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
edlight - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
I've found a way to overclock and retain the Power Now/Cool'n'Quiet.I let the motherboard do it's Cool'n'Quiet thing but I don't load the AMD driver. I run CrystalCPUID, which lets me set up the multiplier and voltage of each of the 3 cpu steps.
The voltage setting of the motherboard, for my Gigabyte, has to be on Auto for Crystal to be able to change it.
The highest Crystal can go with my 1.4v 3000+ Winnie is 1.45v.
This let me take it up to 3800+ -- a speed of 2.4. 240 x 10.
So it's running at 1.2 -- 240 x 5 -- most of the time. I set it at 1.2v there and froze it there and p95'd it overnight, as I did to the other 2 speeds.
For me this is a great compromise between running "cool 'n quiet" and high performance.
It's only a small percentage speed jump to 2.6, but requires alot of voltage and heat.
I can't say what the maximum voltage would be for a Venice. Crystal lets me choose higher voltages than 1.45, but it doesn't actually set them.
RaulAssis - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link
Some people reported that the Cool 'n' Quiet feature could work in a OC system. Maybe not all bioses support correct scaling of voltages when the system is OC and the Cool 'n' Quiet feature is turned on.JarredWalton - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link
With any moderate OC, CnQ is going to cause problems. It dynamically adjusts multipliers and voltages... something that will usually screw up an overclocked system. I would strongly discourage trying to use CnQ with an OC'ed setup. Some motherboard BIOSes actually disable CnQ automatically if you enable overclocking features.mrmoti - Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - link
If I understand correctly:Performance RAM running at DDR400 2-2-2-8 and Value RAM running at DDR400 2.5-3-3-8
At same OC on the processor, Performance RAM outperformed the Value RAM by 5% to 10%, being the price something between 80% to 100% more.
So, what's the impact of runnig faster memory at high lateny? Say DDR500 at 3-4-4-8
Because looking at the table of estimated latencies, (Performance) DDR400 2-2-2-5 has an estimated latency of 46.5, where (Value) DDR400 2.5-3-3-7 has an estimated latency of 49.75, an improve of 6.5% being in the range of 5% to 10% better.
By the same table, DDR500 3-4-4-8 has an estimated latency of 42.4, an improvement of 8.8% over the Performance DDR400 and 14.7% over the Value DDR400, based only in latencies.
Can anybody run a benchmark confirming/denying this?
Being the case that the price of DDR500 with those timings is in the middle between Performance and Value RAM
T Rush - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link
One of the main focuses of this article seems to be value -vs- performance RAMs when over clocking, but you chose to run the performance RAM at settings where is doesn't perform, shame on you Jarred Walton, very disappointedIf you look at the settings you used to test the two RAMs at...
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/amd/athlon...">http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu...niceover...
...you see that the MAX speed you where able to run the OCZ Rev2 at was not in it's "performance envelope", as the OCZ Rev2 is one of the worst performers in this speed range http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=256...">http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=256... <OCZ Rev2 at 266MHz, and all the other "performance RAMs" beat it
But if you look at how the OCX Rev2 does work at much higher speeds, where it does perform...
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=256...">http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=256...
...you find that it is performing much differently than what you tested at, and would have shown a much larger performance lead over the value RAM
How did you get this on to Anandtech? How could you show such a bad comparison of value -vs- performance RAM on a site which has always shown so much information about how these RAMs perform?
I not only blame you, but also the editors for not catching how badly you have managed to make performance RAM look. It is clear you were trying to prove that cheap RAM can falsely perform as well as high-end performance RAMs. If you truly wanted to show what performance RAM can do when over clocking you either needed to run the OCZ Rev2 at much faster speeds, or use a different performance RAM that works well at the sub 270MHz speeds you tested at.
JarredWalton - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link
This is one set of RAM run through extensive tests on one platform. I've seen the same RAM run faster in some other systems, but not a whole lot. Just because some DIMMs reach DDR636 doesn't mean that all of them do. I could run this RAM at 3-4-4-8-2T timings at DDR600, but it actually ran worse than 2.5-3-3-8-1T with the lower memory ratio.What is clear is that I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. I was running some comparison tests with a system using two different types of RAM, and I'm sorry that you don't like the results. What I did prove was that someone one a budget could build a very fast system. An FX or San Diego core with higher quality RAM and a better motherboard would be better overall, but price/performance it would get stomped by this <$1000 setup.
