More Consideration

dhlucke · Feb 20, 2002

Raystonn I see only one person who got 2.6 Ghz. That's 2% out of 39 people on overclockers.com. That's probably Fugger. 15% are hitting 2.5Ghz and above.

Most people are getting up to at least 2.5GHz with the 1.6A processors.

I have yet to see a 1.6A that will not do 2.5GHz. A pattern has emerged.

God Bless America!

Raystonn · Feb 20, 2002

Where is this list? I judge by those over in the 'Strictly Intel' forum at <A HREF="http://www.hardforum.com" target="_new">http://www.hardforum.com</A>. Read some of the posts over there. Most get pretty high speeds without having to perform any hardware modifications to the motherboard.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

dhlucke · Feb 20, 2002

I asked early on in this thread for sources and the only one I was given was overclockers.com.

God Bless America!

Raystonn · Feb 20, 2002

Ah, notice most of those in the bottom half are using the default voltage with the retail heatsink/fan. They are not trying very hard. I have heard from others that this site is mostly for AMD fans, but cannot confirm it as I have never been there before.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =

dhlucke · Feb 20, 2002

That website is too slow on dialup to waste anymore of my time there. I gave it a good look though. I see that you are their most active member.

2400 Mhz and below is what someone should expect. The same applies for the 1.8a as far as I see. Still good.

<A HREF="http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=326060" target="_new">http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=326060</A>

<A HREF="http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=335446" target="_new">http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=335446</A>

<A HREF="http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=334055" target="_new">http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=334055</A>

God Bless America!

dhlucke · Feb 20, 2002

<A HREF="http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=329906" target="_new">http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=329906</A>

<A HREF="http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=328885" target="_new">http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=328885</A>

<A HREF="http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=332448" target="_new">http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=332448</A>

God Bless America!

ath0mps0 · Feb 20, 2002

Raystonn I see only one person who got 2.6 Ghz. That's 2% out of 39 people on overclockers.com. That's probably Fugger. 15% are hitting 2.5Ghz and above.

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most people are getting up to at least 2.5GHz with the 1.6A processors.

I have yet to see a 1.6A that will not do 2.5GHz. A pattern has emerged.

A 2.5GHz overclock of a 1.6A would require the PC800 RDRAM to be overclocked to 1250MHz keeping the memory synchronous. I have never seen a stick of PC800 do this! It is possible that PC1066 could overclock this far. If you are moving to asynchronous mode (raising the FSB while keeping the RAM at a lower speed) you are losing a significant portion of your memory bandwidth.

While I agree that this level of overclocking is admirable, desirable and would be a good purchase, there isn't a mobo out there (or memory to match) that can take FULL advantage of it. At least not currently and at a reasonable cost - isn't this why we overclock? - to get more speed for our money.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.

Grifter · Feb 20, 2002

dude, i have no idea what the hell you are talking about

Trying is the first step to failure

ath0mps0 · Feb 20, 2002

All of these heavy overclocks are using DDR (i845D) or RDRAM with a divider. The divider moves the memory into asynch mode and kills the performance advantage of RDRAM.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.

Matisaro · Feb 20, 2002

hehe, relax, it's nothing of relevance. Just a bunch of disputing between Raystonn and Matisaro over RAM performance vs. price.

Just price.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

Matisaro · Feb 20, 2002

Hey Mat.......

Do u remember about 6 months ago or so when me and Raystonn had a disagreement about the Athlon using a DDR Bus ??

Yes, which is one of the reasons I jumped on his comment, he tried to say the same incorrect thing months ago, and was proven wrong then too.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

Matisaro · Feb 20, 2002

1. PC800 sucks for overclocking (can't go more than 10-15% with most modules) and PC1066 will probably be priced exhorbitantly and then will suck at overclocking the 533MHz FSB. If dual-channel DDR were available for the P4, there would be no issue as PC2100 DDR266 already performs on par with PC1066, stick for stick.

Oh really now, cause raystonn swears up and down ALL samsung ram will hit 1066.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

Matisaro · Feb 20, 2002

I have heard from others that this site is mostly for AMD fans, but cannot confirm it as I have never been there before.

Is it just me, or does that sound like a non denial denial?

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

XGForce · Feb 20, 2002

Dude, did you know that the Asus P4T-E motherboard isn't a bad overclocker too? You could reach PC1066 or PC1200 RD RAM speeds if you have the right DCRG. Just ask Raystonn about it.

GamerzCitadel.com

ath0mps0 · Feb 20, 2002

Oh really now, cause raystonn swears up and down ALL samsung ram will hit 1066.

Well, like I said before, some (maybe most) of it will since Samsung is ramping to release PC1066. But since they're not getting high enough yields to be reliable yet, they just sell it as PC800 - just like how Intel and AMD rate their procs - test a sample of a batch, see how high it will reliably operate and mark a speed on the whole batch. Just wait until PC1066 ships and this benefit will most likely disappear - they'll be marking these higher performing chips as PC1066 and charging a premium. I'd also bet that the new ones won't overclock very well - ~10% max. I guess what I'm really saying is that these quaility PC800 RIMMs would probably be marked as PC900-950 if there were such a spec.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.

AMD_Man · Feb 20, 2002

While I agree that this level of overclocking is admirable, desirable and would be a good purchase, there isn't a mobo out there (or memory to match) that can take FULL advantage of it. At least not currently and at a reasonable cost - isn't this why we overclock? - to get more speed for our money.

Yes, but you don't need to run your RAM at PC1066 to actually improve performance. A P4 1.6A at 2.13GHz with 533MHz FSB and PC800 clocked at it's default speed, will still be as fast or faster than a 2.2GHz P4 due to the higher speed FSB, even though the RAM is not overclocked.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the ULTIMATE PC processor

Matisaro · Feb 20, 2002

Yes, but you don't need to run your RAM at PC1066 to actually improve performance. A P4 1.6A at 2.13GHz with 533MHz FSB and PC800 clocked at it's default speed, will still be as fast or faster than a 2.2GHz P4 due to the higher speed FSB, even though the RAM is not overclocked.

Why, is not the whole point of a faster fsb to communicate with the ram faster?

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

labdog · Feb 20, 2002

may i ask a little question ?

whats a Devil's Advocate ?

if you know you don't know, the way could be more easy.

AMD_Man · Feb 20, 2002

Why, is not the whole point of a faster fsb to communicate with the ram faster?

Yes, but the FSB is always a bottleneck to a point no matter how fast or how slow the RAM is. Look at the KT133A vs. the KT133 vs. the AMD760 and KT266 (the original, not the KT266A). A 1.2GHz Athlon with a 200MHz and 133MHz SDRAM is slower than a 1.2GHz Athlon with a 266MHz FSB and 133MHz SDRAM! Also, a 1.2GHz Athlon with a 266MHz and 133MHz SDRAM was only 0-5% slower than the KT266 and AMD760. Assuming the KT266 uses a similarly efficent memory controller to the KT133A (not the same controller obviously, but an equally optimized controller), then the FSB is the main bottleneck here not the RAM for the KT266. A comparison of the KT266A and KT133A wouldn't be fair here because the KT266A includes a radically improved memory controller.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the ULTIMATE PC processor

FatBurger · Feb 20, 2002

Is it just me, or does that sound like a non denial denial?

He was talking about overclockers.com, by the way.

And about different clock generators on the motherboard, I think it was Ace's Hardware that wrote an article about changing them. You can request up to 3 samples from Texas Instruments, I believe they posted the part number in the article.

Quarter Pounder Inside

Matisaro · Feb 20, 2002

The kt133 was slower than the kt133a because the memory and fsb were not in sync, whenever you move your memory out of sync with your fsb you lose a large amount of performance.

A 1.2GHz Athlon with a 200MHz and 133MHz SDRAM is slower than a 1.2GHz Athlon with a 266MHz FSB and 133MHz SDRAM!

Thats again, because the 200mhz fsb would be on a 100mhz clock,which would put the memory at 133fsb, thus out of sync.

The only reason to have a high fsb is for higher memory speed and maintaining a syncronous memory bus.

In fact, I would surmise a p4 @ 133fsb with 3x memory, would perform only marginally better(at best)Than a p4 @100mhz fsb x4 memory. (assuming the clockspeed of the cpu is the same).

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!

AMD_Man · Feb 20, 2002

Yes, Matisaro, I never said you'd get a major performance boost. It will be marginal with a 533MHz FSB and PC800, but it will be a boost. That's all I'm getting at.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the ULTIMATE PC processor

eden · Feb 20, 2002

BTW have you read the article on THG about the KT333?
They mentioned that DDR333 CL2 is available from Corsair, so if they are supported at that latency on P4S333, it should be nice and it would definitly be better than RDRAM IMO!
Hmm I find it odd I wrote so much with not a thing as a comment...

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!

AMD_Man · Feb 20, 2002

BTW have you read the article on THG about the KT333?
They mentioned that DDR333 CL2 is available from Corsair, so if they are supported at that latency on P4S333, it should be nice and it would definitly be better than RDRAM IMO!

Yes, true, but Crucial PC2100 RAM has been able to reach 333MHz at CL2.5 latency which isn't too bad considering it's cheaper.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the ULTIMATE PC processor

eden · Feb 20, 2002

It isn't too bad but CL2.5 will put it back near the 266 with C2, making it a useless overclock.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!

More Consideration

Polypheme

Distinguished

Polypheme

Distinguished

Polypheme

Polypheme

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Illustrious

Splendid

Splendid

Champion

Splendid

Champion

Share this page