Investigations into Socket 939 Athlon 64 Overclocking
by Jarred Walton on October 3, 2005 4:35 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Introduction
Note: This article is an in-depth look at overclocking. We'll cover how to do it, what sort of performance you can achieve, problems and potential solutions, etc. Overclocking can be frustrating, rewarding, fun, and dangerous. We don't mean "burn the house down" dangerous, but you could certainly end up ruining some or all of your computer components. We take no responsibility for any difficulties or losses 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 manufacturers of the parts that we are using are also not accountable for any loss/damage that may occur - most companies void your warranty for overclocking. It's a risk, and it's your risk - proceed with caution. Finally, overclocking is never a "guaranteed result". You may or may not match the results that we achieve. We'll be happy to offer suggestions if you need them, as will many of our forum members. Patience and research are part of overclocking as well, so please understand that you may have to do some work on your own. If you can accept those warnings, we hope that you enjoy this article.
Back in the day, overclocking was in some ways simpler than what we see now. You would typically buy a mid-range processor and then try to increase the bus speeds as much as possible in order to get the most performance out of your system. Older Pentium chips also allowed you to change the multiplier, so with some luck, you might get your 2.5X multiplier on a Pentium 166 up to 3.0X, resulting in a 33 MHz overclock. Other than a few special chips like the Pentium M and Athlon FX, increasing multipliers is no longer possible. The modification of bus speeds can still be used, but it isn't necessarily the best or only way to try to overclock your system. We have mentioned overclocking performance in many articles, but we haven't taken the time to really explore all the options out there. We also know that current Intel and AMD setups have very different options and performance when overclocking is used, so we want to look at that as well.
Before we branch out into AMD vs. Intel comparisons, however, let's talk about the past top performers. The Celeron 300A is fondly remembered by many people, and with good reason. Yes, we have had some other good parts in the intervening years, like the 2.4 GHz Northwood cores, the low end Prescott cores, and the Athlon XP-M Barton parts. However, when you look at the 50% overclock of the Celeron 300A (and it wasn't just possible, it was common), none of the other parts have really ever approached that level of overclocking without some serious investment in cooling options. (Some people even managed to get the 300A to 504 MHz - an amazing 68% overclock!) Northwood's 2.4 GHz to 3.2 GHz is still an impressive 33% overclock. The 2.4 GHz to 3.6 GHz Prescott overclock (using the 2.4A) actually matches the 50% of the 300A, but you sacrifice some features (HyperThreading and high FSB speeds) with the lower model parts. Meanwhile, the overclocking darling that was the XP-M 2500+ "only" managed a typical overclock of 1.87 GHz to 2.4 GHz, a 29% overclock.
That brings us to the part that we're investigating today. It is arguably the best overclocking platform since the old Celeron 300A: AMD's Venice core. One thing that we didn't mention above is the role that price plays for many overclockers. Sure, the Athlon-FX can reach clock speeds and performance that most other chips only dream about, but at a cost of roughly $900 just for the processor, a lot of people will only read about it. What made the 300A so attractive was that it was not only a monster overclocking chip, but it cost around $150 and competed with $500 chips. That's why the 2.4C and 2.4A Pentium 4 are also well regarded; they cost under $200 and could compete with chips that cost two to three times as much. The price of entry for the cheapest Venice core (the 3000+) is once again very low; $120 for the OEM model, or $145 for the retail version.
We'll get into the details more in a moment, but for now, we'll just say that the 3200+ may actually be a better choice, and that's what we are using for this article. We are also using the retail model, and some people will say that retail parts tend to overclock better than the OEM chips. We'll simulate 3000+ overclocking using a 9X CPU multiplier, but that may or may not be an entirely accurate representation of 3000+ overclocking performance. In general, though, what we're hearing is that almost all of the Venice cores can run at very high clock speeds with a bit of effort, so there isn't a huge difference between 3000+ parts binned for 1.8 GHz and 3800+ parts binned for 2.4 GHz. AMD has simply set the package to use a maximum 9X multiplier on the former and a 12X multiplier on the latter. Talking about CPU multipliers leads us into the real meat of the discussion, though, so let's get into it.
Note: This article is an in-depth look at overclocking. We'll cover how to do it, what sort of performance you can achieve, problems and potential solutions, etc. Overclocking can be frustrating, rewarding, fun, and dangerous. We don't mean "burn the house down" dangerous, but you could certainly end up ruining some or all of your computer components. We take no responsibility for any difficulties or losses 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 manufacturers of the parts that we are using are also not accountable for any loss/damage that may occur - most companies void your warranty for overclocking. It's a risk, and it's your risk - proceed with caution. Finally, overclocking is never a "guaranteed result". You may or may not match the results that we achieve. We'll be happy to offer suggestions if you need them, as will many of our forum members. Patience and research are part of overclocking as well, so please understand that you may have to do some work on your own. If you can accept those warnings, we hope that you enjoy this article.
Back in the day, overclocking was in some ways simpler than what we see now. You would typically buy a mid-range processor and then try to increase the bus speeds as much as possible in order to get the most performance out of your system. Older Pentium chips also allowed you to change the multiplier, so with some luck, you might get your 2.5X multiplier on a Pentium 166 up to 3.0X, resulting in a 33 MHz overclock. Other than a few special chips like the Pentium M and Athlon FX, increasing multipliers is no longer possible. The modification of bus speeds can still be used, but it isn't necessarily the best or only way to try to overclock your system. We have mentioned overclocking performance in many articles, but we haven't taken the time to really explore all the options out there. We also know that current Intel and AMD setups have very different options and performance when overclocking is used, so we want to look at that as well.
Before we branch out into AMD vs. Intel comparisons, however, let's talk about the past top performers. The Celeron 300A is fondly remembered by many people, and with good reason. Yes, we have had some other good parts in the intervening years, like the 2.4 GHz Northwood cores, the low end Prescott cores, and the Athlon XP-M Barton parts. However, when you look at the 50% overclock of the Celeron 300A (and it wasn't just possible, it was common), none of the other parts have really ever approached that level of overclocking without some serious investment in cooling options. (Some people even managed to get the 300A to 504 MHz - an amazing 68% overclock!) Northwood's 2.4 GHz to 3.2 GHz is still an impressive 33% overclock. The 2.4 GHz to 3.6 GHz Prescott overclock (using the 2.4A) actually matches the 50% of the 300A, but you sacrifice some features (HyperThreading and high FSB speeds) with the lower model parts. Meanwhile, the overclocking darling that was the XP-M 2500+ "only" managed a typical overclock of 1.87 GHz to 2.4 GHz, a 29% overclock.
That brings us to the part that we're investigating today. It is arguably the best overclocking platform since the old Celeron 300A: AMD's Venice core. One thing that we didn't mention above is the role that price plays for many overclockers. Sure, the Athlon-FX can reach clock speeds and performance that most other chips only dream about, but at a cost of roughly $900 just for the processor, a lot of people will only read about it. What made the 300A so attractive was that it was not only a monster overclocking chip, but it cost around $150 and competed with $500 chips. That's why the 2.4C and 2.4A Pentium 4 are also well regarded; they cost under $200 and could compete with chips that cost two to three times as much. The price of entry for the cheapest Venice core (the 3000+) is once again very low; $120 for the OEM model, or $145 for the retail version.
We'll get into the details more in a moment, but for now, we'll just say that the 3200+ may actually be a better choice, and that's what we are using for this article. We are also using the retail model, and some people will say that retail parts tend to overclock better than the OEM chips. We'll simulate 3000+ overclocking using a 9X CPU multiplier, but that may or may not be an entirely accurate representation of 3000+ overclocking performance. In general, though, what we're hearing is that almost all of the Venice cores can run at very high clock speeds with a bit of effort, so there isn't a huge difference between 3000+ parts binned for 1.8 GHz and 3800+ parts binned for 2.4 GHz. AMD has simply set the package to use a maximum 9X multiplier on the former and a 12X multiplier on the latter. Talking about CPU multipliers leads us into the real meat of the discussion, though, so let's get into it.
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.