Sempron overclocking

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

I'm trying to evaluate how bad these chips actually are.... Clearly
the thing to do was to buy a Barton six months ago, if your budget
doesn't stretch to an A64....

Anyway they are Thoroughbred-B processors with 166MHz fsb, which is
faster than most of the thoroughbred cores, but it's not a huge
difference. AMD's own figures show that it only makes about 4%
difference at the same clock... But, if you are buying a Sempron now
and get an nforce 400 motherboard, I guess these chips should do
200MHz fsb. Apparently the Sempron equals roughly the same as an
Athlon XP with 400 less PR. But when you overclock to 200 MHz fsb (is
this reasonable?),

you get

2300+ = 200 x 9.5 = 1.9GHz = roughly Athlon XP 2400+
2400+ = 200 x 10 = 2GHz = roughly Athlon XP 2500+ speed
2500+ = 200 x 10.5 = 2.1GHz = Athlon XP 2600+ speed
2600+ = 200 x 11 = 2.2GHz = roughly Athlon Xp 2700+

For the money, is there a better buy? And is my assumption of
overclocking FSB to 200MHz reasonable?
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

got a 2600+ sempron, and ur numbers look about right. i could only get to
183 fsb(2.086GHZ i think, no pci lock, lol) so you should be able to get to
2.2. although with the recent price drops, hold on to your money and get a
754 athlon64 the price difference when i did my system( couple of months
ago) was about £100($200 roughy) money i just didn't have, but if you
strech, kiss socket a bye bye.

Hope that helped
<thelawnet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c97d0b5d.0502180147.3e7224d9@posting.google.com...
> I'm trying to evaluate how bad these chips actually are.... Clearly
> the thing to do was to buy a Barton six months ago, if your budget
> doesn't stretch to an A64....
>
> Anyway they are Thoroughbred-B processors with 166MHz fsb, which is
> faster than most of the thoroughbred cores, but it's not a huge
> difference. AMD's own figures show that it only makes about 4%
> difference at the same clock... But, if you are buying a Sempron now
> and get an nforce 400 motherboard, I guess these chips should do
> 200MHz fsb. Apparently the Sempron equals roughly the same as an
> Athlon XP with 400 less PR. But when you overclock to 200 MHz fsb (is
> this reasonable?),
>
> you get
>
> 2300+ = 200 x 9.5 = 1.9GHz = roughly Athlon XP 2400+
> 2400+ = 200 x 10 = 2GHz = roughly Athlon XP 2500+ speed
> 2500+ = 200 x 10.5 = 2.1GHz = Athlon XP 2600+ speed
> 2600+ = 200 x 11 = 2.2GHz = roughly Athlon Xp 2700+
>
> For the money, is there a better buy? And is my assumption of
> overclocking FSB to 200MHz reasonable?
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:thelawnet@gmail.com">thelawnet@gmail.com</a> wrote:
<blockquote cite="midc97d0b5d.0502180147.3e7224d9@posting.google.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'm trying to evaluate how bad these chips actually are.... Clearly
the thing to do was to buy a Barton six months ago, if your budget
doesn't stretch to an A64....

Anyway they are Thoroughbred-B processors with 166MHz fsb, which is
faster than most of the thoroughbred cores, but it's not a huge
difference. AMD's own figures show that it only makes about 4%
difference at the same clock... But, if you are buying a Sempron now
and get an nforce 400 motherboard, I guess these chips should do
200MHz fsb. Apparently the Sempron equals roughly the same as an
Athlon XP with 400 less PR. But when you overclock to 200 MHz fsb (is
this reasonable?),

you get

2300+ = 200 x 9.5 = 1.9GHz = roughly Athlon XP 2400+
2400+ = 200 x 10 = 2GHz = roughly Athlon XP 2500+ speed
2500+ = 200 x 10.5 = 2.1GHz = Athlon XP 2600+ speed
2600+ = 200 x 11 = 2.2GHz = roughly Athlon Xp 2700+

For the money, is there a better buy? And is my assumption of
overclocking FSB to 200MHz reasonable?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<font face="Verdana">Check these test results out </font><font
face="Verdana">(includes o/c'g)</font><font face="Verdana">...<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-239-1.htm">Sempron
2500/AthlonXP 2500 Barton/AthlonXP 2500 Mobile comparison</a><br>
<br>
<a
href="http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews/review.php?dXJsX3Jldmlld19JRD04MjcmdXJsX3BhZ2U9MQ==">Sempron
2800 - 3100/Celeron D335 comparison</a><br>
</font><br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Convert & Proud Adopter of ...
Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 & my new favorite Browser ... FireFox 1.0
get on board at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.mozilla.org//">http://www.mozilla.org//</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

