Extra multiplier on the 3200 A64 needed?

Hey all, I am debating on wether to get the 3000+ or the 3200+, both CG revision and I was just wondering if it was necessary to spend the extra bucks for the extra multi...

I am not sure if it is that useful... I see myself running it at something like 240 and up HTT (if I get a good enough chip) with probabily a 10 multiplier... but I dont want to rely on the fact that the chip will do that high HTT, so I may need that extra multu to make up for it... you know what I mean?

So what do you guys think? this will be on an epox board, btw nf3 250gb.

You should be alright with the 10. But the only way be shure is to get the 3200. I think you are talking about the newcastle & it SHOULD be no prob to get 10x240.

For 754 A64 desktop, these two are good for air/water cooling and price/performance.

3000+: ADA3000AEP4AX 1.5V (CG rev, FC0h) <- NewCastle, 512 KB L2, 2.0 GHz, x10

3200+: ADA3200AEP5AR 1.5V (CG rev, F4Ah) <- ClawHammer, 1 MB L2, 2.0 GHz, x10

The 10 multi is all you need, the 11 is pointless unless youre ganna use some VIA board with no AGP PCI locks working, then youre ganna have problems.

Usually people with the 3000's and even the 3200's and up run a 9 or 8

personally i think the 11x is great. means i can run 11x240 or more and be able to stay at 1:1 instead of handicapping my rig at 5:4.

unless you are using relaxed timing ram capable of 280+ i think the 11x multiplier is very much needed. my bh5 maxes at 240 and i have some ocz eb3500 i haven't maxed out yet but i figure it'll be around 240-250. with 11x that gives me up to 2640-2750 instead of 2400-2500.

Maxvla said:

personally i think the 11x is great. means i can run 11x240 or more and be able to stay at 1:1 instead of handicapping my rig at 5:4.

unless you are using relaxed timing ram capable of 280+ i think the 11x multiplier is very much needed. my bh5 maxes at 240 and i have some ocz eb3500 i haven't maxed out yet but i figure it'll be around 240-250. with 11x that gives me up to 2640-2750 instead of 2400-2500.

Click to expand...

I dont know if "handicaping" is the right word here, A64 do not take a hit while not running in sync. This will be on air, so I will be more than happy with an A64 @ 2.5gig.

I was referring to the newcastle's BTW, and thanks all for the replies. My goal is high HTT, and not so high multi... so maybe the 11 one is not what I need. I think I will stick with the 3000+ then, thanks guys.

dreIU said:

I dont know if "handicaping" is the right word here, A64 do not take a hit while not running in sync. This will be on air, so I will be more than happy with an A64 @ 2.5gig.

I was referring to the newcastle's BTW, and thanks all for the replies. My goal is high HTT, and not so high multi... so maybe the 11 one is not what I need. I think I will stick with the 3000+ then, thanks guys.

Click to expand...

can you provide links to tests regarding 1:1/5:4? i have not seen proof or really experimented with it on my own so i have no real basis for an argument either way.

I dont have any proof, but i tried it myself, 1:1 @ 230 for me cuss that all my pc3200 sammy did running 278HTT and 230mhz on my memory i didnt notice much at all diff cept the cpu being a lil faster. Maybe 1% drop in bandwidth Effinecy

dreIU said:

I dont know if "handicaping" is the right word here, A64 do not take a hit while not running in sync. This will be on air, so I will be more than happy with an A64 @ 2.5gig.

I was referring to the newcastle's BTW, and thanks all for the replies. My goal is high HTT, and not so high multi... so maybe the 11 one is not what I need. I think I will stick with the 3000+ then, thanks guys.

Click to expand...

From what I've done with A64's the only handicap is the lower bandwith of slower ram. However efficiency of ram is same using CPU/10 CPU/12, or what ever you end up running at.

Having a high HTT now is not nearly as important as overall CPU speed, in which the higher multi is a great benefit. simply because it's 200 MHZ more speed at default, and only grows greater as you OC further.
The only reason I have found to drop the multi is to obtain a better ram speed in combination with CPU, and it's starting point. So to me it would be benificial to have another option in finding the greatest CPU speed and RAM speed combination.

Some testing of ram and CPU at different speed I've done in the past and posted previously. Also note that the HTT speed in all of these was way below what newer boards can do now. Proving that HTT speed is not that important.



Look here for comparison of CPU/ram speed differences at stock CPU and ram at 166 then 200

Look here for difference between tight timmings with divider, and loose timmings with 1:1 ratio at same CPU speed (see post 2 of thread

The impact of running non 1:1 memory:FSB ratio on memory bandwidth efficiency has been discussed and established few months back, and found to have minimum or no impact on memory efficiency. This is also illustrated by d]g[ts's results in the two links he listed, attaining 97% efficiency in both cases.

