are o'clocked chips comparible to the real thing?

?thanks

2.4c overclock to a 3.0c=2.4c is faster has a higher fsb,and going from 2.4-3.4ghz is a huge performance gain,also you dont need watercooling to overclock p4's,a few fans and a good hsf will do

A 2.4c overclocked to 3.0ghz would be faster since it has a faster FSB.

Sorry, faster than a stock 3.0c

It'll be a little faster in games, especially ones that like bandwidth such as Q3 games and such. I'm running a 2.4c at 275mhz fsb (3.3ghz) on an Asus P4P800.

When you overclock your cpu, almost everything is overclocked in your system.
(i.e. FSB, memory, cpu, PCI, AGP) <--all of those will run faster.

There for a 2.4c overclocked to 3.0 is going to be much faster than a 3.0c because the system busses and the memory are also running at much higher speeds. This has both positive and negative repercussions. But assuming everything runs stable, the system will run much faster then its stock counterpart.

But also keep in mind that the faster you go the margin of return becomes lower.

Heres an example with 2 stock CPU's i have with different FSB.
I have a 2.4a which is a 400fsb chip and a 2.4b which is a 533fsb chip. The higher fsb chip performs faster then the other. The 2.4a (400fsb) will complete SETI wu's at an average of 3hours 15 minutes. The 2.4b (533fsb) will finish SETI wu's at an average of 2 hours 50 minutes.

The faster fsb chip will be faster. So as mentioned a 2.4b(533fsb) overclocked to 3.0(666fsb) will be faster than a stock 3.0(533fsb).

I'll try to keep this simple....

a 2.4c OCed to 3.0ghz will be faster then a 3.0c at stock.
how much faster?
we'll I would say about 5%-10% then the stock cpu at most of the newer games.

btw, you'll want to use the pci/agp lock to keep your vid card and sound card at stock, thus keeping things as stable as possable.

also, with just a good HS and fan, plus two or four case fans, you could OC that 2.4c up to (or around) 3.4ghz-3.6ghz
now that will be far faster then anything intel is selling right now.

I see no reason to go water cooling, unless your room temps get quite warm.
look at the slk900u HS and a panaflow fan.

when OCing the 2.4c, it may be the memory that may hold you back.

I sugjest the 2.6c as a great OCing cpu that will get you by on a nice OC and great bandwith with most pc3500 memory out today.
infact you could get away with the xms3200LL, yet the pc3500 my give you better timmings.

at 3.5ghz or so, it will be your vid card that will be your bottleneck.
a good ati 9800pro may be worth it to you if you have the extra $$$.

a good canterwood mobo like the abit IC7 or asus P4C800 will be your best bet for a great OC.

I hope this helps.

btw, WELCOME TO THE FORUMS.

mica

Here is another question for you guys. I have a 1700 AMD @ 2.4. If i were to get a 2.4c @ 3.5 how much percent gain would I see in games such as doom 3 ect?

Kdog154 said:

Here is another question for you guys. I have a 1700 AMD @ 2.4. If i were to get a 2.4c @ 3.5 how much percent gain would I see in games such as doom 3 ect?

Click to expand...

the game isn't out yet, so how can we say.
I did see your other post, about the same thing...
all I can say is it will tak at least a xp1700 OCed to 3.0ghz or better to get about the same performance as a 2.4c OCed to 3.5ghz.

good luck reaching that number with an amd.

mica

Ok so I've proof read this now, been writing while browsing forums at same time for almost an hour now lol, and realized I sorta went off and wrote a Novel, and while writing this mica and others have replied and I'll probably be reiterating some of what they said (sorry), but anyways heres my 2 cents....

Its hard to say exactly how much improvement you would notice in a game, it would depend on the game, 3D card and system ram as well. but yes it is possible that you would notice a larger improvement in games from the [email protected] than a stock 3.0c. heres why a [email protected] is faster than a stock 3.0c (not overclocked): Out of the box both the 2.4c and 3.0c have the same stock FSB setting (133? I believe is the right number ****EDIT*** that is for B series, I just read that its stock 200 for C series***/EDIT). Either way the number right now is not the important part. To get the [email protected] you have to increase the FSB a good amount which in turn increases the Bus speed. The Stock 3.0c (not overclocked) would have a slower bus speed(only because it would still be at stock speeds)than the bus speed of the [email protected]. This isn't an apples to apples comparison though because don't forget you can overclock a 3.0c to 3.6Ghz+ and get some nice bus speeds too. The point of all this is: more bus speed is always better, it lets you have faster transfer of information, and pretty much increases the performance of everything in your system. So because of this, you could expect to see an increase in FPS.

