Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 34

Thread: Which is faster, 9x333 or 8x375 on a q6600? Results inside

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    160
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    4 times in 4 posts
    • graysky's system
      • Motherboard:
      • DFI LT P35-T2R
      • CPU:
      • X3360 @ 8.5x400 (vcc=1.12500V)
      • Memory:
      • 2x2 Gb/Corsair Dominator DDR2-1066 (TWIN2X4096-8500C5DF) @ 5-5-5-15 @ 960 MHz (5:6)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 8800 GTS 512
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX-620
      • Case:
      • Antec P182
      • Operating System:
      • Debian

    9x333, 8x375, or 7x428 on a Q6600 - Which is faster?

    What is a better overclock?

    Good question. Most people believe that a higher FSB and lower multiplier are better since this maximizes the bandwidth on the FSB. Or is a low bus rate and higher multiplier better? Or is there no difference? I looked at three different settings on my Q6600:

    9x333 = 3.0 GHz (DRAM was 667 MHz)
    8x375 = 3.0 GHz (DRAM was 750 MHz)
    7x428 = 3.0 GHz (DRAM was 856 MHz)

    The DRAM:CPU ratio was 1:1 for each test and the voltage and timings were held constant; voltage was 2.25V and timings were 4-4-4-12-4-20-10-10-10-11.

    After the same experiments, at each of these settings, I concluded that there is no difference for real world applications. If you use a synthetic benchmark, like Sandra, you will see faster memory reads/writes, etc. with the higher FSB values -- so what. These high FSB settings are great if all you do with your machine is run synthetic benchmarks. But the higher FSB values come at the cost of higher voltages for the board which equate to higher temps.

    I think that FSB bandwidth is simply not the bottle neck in a modern system... at least when starting at 333. Perhaps you would see a difference if starting slower. In other words, a 333 MHz FSB quad pumped to 1333 MHz is more than sufficient for today’s applications; when I increased it to 375 MHz (1500 MHz quad pumped) I saw no real-world change; same result when I pushed it up to 428 MHz (1712 MHz quad pumped). Don’t believe me? Read this thread wherein x264.exe (a video encoder) is used at different FSB and multiplier values. Have a close look at the 3rd table in that thread and note the FPS (frames per second) numbers are nearly identical for a chip clocked at the same clockrate with different FSB speeds. This was found to be true of C2Q as well as C2D chips.

    You can do a similar test for yourself with applications you commonly use on your machine. Time them with a stop watch if the application doesn’t report its own benchmarks like x264 does.

    Some "Real-World" Application Based Tests

    Three different 3.0 GHz settings on a Q6600 system were tested with some apps including: lameenc, super pi, x264, winrar, and the trial version of photoshop. Here are the details:

    Test O/C 1: 9x333 = 3.0 GHz


    Test O/C 2: 8x375 = 3.0 GHz


    Test O/C 3: 7x428 = 3.0 GHz


    Result: I could not measure a difference between a FSB of 333 MHz, 375 MHz, or 428 MHz using these application based, "real-world" benchmarks.

    Since 428 MHz is about 28 % faster than 333 MHz, you’d think that if the FSB was indeed the bottle neck, the higher values would have given faster results. I believe that the bottleneck for most apps is the hard drive.

    Description of Experiments and Raw Data

    Lame version 3.97 – Encoded the same test file (about 60 MB wav) with these commandline options:
    Code:
    lame -V 2 --vbr-new test.wav
    (which is equivalent to the old –-alt-preset fast standard) a total of 10 times and averaged play/CPU data as the benchmark.

