|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
133x15=166x12=200x10 sure, but ...
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Fury451
Hey everyone! 
Right, 4 starters sometin simple:
I've got an amd 2400+ @133x15 standard settings.
But I also have an ASUS with dual channel and 200mhz fsb support plus 2 256mb PC3200 sticks.
So I wanna make use of this xtra horse power by raising the fsb while lowering the multiplier (so I can keep the cpu @ the same clock : avoid overclocking). But I dunno enough about PC hardware to tell if even that could **** up my cpu
So can anyone tell me:
Are the following "the same", I mean just as safe (and if not what can happen):
- 133x15 (standard 4 2400+)
- 166x12
- 200x10 (what I want)
cause each time the freq is kept @ 2ghz 
Posted by: redwench
assuming you can change the multiplier in the bios, you should be ok doing that, since your ram can handle that speed.
Posted by: Fury451
wow that wuz quick!
yep I can change the x in the bios without using the pencil trick on my cpu , guess mine wuz made b4 they came up with all this protection ****
and yeah i've got PC3200 (designed 4 200 mhz) ram and a fsb 400 board.
I thought it could work but i wanted 2 be sure about it.
I see you're an Ancient with like over 60000 posts or sometin' so i guessed you knew what you were talking about so i gave it a try and guess what : it works  i'm @ 200x10 at the moment i'm writing this and windoze seems stable, just ran dxdiag and direct3D and no crash.
sometime i wonder why the hell they say like "AMD 2400+ FSB266" why they mention the ****ing FSB when it doesn't count anyways , all that counts is the cpu clock
oh well all works fine here now i can't wait to try ut2003 with my new fsb400 superpowers  lol
Redwench thks for your quick reply I.O.U.1 !
Posted by: redwench
i would have suggested you try the middle speed first, but oh well. run a stress test before you decide to leave it there. sisoftsandra has both ram and cpu modules.
Posted by: IceBreaker
 Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
i would have suggested you try the middle speed first, but oh well. run a stress test before you decide to leave it there.
|
I think he must have been stressed enough when he tested the new settings.. http://213.246.40.109/images/perso/alysum%20%20.gif
Fury451>
Welcome to the forum comrade!
I own the same CPU - actually it's my second, Redwench knows the whole story , so this time I've set mine to 210X9.5 thus 2000Mhz (even slightly below) to avoid overclocking - ever since, no problems that I know of. So my guess is, you're safe http://213.246.40.109/images/icon15.gif
Posted by: Fury451
Quote:
haha. wordgames. i think im gonna like this forum
Redwench:
Sandra can wait : i just passed the ut2003 test : after more than 1 hr's frag no freeze crash or other crap !
But there one ****ing difference in the fps all right , i think i've invented a new way of overclocking "without overcloking"
Ice:
thks 4 the feedback , but for now at least ain't no way i'm gonna push the fsb up any further i'm fine the way it is !
ok guys i'm off to ut2003 for another killing spree thks again for your help
Posted by: The-AoD
Quote:
Originally posted by Fury451
But there one ****ing difference in the fps all right , i think i've invented a new way of overclocking "without overcloking"
|
You're not overclocking unless you're pushing something beyond it's specifications. The only thing that is overclocked is the FSB off the chip, which in most chips, doesn't really make a difference in stability.
If your mobo supports 200mhz FSB, then you're still "stock". Well 400mhz for you people who consider two 200mhz channels as 400mhz .
As for that, you made a good decision, if it passes a series of 10 Sandra RAM tests, she'll most likely be stable at that speed in anything.
Posted by: Ocean
you arent overclocking any one componant, but you are "overclocking" the amd xp rating. by taking a chip thats meant for a slower bus and placing it on a faster bus, you are getting a better overall system without taking any part past its normal operating limits. the amd ratings dont depend exclussively on the chip, they depend more heavily on the ram speed and fsb speed than in a pentium4 system. but you still got more spiffy bang for the buck.
im running my 2500+ barton (166x11) overclocked to (200x10) on stock cooling on a7n8x delux mobo. i have a couple of 3dmark comparisons someone might find interesting. i saw a giant improvement for 0 dollars more.
