. (Kuma based models only) The Athlon 64 X2 is the first designed. It was designed from scratch as native dual-core by using an already multi-CPU enabled, joining it with another functional core on one, and connecting both via a shared dual-channel memory controller/north bridge and additional control logic.

• Amd Athlon 64 X2 6000

Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Featured Sponsors. AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+. What is anyones max overclock on this cpu?

Amd Athlon 64 X2 6000

The initial versions are based on the E-stepping model of the Athlon 64 and, depending on the model, have either 512 or 1024 KB of per core. The Athlon 64 X2 is capable of decoding instructions (except those few specific to Intel's architecture). In June 2007, AMD released low-voltage variants of their low-end 65 nm, named '. The processors feature reduced of 45.

The name was also used for based budget CPUs with two cores deactivated. Further information: The primary benefit of dual-core processors (like the Athlon 64 X2) over single-core processors is their ability to process more at the same time. The ability of processors to execute multiple threads simultaneously is called (TLP). By placing two cores on the same die, the X2 effectively doubles the TLP over a single-core Athlon 64 of the same speed. The need for TLP processing capability is dependent on the situation to a great degree, and certain situations benefit from it far more than others.

Certain programs are currently written for only one thread, and are therefore unable to utilize the processing power of the second core. Programs often written with multiple threads and capable of utilizing dual-cores include many music and video encoding applications, and especially professional rendering programs. High TLP applications currently correspond to / situations more than the typical desktop. These applications can realize almost twice the performance of a single-core Athlon 64 of the same specifications.

Also runs a sizable number of threads; intense multi-tasking scenarios have actually shown improvements of considerably more than two times. This is primarily due to the excessive overhead caused by constantly switching threads, and could potentially be improved by adjustments to. In the consumer segment of the market as well, the X2 improves upon the performance of the original Athlon 64, especially for multi-threaded software applications. Manufacturing costs Having two cores, the Athlon 64 X2 has an increased number of. The 1 MB L2 cache 90 nm Athlon 64 X2 processor is 219 mm² in size with 243 million whereas its 1 MB L2 cache 90 nm counterpart is 103.1 mm² and has 164 million transistors.

The 65 nm Athlon 64 X2 with only 512 KB L2 per Core reduced this to 118 mm² with 221 million transistors compared to the 65 nm Athlon 64 with 77.2 mm² and 122 million transistors. As a result, a larger area of must be. These size requirements necessitate a more complex, which further adds to the production of fewer functional processors per single silicon wafer. This lower makes the X2 more expensive to produce than the single-core processor. In the middle of June 2006 AMD stated that they would no longer make any non-FX Athlon 64 or Athlon 64 X2 models with 1 MB L2 caches. This led to only a small production number of the Socket-AM2 Athlon 64 X2 with 1 MB L2 cache per core, known as 4000+, 4400+, 4800+, and 5200+. The Athlon 64 X2 with 512 KB per core, known as 3800+, 4200+, 4600+, and 5000+, were produced in far greater numbers.

The introduction of the F3 stepping then saw several models with 1 MB L2 cache per core as production refinements resulted in an increased yield. AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (ADA6000IAA6CZ, Windsor), having its removed; CPU core is to the heat spreader, causing the CPU to be destroyed during the removal. AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+, Brisbane.

Hello, I am interested in overclocking my CPU. However, I do not know the deadline, so I don't want to experiment too much. I could not find the exact information for exactly mine CPU.

That's why I am posting this. Please notice that I am not a pro in O'C and I apologize for my poor English as well. So, I downloaded some monitoring software: CPU-Z and Core Temp. By default, my CPU settings at BIOS where loaded to AUTO and that is 200 MHz, 11.5 Ratio, 1.3 V (2.3 GHz). Also, Cool'n'Quiet was enabled by default. What I did already is this: 236 Mhz, 1.325 V, CnQ disabled (2.71 GHz). I did not change the clock ratio, because it is max by default (11.5).

I lifted up voltage by a minimum. If I would not, I would get a 'blue screen' from Windows. Now I can monitor this information from CPU-Z and Core-Temp: voltage is changing in range 1.344-1.38, the temperature at idle is 38,47 (core #0,#1), max temp. 58,64 (I use 'MicroTask CPUHog' application to load my CPU).

I noticed that I will be able to increase MHz without blue screen error if I will increase voltage. So I would like to know, may I increase voltage a little bit more?

Is that safe? What is the max safe temperature for my CPU? On the other hand, I don't want to significantly reduce my CPU lifetime.

