-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Celeron Overclocking Voltages
- Thread starter Toast
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- #3
In the referenced plot there appears to be two distinct clusters, and corresponding trend lines, for the 1.0A and 1.2A chips. This is in stark contrast to the similar work done for Pentium 4's where there was no significant difference between the 1.6A up 2.2A.
Toast
Toast
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2001
- Location
- Louisville, KY
May I ask where this graph came from? To me from the graph it looks like both chips have the same OC potential. But many users in this forum have got the 1.0A to higher FSB speeds overall than the 1.2A
So I think that graph is a bit of BS....just my $0.02
So I think that graph is a bit of BS....just my $0.02
- Thread Starter
- #5
The data plotted in the graph was prepared from entries in our own overclockers database. If there is any doubt regarding the trends, I encourage you to do the same analysis excercise. With this information, I find the Celeron 1.2A the better choice over the 1.0A.
Toast
Toast
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
Toast said:
the graph is great, but the thing is that FSB matters more than CPU speed a cpu with a bus at 160(1.0A) would crush a simlarly clocked 1.2A due to memory bandwith and other extras you get from fsb ocing...
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2001
- Location
- Louisville, KY
Well maybe I'm missing something but this is what I see
At 133FSb the 1.0A has a voltage of approximately 1.575V (with a pretty tight spread)
At 133FSb the 1.2A has a voltage of approximately 1.700V (with some higher and some lower)
Both chips have the same default voltage. So this would indicate to me that the 1.0A is a better overclocker. Yes the multiplier is lower (10 rather than 12) but the FSb speed can be pushed higher on the 1.0A. I do agree that the 1.2 can reach higher clock speeds than the 1.0 but thats about it
At 133FSb the 1.0A has a voltage of approximately 1.575V (with a pretty tight spread)
At 133FSb the 1.2A has a voltage of approximately 1.700V (with some higher and some lower)
Both chips have the same default voltage. So this would indicate to me that the 1.0A is a better overclocker. Yes the multiplier is lower (10 rather than 12) but the FSb speed can be pushed higher on the 1.0A. I do agree that the 1.2 can reach higher clock speeds than the 1.0 but thats about it
- Thread Starter
- #8
I totally concur with the insights. In fact, here is a quick table I put together:
vCore 1.0A 1.2A
1.5v 1250/125 1420/118
1.6v 1390/139 1540/128
1.7v 1520/152 1650/138
1.8v 1650/165 1750/146
Which leads to an interesting question, for a constraint of 1.7v core voltage, would a theoretical 1.0A @ 1520 MHz / 152 FSB outperform a 1.2A @ 1650 MHz / 138 FSB ? and, What collection of benchmarks would be suited for such a comparison ?
Toast
vCore 1.0A 1.2A
1.5v 1250/125 1420/118
1.6v 1390/139 1540/128
1.7v 1520/152 1650/138
1.8v 1650/165 1750/146
Which leads to an interesting question, for a constraint of 1.7v core voltage, would a theoretical 1.0A @ 1520 MHz / 152 FSB outperform a 1.2A @ 1650 MHz / 138 FSB ? and, What collection of benchmarks would be suited for such a comparison ?
Toast
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2001
- Location
- Louisville, KY
I would say realistically that with a constraint of 1.7V max the average overclocker would hit around 140 FSB =1400 with the 1.0A and would hit about 129-133 FSB with the 1.2A at 1.7V max (1550-1600) I would think the performance will be similar but I'm willing to set my FSB lower for testing/benchmarking <---cant go any higher 
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2001
- Location
- Louisville, KY
speaking of benchmarks...check out this review on the 1.0A...lots of good stuff here http://www.xbitlabs.com/cpu/celeron1a-oc/
- Thread Starter
- #11
Thanks for the link.
Based on reading a number of similar reviews for a wide collection of processors, I have concluded any benchmark result can probably be represented by a response model from a set of contributing factors. Of which, I suspect the most dominant are, CPU Core Frequency, Memory Bandwidth, ALU Performance, FPU Performance, GPU Performance, FSB, and several others. While it may take some time, I hope to provide some insight in this area.
Toast
Based on reading a number of similar reviews for a wide collection of processors, I have concluded any benchmark result can probably be represented by a response model from a set of contributing factors. Of which, I suspect the most dominant are, CPU Core Frequency, Memory Bandwidth, ALU Performance, FPU Performance, GPU Performance, FSB, and several others. While it may take some time, I hope to provide some insight in this area.
Toast
Last edited:
