Notices

Overclockers Forums > Hardware > CPUs > AMD CPUs
AMD CPUs
Forum Jump

I know higher fsb is suppose to be the best, but...

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe Search this Thread
 
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-04-04, 04:52 PM Thread Starter   #1
iLLestOne
Member



Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Jose, Cali

 
I know higher fsb is suppose to be the best, but...


I CANNOT use 10 or 10.5 multi's, so keep this in mind

I seem to be able to run at 230x9.5=2185, 2-3-3-11. (4 hours prime)
I also can run 212x11=2332, 2-2-2-11 (6 hours prime)

Sandra ALWAYS benches higher raw Mhz, it doesn't really take fsb into account on cpu (220x10 runs EXACTLY the same as 200x11). My RAM scored quiet a bit better at 230, even with 2-3-3-11.

Which one would have better "real life" performance? My comp is a gaming rig, no video editting or anything like that. From what I've heard, higher fsb is better for games. But 18mhz fsb worth losing 147 total Mhz?

Temps aren't a prob. with either. I'm using 1.9vcore, just to make sure I am pushing my cpu to it's max (which sucks).

Idle temps 34-36c
Load 41c

Help me! I've searched but haven't found much. I will probally flash to the d10 bios, but I'm using a new MB, and I've heard that d10 might corrupt my bios (i have a PLASTIC cpu lever)

__________________
x2 4400 (89w) CCBIE 0610 DPMW 296x10=2960mhz 1.5v
xp90c *25c idle, 43c load*
DFI Lanparty NF4 Ultra D *bios 11/14*
2x512mb Mushkin xp4400 @ 296 2.5-4-4-8 2.7v
connect3d x1900xt *cat 6.12*
OCZ GameXStream 700-Watt
74gb Raptor
iLLestOne is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 02-04-04, 08:08 PM Thread Starter   #2
iLLestOne
Member



Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Jose, Cali

 
217x11 is seems to be ok, even though 215x11 didn't pass. I did raise the vcore to 1.93, up from 1.9.

So anyone have any suggestions?!

__________________
x2 4400 (89w) CCBIE 0610 DPMW 296x10=2960mhz 1.5v
xp90c *25c idle, 43c load*
DFI Lanparty NF4 Ultra D *bios 11/14*
2x512mb Mushkin xp4400 @ 296 2.5-4-4-8 2.7v
connect3d x1900xt *cat 6.12*
OCZ GameXStream 700-Watt
74gb Raptor
iLLestOne is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 02-04-04, 08:28 PM   #3
Yuriman
Member

 
Yuriman's Avatar 

Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The OCFORUMS

 
Thats a LOT of voltage. Personaly, I would take the higher fsb over more mhz.
Yuriman is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 02-04-04, 09:35 PM   #4
G|-|oST
Member

 
G|-|oST's Avatar 

Join Date: Apr 2003

 
I used to run 217 x 11 but that took a screaming Tornado fan to keep the CPU cool. Now I run at a much quiter 9.5 x 235 and to be honest I don't miss the extra Mhz in CPU speed at all. Try the high FSB setting and see how it works out for ya.
G|-|oST is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 02-04-04, 09:52 PM   #5
Arkangyl
Member

 
Arkangyl's Avatar 

Join Date: Dec 2003

 
1.9 is alot? wuss... I've set mine to 2.125 (bloody PSU only puts out like 2.06...)

use the 11 x 217 setting...


my 2500+ does 220 x 11 on 1.8 volts...

does 215 x 12 on 1.9 volts

does 224 x 12 on 2 volts

and I'm still pushing her... the 224 x 12 aint 100% stable though, I think I need a real quality PSU to push that far
Arkangyl is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 02-04-04, 11:18 PM   #6
bottoneatrpi
Registered



Join Date: Jan 2003

 
If you can't tell the difference you probably won't notice anyway

Anyway, those are some real sweet oc's

Personally, I'd use the lower (212) fsb, especially if you know its stable.

The fsb at 212 is already high, and you're running almost 150mhz more on the cpu, which you will probably notice more.

Lower latencies at 212 may help too, imo the athlonXP doesn't have a high enough fsb (only 424) to handle gobs of bandwidth anyway, so I would say you're better off with lower latency and more cpu mhzzzz...