For your sake and others, don't post using HTML. It makes reading the
message annoying (copy-paste to .HTML file, check to make sure it's safe,
open up in IE) to anyone who's vaugely security- or privacy-conscious and
also will be blocked by many ad-blockers and filtered out by quite a few
newsfeeds. Not to mention wasting bandwidth and all the other stuff. See
http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=%22html+on+usenet%22
for a full discussion

Also, reply inline as opposed to bottom- or top-posting (ie: trim the
quoting to what you are replying to).

I've redone your message in plain text, hopefully the quoting doesn't get
screwed up ...

iamnotme wrote:
> thelawnet@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
>> Anyway they are Thoroughbred-B processors with 166MHz fsb
[...]
>> But when you overclock to 200 MHz fsb (is
>> this reasonable?), you get
>>
>> 2300+ = 200 x 9.5 = 1.9GHz = roughly Athlon XP 2400+
>> 2400+ = 200 x 10 = 2GHz = roughly Athlon XP 2500+ speed
>> 2500+ = 200 x 10.5 = 2.1GHz = Athlon XP 2600+ speed
>> 2600+ = 200 x 11 = 2.2GHz = roughly Athlon Xp 2700+
>>
>> For the money, is there a better buy? And is my assumption of
>> overclocking FSB to 200MHz reasonable?
>
> Check these test results out (includes o/c'g) ...
> http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-239-1.htm
> (Sempron 2500/AthlonXP 2500 Barton/AthlonXP 2500 Mobile comparison)

I think they must have lucked out a bit with their Sempron. Most TBred B
cores can do 2.0GHz, though most don't make it over 2.2GHz without a fair
bit of coercion (voltage/cooling). New Bartons will usually get to 2.2GHz
with fairly standard cooling and voltage, and sometimes up to 2.3 or 2.4,
though the falloff rate above 2.2 seems to be fairly sharp. A Barton at
2.2GHz will give you probably about 15% (app dependent) over a TBred B at
2.0GHz, so price/performance wise choose accordingly :)

FSB is pretty much limited by your motherboard rather than your CPU (which
is limited by the resulting clockspeed). Another option, compared to the NF2
route, is a Via KT600-based board. There's a big review of boards at:
http://www.vr-zone.com/reviews/VIA/KT600/

Going this way you lose the (small) gains from dual-channel memory, but gain
the ability to adjust the current multiplier if you go and mobilise your
CPU. So you'll probably be able to get more out of your CPU, but (possibly)
slightly less from FSB/RAM.

With an NF2 (no multiplier adjustment possible), a Barton 2500 vs a Sempron
2400 would probably be about right, wheras for a KT600 you'll be able to get
away with a Sempron 2200 (though may have a higher chance of getting a dud).
In NZ, the prices of Bartons (and XPs in general) have gone up enough that
the Sempron would be a better deal price/performance wise, but YMMV.

[...]

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open


------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

thelawnet@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
> Nobody spending
> $1000 or less on a PC is going to need 64-bit in the next 4 years,

There's more to x86-64 than being 64-bit. Most of the gains currently seen
in non-encryption apps (such as games, etc) come from things such as more
GPRs. So you lose a few % in potential performance by not having x86-64.

[...]

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Michael Brown wrote:
> For your sake and others, don't post using HTML. It makes reading the
> message annoying (copy-paste to .HTML file, check to make sure it's safe,
> open up in IE) to anyone who's vaugely security- or privacy-conscious and
> also will be blocked by many ad-blockers and filtered out by quite a few
> newsfeeds. Not to mention wasting bandwidth and all the other stuff. See
> http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=%22html+on+usenet%22
> for a full discussion
>
> Also, reply inline as opposed to bottom- or top-posting (ie: trim the
> quoting to what you are replying to).

oops ... didn't realize that i'd changed that setting ... i've now
changed my options settings back to plain text.
also didn't realize what a potential problem html posting is. i now know
better.

thank you, and again ... sorry

--
Convert & Proud Adopter of ...
Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 & my new favorite Browser ... FireFox 1.0
get on board at http://www.mozilla.org//
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom