Investigations into Socket 939 Athlon 64 Overclocking
by Jarred Walton on October 3, 2005 4:35 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Closing Thoughts
This has been a huge undertaking, and we hope that you enjoy the results and overclocking information. Many guides of various forms already exist on the internet, but we really wanted to take a look at some of the options offered by the Venice core processors as well as trying to get by with value RAM instead of higher cost alternatives. After all, why save $60 on the CPU only to spend the same amount of money upgrading the RAM? So, other than a look at how to overclock, what have we learned?
The biggest deal for many people will be the results using standard PC-3200 RAM and higher memory dividers. While you won't be able to match the performance of a system that uses better quality RAM, the largest margin of victory was still under 10% (not counting instances where 2T command rates were used). The average was closer to 5%, and realistically, you won't notice a 5% performance loss. Outside of games, the performance losses attributed to value RAM are even less, with video encoding only losing a few percentages in speed. What it really comes down to is cost. We used a $190 CPU with $85 and $150 RAM. Going with a 3000+ and the value RAM saves almost $125 and should get you about 90 to 95% of the performance of the more expensive setup. That $125 could then be put towards a faster GPU, which will have a far greater impact on games than a 200 or even 400 MHz CPU upgrade.
Other than the value vs. quality RAM debate, what about the overall experience of overclocking this configuration? We were pretty impressed with the "budget" DFI motherboard. While I haven't personally used the Ultra-D, there were few problems on the Infinity that I couldn't deal with. Even with a good motherboard, though, overclocking can be exasperating at times. With value RAM rated at DDR400 2.5-3-3-8, it was at times difficult to get those timings even at speeds slightly below the rated DDR400, particularly on the high end of the overclocking scale. While I'd be willing to run 2.6 or even 2.7 GHz with the OCZ RAM, I have a feeling that long-term stability with the value RAM might require dropping to 2.5 to 2.6 GHz instead, or else increasing the timings to 3-3-3-8 or even 3-4-4-8. And speaking of timings, the 2T command rate should almost always be avoided. Results for a couple of settings were included, and overall, you would be better off running 100 or even 200 MHz slower with 1T command rate.
Something else that all of the graphs and results don't indicate is some of the oddities that can come up with overclocking. The SATA drive would sometimes make strange noises during the Windows XP boot sequence, almost like the HDD heads were seeking back and forth across the drive. Everything seems to indicate that the overclock is somehow to blame, and while a BIOS update might be able to address this particular issue, the end result is that XP would sometimes take up to 5 minutes to load at higher overclocks. Once loaded, everything worked fine, and the HDD was still running at full SATA spec. Another possible cause for delays in loading XP could be the networking subsystem. The testbed was connected to a gigabit switch, and we've experienced issues with network stability on overclocked PCs in the past. An MSI K8N Neo Platinum, for example, drops network connectivity after a day or two in many - but not all - overclocked configurations. We didn't experience this particular problem during testing of the DFI board, but it's something to look for on your own systems. Dropping the speed of the HyperTransport bus also helped avoid some - but not all - of the hard drive access delays. As we said, be prepared for some strange behavior now and then during overclocking.
The final comment that we want to make is about the long term viability of overclocking. We started this article with a warning, and we'll end it the same way. While we haven't encountered problems with the CPU yet, that doesn't mean that the chip won't simply die in a few weeks, months, or hopefully, not for years. Higher voltages in particular can affect CPU life, as they can accelerate electron drift. As we couldn't get to 2.7 GHz without running at 1.750V, we're a little hesitant to recommend that speed as a long-term solution. Given that 2.6 GHz is, at worst, only 4% slower, we'd recommend that as a better solution and go with the 1.650V setting. That's similar to how Intel supposedly binned CPUs back in the socket 7 days: they would reportedly increase CPU clock speeds until the chips failed, and then sell them two bins below the maximum stable clock speed. Whether that's rumor or in truth how they operate (operated?), running at speeds slightly slower than your "stable" maximum will be preferred by many. Crashing even every couple of days or once a week is too reminiscent of the Windows 95 era.