Just my $0.02
bottoneatrpi is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 02-04-04, 11:25 PM   #7
Silent Buddha
Member

 
Silent Buddha's Avatar 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Bellevue, WA

 
Re: I know higher fsb is suppose to be the best, but...


Quote:
Originally posted by iLLestOne
Sandra ALWAYS benches higher raw Mhz, it doesn't really take fsb into account on cpu (220x10 runs EXACTLY the same as 200x11). My RAM scored quiet a bit better at 230, even with 2-3-3-11.
That's weird...I ran 220x10 and 200x11 but I got higher scores with 220x10...not by much though.
Silent Buddha is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 02-05-04, 12:05 AM Thread Starter   #8
iLLestOne
Member



Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Jose, Cali

 
When running at 200x11 and 220x10, the bars looked exactly the same. They might have been a few points off, but DEF. less then 50.

Is having a 1.9vcore maybe messing up my oc? Could TOO much voltage do wrong? I figured, the highest oc would need the highest voltage, so thats why I put it at 1.9. When I first got this cheep, I needed 1.85 to get 184x12.5=3100, so I figured with a higher fsb I would need a higher vcore.

But I see I'm getting mixed reviews. I should be able to run my mushkin at 2-3-2-11 at 230fsb, or 2-2-2-11 at 212. So timings wouldn't be a whole lot tighter at a lower fsb.

I guess I'll have to play with it more. I just miss playing games! All I do now is oc and test, and oc some more, usually with bad results I'll find out tonite if 230x9.5 is stable. If it is, i'll most likely go with that and see how many more I can step it up. Unless you think differently? Load is only 41c, and my comp is not loud at all. I don't really care about a 1.93vcore, becuase I'll probally only use this chip for a year, if that.

Thanks for the replys! Anyone else have anything to add?

__________________
x2 4400 (89w) CCBIE 0610 DPMW 296x10=2960mhz 1.5v
xp90c *25c idle, 43c load*
DFI Lanparty NF4 Ultra D *bios 11/14*
2x512mb Mushkin xp4400 @ 296 2.5-4-4-8 2.7v
connect3d x1900xt *cat 6.12*
OCZ GameXStream 700-Watt
74gb Raptor
iLLestOne is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 02-05-04, 05:38 PM   #9
bottoneatrpi
Registered



Join Date: Jan 2003

 
Technically, I don't think you'd need a higher vcore if you're just raising the fsb and lowering the multiplier. If the resulting frequency is the same, or very close, your chip should be stable at the same voltage.

If you end up adding a few mhz by using a higher fsb though, that could make it unstable and cause you to need a higher vcore.

Its fun...doing all that testing lol, I know exactly what thats like.
bottoneatrpi is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 02-05-04, 08:25 PM   #10
Cyrix_2k
Member

 
Cyrix_2k's Avatar 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: College Park, MD (School) - Westminster, MD (home)

 
As far as 1.9v being a lot:

I have a T-Bird that been running for four year @ 46-55c @ 2.0v and it's fine.

__________________

ASRock Z68 Extreme 3 Gen3

2500k @ 4.9ghz
Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO

vCore
1.287 |Idle: 33c | Full load: 68c
16gb Corsair XMS 3
| Sapphire 6950 2GB UNLOCKED
F O L D For Team 32!!

Black belt Ubercloxx0r

Audio Technica ATH-A900's
"yet another issue with the R-series. If I actually use it on my lap, I can feel my sperm count dropping."
SANS GSEC Certified
Cyrix_2k is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 02-05-04, 10:21 PM Thread Starter   #11
iLLestOne
Member



Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Jose, Cali

 
Alright, 230x9.5 passed 12 hours prime

235 failed 12 mins of prime.

So 230 it is! I had my ram set at 2.5-3-3-11, just to make sure it wasn't the ram holding me back. Now we'll see how tight I can get the timeings.

One last question, is higher fsb ONLY good for memory bandwidth? Or, does having a higher fsb acuaully help the cpu be faster. From what I've read, it sounds like a higher fsb is usually went after when someone wants higher memory bandwidth. Is this true, or does it also speed up the cpu some?

__________________
x2 4400 (89w) CCBIE 0610 DPMW 296x10=2960mhz 1.5v
xp90c *25c idle, 43c load*
DFI Lanparty NF4 Ultra D *bios 11/14*
2x512mb Mushkin xp4400 @ 296 2.5-4-4-8 2.7v
connect3d x1900xt *cat 6.12*
OCZ GameXStream 700-Watt
74gb Raptor

Last edited by iLLestOne; 02-06-04 at 02:31 AM.
iLLestOne is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 02-06-04, 02:33 AM Thread Starter   #12
iLLestOne
Member



Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Jose, Cali

 
Also, do you think I should go back to my older mb, and 217x10.5? Would that be better in "real life"?

I can do 217x10.5 on that mb or
230x9.5 or 212x11 on this new mb

I'd rather keep this mb. I installed a nb/sb and mosfet hs. All with thermal tape, but still

__________________
x2 4400 (89w) CCBIE 0610 DPMW 296x10=2960mhz 1.5v
xp90c *25c idle, 43c load*
DFI Lanparty NF4 Ultra D *bios 11/14*
2x512mb Mushkin xp4400 @ 296 2.5-4-4-8 2.7v
connect3d x1900xt *cat 6.12*
OCZ GameXStream 700-Watt
74gb Raptor
iLLestOne is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 02-06-04, 11:12 AM   #13
Joe Camel
Senior Camel Kicker

 
Joe Camel's Avatar 

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ---> NEW HOUSE 7/17/09 !! <---

 
now that you have found your "stable" OC, its now time to start playing thoes games again, to find out which setup seems faster in "real life" (LOL).
as for the volts: if you arnt worried about the chip...2.2V (with "good" temps) seems fine with me. ie. live fast, die young, and upgrade sooner!

GOOD LUCK

__________________
-->> Help US fight: CANCER, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's & MORE with YOUR computer <<--
Joe Camel is FOLDing for Team 32
R.I.P pete_scout I wish we could have FOLDed a cure, for you.
HEAT
"So you see, it's not at all pointless, you just have to look for a different point" ... hafa 5/17/04
6800 EX Conroe @ 4740 MHz (395 x 12) - - Dry-Ice in The Camel Pipe -
- X1900 CrossFire @ 846/945 - - MachII Slave, D-Ice Master -
- 2x gig Corsair XMS 6400 CAS3 @ 494 MHz 4-4-3-1 -
- ASUS P5W-DH - - 700w "Mr Zippy" PSU
Joe Camel is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 02-06-04, 03:53 PM   #14
wquiles
Member



Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas

 
What is faster in "real life"? It depends on what you do with your computer in "real life". If you access your hard drives and memory a lot I would preffer to have a higher FSB to get data in/out quicker than just having the CPU run quickly but have to wait longer for data. Just my opinion
wquiles is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 02-06-04, 04:36 PM Thread Starter   #15
iLLestOne
Member



Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Jose, Cali

 
By "real life", I just meant not synthetic benchies. My computer is aimed at gaming. I don't mind load times a whole lot, esp. if I have to sacrifice fps for loading 3 times faster.

So higher fsb will allow the hdd and memory to relay info faster? Even if the timings on the memory are looser?

I can run at 213x11 no problem. 232x95 seems to be my other max. Which would be better for gaming? (1942, CS, Unreal, HL-2 when it comes out, NFSU)

Thanks for all the replys. I never really totally understood this aspect of oc'in.

Btw, heres my two 3d2001 benchies, if that helps you at all.

213x11
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7530837

232x9.5 (2.5-3-3-11, which probally could have been 2-3-2-11)
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7528244

__________________
x2 4400 (89w) CCBIE 0610 DPMW 296x10=2960mhz 1.5v
xp90c *25c idle, 43c load*
DFI Lanparty NF4 Ultra D *bios 11/14*
2x512mb Mushkin xp4400 @ 296 2.5-4-4-8 2.7v
connect3d x1900xt *cat 6.12*
OCZ GameXStream 700-Watt
74gb Raptor
iLLestOne is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 02-06-04, 07:31 PM   #16
matrixzen
Member

 
matrixzen's Avatar 

Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: CA

 
I would take the higher overall CPU speed opposed to the higher FSB in this case. I'm pretty sure up to 2V is as an average safe voltage. I think you are lurking in the unknown territory at 2.1V or higher voltage. Try testing your speed and reliability with F@H, Prime, Sandra, 3DMARK2001 and just run loops with them. The best test for my computer is when I run F@H, 3DMARK2001 simutaneously. Good luck!