Posted by: Bix VT
That is an extreme increase. I should take my 2400 back to normal, run 3dmark then do the same with it overclocked to how I have it. I didn't think overclocking the fsb would make such a difference.
*bows* I am in your debt for this revelation...
I also assume that you got an older barton that was unlockable?
Posted by: Fury451
but why the hell do they say that the 2400+ is meant for "133*15" when that ain't making sense in the first place?
you can't say that the 2400+ is "meant 4 fsb 133x15" cause it's only the TOTAL figure that counts : 2400+ is meant for 2 ghz, period. So 133x15 , 166x12 or 200x10 is EXACTLY the same thing as long as the mainboarde and the RAM can support these freqs.
as long as you dont raise the total figure you can't speak of "real overclocking"
That's why i don't get it , why them manufacturers mention the fsb speeds for their cpus 
besides i'm still @ 200x10 and have had no probs with my 3d games n stuff. Speedfan hasn't shown any change in cpu temp compared to the 133x15 settings.
OCEAN:
unlike me , in your case you ARE overclocking your cpu : 166x11=1,8+ ghz , but 200x10=2 ghz
Posted by: The-AoD
Just for your common knowledge, I'll add this.
The three worst bottlenecks in todays systems are the :
1. Data input/output (Hard drives, floppies, CD-Roms, ect..)
2. Front Side Bus -> RAM Bandwidth limitations
3. PCI Bus total bandwidth.
If we could solve all these problems, PC's could go so much further. The RAM bandwidth being one of the major gaps. This is why you see so much performance difference between a 133(266mhz) and a 200(400mhz) front side bus speed.
PCI itself is completely old, and has been around for a long time. It's just not as powerful for todays high performance PC's. Hence, the reason PCI Xpress is coming to the playing field soon.
And hard drives and the such, their the slowest thing in most of todays systems. Once SSD's (Solid State Drives) come into the playing field, that will make a major difference
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
Originally posted by Fury451
but why the hell do they say that the 2400+ is meant for "133*15"
|
thats the settings it passed the test at. presumably, it prevents idiots from putting settings of 200*12 to get "2400". or at least does so from a legal standpoint.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Redwench
Well the average customer unused to all these marketing tricks could easily be led astray by the "2400+" figure..
The-AoD>
Fortunately, 3D games don't really use the HDD, except while loading between levels.. The performance ration between HDD/RAM is something like 1/1000 
hehe... it used to be"hard" disks, soon it will be "solid" disks. Quaint.
Any idea how much faster these disks will be compared to RAM?
Posted by: redwench
eh, some idiots dont research. anyway, my point was that they include those settings so they arent liable if some idjit overclocks, either accidentally or on purpose. when in doubt, RTFM
Posted by: taco_fox
Quote:
Originally posted by Fury451
but why the hell do they say that the 2400+ is meant for "133*15" when that ain't making sense in the first place?
you can't say that the 2400+ is "meant 4 fsb 133x15" cause it's only the TOTAL figure that counts : 2400+ is meant for 2 ghz, period. So 133x15 , 166x12 or 200x10 is EXACTLY the same thing as long as the mainboarde and the RAM can support these freqs.
as long as you dont raise the total figure you can't speak of "real overclocking"
That's why i don't get it , why them manufacturers mention the fsb speeds for their cpus
|
A 2400+ at 200mhz fsb performs better than a 2400+ at 133mhz fsb, so they couldn't really be sold as the same product
Posted by: Ocean
plus the 133x15 configuration will run on lower end(cheaper) motherboards than a 200x10 configuration. my 2500+ (1.83) barton at stock runs slower than your 2400+ (2.0) stock. yet mine is more powerful, ergo, cpu speed isnt the end all to determining power in an athlon system. in this example, the barton gets some of its power from extra cache, the 166 bus as opposed to the 2400+ 133 fsb, and the added benefit of the 2700 (166) ram that can be used in the system instead of the 2100 (133) of the stock 2400+ system.
responses:
fury, notice i said overclocking in my post. but the results are still noticable. <10% increase in cpu clock, yet i still had large increase in system power (atleast 20%) and i attribute that to the bus increase. my results where not meant to be a comparison to yours, just merely a piece of info i acquired while i was setting up my pc 6 months ago that showed that bus (and ram) speed is relevant..
bix, yes from about 6 months ago, when it was the overclocking chip for noobs, it was cheap and expendable, and i was building my first pc
Posted by: Ocean
taco, you said that better than i could have.
and at the same time i was trying to
Posted by: Fury451
Quote:
Originally posted by Ocean
yet mine is more powerful, ERGO, cpu speed isnt the end all to determining power in an athlon system.
|
You're the Architect , right?
