Tom's Hardware > All Reviews > Components > CPU > Gaming With AGP Graphics: Overclock That CPU!

Test Settings And Benchmarks

07:11 - Tuesday 25 August 2009 by Don Woligroski

Once again, we're using Windows XP 32-bit in order to compare apples-to-apples versus our previous Athlon X2 3800+ tests.

Note that the Athlon X2 3200+ is designated as a CPU at 2.0 GHz, and the overclocked Athlon 64 X2 4200+ as a CPU at 2.6 GHz in the charts in order to save some space.

Test System Configuration
CPU 1	Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Socket 939, 2.0 GHz, 2 x 512 KB Cache 200 MHz FSB, 1000 MHz HT
CPU 2	Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Socket 939, 2.2 GHz o/c to 2.6 GHz, 2 x 512 KB Cache 237 MHz FSB, 948 MHz HT
Motherboard	ASRock 9393Dual-SATA2 ULI 1695 chipset, BIOS v2.3
RAM 1	Patriot EP PC-3500 (CL2.0-3-2-5) (1 x 1 GB) DDR-400 at DDR-333 CAS 2.5-3-3-7 Kingston KVR PC-3500 (CL3.0-3-3-8) (2 x 512 MB) DDR-400 at DDR-333 CAS 2.5-3-3-7 Samsung PC-2700 (CL2.5-3-3-7) (1 x 512 MB) DDR-333 at DDR-333 CAS 2.5-3-3-7
RAM 2	A-Data PC2-6400 (CL2.0-3-2-5) (2 x 2 GB) DDR2-800 at DDR2-744 CAS 5-5-5-15
Graphics	Radeon HD 4650 AGP - 600 MHz GPU, 400 MHz Memory, 1 GB DDR2 Radeon HD 4650 PCIe - 600 MHz GPU, 400 MHz Memory, 512 MB DDR2 Radeon HD 3850 AGP - 668 MHz GPU, 829 MHz Memory, 512 MB DDR3 Radeon X700 AGP - 425 MHz GPU, 432 MHz Memory, 256 MB DDR2
Hard Drive	Western Digital WD1200JB 120 GB, 7,200 RPM, 8 MB cache, UltraATA/100
Sound	Integrated Audio
Network	Integrated 100 Mb Networking
Power	Nextherm PSU460 460W, ATX 12V, EPS 12V
Software
OS	Microsoft Windows XP Professional 32-bit SP2
Graphics	Radeon HD 4850 PCIe, Radeon HD 3850 AGP: Catalyst 9.6 Radeon X700: Catalyst 9.3 Radeon HD 4650 AGP: 8.62-090423a080042E Ati2mtag 6.14.10.6959 / XP

Benchmark Configuration
3D Games
Left 4 Dead	Version 1014, Custom THG Benchmark Test Set 1: Medium Settings, High paged memory Test Set 2: Medium Settings, High paged memory, 4x MSAA, 8x AF
Crysis	Patch 1.2.1, DirectX 9, 32-bit executable, benchmark tool Test Set 1: Low Quality, Medium Textures, Shadows, Shaders, Water, Sound Test Set 2: Low Quality, Medium Textures, Shadows, Shaders, Water, Sound, Physics
Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X.	In-game benchmark Test Set 1: Lowest Settings, DirectX 9 Test Set 2: Highest Settings, DirectX 9
World in Conflict	Patch 1009, DirectX 10, timedemo Test 1: High Details, No AA / No AF Test 2: Very High Details 4x AA / 16x AF
Fallout 3	Custom THG Benchmark Test Set 1: Medium Settings Test Set 2: High Settings, 4x MSAA, 8x AF
Far Cry 2	DirectX 9, 32-bit executable, benchmark tool Test Set 1: Low Quality Test Set 2: Medium Quality, HDR Enabled

Comments

Sponsored

Comments

Read the comments on the forums

Anonymous 25/08/2009 10:43

Hide

Umm... correct me if I am wrong but in some benchmarks you are seeing about 100% increase in benchmark scores for a clock speed increase of 30%. Is this not a little bit suspicious...?

And is not more likely that increasing memory bandwidth by more than 100% (with a similar or smaller latency) had a big part to play?

Surely it would have been a more thorough test to use the Socket 939 3800+.

LePhuronn 25/08/2009 12:32

Hide

Hey if somebody can overclock my socket 478 P4 Prescott then I'm all for it - might even change the 6800 Ultra that's in there too.

ear8dmg 25/08/2009 19:26

Hide

I have one of these Asrock boards. Started life with an 939 A64 3000+ single core, 2GB RAM and an AGP 6600GT. Now on an AM2 X2 5000+ Black Edition @ 3GHz, 4GB RAM and a PCI-E HD4850. That's some upgradability.

Favourite motherboard I've ever owned. Modders are busily trying to squeeze Phenom compatibility in the BIOS but it remains to be seen if they'll ever manage it.

Still annoyed at NVIDIA for killing off ULI's brilliant chipset R&D team.

ear8dmg 25/08/2009 20:05

Hide

vonbosch :
Umm... correct me if I am wrong but in some benchmarks you are seeing about 100% increase in benchmark scores for a clock speed increase of 30%. Is this not a little bit suspicious...?And is not more likely that increasing memory bandwidth by more than 100% (with a similar or smaller latency) had a big part to play?Surely it would have been a more thorough test to use the Socket 939 3800+.

