Athlon Dual Core: Overclocking the 4200+

by Wesley Fink on 6/23/2005 1:00 AM EST
Comments Locked

53 Comments

Back to Article

  • 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 Boss
  • DigitalDivine - Sunday, June 26, 2005 - link

    What paper launch, the x2s have been in newegg for a week
  • val - 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...
  • cryptonomicon - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link

    #42 you are a moron. if their 4200 was really cherry picked, they would have it at 3ghz on air. i think this is valid. 2.6-2.7ghz is average ground on the DFI board with 90nm proc, and i see overclocking results every day. its not extordinary.

    end of story
  • DavidHull - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link

    This article is crap. As long as Anandtech uses cherry-picked processors directly from the manufacturer, it is no more than hired advertising. What happened to journalistic integrity? Do you think that AMD is going to send you a randomly picked processor from the line? How about you test my processor that I bought from a retailer and they we'll talk about how good XX CPU really is.

  • phaxmohdem - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link

    #38, I was kind of pissed about that myself, however I have to wonder, lots of times the prices chip manufacturers quote, are for retailers at a quantity of 1000 chips or more. Perhaps that is why? OR perhaps too many geeks spooged prematurely and are willing to shell out extra cash on inflated prices for new and top of the line shiznat. Who knows. All I know is I"m stuck on socket 940 for a while :(
  • Klaasman - Friday, June 24, 2005 - link

    I have tested Battlefield2 with 1 gig of ram and 2 gig of ram. With 1 gig, it uses about 675mb. With 2 gig, it uses about 750mb. And still has 725mb in swap. It should use more but don't for some reason.
  • miketheidiot - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    i agree with #17, rome: total war definately needs to be added to the game benchmarks, especailly for CPU tests. I'm not sure if its ram or processor limited, but it easily brings my 2.55ghz winchester and 1gig of ram to its knees in some of the larger battles.
  • yacoub - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    Btw I like how the AMD chart shows the 4200+ sold at around $530 but if you check the RTPE, the cheapest is $575 plus shipping. =P
  • SilthDraeth - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    I believe Val brings up interesting points. I would like to see benchmarks of identicly systems, except for the amount of RAM. This would prove if his perceptions have merit. I believe they do, but I do not have any benchmarks to prove it.
  • Gatak - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    #35

    You are right that overclocking is highly random. All chips are made with lots of things in mind. For example different target models, performance, and not to forget minimum life expectancy.

    If you overclock and stress the components you _WILL_ reduce the lifetime. Also, things like temperature also affect both achievable performance and lifetime. If you increase the temperature by 10c you would reduce the life expectancy by half!

    The amount you can overclock is usually the margin you have against lifetime and stability.
  • fishbits - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    "We have asked AMD for a 4400+ and 4800+ for comparison"

    OK, non-overclocker questions about that: My understanding that the overclocking of a chip can vary from production run to production run, and even individual CPU to individual CPU. So wouldn't any CPU (or GPU etc) manufacturer test some of their CPUs and set aside a box full of the best overclockers to be sent to review sites, to give the impression that that's what the average one can achieve? I guess this kind of arrangement is a necessity though so that you have a sample in a timely fashion.

    Granted in the real world there's money concerns, availability concerns, etc. But wouldn't it theoretically be better to buy a random one from a random vendor who doesn't know it's going to reviewers? If it is an issue in any way in OC situations, maybe it's worth noting early on that the sample was provided to the staff by the manufacturer, but then again perhaps that should go without saying.
  • val - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    ***75-80 percent of available main...****
  • val - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    also consider another thing. Many games and applications are never alocating all available memory, usually when they are well programmed, they are alocating for example 75-80 of available main memory and managing post loading of levels by own alghorytms. Testing now on 1 GB makes in many games no sense. Those games (for example battlefield 2, GTA,...) takes about 600 MB of RAM when you have only 1 GB but they takes with same settings up to 1 GB when you have two. Result? Less loading, no lags, smoother gameplay, higher performance.
    Here i am not calculating the case that windows can manage file cache so nicely when there is enough memory. In CS:S is loading another level than damn fast - result? You are first on to choose the side to play and you dont look half minute to loading screen.
    Gamer should never have less than 2000MB of ram when it costs damn <200€!
  • Gatak - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    I feel something is very strange with the 3D benchmarks. I thought that Maya, 3D Studio and SPECViewperf were made to support dual CPU systems - yet we see little improvement here.

