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+.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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?

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

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

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

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...

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.

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

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.

3800+

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.