Power and Heat

One area that we overlooked last time was the system power draw as well as the CPU temperature. We spent some additional time measuring these items with the X2. Total power draw was measured at the wall using a Kill-A-Watt device. We used a batch file to run 3DMark03, 3DMark05, PCMark04, and PCMark05 sequentially. The maximum power draw invariably came during 3DMark05, with all three game tests falling very close together. Test 1 (Return to Proxycon) and test 2 (Firefly Forest) typically registered a few Watts higher than test 3 (Canyon Flight ), though this trend may not hold with other system configurations. Also, since we were overclocking, AMD's Cool 'n Quiet feature was disabled - it tends to interfere with overclocking efforts.

In addition to measuring the power draw, we used NVIDIA's nTune System Monitor to record temperatures of the chipset and processor. While we would be hesitant to use the results from nTune across different motherboards due to potential variance, since we are only using one motherboard, the values are measured consistently. The temperatures were measured using the same series of tests, with the 3DMark05 CPU test causing the highest recorded temperatures. (Note that the benchmark results for Futuremark products were collected in a separate run of these tests so that nTune wouldn't impact the results.)

We only recorded temperatures and power draw for one configuration, using the OCZ VX RAM - staring at a Watt meter for 20 minutes per configuration was already bad enough! Informal checks on other configurations showed that the results were consistent - additional RAM in the 2GB configurations drew a bit more power, but CPU and chipset temperatures were within 1 degree Celsius. Also, unlike the remaining benchmarks, we verified the voltage requirements, power draw, and temperatures at every setting in 100 MHz increments.

Power and Temperatures
OCZ Gold VX PC4000 2x512MB
CPU Clock CPU Voltage CPU Temp Chipse Voltage Chipset Temp System Power Draw
2000 1.300 34.00 1.50 38 248
2100 1.350 36.00 1.50 38 260
2200 1.350 36.00 1.50 38 262
2300 1.350 39.00 1.50 38 266
2400 1.400 44.00 1.60 39 275
2500 1.475 47.00 1.60 39 290
2600 1.500 48.00 1.60 41 298
2700 1.700 72.00 1.70 47 369


For those who prefer a graphical representation of the data, here are the charts for the above table.


It comes as no surprise that both the power draw and CPU temperatures increase as clock speed and voltage increase. The jump from 2.6 GHz to 2.7 GHz comes with a dramatic change in CPU temperature, and we would definitely advise against running this particular CPU at 2.7 GHz without additional cooling. Voltage and heat are good indicators of the maximum stable speed for a CPU, so if you're trying to find your own CPU's sweet spot, you can do so by increasing speed in 100 MHz increments. Run a few CPU intensive tests at each point to verify that the system is "stable" - Futuremark products are pretty good as an overall system stress test. Lather, rinse, and repeat. Slight increases in CPU voltage (and chipset voltage) will usually be required as the clock speed is raised, but eventually you reach a point where the next 100 MHz bump requires a substantial voltage change and comes with much higher temperatures.

Looking at our chart, you can see that most of the 100 MHz increases required a 0.00 to 0.050 CPU voltage increase. From 2.4 GHz to 2.6 GHz, we had to add 0.10V, but that's still not too bad. The last 100 MHz to reach 2.7 GHz required an additional 0.20V - four times as much per MHz as the previous step! We also tried every voltage from 1.500V to the maximum 1.850V and were unable to get the system fully stable at 2.7 GHz. That's a lot of voltage for a CPU rated at 1.300V, but we gave it a shot anyway. For most people, we'd say 1.500V is the safe limit on air cooling, though some people will feel okay pushing a bit further. We also recommend that you try to keep 90nm AMD chip temperatures under 50 degrees C. As you can see, the 2.7 GHz speed exceeds both of these thresholds, and it doesn't even do so with full stability. 2.6 GHz, on the other hand. falls in line with these limits and ran without any difficulty - at least with our particular setup.

One final note is that the power draw and temperatures can vary a lot with the task. Most games showed similar maximum power draw to 3DMark05 in informal testing, but usually only under high-stress situations. HL2 ranged from about 205W maximum at 800x600 0xAA to 262W maximum at 1600x1200 4xAA (with a CPU clock speed of 2.20 GHz). The average power draw under load was also quite a bit lower than the peak values reported; generally, average power was 15 to 25 Watts lower than the maximum.

By the way, yes, we are aware that measuring power at the outlet is not the same as measuring the output power of the PSU. Power supply inefficiencies come into play, but since we're only using one PSU (and this isn't a power supply test), the numbers are still valid. An inefficient power supply will draw more power from the wall, but the results shown are internally consistent.

System Settings RAM Latency
Comments Locked

46 Comments

View All Comments

  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link

    This may seem like a stupid question, but you did copy the SuperPi executable into two separate folders, right? Otherwise, the two running processes overwrite each others' data and one will always fail. Anyway, I don't find SuperPi to be a very useful stress test compared to Folding@Home, Prime95, and several other utilities; it just doesn't stress the system out that much IMO.
  • Yianaki - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link

    Yes of course it is in two folders. I realized that the SECOND time I did it Heh.
  • Leper Messiah - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link

    Thats actually a good thing, my X2 3800 does 2.65 at 1.425 vcore stable a rock. Looks like this x2 test is a good average indicator instead of most reviews which have the nice cherry picked silicon.
  • JustAnAverageGuy - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link

    Yeah, My Opteron 165 seems to top off at around 2.6GHz with the stock cooler.
  • Araemo - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link

    If you buy a socket 939 opteron, will it work in a normal NF4/etc mobo?

    A dual core opteron is tempting if it will work in the standard enthusiast motherboards. Get a nice heatsink and get it nice and toasty, I could turn my heater back off. :) And I hope 2GB RAM sticks go down in price within the next 9 months.. I'm still debating between a sweet laptop or a good overclocker desktop for my next computer, the desktop would be much cheaper, for sure, but it is a pain to take to LAN parties.
  • JustAnAverageGuy - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link

    Most NF4 motherboards support the S939 Opteron, yes. Check the manufacturer's site to confirm though.
  • Googer - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link

    I found it a bit humourous that this http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/amd/athlon...">graph
    resembles a tent. It reminded me of the days in high school when kids would get fill in the bubble tests and use the answer sheets to do connect the dot drawings.

    I wonder if Jarred had too much time on his hands?
  • kleinwl - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link

    If you are going to start testing various cooling systems and how they affect max overclock... go ahead and throw in a Seasonic PSU as well. The Seasonic should be rejecting less heat into the case which may make as much difference in overclock as a more efficent Heat Sink. In any case... try it out please!

    <Note I have a XP-90, with a Antec SmartPower 2.0, on a venice... and I'm curious how such a case temp difference could affect the overclocking potential>
  • BigLan - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link

    quote: Looking at the different RAM options, it's difficult to make a good case for spending tons of money on memory.

    I've always thought that spending a lot of extra cash on memory was a bad idea. It pretty much shows no improvement in Fear. It's nice to see a review of the everyday stuff.
  • Puddleglum - Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - link

    The results for Fear looked bizarre. After reading some of the charts where 4xAA is used on games like Battlefield2 and FEAR, which would be a nice feature to show off on a high-end system, the numbers reveal marginal performance.
    I confess, I'm still using a Ti4200, which is only performing well in games because it's not drawing the DX9 stuff, and I've truly been waiting for an ideal video card to come out that's worth purchasing; but the new cards that are out right now are making it easy to sit back and wait for the hardware/software ratio to become a little more price-competitive.

    Also, why is the OCZ PC4800 freaking out with BF2 when the CPU is overclocked to 2.1GHz?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now