    Super Pi version 1.1 – Ran both the 1M and 2M tests and compared the reported total number of seconds to calculate as the benchmark.

    x264 version 0.54.620 – Ran a 2-pass encode on the same MPEG-2 (480x480 DVD source) file twice and averaged the FPS1 and FPS2 numbers as the benchmark. In case you’re wondering, here is the commandline options for this encode, pass1:
    Code:
    x264 --pass 1 --bitrate 1000 --stats "C:\work\test-NEW.stats" --bframes 3 --b-pyramid --direct auto --subme 1 --analyse none --vbv-maxrate 25000 --me dia --merange 12 --threads auto --thread-input --progress --no-psnr --no-ssim --output NUL "C:\work\test-NEW.avs"
    And for pass2:
    Code:
    x264 --pass 2 --bitrate 1000 --stats "C:\work\test-NEW.stats" --ref 3 --bframes 3 --b-pyramid --weightb --direct auto --subme 6 --trellis 1 --analyse all  --8x8dct --vbv-maxrate 25000 --me umh --merange 12 --threads auto --thread-input --progress --no-psnr --no-ssim --output "C:\work\test-NEW.264" "C:\work\test-NEW.avs"
    The input avisynth script was:
    Code:
    global MeGUI_darx = 4
    global MeGUI_dary = 3
    DGDecode_mpeg2source("C:\work\test-new.d2v")
    AssumeTFF()
    Telecide(guide=1,post=2,vthresh=35) # IVTC
    Decimate(quality=3) # remove dup. frames
    crop( 2, 0, -10, -4)
    Spline36Resize(640,480) # Spline36 (Neutral)
    RAR version 2.63 – Had rar run my standard backup batch file which generated about 0.98 G of rars (1,896 files totally). Here is the commandline I used:
    Code:
    rar a -u -m0 -md2048 -v51200 -rv5 -msjpg;mp3;tif;avi;zip;rar;gpg;jpg  "e:\Backups\Backup.rar" @list.txt
    where list.txt a list of all the dirs I want it to back up. I timed how long it took to complete with a stop watch. I ran the backup twice and averaged it as the benchmark.

    Trial of Photoshop CS3 – I used the batch function in PSCS3 to batch bicubic resize 10.1 MP to 0.7 MP (3872x2592 --> 1024x685), then applied an unsharpen mask (60 %, 0.8 px radius, threshold 12), and finally saved as quality 8 jpg. In total, 57 jpg files were used in the batch. I timed how long it took to complete two runs, and averaged them together as the benchmark.

    Here are the raw data if you care to see them:
    Last edited by graysky; 10-06-2007 at 03:07 AM.
    http://encoding.n3.net <--- for all your DVD and audio CD backup needs!


  2. #2
    HEXUS.timelord. Zak33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I'm a Jessie
    Posts
    34,344
    Thanks
    2,628
    Thanked
    2,703 times in 1,700 posts
    • Zak33's system
      • Storage:
      • Kingston HyperX SSD, Hitachi 1Tb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Nvidia 1060
      • PSU:
      • Coolermaster 800w
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT01
      • Operating System:
      • Win10
      • Internet:
      • Zen FTC uber speedy
    nice post chap. Good to see people trying new things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Advice Trinity by Knoxville
    "The second you aren't paying attention to the tool you're using, it will take your fingers from you. It does not know sympathy." |
    "If you don't gaffer it, it will gaffer you" | "Belt and braces"

  3. #3
    Flat cap, Whippets, Cave. Clunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    11,056
    Thanks
    360
    Thanked
    725 times in 459 posts
    But, if you have a CPU with a 9x multi, why on earth would you want to run an 8x multi at the same speed?

    I could understand if you wanted to bump the ram speed up, but then, why wouldnt you use a divider, and run at a 9x multi?

    Seems like a pointless exercise to be honest.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blitzen View Post
    stupid betond belief.
    You owe it to yourself to click here really.

  4. #4
    HEXUS.timelord. Zak33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I'm a Jessie
    Posts
    34,344
    Thanks
    2,628
    Thanked
    2,703 times in 1,700 posts
    • Zak33's system
      • Storage:
      • Kingston HyperX SSD, Hitachi 1Tb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Nvidia 1060
      • PSU:
      • Coolermaster 800w
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT01
      • Operating System:
      • Win10
      • Internet:
      • Zen FTC uber speedy
    Clunk...sometimes a chip will hit a certain speed, maxed out, and the ram will go higher, but you need to drop the multi to get that stable speed.

    The question is: Should you forsake the multi and take advantage of the higher bandwidth of the ram, keeping you on the limit of overclocking....or should you settle for a lower ram timing and go with the standard multiplier.

    I agree it's less relevent in 2007, but go back a few years, and ram speed was life. I'd also say that Tarinder loves ram speeds....loves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Advice Trinity by Knoxville
    "The second you aren't paying attention to the tool you're using, it will take your fingers from you. It does not know sympathy." |
    "If you don't gaffer it, it will gaffer you" | "Belt and braces"

  5. #5
    Flat cap, Whippets, Cave. Clunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    11,056
    Thanks
    360
    Thanked
    725 times in 459 posts
    Zak,

    I know what he is saying, but I cant see a situation with a C2D where you would ever need to do it at the speed he is talking about, which makes it pretty pointless.

    If he is refering to older CPUs, then really, he should have used older CPUs for the tests.

    If you look at some of the results in the overclocking threads, you can acheive huge benefits buy using an 8x multi to avoid certain parts of the FSB range, to avoid the chipset strap change. For example, at 400fsb, the P5B's chipset strap changes to the 1600 strap, and as a result, there is a massive, and noticable drop in memory bandwidth, right up to around 463fsb.

    So, if you are stuck at 3.6ghz, because of the chipset strap, and you know your cpu can go higher, then you can use the 8x multi (or 7x if your board will allow) to bypass this area, still run at the same speed, and still keep your memory bandwidth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blitzen View Post
    stupid betond belief.
    You owe it to yourself to click here really.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Hamilton
    Posts
    1,120
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked
    22 times in 21 posts
    Ran both the 1M and 2M tests and compared the reported total number of seconds to calculate as the benchmark
    As basically the difference is in memory speed/bandwidth it would surely be a better representation to run 32m test.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    West Wales
    Posts
    484
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked
    18 times in 16 posts
    • Phil_P's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte P35-DS4
      • CPU:
      • Q6600 G0
      • Memory:
      • 4x1GB Crucial
      • Storage:
      • 2 x WD 1TB in RAID1
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte 7600GS
      • PSU:
      • Etasis 750W
      • Operating System:
      • RHEL5/RHEL6
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung 226BW 22" panel
      • Internet:
      • F2S 8mbit
    Quote Originally Posted by Clunk View Post
    But, if you have a CPU with a 9x multi, why on earth would you want to run an 8x multi at the same speed?

    I could understand if you wanted to bump the ram speed up, but then, why wouldnt you use a divider, and run at a 9x multi?
    I thought it was beneficial to try and run memory in sync (1:1) rather than using a divider. Therefore, to hit 400fsb and run DDR2-800 memory in sync it may be required to lower the multiplier (especially on something like a Q6600 Quad) if the CPU or temps are otherwise limiting you achieving that at the default multiplier.

    Many distributed computing programs are very dependent upon fsb/memory bandwidth. I've not tested on modern systems, but older Athlon XP based systems displayed an almost linear relationship to fsb speeds for a given clock speed.

  8. #8
    Flat cap, Whippets, Cave. Clunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    11,056
    Thanks
    360
    Thanked
    725 times in 459 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil_P View Post
    I thought it was beneficial to try and run memory in sync (1:1) rather than using a divider. Therefore, to hit 400fsb and run DDR2-800 memory in sync it may be required to lower the multiplier (especially on something like a Q6600 Quad) if the CPU or temps are otherwise limiting you achieving that at the default multiplier.

    Many distributed computing programs are very dependent upon fsb/memory bandwidth. I've not tested on modern systems, but older Athlon XP based systems displayed an almost linear relationship to fsb speeds for a given clock speed.
    Some dividers are fine, of course it depends on the chipset, but the 965 chipset that he is testing on, you can use some of them with no problems whatsoever.

    Again, he isnt talking about older systems, he is talking specifically about a q6600 and a P5B deluxe.

    On the P35 chipset, using a lower multi and a higher FSB results in huge memory bandwidth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blitzen View Post
    stupid betond belief.
    You owe it to yourself to click here really.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    406
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    13 times in 13 posts
    • Agrippa's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock X299 Taichi XE
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7 7820X @ 4.8GHz (delid)
      • Memory:
      • 4x8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 C14 @ 3600 CL15
      • Storage:
      • Samsung SM961 256GB, 850 EVO 1TBx2, 850 EVO 250GB, 840 512GB, Seagate 1TB, 2TB, 8x8TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus GTX 1080 Ti RoG Strix
      • PSU:
      • Corsair RM1000x
      • Case:
      • Lian Li D8000
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Acer Predator Z35P
      • Internet:
      • 500/500 Fiber
    It's a test designed purely to find out if a higher bus speed yields a tangible benefit I think Clunk, nothing more than that. Pretty useful as such, since many people appear to think that a maximised bus speed makes a huge difference, while in reality you'd be hard pressed to notice any real-life difference at all.