Good point actually. There are some huge jumps there. Something's gone awry here.

tpi2007 25/08/2009 22:28

Hide

Don't forget the Ram is now DDR2, running faster and in dual channel mode. That might have helped.

qasdfdsaq 25/08/2009 23:35

Hide

Quote :We could have spent a lot more on a faster processor, like an Athlon 64 FX-62 at 2.8 GHz.

Or you could have spent a little more on a much faster processor, like an Athlon 64 X2 6000+ at 3.1 Ghz for $75.

Costs an extra hour or two salary, saves you several hours wasting time overclocking and you get to keep your warranty.

Anonymous 26/08/2009 03:15

Hide

Should have overclocked the 3800+. It would be a more meaningful article in respect of the previous one. Not to mention the disparity between DDR/DDR2 ram ... tsk tsk THG

The main thing this article proves is that ASRock made a nicely upgradeable motherboard

oliverstirling 26/08/2009 14:14

Hide

I could be wrong here but like the last article dedicated to testing AGP cards World in Conflict was mentioned as one of the benchmark games and yet it's not been included in the article. Were the results so bad it wasn't worth writing up?

andybird123 26/08/2009 14:21

Hide

-1

so the previous article was "can you still game with AGP if you buy the highest spec AGP card still available" and this article was supposed to be "and then what happens if you overclock the processor on your old AGP system" only, to do that and replicate the results of this article you have to replace the processor, memory and motherboard...

well done for writing quite possibly the single most pointless article I've ever read on this website

coret 26/08/2009 16:35

Hide

Quote :Or you could have spent a little more on a much faster processor, like an Athlon 64 X2 6000+ at 3.1 Ghz for $75.

Costs an extra hour or two salary, saves you several hours wasting time overclocking and you get to keep your warranty

Problem with that is that the 4200+ is practically supported out of the box ... but you'll need to find a custom bios for anything as new as the 3.1GHz 6k+ ... and if memory serves, the board had a few teething problems with the 65nm chips to begin with. Though that may have been remedied by now.

It is an awesome motherboard though. I managed to overclock a 3700+ (San Siego core) to 2.86GHz stable ... FX57 performance for £150 at the time

coret 26/08/2009 16:36

Hide

Actually, I'm tempted to get my 939-Dual Sata2 out of the garage and have a play with a 3800+ now ... hmm ...

qasdfdsaq 26/08/2009 17:23

Hide

coret :
Problem with that is that the 4200+ is practically supported out of the box ... but you'll need to find a custom bios for anything as new as the 3.1GHz 6k+ ...

Oh? Don't know about that ASRock but my 3 year old motherboard with a 2 year old standard BIOS (09/2007) handles it fine...

Anonymous 26/08/2009 17:57

Hide

Extremely informative article about CPU-GPU matching!

Is it possible for you to create some kind of database telling us what clockspeed is required to roughly match specific GPUs? You wouldn't need to cover Netburst/K7, just Stars, Core 2, Nehalem, maybe K8. Now that would be ultimate resource in what card to buy.

ear8dmg 26/08/2009 20:24

Hide

The Asrock 939Dual-SATA2 supports up to X2 4800+, FX60 or Opteron 185 on 939 with a standard 1.4 BIOS.

Using the AM2CPU board, it supports up to an FX62 or X2 5200+ with an official BIOS. Up to X2 6400+ were supported with a beta BIOS.

andybird123 27/08/2009 15:06

Hide

ear8dmg :
The Asrock 939Dual-SATA2 supports up to X2 4800+, FX60 or Opteron 185 on 939 with a standard 1.4 BIOS.Using the AM2CPU board, it supports up to an FX62 or X2 5200+ with an official BIOS. Up to X2 6400+ were supported with a beta BIOS.

Old Tomshardware used to do such useful tables, but doing that kind of thing now would require more than copy and paste journalism which is all we get anymore

ear8dmg 27/08/2009 16:18

Hide

To further clarify the last official BIOS supporting up to FX62 or X2 5200 was 2.3. The beta BIOS supporting up to X2 6400+ was 2.31.

IIRC from forum reading, 5600+, 6000+ and 6400+ would work but weren't detected correctly by 2.3. 2.31 reports them correctly.

wild9 02/09/2009 02:03

Hide

Quote :Note that the Athlon X2 3200+ is designated as a CPU at 2.0 GHz, and the overclocked Athlon 64 X2 4200+ as a CPU at 2.6 GHz in the charts in order to save some space.

3800+

wild9 02/09/2009 02:47

Hide

Very interesting read. That Asrock daughterboard is a really neat trick.

However since most of the other manufacturers don't offer such an upgrade I think the majority of s939 users are going to struggle, and for several reasons:

. AGP lock, or rather the lack of

. Expensive dual-core s939 CPU's, e.g. the x2 3800+.

. 90nm CPU process that whilst relatively cool, requires a decent m/b for overclocking, together with a capable PSU.

There are overclocking options, but you need to be careful with what you're doing. It largely depends on your board and it's chipset. I still like these older CPU's for overclocking, due to their flexible design: +20% more power despite two cores; tolerance of high bus speeds and flexible memory handling for cheapskates like me, who use mixed unbranded memory. Even on cheap boards it's not uncommon for the x2 3800+ to high 2.4GHz or higher..but of course, that makes them popular and therefore absurdly priced on the auction sites.

So in the end I'd rather bin the project and go for something more modern. As the article says, you're buying into old technology that is soon to be outdated. I'd rather sell the parts (if you have a 3800+ you'll get a good price for it), and get and AM2+/AM3 board with an AMD Athlon II 240 or higher.