The question between a higher multiplier CPU (e.g. 3200+ NC CG with x11) or a lower multiplier CPU (e.g. 3200+ NC CG with x10) is reduced to the question of having enough memory divider to locate the sweet spot for a given CPU and memory module(s) used.

E.g.
NC 3200+ with x11
available memory divider = 14, 12, 11, 10, 9, ... (through x11, x10, x9, ... CPU_multiplier in combination of 1:1, 5:6 memory:FSB ratio)

NC 3000+ with x10
available memory divider = 12, 11, 10, 9, ... (through x10, x9, ... CPU_multiplier in combination of 1:1, 5:6 memory:FSB ratio)

So the difference between NC 3200+ and NC 3000+ is only the 14 memory divider.

memory_bus_frequency = CPU_frequency / memory_divider

Unless the memory modules used is very slow (< CPU_freq_max/12), the 14 memory divider is usually immaterial for air/water overclocking, hence NC 3000+ would be OK. Extreme cooling may be different though, to be discussed if needed.

This link shows how to compute the memory divider for a given CPU multiplier, memory:FSB ratio.

Memory bus frequency setting, SYNC/ASYNC mode (scroll down a page)

Well.. im confused already lol. Reading on how to overclock an athlon 64 is a bit confusing for me.. because im used to going by FSB x Multi.. and now there's this HT stuff.. So is it FSB x HT now? Blah i guess ill just wait and see when my 3000+ and Max-3 gets here.

apu318 said:

Well.. im confused already lol. Reading on how to overclock an athlon 64 is a bit confusing for me.. because im used to going by FSB x Multi.. and now there's this HT stuff.. So is it FSB x HT now? Blah i guess ill just wait and see when my 3000+ and Max-3 gets here.

Click to expand...

If you find the memory dividier complicated, you can choose the simpler form which is:

Running memory and FSB (or called HTT) in 1 to 1 ratio. So

1. Memory_bus_frequency = FSB

2. CPU_frequency = FSB x CPU_multiplier

CPU_multiplier is unlock from stock and below, e.g. NC 3000+, multiplier = 10, 9, 8, ...

3. HT_bus_frequency = FSB x HT_multiplier

HT_multiplier = 1, 2, 3, 4, usually 3 or 4.

That is it.

The last post I talked about memory divider is for a very general setting, maybe pushing the edge too much.

Overclocking setting for various bus frequencies

hitechjb1 said:

So the difference between NC 3200+ and NC 3000+ is only the 14 memory divider.

Click to expand...

So the 3000+ it is then... BTW, I will be using PC3700 EB.

I don't think I will purchase this until I find the motherboard somewhere in stock, so if anyone has anymore comments, I got a few days. Thanks guys.

dreIU said:

So the 3000+ it is then... BTW, I will be using PC3700 EB.

I don't think I will purchase this until I find the motherboard somewhere in stock, so if anyone has anymore comments, I got a few days. Thanks guys.

Click to expand...

Given the 3700 EB can run high memory bus (250+ MHz) with low equivalent latency, for air/water cooling of CPU, a 3000+ NC CG with 10x is what I would get. Saving ~$50 than a 3200+ for other things.

In principle, a 2800+ may suffice, but given the price difference between 2800+ and 3000+ is not much (after price drop), a 3000+ is preferred.

ok well that confuses me.

wouldn't a rig running 10x240 1:1 be faster than a rig running 10x240 5:4 (192mhz ram)?

isn't the goal to have the fastest ram and the fastest cpu to hit the sweetspot for performance?

i guess you could run 8x300 with 5:4 and accomplish the same thing though. hmm.

I'd go for the 3200. Not only will you have the option of the 11, but you never know if your board will have a limited HT. It's better to have a feature and not use it, then to not have it and need it later...

NiTrO bOiE said:

I'd go for the 3200. Not only will you have the option of the 11, but you never know if your board will have a limited HT. It's better to have a feature and not use it, then to not have it and need it later...

Click to expand...

you bring a good point, but that extra 50 is more comfortable in the bank at the moment

limited HT? Hmm... don't think that, the only thing that will be holding me back is the fact that I only have the option of up to 2.8vdimm... and that is what my ram runs at stock speeds. I doubt I will get it much higher than 240mhz, unless that OCZ booster is compatible with the epox nf3 250gb boards.

I do not think that the 11x multi is really needed, but it is nice to have. I am picking up a A64 3200+ and already have a 3000+ that does 2.5ghz. My reasoning is that hopefully it will OC a little better, I can run my memory at a little tighter timings and I will not need to volt mod my board so I can run my memory at 1:1 (which I prefer even with the small gain). I did lots of testing and the I agree that the memory dividers suffer only a minor performance hit that seems to be largely offset by the higher HTT speed. I only noticed about a 1-2% performance delta at the same clock when doing benchmarks. I waste money doing stupid stuff all the time so the $35+ difference between the 3000 and 3200 is no big deal to me.