Quote:
Originally posted by Ocean
fury, notice i said overclocking in my post. but the results are still noticable. <10% increase in cpu clock, yet i still had large increase in system power (atleast 20%) and i attribute that to the bus increase. my results where not meant to be a comparison to yours, just merely a piece of info i acquired while i was setting up my pc 6 months ago that showed that bus (and ram) speed is relevant..
|
Hey easy bud , i wuzn't taking a dig at u or anythin (ok maybe a little ) it's just that as 4 me there ain't no way i'm gonna overclock my cpu - got it secondhand and im still under the 6 month warranty so since im not overclocking it i might still be covered if my cpu ****s up 4 some reason
i wanted to increase the bus speed (without overclocking cpu) cause that's maybe THE most important param in a pc (even more than cpu clock) : it affects everything not just the cpu. i saw that when i played ut2003 after applying the fsb 200 boost
Posted by: The-AoD
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
hehe... it used to be"hard" disks, soon it will be "solid" disks. Quaint.
Any idea how much faster these disks will be compared to RAM?
|
From what I understand, we already have the first form of solid state drives. The main difference between the two that is ohh so understandable, is there are no moving parts in a solid state. Basically, from what I get, it'll basically be a drive made up of "ram" persay. The speed difference? I'm not sure, but I can bet it'll be damned fast.
As for now, we currently have USB pen drives and the such that have no moving parts. These are the first contributions to the SSD technology, and I'm sure we'll be able to sit back and watch them grow.
And just to add, and make things clear. AMD's rating's are based off the chip itself, and all the things that contribute to it's "all out" performance against the other ones in the AMD line. As such, there are two different things that really contribute to overall system performance. Front side bus speed and overall CPU frequency. While the differences aren't much, the changes in "AMD's Rating" give you a "sense" of the differences. While, a 2400+ at 200mhz FSB will definetly outperform the same speed of CPU in a 133mhz FSB, the ratings give you said "sense". Basically, the only way I can think of wording out AMD's "rating scale" is basically, propoganda. Making you want to buy the "highest number" chip you can. This is why I like intel's rating. Still going by the actual frequency, and the actual bus speed. This gives you a better idea in all reality of what you're getting. Such as buying an XP 2400+ really doesn't mean you're getting a 2400mhz CPU, as the general consumer would imagine; even though AMD's can't really be "regulated" by thier actual frequency, since thier frequencies are so much lower than Intels. So, I'll state again, for both propoganda, and lack of a better form, the rating scale is a "basic idea" of what you're getting. I still believe that AMD should have dealed up with intel and used something like "performs equally to a 2.4Ghz CPU" or the such.
I don't care if you agree or disagree with my opinions, but I hope you get a simple understanding of what I believe in AMD's Rating scale.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by The-AoD
I don't care if you agree or disagree with my opinions, but I hope you get a simple understanding of what I believe in AMD's Rating scale
[...]
Basically, the only way I can think of wording out AMD's "rating scale" is basically, propoganda. Making you want to buy the "highest number" chip you can.
|
And that's precisely what I said just a few posts ago comrade - it's a marketing ploy. Glad we agree http://213.246.40.109/images/redface.gif
Quote:
Originally posted by The-AoD
This is why I like intel's rating. Still going by the actual frequency, and the actual bus speed. This gives you a better idea in all reality of what you're getting.
|
hehe - Intel may indeed be more "honest" about their CPU frequencies, but they have their own tricks, such as the "FSB800" which, from what I read in this forum, is the equivalent of the FSB400 found on other boards.
Posted by: taco_fox
Quote:
Originally posted by The-AoD
|
lol
|
|
|
|
|
