Should I oc to play game?

[UrgeToKillRisin]

Hi, I haven't oc'ed in a decade so looking for some prelim advice.

I'd like to play a game with these minimum requirements:
(XP): Core 2 Duo with 1.4 GHz or Athlon 64 X2 with 1.8 GHz, 1024 MB RAM, Geforce 6600 GT or Radeon X850 with 128 MB, 20 GB disc space

My system is:

CHAINTECH NVIDIA **nForce4** Ultra Chipset Motherboard For AMD Socket
939 CPU, Model "VNF4/Ultra"

Athlon64 3000+ S939 512K Athlon64 3000+ (1.8GHz) S939 512K 800FSB HS &
FAN winchester dual channel

CorSair12217 VS512MB400x2 1GB PC3200 Memory Kit (2x512) 1024MB
(2x512MB) PC3200 DDR400 CAS 2.5 Memory Kit

N368 6600GT 128M PCX eVGA DDR TV-o, DVi-i PCI-Express

HD:
$107.00 Seagate 120G 8M SATA 7200 Seagate 120G 8M SATA150 7200rpm
IDE 3.5"

case:
SONATA Sonata Antec Sonata 18" ATX Tower w/ TruePower 380W Power
Supply (Black)


So, I guess I should/must oc but will it be enough?

Also, I already looked into oc'ing and have a Phoenix BIOS and that seemed problematic - unable to identify the correct settings to change.

A quick word of advice is greatly appreciated.
thanks
Eric

 

[UrgeToKillRisin]

Given this, should I even bother trying? Maybe I need to upgrade?

___________________________

"Dragon Age: Origins - More cores, better performance
The processor is the most important component for a lag free Dragon Age: Origins experience. The CPU shouldn't just run at least 2.8 GHz but also have four cores. In our test the performance was increased by 29 percent when we replaced our C2D E6600 (dual-core) with the C2Q Q6600 (quad-core) which also runs at 2.4 GHz. Thus we recommend the C2Q Q8400 or the Phenom II X4 940 BE - both processors cost about 150 Euros. Detailed CPU benchmarks will follow as soon as possible.

Update: Dragon Age: Origins CPU benchmarks - 75 percent boost for quad-cores

Dragon Age: Origins - Lower Middle Class GPUs are enough
Although the graphics are looking quite good, the game doesn't stress the graphics card too much. For 1280 x 1024 pixels (no FSAA, 16:1 AF) a Geforce 9800 GT or Radeon HD 4770 is enough. Higher settings like 1680 x 1050 with 4x/8x FSAA require a GTS 250 or HS 4870 (512 MiByte). Since the launch file already needs 1.3 GiByte system memory, your system should have 2 GiByte (XP) respectively 4 GiByte (Vista) RAM at least. For Windows 7 you should also have 4 GiByte.

Dragon Age: Origins - Tuning
The biggest tuning capabilities are offered by the graphics options. Up to 42 percent more can be squeezed out of the engine. For our tests we used a Core 2 Duo E6320, a Geforce 8800 GT and 4 GiByte RAM. "

 

[Peeved Kitten]

You won't be able to play any current game at anything over low settings I'm betting, that Proc is a bit underpowered for some of the newer games. You should be able to piece together a good gaming rig in the sub $500 range.

 

[QuietIce]

to OCF!

Hi, I haven't oc'ed in a decade so looking for some prelim advice.

I'd like to play a game with these minimum requirements:
(XP): Core 2 Duo with 1.4 GHz or Athlon 64 X2 with 1.8 GHz, 1024 MB RAM, Geforce 6600 GT or Radeon X850 with 128 MB, 20 GB disc space

My system is:

CHAINTECH NVIDIA **nForce4** Ultra Chipset Motherboard For AMD Socket
939 CPU, Model "VNF4/Ultra"

Athlon64 3000+ S939 512K Athlon64 3000+ (1.8GHz) S939 512K 800FSB HS &
FAN winchester dual channel

CorSair12217 VS512MB400x2 1GB PC3200 Memory Kit (2x512) 1024MB
(2x512MB) PC3200 DDR400 CAS 2.5 Memory Kit

N368 6600GT 128M PCX eVGA DDR TV-o, DVi-i PCI-Express

HD:
$107.00 Seagate 120G 8M SATA 7200 Seagate 120G 8M SATA150 7200rpm
IDE 3.5"

case:
SONATA Sonata Antec Sonata 18" ATX Tower w/ TruePower 380W Power
Supply (Black)


So, I guess I should/must oc but will it be enough?

Also, I already looked into oc'ing and have a Phoenix BIOS and that seemed problematic - unable to identify the correct settings to change.

A quick word of advice is greatly appreciated.
thanks
Eric

It's always worthwhile to OC!

You should be looking for a setting with a default value of 200 MHz. This can be labeled many things but on older boards can be FSB (even though this is wrong, wrong, wrong) or CPU Frequency or CPU Clock or anything like that. If you can raise the 200 MHz clock then you can overclock.

To overclock very far you may also need to increase the CPU voltage (vCore). This is the dangerous part, though, because you really need proper CPU cooling to do this half-safely. The default vCore for that CPU is 1.325v if I remember right (it's been a few years).

In the end, though, Peeved Kitten is right. If you want good performance in modern games you really need a new machine - at least CPU, motherboard, and RAM. I assume you've already upgraded your video card but if you haven't even modern on-board graphics, while far from the best available, would be better than what you probably have now ...

 

[Dooms101]

I agree with QI. A good budget system will go magnitudes farther than your current one. The best reason is upgradability. An a good DDR3 AM3 board with a PCI-e slot will be able to be upgraded for a few years and will be worth the investment. Your current machine should still be fun to OC though

If you're looking for any parts recommendations here's one:
CPU: I'd get a Regor 250 for around $55
RAM: you can get 2x 2GB DDR3-1600 cas8 kits for around $50
Mobo: there's a ton on options, but a good AMD chipset board with AM3 and DDR3 support with a good iGPU and newer CPU support for around $70
GPU: Nvidia GTS450 or a AMD HD5750 can be had for about $115
PSU: a decent 450watt or so upgrade for $45 - $50
HDD: not necessary but a 320GB SATAII is around $45

Total: ~$340
Total + HDD: ~$390

And that system would be all you'd need to play any modern game (including DX11 games) for a while at modest settings.

 

[UrgeToKillRisin]

Awesome. Thank you all for your help. I'm sorry, I just didn't realize that that game only came out 1 year ago. I will set my sights lower and in the meantime I will look to oc this system a bit.

I can increase from 200 MHz and will do that bit by bit and when it becomes unstable I will increase vCore. I will look online to see what the high end of vCore can be and stay in a safe range.

Thanks for all your help.

 

[QuietIce]

I've had CPU's running 24/7 @ 1.45 vCore with a 50°C (load core temp) for over four years now without issue. If your CPU will be short-lived you could push it to 1.50 vCore, maybe even 1.55 vCore if your cooling is good enough. You should try to keep the CPU under 55°C for 1.45v and under 45°C for 1.55v to be safe. If you don't care too much about longevity you can increase those another 0.05v.


Load core temp can be found using Prime95+CoreTemp for about 5 minutes ...

 

[UrgeToKillRisin]

I've had CPU's running 24/7 @ 1.45 vCore with a 50°C (load core temp) for over four years now without issue. If your CPU will be short-lived you could push it to 1.50 vCore, maybe even 1.55 vCore if your cooling is good enough. You should try to keep the CPU under 55°C for 1.45v and under 45°C for 1.55v to be safe. If you don't care too much about longevity you can increase those another 0.05v.


Load core temp can be found using Prime95+CoreTemp for about 5 minutes ...

Hi, thanks, I moved MHz up to 230 w no change to vCore w no apparent issues. In bios cpu temp was 33c. I couldn't go over this without changing vCore and am now up from 1.4v to 1.425v and will try moving up the MHz again.

I'm now running prime95(over 5 minutes) and core temp(showing 49c as a high).

Longevity is a concern so I intend to stay on the safe side.

 

[UrgeToKillRisin]

cpu-z is showing vCore btw 1.392 and 1.408 even tho cpu is set to 1.425. Should I trust the cpu-z number over the actual setting?

Machine wouldn't even boot at 240MHz at 1.45v. That seemed strange. 235MHz wouldn't work either but 231 does.

Continuing to work on it.

thanks for help.