    Is really dual CPU enabled in those applications?
  • ElFenix - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    what core is the 4000+?
  • val - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    Wesley, it is not truth that playing games are single threaded. Problem is that you are using only demo plays and not real gameplay.
    Internet play is hardly multitasking and can slow down single cpu lot, same for high quality sound card. Audigy drivers are nice multitasking and needs lot of CPU.
    You do not calculate with time needed for system managing the swap file and dynamic memory alocations, also very often and also nice multitasking.
    In real world, everybody is able to see difference. I am now not talking only about best frames per second (who cares them) but about minimal, about that lags, short drops, loading level times and so on!!!

    Who ever had dual cpu + at best dual scsi hdd machine, newer wants to go back. Fact that AMD is not able to produce at reasonable price and only trying us to think that we are buing PCs for benchmarks instead of hard gaming only shows they PR as BS.
    Many of us even likes to have some applications running while gaming, ever heard about VoiceIP tools, email applications?

    Thanks to intel to understanding that two slower cores are much better than useless single core PCs at any speed. At least in windows.
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    Houdani - We really want to do an article exactly as you describe, but we also have extremely limited Dual-Core samples. We have asked AMD for a 4400+ and 4800+ for comparison, but until supplies ease up a bit we don't have the processors for such an article.

    On page 1 the table specifies the speed, cache, and expected price of the x2 CPUs. We realize vendors are charging more in this early going, but that is nothing unusual. Our p.1 prices are where prices will settle after the first adopter flurry.
  • yacoub - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    #20 - Totally agree. For maybe $50 more you can get double the cache but does it overclock as well and what sort of performance gains does that net at equal overclocks?
  • Houdani - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    This article almost started out as a "which X2 is the best value" piece, but turned into an overclocking article for the 4200 without any real comparison for the performance of the 4200 vs 4400 vs 4600 vs 4800 vs Cost.

    I suppose we could probably fill in the blanks by looking at the previous article by Anand and compare it to this article by Wesley, but we'd still be left with trying to extrapolate the performance of the 4600 and 4800 at stock settings.

    Any chance we can get an article which puts all four of the current X2 processors on the same set of graphs with a performance per dollar blurb thrown in for good measure? Something like that would help the folks who are on the fence about spending the extra money for the 4400 over the 4200.

    Yeah, yeah, the easy answer it to spend the extra money for the extra cache of the 4400 -- after all, you're spending $550 to $600 already so another $50 likely won't break your bank. Even so, it'd still be nice to see the performance numbers to make our wallet feel better about itself. :)
  • KristopherKubicki - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    dumbnewbie: Yonah launches Q1'06, but Intel has plans for small factor motherboars one quarter later. So I would optimistically say Q2'06.

    Kristopher
  • fishbits - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    "$500 would get you started on an Intel i955 motherboard and cpu, so why would you invest in the end-of-the-road on AMD socket 939 and old DDR1? It's crazy."

    Because it outperforms the Intel option and doesn't necessitate a new motherboard like the Intel does?

    Why shouldn't folks take advantage of the upgrade capacity of 939 and its compatibility with X2? Or this i955 you speak of, you mean to say no one should ever upgrade the CPU they put in it, no option but 1 cpu per mobo ever? All chips/mobos are by definition "end-of-the-road?" If so, you'd be equally compelled to say Intel dual core and i955 is a futile path. If not, then you wouldn't see any problem with people upgrading their CPUs to X2.

    Tell you what, just buy your Intel dual core and (try to) be happy with it. In fact, their low-end DCs are pretty nice for the price... if you didn't have to buy a new mobo just to get in the door and can put up with relatively anemic performance in some areas. But even buying a new 939 board to get to X2 today, you're going to get an across-the-board powerhouse that'll last anyone 2 years and beyond depending on their upgrade strategies, especially with the OC results we've seen today. What's not to love if you can or will need the power and it fits in your budget?
  • Viditor - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    There are a few reviews out there already that compare a dual cpu vs dual core...
    http://tinyurl.com/8dt7r
  • Viditor - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    "$500 would get you started on an Intel i955 motherboard and cpu, so why would you invest in the end-of-the-road on AMD socket 939 and old DDR1? It's crazy"

    Because we're more interested in computers than space heaters? :-)
  • porkster - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    $500 would get you started on an Intel i955 motherboard and cpu, so why would you invest in the end-of-the-road on AMD socket 939 and old DDR1? It's crazy.

