Overclocking the 4200+
Like other "performance-rated" AMD processors, the 4200+ is locked at the top. In this case the 4200+ multiplier is fixed at a maximum of 11. As with all AMD Athlon64 processors, however, you can select ratios below 11. Only the AMD FX chips are unlocked at both the top and bottom of their range.| Front Side Bus Overclocking Testbed | |
| DFI LANParty nF4 SLI-DR | |
| Processor | Athlon 64 x2 4200+ (2.2GHz, 512KB Cache each core) |
| CPU Voltage | 1.55V (default 1.30V) |
| Cooling | Thermaltake Silent Boost K8 Heat sink/Fan |
| Power Supply | OCZ Power Stream 520W |
| Memory | OCZ PC3200 EL Platinum Rev. 2 (Samsung TCCD Memory Chips) |
| Hard Drive | Seagate 120GB 7200RPM SATA 8MB Cache |
| Maximum OC (Standard Ratio) |
245x11 (Auto HT, 2.5-3-3-7, 1T, 2.8V) 2695MHz (+22.5%) |
| Maximum FSB (Lower Ratio) |
326x8 (2608MHz) (Auto HT, 2.5-4-3-7, 2.9V) (1:1 Memory, 1T, 2 DIMMs in DC mode) (+63% Bus Overclock) |
For an early x2 Athlon64 processor the overclocking performance on air is impressive. The next speed step of 2.4GHz (4600+) was easily reached, and we moved on past the next logical step of 2.6GHz to 2.7GHz. This is faster than any of the currently available Dual-Core Athlons. We should mention that 240x11 (2.64GHz) was an extremely easy and stable reach. That speed required just 1.45V, was exceptionally stable, and ran quite cool. The last 55MHz required a great deal more voltage and generated a lot more heat. For day in and day out the 240 setting (2.64GHz) would be our choice with this CPU (stock 2.2GHz) on air.
In testing for the highest CPU Frequency a new record for TCCD memory was achieved. 326 or DDR652 is the highest yet achieved with these double-sided 512MB OCZ PC3200 EL Platinum Rev 2 modules. This improved performance of the TCCD memory is likley the result of an improved memory controller on the dual-core CPU.
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...