Also don't forget to factor the ram you have into this equation. You can always run your ram with different dividers, but trying to simplify this lets just say you want to run it at a 1:1 ratio no matter what. In this case when overclocking these processors to their max capabilities, the 2.4c is going to be the most demanding on your ram. In my opinion I would only get the 2.4c if you plan to get PC3700 Ram. But if you are set on getting or already have PC3200 I would recommend you get the 2.8c. the PC3200 would quickly become your limiting overclocking factor if you got the 2.4c, but PC3200 and the 2.8c should be able to achieve some very nice overclocks and maybe even maintain a 1:1 ratio.

These ram divider ratios are still hard for me to completely understand myself, but I believe they have to do with the ratio of FSB to Memory Mhz, Don't quote me on this and please if I'm wrong someone correct me (I'm still learning myself) but I believe the first number in the ratio is the FSB and the 2nd is the Mhz the memory is running at for example if you have 200FSB that would be 200Mhz(DDR400 and what PC3200 is rated at), most of these canterwoods go well above 200FSB on average seems like a lot are getting 275FSB. So for example you can see why you can't run a 1:1 ratio at 275FSB, that would be DDR550, and PC3700 (DDR466) is the fastest stuff out right now. It can run faster than that, but I have yet to see it run at DDR550 speeds. So people are forced to either lower the FSB so they can have a 1:1 ratio, or use a 5:4 ratio (which is why a lot of people are anticipating the release of DDR500, cause it could potentially allow them to run a 1:1 ratio with a higher FSB maybe even 275+ who knows until its been out and been tested...right?

Ok with all this said, no matter what processor you get, all canterwoods are good options, and I think that for gaming purposes you would be happy with any of the canterwood processors. (I want one too lol! ) The 3D card is probably more of a factor in gaming/fps than anything else. My setup is a P4 [email protected], and a Ti-4200 and I have yet to find a game that I don't get great fps, which is in part why I haven't upgraded, and why I think you will be happy with any of the canterwoods.

Jo-Jo said:

so basically a 2.4c overclocked to, let's say for example sake, at 3.6ghz would not be faster then a true p4 3.6c(if one existied)?

Click to expand...

No the opposite

What i am trying to figure out is if its a good idea to upgrade to the 2.4c @ 3.5 right now over what I have? I mean doom 3 will be the most intensive game out. Do you guys think its a good idea to upgrade now to the 2.4c?

I wouldn't count on Doom 3 being the most intensive, if you plan on playing Half Life 2, you should check out the graphics on that game.

cack01 said:

No the opposite

Click to expand...

WHAT???

a stock 3.6(c)ghz at only 200fsb will always be slower then a 2.4c OCed to 3.6ghz (300fsb).

mica

If this is a DOOM III upgrade why do it now. The game will not be out for months, and by the time it does come out prices will no doubt be a bit lower than they are now. Waiting is never a bad thing.

Ed feels now is a good time to buy: http://www.overclockers.com/tips00390/ But I've never seen anything bad come from being conservative. Unless your with a Girl.

FrozenFears said:

I wouldn't count on Doom 3 being the most intensive, if you plan on playing Half Life 2, you should check out the graphics on that game.

Click to expand...

again, both games are not out yet.
so it's realy hard to say what would be more intensive.
plus the'll have compleatly different engines.

mica

micamica1217 said:

WHAT???

a stock 3.6(c)ghz at only 200fsb will always be slower then a 2.4c OCed to 3.6ghz (300fsb).

mica

Click to expand...

Thats what I said.

I would not count on a 2.4C overclocking to 3.6 gig. Sure, some of 'em do, but the average is probably more like 3.2 to 3.4 gig.

If you start talking about 3D game frame rates, high FSB and high memory speed and high CPU clock speed all help to increase FPS, but the vid card is one of the most critical components in that regard.

Jo-Jo said:

so basically a 2.4c overclocked to, let's say for example sake, at 3.6ghz would not be faster then a true p4 3.6c(if one existied)?

Click to expand...

I think what he thought you guys meant was that as the stock speed goes up, the gains of overclocking go down, which is not true. What they meant was basically, the further you go beyond the stock speed of any processor, the less you'll notice it.