    .
  • dumbnewbie - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    Can anyone speculate as to when a <12" laptop would be made with a dualcore (if at all)?
  • LoneWolf15 - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    Would have been nice to see the X2 4400+ in this mix too. It would answer several questins:

    a)Do the 1MB caches make it harder to overclock, or does it still go as high as the 512k models?
    b)Will the extra cache make for a worthwhile performance increase over the 512k model for the extra $50 or so, and if it does, which apps could benefit the most?

    I think most of us won't be able to afford the $800-$1,000 chips, but if you're going to spend for the 4200+, you might consider spending the extra for the 4400+ if it yielded more benefits. It'd be worth knowing.
  • cryptonomicon - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    hmm, this isnt that interesting, except it shows that the chip can OC... but its logical to assume it could hit the 2.5-2.8ghz ceiling like most a64s on the market right now. it would have been impressive if it did 3g.


    now the more interesting thing was the TCCD overclock. to me this indicates that AMD has worked on creating a much more robust memory controller. that was the main weakness of the a64 chip, and with it improved, some amazing ram OCs will be possible.
  • yacoub - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    So is a 4200+ running at 2.64GHz a 5000+? :)
    Does that make a 4400+ at similar speeds a 5200+?
  • yacoub - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    *about to turn to Page 2*

    Sweet! I hope they stick Rome: Total War in their gaming test comparisons! I'd love to see if having a dual-core chip runs the game smoother during large battles, as that would directly influence my coming PC upgrade.

    *skips ahead quickly to Gaming Performance page and looks at game titles on charts*

    Oh well, maybe one day... =\
  • ceefka - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    Like Dubb said, it would be interesting to see how these X2's stack up against 2 CPU (Opteron and Xeon) workstations.

    I like the idea of a 4400+ in my new DAW. An X2 with the right chipset should be able to handle massive loads of multitrack audio, not just 5.1.

    Wesley, can you do a Thonex in the next dual-core Intel vs AMD comparison? A 2-3 year old PC would be brought to its knees, it's quite a heavy thing. The point is to get that whole load to play at the least possible latency and compare CPU-loads. Please include a nF3 board also when you do get to this.
  • Diasper - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    Aboput my point earlier - of course at this stage it may be somewhat problematic to check against all those questions as alot of things eg gaming will be testing only 1CPU etc - but suffice to say some sort of projections should be able to be made when we might have a game drawing on both CPUS simultaneously.

    A challenge :)

    Any game demos for dual cores out there to test against?
  • MAME - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    you should have included a stock 4800+ to the benchmarks for a good comparison
  • Diasper - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    Anandtech writers:

    A recent question that has come up alot (and is something I myself raised) is about the best type of overclock for the dual-core platform. This is particularly regards memory speed and timings and then also with an eye on upgrading to 2GB - if you've got to read Zebos stickied articles in CPU forum you'll know what I mean!

    So questions:
    - Is the dual-core bandwidth starved at DDR400 and does it benefit from more bandwidth? How much does it benefit (%)? At what speed does it no longer benefit from extra bandwidth/is not bandwidth starved?
    - How does changing this FSB relate to timings - which is of greater importance.
    - Overclocking with 2GB - alot of people will be looking to get 2GB with these dual-cores. So, in light of the above information what is apparently the best option: 2x 1GB sticks or 4x512MB? This has to bear in mind the inherent 1T vs 2T if using 4 sticks - this will be a good challenge to figure out with all the variables. How much does the 2T affect performance? However, more fundamentally, if the X2 is bandwidth starved upto what speed at 2T with 4 sticks can the memory controller handle? Can it be pushed enough? Does populating all 4 DIMMS cause any other problems/slowdowns - can test at DDR200 + then at overclocked speed (as far as it'll go)
    - Final questions, in comparing the 512kb to 1MB caches of the different dual-cores, how much advantage does 1MB provide - if bandwidth starved I'm guessing it may be of significant help as less going into RAM. Would timings and all the above questions I've asked affect the chips differently/different degrees given the different caches - if so then we could ask all the above questions again

    In short, I beleive we can't assume the old truths about single-core where only CPU speed mattered. Re-exploring the old assumptions of overclocking needs to be done.
  • Calin - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    Dubb, if I remember correctly there was an article with several single core and multicore processors from both AMD and Intel some time ago. However, I don't think power consumption was detailed much, and performance was tested only on server applications.