 

[UrgeToKillRisin]

7 minute 100% load

1.45vCore(bios setting) 1.424vCore(cpu-z display)

231MHz

equaled a high tempt at 50c in "Core Temp".

So, it looks like I can run hotter but def want confirmation that I should go by the cpu-z listing for my core voltage.

thanks

 

[UrgeToKillRisin]

This seems odd. In my Phoenix bios I've changed "cpu voltage regulator" from 1.4 to 1.45 and seen a change in the Core Temp program listing, "VID" and in the CPU-Z program listing, "Core Voltage".

However, when I increase bios setting to 1.475 there was no change in the program listings.

What is up with that? Should I just keep upping the bios setting till CPU-Z shows a change? That's a bit daunting.

 

[QuietIce]

It's normal for CPU-Z to show a different vCore than set in BIOS, especially under load. If you're showing less than the BIOS setting in Windows at idle then you can adjust the BIOS setting as needed to account for that.


I'm not sure what you're saying in the last post. Core Temp should repeat whatever is set in BIOS and CPU-Z should show the actual voltage. I'm not sure which "program listing" you are referencing ...

 

[UrgeToKillRisin]

"I'm not sure what you're saying in the last post. Core Temp should repeat whatever is set in BIOS and CPU-Z should show the actual voltage. I'm not sure which "program listing" you are referencing ..."

"VID" in Core Temp is not showing what is set in bios. That is the thing.

I just put the machine under load and there is no change to the CPU-Z "Core Voltage" setting.

By progam listings I refer to the 2 above mentioned programs and their display of "VID" and "Core Voltage".

Suspiciously, Core Temp is reporting a high temp of 50c again even tho bios setting was upped. This suggests that the bios setting was ineffective.

Q: If I don't increase the MHz but only the voltage, should the cpu temp go up under load?

 

[UrgeToKillRisin]

In bios I change "cpu voltage regulator" up to 4.5 and still no change in the CPU-Z "Core Voltage" listing.

I also tried upping to 240MHz - still not working.

In bios there are two other setting right below "cpu voltage regulator". They are DIMM and Chipset voltage regulators, both currently set to default. Should I be changing those? Have I been changing the wrong thing?

thanks

 

[Dooms101]

Well 240Mhz is probably the limit of that board. I had an ASUS board with an nForce4 chipset and it would barely go over 225
Some boards were not built for OC'ing.

 

[UrgeToKillRisin]

Well 240Mhz is probably the limit of that board. I had an ASUS board with an nForce4 chipset and it would barely go over 225
Some boards were not built for OC'ing.

I remember oc'ing was a concern of mine getting this system and I found this... I haven't read it all yet but they say 400 is a board maximum.

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/vnf4ultra/12.html

"The processor bus was steadily pushed to the 300 Mhz mark with no hiccups. The Chaintech board then started hitting DFI territory in the 360 range but pressed on still. We were in fact able to push the processor bus all the way up to 400 Mhz and the Chaintech held up under Prime95 for roughly 19 hours before we called it a day. "

 

[QuietIce]

Q: If I don't increase the MHz but only the voltage, should the cpu temp go up under load?

Yes, the core temp will probably go up even if the speed isn't increased.

What is CPU-Z showing for your RAM speed with a 231 MHz clock?
Also, what is the HT Link speed?

 

[UrgeToKillRisin]

Major problem was my bios was faulty, known problem, I flashed and that provided only partial fix, not many core temps to choose from so overclocking is kind of a wash.

I did, however, turn it up to 231MHz so running 2.08GHz on a 1.8GHz chip. At 1.45 core temp stress test gave a max 53c so it seems okay.

QI, DRAM Freq. is shwing 231MHz and HT Link 1155.1 MHz.


Oops, just had a crash so I guess not stable. Turned down to 230 and temp under 1.4c.

 

[QuietIce]

You should lower the RAM speed (may be labeled "divider" or "ratio") from 1:1/200 to 5:6/166. That could very well be stopping your overclock. The HT Link also needs to be dropped to 4X (may be labeled 800 MHz). You want to keep both RAM (200 MHz) and HT Link (1000 MHz) at or below stock their stock speeds ...

 

[UrgeToKillRisin]

No. That just ****ed up my computer again.