We've tried to get across the point that there are no guarantees with overclocking. Even with that disclaimer, we're pretty confident that the vast majority of Athlon 64 Venice chips will run at 2.4 GHz, and probably even 2.6 GHz. It may require higher voltages, better cooling, or relaxed memory timings, but with the right combination of parts, it's a relatively safe bet. Worst case scenario, try running at 3-4-4-9-2T memory timings, then try running at those timings and PC2700 or even PC2100 on the RAM. If it's still unstable, it might be your motherboard or some other factor holding you back. Even a 15% overclock is still pretty good, though, and you can probably get that without any special equipment other than an enthusiast motherboard.
That closes up this overclocking article. We have several similar articles planned, though we're interested in feedback from the readers. Was this too superficial? Do you want more details on tweaking memory timings beyond what we've mentioned? Or is the mix of benchmarks, settings, and results about right? Let us know. This article was long, with a large portion dedicated to introducing the uninitiated to the art and practice of overclocking. Future articles in this series will focus more on the end results and refer back to the concepts presented here. As always, any recommendations and comments are welcome.
This has been a huge undertaking, and we hope that you enjoy the results and overclocking information. Many guides of various forms already exist on the internet, but we really wanted to take a look at some of the options offered by the Venice core processors as well as trying to get by with value RAM instead of higher cost alternatives. After all, why save $60 on the CPU only to spend the same amount of money upgrading the RAM? So, other than a look at how to overclock, what have we learned?
The biggest deal for many people will be the results using standard PC-3200 RAM and higher memory dividers. While you won't be able to match the performance of a system that uses better quality RAM, the largest margin of victory was still under 10% (not counting instances where 2T command rates were used). The average was closer to 5%, and realistically, you won't notice a 5% performance loss. Outside of games, the performance losses attributed to value RAM are even less, with video encoding only losing a few percentages in speed. What it really comes down to is cost. We used a $190 CPU with $85 and $150 RAM. Going with a 3000+ and the value RAM saves almost $125 and should get you about 90 to 95% of the performance of the more expensive setup. That $125 could then be put towards a faster GPU, which will have a far greater impact on games than a 200 or even 400 MHz CPU upgrade.
Other than the value vs. quality RAM debate, what about the overall experience of overclocking this configuration? We were pretty impressed with the "budget" DFI motherboard. While I haven't personally used the Ultra-D, there were few problems on the Infinity that I couldn't deal with. Even with a good motherboard, though, overclocking can be exasperating at times. With value RAM rated at DDR400 2.5-3-3-8, it was at times difficult to get those timings even at speeds slightly below the rated DDR400, particularly on the high end of the overclocking scale. While I'd be willing to run 2.6 or even 2.7 GHz with the OCZ RAM, I have a feeling that long-term stability with the value RAM might require dropping to 2.5 to 2.6 GHz instead, or else increasing the timings to 3-3-3-8 or even 3-4-4-8. And speaking of timings, the 2T command rate should almost always be avoided. Results for a couple of settings were included, and overall, you would be better off running 100 or even 200 MHz slower with 1T command rate.
Something else that all of the graphs and results don't indicate is some of the oddities that can come up with overclocking. The SATA drive would sometimes make strange noises during the Windows XP boot sequence, almost like the HDD heads were seeking back and forth across the drive. Everything seems to indicate that the overclock is somehow to blame, and while a BIOS update might be able to address this particular issue, the end result is that XP would sometimes take up to 5 minutes to load at higher overclocks. Once loaded, everything worked fine, and the HDD was still running at full SATA spec. Another possible cause for delays in loading XP could be the networking subsystem. The testbed was connected to a gigabit switch, and we've experienced issues with network stability on overclocked PCs in the past. An MSI K8N Neo Platinum, for example, drops network connectivity after a day or two in many - but not all - overclocked configurations. We didn't experience this particular problem during testing of the DFI board, but it's something to look for on your own systems. Dropping the speed of the HyperTransport bus also helped avoid some - but not all - of the hard drive access delays. As we said, be prepared for some strange behavior now and then during overclocking.
The final comment that we want to make is about the long term viability of overclocking. We started this article with a warning, and we'll end it the same way. While we haven't encountered problems with the CPU yet, that doesn't mean that the chip won't simply die in a few weeks, months, or hopefully, not for years. Higher voltages in particular can affect CPU life, as they can accelerate electron drift. As we couldn't get to 2.7 GHz without running at 1.750V, we're a little hesitant to recommend that speed as a long-term solution. Given that 2.6 GHz is, at worst, only 4% slower, we'd recommend that as a better solution and go with the 1.650V setting. That's similar to how Intel supposedly binned CPUs back in the socket 7 days: they would reportedly increase CPU clock speeds until the chips failed, and then sell them two bins below the maximum stable clock speed. Whether that's rumor or in truth how they operate (operated?), running at speeds slightly slower than your "stable" maximum will be preferred by many. Crashing even every couple of days or once a week is too reminiscent of the Windows 95 era.
We've tried to get across the point that there are no guarantees with overclocking. Even with that disclaimer, we're pretty confident that the vast majority of Athlon 64 Venice chips will run at 2.4 GHz, and probably even 2.6 GHz. It may require higher voltages, better cooling, or relaxed memory timings, but with the right combination of parts, it's a relatively safe bet. Worst case scenario, try running at 3-4-4-9-2T memory timings, then try running at those timings and PC2700 or even PC2100 on the RAM. If it's still unstable, it might be your motherboard or some other factor holding you back. Even a 15% overclock is still pretty good, though, and you can probably get that without any special equipment other than an enthusiast motherboard.
That closes up this overclocking article. We have several similar articles planned, though we're interested in feedback from the readers. Was this too superficial? Do you want more details on tweaking memory timings beyond what we've mentioned? Or is the mix of benchmarks, settings, and results about right? Let us know. This article was long, with a large portion dedicated to introducing the uninitiated to the art and practice of overclocking. Future articles in this series will focus more on the end results and refer back to the concepts presented here. As always, any recommendations and comments are welcome.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
101 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Sorry if I missed this in the article. The reason a 3200+ may be better is the 10X multiplier vs. 9X. Sure, the DFI board used worked pretty well at either setting, but there are many boards that won't handle much above 250 MHz CPU bus stably. Needless to say, there's a reason 2800 MHz was only included at one setting. While it still wasn't stable, it would actually run most benchmarks at 10x280. 9x311 wouldn't even load Windows half the time. The extra $50 for added flexibility is also nice: you can try 9x300, 10x270, PC3200, PC2700, etc. to find the most stable, highest performing option.Bakwetu - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Thanks for a great article. I haven't been following the development so carefully since I upgraded last time (with one of the last unlocked Barton 2500+), so this article was a most welcome refresher for me, as I will probably get a x2 3800 rig in the near future.Last time I checked using the naked fingertip to smear out the paste was a big no-no. I have always used either a washed razorblade or fingertip in a clean plastic bag. The Arctic silver once sold without silver was a faked, copied product as far as I know. The real stuff in its many forms over the years has definitely shown that it is a good product.
javalino - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Frist , great article, Jarred.Second, i m an anand fan since i remember (1999-2000).
Third, Since yours conclusion focus on a dilema about overclock, why spend to much in an overclock symtem(or on a powerfull system) if you target is at games ? (wich is a GPU limited). An 125 bucks , like you said, will be more usefull in a video card.
My idea is an article, about "Benefits, Costs, and Lessons Learned" about build a system for games. How much will be a performance gain from systems running high end cards ,at high resoltion and configurations ( like 1600 x 1200, and with an extra 4xAA 16XAF), with differents system . A FX VS 64(overclock) VS P4 (over) VS P-M VS AMD XP (over of course), for example. The conclusion will be, how much is "needed" to pay for a decent game machine wich is possible to play all current games(and maybe future) with great image quality and performance.