    And Jarred, "you're questions will be answered" should be "your questions will be answered"
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    Googer: Just to let you know, we'll be taking a close look at Venice overclocking soon. This is something of a high-end OC setup, where Venice is the price/performance king right now, seeing that you can get the 3000+ for under $150. So don't worry: you're questions will be answered (more or less) in a future article. :)
  • Bozo Galora - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    Once again, Anandtech has let its members down - offering a review that did not address the most basic comparison that a competent review would have included - how does the dual core AMD 4200 CPU stack up against dual Chinese Abacus manipulators, both working while high on methamphetamine, and not.

    Wesly, you are a Fink!
  • Dubb - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    This is all well and good and all, but I'm still surprised (and a little irratated) that no one (that I can find on the net anyway) has bothered to answer the questions that it would seem to be quite important:

    for those of us who have near-recent dual processor systems (that is, dual single core), how do these new dual cores stack up?

    I'd bet there are lots of folks out there like me (currently on dual 2.66 prestonias) who look at the new dual cores and think "that might be a cheap (comparitively speaking) upgrade"

    is the 4800+ stronger or weaker than a comparable 2x250 system? in what areas? how about the 3.2 pentium D vs a dual 3.2 nocona? comparison of power consumption? heat? decent 939 or 775 workstation boards?

    it would seem these chips are a possible boon to budget/mid range workstation buyers. But nobody's bothered to look at it from that perspective, aside from running specviewperf vs the single core, single socket chips (which doesn't really help much of anything)

    Grumpy dubb
  • 100proof - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    The performance statistics are nice and all, but I would assume the main questions resting on most people's minds at the moment are...

    1. When is supply not going to be an issue?
    2. When will the consumer be able to purchase these chips at the prices AMD has specified?

    Looking at the few retailers offering these chips for preorder, there is absolutely no shortage of price gouging. The average mark up from AMD's price is between $20-$100 on retail or oem offerings. =/
  • Wesley Fink - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    The 4000+ was the highest "Performance Rated" single-core CPU, which is why it was chosen for comparison. It has also been our standard CPU for motherboard testing for the past several months. Third, it just a little below the 4200+ in cost. So comparing the fastest "rated" single-core to the similarly priced and faster rated Dual-Core made some sense to us.

    Anand examined DC performance in the launch review, and this article is about overclocking the 4200+. The 4000+ is included just for reference, and there are a multitude of 4000+ benchmarks in motherboard reviews for comparison.

    If the performance ratings used by AMD mean anything at all, then the 4200+ should be faster. The 4200+ is faster in some applications than the 4000+ and a bit slower in others. Overall the performance rating seems fair in balance.

  • michaelpatrick33 - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    This also shows the headroom for a 5000+ and 5200+ model running at 2600 is within reach if 2700 is already being hit on air overclocking.
  • drpepper128 - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    With the 7800GTX review out and the card seeming to be CPU bound on some of the highest ends, I think it would be interesting to test out this processor in tandem with the 7800GTX.
  • Googer - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    I meant Toledo not Manchester
  • Googer - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    Correction:

    This is not an Apples to Apples compairison, This article should have compaired a 90nm Venice 2.2GHz 512k to a Manchester Dual Core 512k 2.2Ghz. Why was the 4000+ used as the compairison in an overclockability aricle? It does not even come from the same die.
  • Googer - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    This is not an Apples to Apples compairison, This article should have compaired a 90nm Venice 2.2GHz 512k to a Dual Core 512k x2 2.2Ghz. Why was the 4000+ used as the compairison for overclockability aricle?
  • Googer - Thursday, June 23, 2005 - link

    Lets get First POST Cr*P out of the way

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now