• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

tested a 2.4b today (wait for a C1!)

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

larva

Inactive Moderator
Joined
Jul 12, 2002
I normally run a 1.6a in my rig at 162fsb for 2600MHz on chip. I had a 2.4b here today, and ran it in the same machine. This is a late model B0 SL6EU chip, not a C1. It proved capable of 168fsb for 3004MHz in 1:1 mode, but only 161fsb for 2898MHz in the (faster) 3:4 memory mode. It is educational to note just how little difference the extra 300MHz makes. I've seen people (with 2.7-2.9GHz rigs) really kill themselves trying to reach the 3GHz mark, but it really is a trivial pursuit.

3DMark2001

1.6a - 13841
http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=5045175

2.4b - 14228
http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=5100147

Quake 3 Arena V1.30, demo4, High Quality at 1024x768 with sound

1.6a - 306.5 fps
2.4b - 315.7 fps

Obviously there are many more tests that could be run, but it is clear there isn't a huge differences between these two chips. The lesson? If you've already got a northwood running 2.4-2.6GHz it is sensless to spend money to get say 2900MHz, or even 3GHz. I would definately hold out for a C1 chip, be it 1.8a or 2.4b. They should stand operation at 178fsb for 3.2GHz, a level of improvement that starts to be worthwhile.
 
Last edited:

doormat

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2002
I would say that the extra memory bandwidth provided by 3:4 mode would offset the 300mhz difference. I've tested my machine (a 2.4 at 2.8) with 1:1 and 3:4 and it does make a difference. but its only noticable in games.. P4 chips love their mem bandwidth.
 
OP
larva

larva

Inactive Moderator
Joined
Jul 12, 2002
doormat said:
I would say that the extra memory bandwidth provided by 3:4 mode would offset the 300mhz difference. I've tested my machine (a 2.4 at 2.8) with 1:1 and 3:4 and it does make a difference. but its only noticable in games.. P4 chips love their mem bandwidth.

Both the above configurations where run at 3:4. There is no doubt running 1:1 kills the performance. At 1:1 the 2.4b was able to run stable at 3004MHz, but the Quake performance was only equal to the 1.6a and the 3DMark was the lowest of the tested configurations at 13770.
 

Dexx

Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2002
Location
Perth, WA
larva said:


Both the above configurations where run at 3:4. There is no doubt running 1:1 kills the performance. At 1:1 the 2.4b was able to run stable at 3004MHz, but the Quake performance was only equal to the 1.6a and the 3DMark was the lowest of the tested configurations at 13770.

I cant help but doubt that the CPU is at fault if it can run higher
at 1:1 than 3:4. Would it not be more likely due to memory
or mainboard?

Jim