Final Words
The 4200+ is the least expensive of the new Athlon 64 Dual-Core processors, but $500 is only cheap compared to the other members of the X2 line which can cost as much as $1000 to own. The good news is the 4200+ performs very well on its own. It performs about like a similar speed single core in gaming and 3D workstation tasks, which means it is a little slower than the 4000+ in these heavily single-threaded tasks. If you are a gamer, and that is all you care about on your PC, then the Dual-Core processors will hold no advantage for you over the current single-core models. Performance does not suffer to any great extent compared to single-core, but you need another use for dual-core to tip the scales in the more expensive dual-core direction.When even a bit of multitasking comes into play, however, the 4200+ soars ahead, with significant performance advantages in the general performance PCMark2004 benchmark and an advantage in Multimedia Content Creation 2004. Media Encoding is one particular area where the x2 4200+ shines, outperforming the higher speed 4000+ by 41% at stock speed and by almost 71% when overclocked to 2.7GHz. The performance advantage for Dual-Core in Media Encoding is so significant that the X2 becomes a "must-have" if you do much media encoding.
These results are all while running in Windows XP, and there should be even further performance improvement in the 64-bit version of XP. Until there are useful benchmarks that really take advantage of the 64-bit OS we can only speculate on 64-bit performance, but the clean implementation of 64-bit by AMD should definitely yield performance advantages in 64-bit. The advantages should be similar to those AnandTech found for Opteron in the recent article comparing processors in 64-bit Linux.
The point of this article though is OVERCLOCKING the 4200+, and there is more good news there. Our early 4000+ processors only overclocked about 11 to 12% at stock multiplier. We do have a later 4000+ (that is likely an FX55 at heart) that overclocks about 18% at stock multiplier, which is the one we use in memory reviews. This 4200+, a new speed grade, is doing 22.5% at the start, reaching 2.7GHz on air. That's a 500MHz overclock, and is 300MHz higher than the fastest x2 you can buy (2.4GHz 4800+ and 4600+). This kind of overclocking performance makes the 4200+ a much more attractive option at the $500 you will pay for it - since it will likely reach higher performance levels that a stock 4800+.
You can likely do even better than we have if you use more exotic cooling. We have seen many reports on the web of the 4200+ reaching 2.8GHz or even 3.0GHz. We have also seen reports of the 4800+ reaching even a bit higher, so even better overclocks may be available with a 4800+. Anand is reaching 2.8GHz on air with the 4800+ he has been testing.
In the end the 4200+ appears to be a good-performing dual-core CPU with quite a bit of overclocking headroom. We reached 2.7GHz with a PC Health reported CPU temperature of 61 degrees C at 1.55V. 240 was a breeze at 1.45V, exceptionally stable for days on end, with processor temps generally below 50C with our air cooling. It appears an easy task to reach the highest levels of Dual-Core performance with the cheapest 4200+ if you are willing to overclock a little - and the 4200+ is up to the task.
The 4200+ running OC at 2.4GHz is equivalent to a 4600+, which brings us back to the question of which x2 Athlon 64 we would buy for ourselves. With the 4400+ sporting 1MB cache on each core, and only a few dollars more than the 512KB 4200+, we would suspect the 4400+ may well be the Dual-Core to buy - IF it overclocks as well as the 4200+. We don't have a 4400+ to test for ourselves, but given the performance of the 1MB cache 4800+ we have seen, we expect the 4400+ will likely overclock just as well.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
53 Comments
View All Comments
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