My PC specs: Gigabyte GA-M57SLI-S4 motherboard (socket AM2) AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4400+ Brisbane 65 nm Ge-Force 8800GTS 640 mb 320 bit DDR2 667 MHz RAM: 2x1GB + 1x2GB Windows 7 Pro 64-Bit Your responces would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Paulius P. I had the AMD X2 4200+, the same speed chip as the 4400+ but with a smaller L2 cache. Since these chips have a locked multiplier, you have to increase the front side bus speed to overclock the chip.

I had poor luck with that due to my cheap memory sticks. At that time, adjusting the memory timings was recommended and really tight timings (5-5-5-12) were recommended. Also, better cpu cooling is recommended over the stock cooler.

My chip would get quite warm even at a modest 10% overclock. Saint19, thank You very much for advices.

I paid attention to your recomendations and finally reached the stability (it seems so, I have to run PC few more days to make sure). I adjusted the settings to 230 MHz, 11.5, 1.325 V (2.65 GHz). Monitoring programs is telling me that CPU voltage is 1.344-1.376, temperature on load is 68,70. I was able to increase the CPU speed more, but the temperature while gaming reached 74 on the second core, so I just decided to reduce performance A LITTLE to feel MUCH SAFER fencer55, as I understand, the multiplier in my BIOS is not locked.

It's just locked on AUTO (by default) what means 11.5 (according to CPU-Z monitoring program). I can reduce multiplier as much as I wish, but there is no room above 11.5. I am not sure what is that FSB speed, but I guess it's that what is called 'CPU Frequency (MHz)' at my BIOS. So this is the setting that I increased.

I had to increase CPU voltage as well, other way my system crashed at startup or even hour after running OS. Hi again, good news for you. Run some stability test like prime95 for 1 or 2 hours. FSB: Front South Bridge.

Cheers, and if you have another question just do it. Hey, I downloaded Prime95 and I must admit that this test is a real deal - both of CPU cores are loaded at 100% (according to 'Core Temp' application) every second. However, I noticed that temperatures got higher than 70C even after 10 minutes running Prime95. So what did I do. I loaded defaults at BIOS and then started the test again. After 2 hours of running it, Core Temp shows me that highest temperature was 73C (66 on the other core).

So its seems it's better not to overclock this CPU? However, I thought that I could try to overclock it as much, that the temperatures would not go beyond 73 at my USUAL USAGE. I mean I and my family members never gonna load the CPU at 100% for more than 2 minutes. What do you think, saint19? I enabled the 'warning beep' at BIOS when the CPU reaches 70C. It never beeped, though 'Core Temp' showed me over 70C several times.

Ok, I assume that you have an ATX case with only 1 fan in the back side. So, you need a better airflow, a case with 2 or 3 fans. In the link says that the safe voltage is diferent from that i said up, so: Voltage: 1.35V or less Temp: 72C or less saint19, there is kind of plastic pipe which is screwed to the inside of the box. This pipe is exactly at the place, where the processor is, no doubt there is a fan on the processor. However, as I said, my case is in the piece of furniture, so the side, where the pipe is screwed, is blocked with this furniture. I believe the temperatures would be lower if I would take the case out from this furniture that this side would not be blocked from fresh air.

I will try this ant let you know. Anyway, what do you think about that overclocking I mentioned before? I could try to overclock it as much, that the temperatures would not go beyond 72 at my USUAL USAGE. If I would not pay attention to 2 hours Prime95 test? Having to 'burn in' a cpu for overclocking is a myth, nor do I see any reason to run it undervolted like that. My brisbane 4400 gets 1700-1800 cpumark score, that's as good as some phenom x3 and phenom 2 x2s! I'm running @ 2970 Mhz, I could go higher but don't want to overvolt, this is with 1.325 volts which I think is default, but perhaps it is.25 over stock which isn't going to stress it that bad.

Accomplishing this requires a overclocking of the FSB and to compensate for that a lowering of both the HT multiplier and max mem clock. A good safe overclock is a 250 fsb with 4x HT and memory limited to 1 step below spec, i.e. My ddr2 800 set to 667, also I use cpuid to check the spd of the memory and set the latencies according to the speed it is running, you know the 5-5-5-15-20 thing, cas delays and such.

To achieve my overclock I have the HT set to 3x and the max mem clock at ddr2 555, this runs it at 333 Mhz when it should go 400 but for whatever reason it won't boot unless underclocked a bit this way. It is far better to have your cpu running at top speed than your memory, or HT link for that matter. But if your cooling isn't so good the 250 Fsb and 4x HT link is a great option, no need to mess with voltages and temps should be pretty mellow. This old pos still can hang with some demanding games, not bad for something I paid 60 bucks for 6 years ago.