[iLLestOne]

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)

[iLLestOne]

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?!

[Yuriman]

Thats a LOT of voltage. Personaly, I would take the higher fsb over more mhz.

[G|-|oST]

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.

[Arkangyl]

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

[bottoneatrpi]

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

[Silent Buddha]

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.

[iLLestOne]

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?

[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.

[Cyrix_2k]

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.

[iLLestOne]

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?

[iLLestOne]

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

[Joe Camel]

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

[wquiles]

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

[iLLestOne]

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

[matrixzen]

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!

[JaY_III]

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.

[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

[THunDA]

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

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

[iLLestOne]

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*