__________________
Team 32 Contributor.
matrixzen is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 02-06-04, 10:45 PM   #17
JaY_III
Senior of BX

 
JaY_III's Avatar 

Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Canada

10 Year Badge
 
yeah, NF7 ticks me off that 10 and 10.5x dont work at high FSB speeds...
So i am stuck at 245 x 9.5

But if I do want 10x to work, i have to disable "CPU Interface" and take a MAJOR hit in memory bandwidth.
JaY_III is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 02-07-04, 12:44 PM   #18
Chixofnix
Member

 
Chixofnix's Avatar 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kansas City, KS USA

 
as far as GAMING is concerned, you'll see a bigger performance increase w/ tighter Latencies and higher overall processor Mhz, since the latencies matter when there's lots of random data being accessed rapidly (as in games)... if you do a lot of video editing / huge photoshop files, you'll probably get more of a kick out of the higher fsb, but since you say your main purpose is gaming, go for the tighter latencies / faster processor

__________________
Current Rig: CPU: Phenom II X4 965BE, 3.4GHz RAM: OCZ 2x2Gb DDR3-1600 GPU: Sapphire Radeon HD 5770, 1Gb HDD: (1)Raptor 74Gb, (2)Seagate 250Gb, (1)WD Green 1.5Tb PSU: ENERMAX ELT620AWT-ECO, 620W MBD: Gigabyte GA-MA785GT-UD3H CASE: Antec P180

Previous Rig: CPU: Manchester A64 X2 3800+ w/ stock cooling RAM: 2x1Gb of generic DDR400 GPU: XFX 6800GS (AGP) PSU: Antec True380 PSU MBD: AsRock Dual939 SATA2 mobo (AGP+PCIe)

My Heatware
Chixofnix is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 02-07-04, 01:11 PM   #19
THunDA
Member

 
THunDA's Avatar 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NY

 
I was also stuck for a while on the higher fsb\loose timings or lower fsb\tight timings.. And for me I tend to like the timings tighter ... could be just in my head but it seems faster..lol or maybe I just like to put 2-2-2 timings in my sig..lol

Quote:
Originally posted by bottoneatrpi
Technically, I don't think you'd need a higher vcore if you're just raising the fsb and lowering the multiplier. If the resulting frequency is the same, or very close, your chip should be stable at the same voltage.

If you end up adding a few mhz by using a higher fsb though, that could make it unstable and cause you to need a higher vcore.

Its fun...doing all that testing lol, I know exactly what thats like.
Every time I tried to OC the fsb and keep the mhz the same by lowering the multi ...it seemed I did need a little more vcore..

Is that just me ?


Thunda
THunDA is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 02-07-04, 01:21 PM Thread Starter   #20
iLLestOne
Member



Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Jose, Cali

 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chixofnix
as far as GAMING is concerned, you'll see a bigger performance increase w/ tighter Latencies and higher overall processor Mhz, since the latencies matter when there's lots of random data being accessed rapidly (as in games)... if you do a lot of video editing / huge photoshop files, you'll probably get more of a kick out of the higher fsb, but since you say your main purpose is gaming, go for the tighter latencies / faster processor
Thats good to hear! I was hopeing it was like that.
Passed 11 hours prime, 214x11 (prime is still going) 1.93vcore. Load temp 41c. 2-2-2-11, of course

215 failed within 10 mins last time I tired. But that was with 1.9 vcore. *fingers crossed*

__________________
x2 4400 (89w) CCBIE 0610 DPMW 296x10=2960mhz 1.5v
xp90c *25c idle, 43c load*
DFI Lanparty NF4 Ultra D *bios 11/14*
2x512mb Mushkin xp4400 @ 296 2.5-4-4-8 2.7v
connect3d x1900xt *cat 6.12*
OCZ GameXStream 700-Watt
74gb Raptor
iLLestOne is offline   QUOTE Thanks

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe


Overclockers Forums > Hardware > CPUs > AMD CPUs
AMD CPUs
Forum Jump

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Mobile Skin
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
You can add these icons by updating your profile information to include your Heatware ID, Benching Profile ID or your Folding/SETI profile ID. Edit your profile!
X

Welcome to Overclockers.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

New members like you have made this the best community on the Internet since 1998!


(4 digit year)

Why Join Us?

  • Share experience
  • Max out your hardware
  • Best forum members anywhere
  • Customized forum experience

Already a member?