Maybe the answer is obvious, go with the best FPS/price option possible, or maybe not.
AtaStrumf - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link
Great article Jarred!!! I really like your choice of value parts and how you criticaly assesed the results based on the bang-for-the-buck. And finally you did away with pages and pages of bar charts, and combined them into line-scaling charts. How long have I been asking for something like that??? Now we can finally see the REAL difference (or lack of it), and analyse results properly, without having to go back and forth between tens of bar charts. Tell Anand to upgrade your graphing engine ASAP.I am a little worried about those voltages though. This sure looks like a bad chip to me (OC wise). WAY too high voltages. I would not go over 1,45 - 1,50 V or else you risk screwing up the chip. You see the memory controller on the chip doesn't like too high voltages and though it will still work, the chip will get slower eventually. Hard to explain really but I know my new 2,2 GHz A64 is faster and much cooler than my old 2,4 GHz A64 (same core - Newcastle, same cooer, same RPM, same case, same ...), which I bought from some crazy overclocker (last time BTW). The 2,4 GHz one gave me really shitty results in FAH for weeks. That's the only explanation a have so far anyway. Maybe you can do an investigaion into this -- burn in one A64 Venice at say 1,6V 24/7 for a few weeks and let's see what happens. I just don't have the $$$ and time to take the risk. I'd be very happy to hear from other forum members on this as well.
Anyway, glad to see at least part of AT is back to the high quality standards we were used to.
AtaStrumf - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link
Or maybe it's the SOI process that is to blame for not taking high voltages too kindly, or maybe both, don't know yet, but I would definitely advice caution goint over 1,5V (default for 0,13 mikron SOI chips). Just think about it, that's already a 15% increase. +10% is usualy max that is still considered safe.You just posted that this chip seems to have changed it's behavior (better OC). That may have something to do with the high voltages and it may not be all good. I'd suggest testing it again in a few benchmarks and comparing the results.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Working on it. I think I ended up benching at 1.850V for the 10x280 setting and then not dropping voltages as much as I was supposed to. I'm a little skeptical that a CPU would get slower, though. Usually, they work or they fail. We'll see.My thought on the "safe limit" though: what voltage does the FX-57 run at? Whatever it is, at 10 to 15% to that and you're probably still okay. Good cooling will also help; on the stock HSF, I'd be a lot more nervous going over 1.550V.
OvErHeAtInG - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link
Very useful article - thorough yet concise. And I would like to toss in another request: Add to the test a ULi-based motherboard (such as the recently reviewed ASRock 939Dual-SATA2). How do these Venices overclock when you can only feed them +.05v? As I recall the standard AT Clawhammer was used in that review.That would be hugely useful to a lot of us wanting to transition to A64. While the thing to do is probably just get a DFI or other top-end oc'er, what to do for those of us who are not yet ready to upgrade GPUs? On second thought: you could simulate the ASRock motherboard by simply setting the Venices to the lower voltage, on the DFI board, and testing for the max overclock on that. I think that would vary quite a bit from chip to chip, but just to get an idea - how much of a disadvantage is being limited in your voltage? Food for thought.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link
I played around with voltages a bit more last night. It seems like I can hit about 2.40 GHz with only increasing the CPU voltage to 1.40V, though I didn't run all of the benchmarks to fully test that config. I'm not sure if the CPU has changed behavior over the past month, or if I was just too liberal with the voltages initially.For the ASRock, that Wes managed to get a 500 MHz OC even with the minimal voltage adjustments is promising. Truth be told, the DFI Infinity seems to undervolt the CPU slightly, so 1.500V actually shows up as closer to 1.455V. If the ASRock is exact with the voltages, or even a bit high, I think a 2.4+ GHz overclock is a reasonably safe bet.
OvErHeAtInG - Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - link
Thanks for the info, Jarred. I'm sure there's a thread on this somewhere.... :)araczynski - Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - link
i haven't seen a better argument for not wasting money on the 'better' memory in ages.with those kinds of 'gains' i congratulate the companies for milking everyone with their markups for the 'higher end' components.