T Rush - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link
I don't find the OCZ Rev2 to be a good example of the high performance RAM everyone thinks it is, as it doesn’t perform well at the speeds you (and most everyone else) use…not compared to other good over clocking RAMsGranted some of the other performance RAMs do cost much more than the value RAMs, and even more than the OCZ Rev2, but they would have shown a greater performance difference than the value RAM which in your tests was not able to run any faster than its stock rated speeds or timings
Your testing shows that running RAM at faster speeds adds very little performance over stock speed value RAM, and that is because the timings/speed relationships of that peculiar performance RAM at those peculiar higher speeds were not good.
As I said before, all the other performance RAMs beat it, and perform much better at speeds under 270MHz than the OCZ Rev2 does
Using the right RAM at the right speeds to run the best timings is the true art to over clocking, as RAM timings and speeds can allow the AMD64 to perform at much higher levels when over clocked
I do not disagree with your results, as that is how those RAMs perform:
Value RAM only being able to run its rated speeds and timings, not being able to over clock at all.
OCZ Rev2 running at higher speeds but with such bad timings that it shows very little performance gains unless you are able to run it at CAS 2.5 in the 300MHz range
I am not a fan of the OCZ Rev2 because of this, but I am a fan of performance RAM over value RAM, even on a budget system.
If you read clue22’s reply “so basically what the everybody is saying about the value RAM vs. low latency more expensive RAM is that for the athlon 64 it is basically a waste of money (i.e. you only get about 5% performance gain), but usually spend 100% or more money to get the "better" RAM.”
…and cyptonomicon’s “and its nice to see those ram comparisons. good to see those results on the latest a64 platform and confirm once again that the ram makes only a few percentage points difference”
…next intellon’s “I understand how/why the memory quality is not too imoprtant (5-9% increase for 100 bucks = not worthy)”
Clearly by using the OCZ Rev2 you did not show what spending a little bit more for better performing RAM can do. You have shown that running RAM at speeds with timings where it doesn’t perform well is a waste of money, but this does not answer any questions about value -vs- performance RAM
JarredWalton - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link
I've got X2 benchmarks with four different types of RAM in the works:OCZ VX
OCZ Plat Rev2 (TCCD)
Mushkin Value
PDP 2x1GB 2-3-2-5-1T
Other than the fact that 2GB of RAM helps out certain tasks (BF2 load times!), the total performance difference with those configurations is still not huge. With a 3.5V RAM voltage, the VX would do better, but even then the difference isn't above 10%.
T Rush - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
for a budget system I would say the socket 754 is better...as the motherboards and CPUs are cheaper...and you can get ClawHammer CPUs with the larger performance 1MB L2 cachethe only thing you miss out on with the 754 is the dual channel memory mode(which only adds very little performance anyway)...but by over clocking the core:memory speed you can easily match the performance gained by the greater bandwidth of the dual channel mode (this could be why the socket 939 doesn't show large gains from overclocking with the memory 'in-sync'..as it can't use all the bandwidth the faster memory gives)
with a mid-range system you could pick a 10X multi 3200+ Venice, or even a 11X multi 3500+ Venice(either of those would have a much better CPU multi for overclocking than the 3000+'s 9X multi) which would allow you to keep the HTT/HTL speed at a more reasonable level(270MHz and 245MHz to reach 2.7GHz CPU speed...where a 9X multi CPU would need a 300MHz HTT speed to run the CPU that fast)
...but the 3200+ and 3500+ are costing $190 to $250...so for not much more you could have a performance San Diego core on the 939 platform (3700+ 11X multi SD is only $267 now)
...so for $80 to $40 more I would go for the larger San Diego core...I would also spend the ~$20 more for CAS 2 RAM (over $90 Value RAM)...thats like just $100...for a computer with much better parts...and say you use this system for 18 months, that works out to less than $6 a month for a using higher quality parts
Deathcharge - Saturday, October 15, 2005 - link
Jarred this was a great article and did come at a great time as i am in the market for buying a bang for the buck system. One thing you didnt mention (although i saw that in the CPU-z screen shots) is the CPU steppinghttp://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/default.as...">http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/default.as...
the 3200+ venice core comes in 3 different stepping and i belive the one you used in your article is the E3 stepping which is being replaced with the E6 stepping. Any info on how well the new stepping OC? initial reports from around the net indicate that it doesnt OC very well for some reason would love to read your comments on this.
Do you know if it is possible to OC to 2500 or 2600O with stock HSF as i would really like to save the money spent on the TT-90 and get a 7800GT (as opposed to x800xl). one final thing would OCZ value VX require active cooling?
thanks and keep up the good work, really enjoyed reading it and would look forward to future articles