Investigations into Socket 939 Athlon 64 Overclocking
by Jarred Walton on October 3, 2005 4:35 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
BIOS Settings
Once everything is working properly and you're sure that the PC doesn't have any problems, it's time to approach the actual process of overclocking. You might want to give the PC a few days of heavy use (system burn-in) just to be sure that it's stable. All of the FutureMark benchmarking utilities are a good start for stress testing a system, and if you buy the registered versions, you can set them to loop continually - at least, the 3DMark versions can be looped; a quick batch file will get the PCMark applications to loop as well. If you can loop 3DMark03/05 and PCMark04/05 for several days, you can be relatively sure that the computer is running stable. We'll use that same approach later to stress test our overclocked configurations.
Here's where things get more complex, and virtually every motherboard BIOS is going to be at least slightly different from what we present here. If you have a socket 939 motherboard, you'll need to refer to its manual (or figure out where the settings are on your own), but most of the names and/or values will be similar to what DFI uses. The key areas that will need adjustment for overclocking are the CPU bus speed, CPU multiplier, HyperTransport (HT) multiplier, memory speed, memory timings, and voltages for RAM, CPU, chipset, etc. Let's cover each of these quickly to explain the process. We'll include BIOS images from our particular motherboard, so you can look for the matching setting in whatever board you're using.
The CPU bus speed is also referred to by other names. The DFI board labels it "CPU Frequency", while you may find HyperTransport Frequency in many BIOSes. (Some people will also call it the "Front Side Bus speed", which is not technically correct.) CPU Frequency, CPU Bus, HT Bus, etc. all mean the same thing, as the CPU communicates over an HT bus. Along with the CPU multiplier, there is also a HT multiplier (also called LDT - Lightning Data Transport - multiplier in some BIOSes). Most socket 939 motherboards support a 1000MHz HT speed, which is a 5X HT multiplier with a 200MHz base clock. The HyperTransport bus is sensitive to overclocking, so we need to keep its total speed in check. You may be able to run the HT bus at over 1000 MHz, but depending on motherboard and cooling, you will begin to have problems beyond a certain point. We'll keep our HT bus speed at or below 1050MHz by adjusting the HT multiplier as we increase the CPU bus speed (and we may at times drop lower if that brings stability). We can use the 4X multiplier with up to a 260MHz bus, and 3X will get us up to a 350MHz CPU bus (which is more than what most people are likely to reach, and more than what we'll test in this particular article). It is also possible to adjust the width of the HT bus from 16-bits up and down to 8-bits, but rarely does that help stabilize an overclock, so we'll leave it at 16/16.
We've covered the CPU and HT speed adjustments, but there's more to it than simply picking a target clock speed. In order to reach a stable overclock, you will often need additional voltage to the CPU and chipset - which affects the CPU speed and HT bus speed respectively. The default voltage of our Venice chip is 1.300V, but we will definitely increase the voltage as we go beyond a 10% overclock. Extreme overclocking (with liquid Nitrogen or phase change cooling) might go so far as to double the CPU voltages, but on air cooling that would be disastrous (not to mention few if any motherboards would even support that in the first place). We'll report the voltages required for each setting later on, but there are really two voltages: what we set in the BIOS, and what we actually get from the system. They may or may not be the same.
Something else that you should disable while in the BIOS is the Cool 'n Quiet feature of the Athlon 64. As that alters CPU voltage and multipliers dynamically in response to demand, it doesn't usually agree with overclocking. We also disable video and BIOS caching, as those are more relics of the DOS era than useful features (as far as we're aware). If you're interested in seeing the default settings that we used on the remaining BIOS screens, we have all the BIOS screens available for download in a Zip file.
Once everything is working properly and you're sure that the PC doesn't have any problems, it's time to approach the actual process of overclocking. You might want to give the PC a few days of heavy use (system burn-in) just to be sure that it's stable. All of the FutureMark benchmarking utilities are a good start for stress testing a system, and if you buy the registered versions, you can set them to loop continually - at least, the 3DMark versions can be looped; a quick batch file will get the PCMark applications to loop as well. If you can loop 3DMark03/05 and PCMark04/05 for several days, you can be relatively sure that the computer is running stable. We'll use that same approach later to stress test our overclocked configurations.
Here's where things get more complex, and virtually every motherboard BIOS is going to be at least slightly different from what we present here. If you have a socket 939 motherboard, you'll need to refer to its manual (or figure out where the settings are on your own), but most of the names and/or values will be similar to what DFI uses. The key areas that will need adjustment for overclocking are the CPU bus speed, CPU multiplier, HyperTransport (HT) multiplier, memory speed, memory timings, and voltages for RAM, CPU, chipset, etc. Let's cover each of these quickly to explain the process. We'll include BIOS images from our particular motherboard, so you can look for the matching setting in whatever board you're using.
Click to enlarge.
The CPU bus speed is also referred to by other names. The DFI board labels it "CPU Frequency", while you may find HyperTransport Frequency in many BIOSes. (Some people will also call it the "Front Side Bus speed", which is not technically correct.) CPU Frequency, CPU Bus, HT Bus, etc. all mean the same thing, as the CPU communicates over an HT bus. Along with the CPU multiplier, there is also a HT multiplier (also called LDT - Lightning Data Transport - multiplier in some BIOSes). Most socket 939 motherboards support a 1000MHz HT speed, which is a 5X HT multiplier with a 200MHz base clock. The HyperTransport bus is sensitive to overclocking, so we need to keep its total speed in check. You may be able to run the HT bus at over 1000 MHz, but depending on motherboard and cooling, you will begin to have problems beyond a certain point. We'll keep our HT bus speed at or below 1050MHz by adjusting the HT multiplier as we increase the CPU bus speed (and we may at times drop lower if that brings stability). We can use the 4X multiplier with up to a 260MHz bus, and 3X will get us up to a 350MHz CPU bus (which is more than what most people are likely to reach, and more than what we'll test in this particular article). It is also possible to adjust the width of the HT bus from 16-bits up and down to 8-bits, but rarely does that help stabilize an overclock, so we'll leave it at 16/16.
We've covered the CPU and HT speed adjustments, but there's more to it than simply picking a target clock speed. In order to reach a stable overclock, you will often need additional voltage to the CPU and chipset - which affects the CPU speed and HT bus speed respectively. The default voltage of our Venice chip is 1.300V, but we will definitely increase the voltage as we go beyond a 10% overclock. Extreme overclocking (with liquid Nitrogen or phase change cooling) might go so far as to double the CPU voltages, but on air cooling that would be disastrous (not to mention few if any motherboards would even support that in the first place). We'll report the voltages required for each setting later on, but there are really two voltages: what we set in the BIOS, and what we actually get from the system. They may or may not be the same.
Something else that you should disable while in the BIOS is the Cool 'n Quiet feature of the Athlon 64. As that alters CPU voltage and multipliers dynamically in response to demand, it doesn't usually agree with overclocking. We also disable video and BIOS caching, as those are more relics of the DOS era than useful features (as far as we're aware). If you're interested in seeing the default settings that we used on the remaining BIOS screens, we have all the BIOS screens available for download in a Zip file.
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.