickly kill any profits on a product.
Even memory - a business based on binning or hand-picking of parts for performance - has settled down on cherry parts. Manufacturers who tried that got burned on RMAs and came back the second time with representative parts.
There is always variation in overclocking results, but huge variation from reported results are someone who doesn't know how to overclock, a change in parts used (which is why overclockers are big on production weeks), or a change in binning (selection criteria). Specializing in certain review areas, as we do at AnandTech, makes you a lot less stupid and easily duped than you might imagine.
cryptonomicon - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link
*adding*here is the 3g on air
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php...