    Good stuff graysky!

  10. #10
    HEXUS.social member Agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Internet
    Posts
    19,158
    Thanks
    732
    Thanked
    1,604 times in 1,043 posts
    Kinda funny - Me and Lowe were talking about this last night during a machine build

    Since the Hyper Transport system come about and the quad pumped FSB, overclocking either of them hasn't had huge benefits compared to raw core speed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Saracen View Post
    And by trying to force me to like small pants, they've alienated me.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    160
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    4 times in 4 posts
    • graysky's system
      • Motherboard:
      • DFI LT P35-T2R
      • CPU:
      • X3360 @ 8.5x400 (vcc=1.12500V)
      • Memory:
      • 2x2 Gb/Corsair Dominator DDR2-1066 (TWIN2X4096-8500C5DF) @ 5-5-5-15 @ 960 MHz (5:6)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 8800 GTS 512
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX-620
      • Case:
      • Antec P182
      • Operating System:
      • Debian
    Quote Originally Posted by clunk
    I know what he is saying, but I cant see a situation with a C2D where you would ever need to do it at the speed he is talking about, which makes it pretty pointless.
    I agree: I just wanted to have some data to back-up my thought which I do now That said, I do totally agree with what you go on to say about different FSB straps. The reason I did these experiments was to prove to myself and hopefully others that just because you can add more FSB while reducing the multiplier doesn't mean that it will translate into anything but useless heat and power consumption.

    Quote Originally Posted by supershanks
    As basically the difference is in memory speed/bandwidth it would surely be a better representation to run 32m test.
    I'll bite dude; that is an interesting though and I'm running those experiments right now to see. I'll update the main thread w/ the results. In a similar light, I think Phil might have a point:
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil_P
    Many distributed computing programs are very dependent upon fsb/memory bandwidth.
    I'm getting too lazy to keep doing these experiments, but it would be interesting to test this out assuming DCP's like folding@home, seti@home, etc. have some sort of internal benchmark they can run. Anyone willing to give this a try?

    To the rest of you who replied, thanks for the kind words; I'm always glad to contribute back to the community.
    Last edited by graysky; 09-06-2007 at 04:22 PM.
    http://encoding.n3.net <--- for all your DVD and audio CD backup needs!


  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    160
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    4 times in 4 posts
    • graysky's system
      • Motherboard:
      • DFI LT P35-T2R
      • CPU:
      • X3360 @ 8.5x400 (vcc=1.12500V)
      • Memory:
      • 2x2 Gb/Corsair Dominator DDR2-1066 (TWIN2X4096-8500C5DF) @ 5-5-5-15 @ 960 MHz (5:6)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 8800 GTS 512
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX-620
      • Case:
      • Antec P182
      • Operating System:
      • Debian
    Okay, here are the 32M data with the average of 2 runs in (red):



    Difference between these is 1.7 % while the differences while the differences in FSB is 12.6 %. I'm too lazy to run the test with more n values (i.e. average 3 or 6 runs).
    Last edited by graysky; 09-06-2007 at 08:29 PM.
    http://encoding.n3.net <--- for all your DVD and audio CD backup needs!


  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    160
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    4 times in 4 posts
    • graysky's system
      • Motherboard:
      • DFI LT P35-T2R
      • CPU:
      • X3360 @ 8.5x400 (vcc=1.12500V)
      • Memory:
      • 2x2 Gb/Corsair Dominator DDR2-1066 (TWIN2X4096-8500C5DF) @ 5-5-5-15 @ 960 MHz (5:6)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 8800 GTS 512
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX-620
      • Case:
      • Antec P182
      • Operating System:
      • Debian
    In the interest of overkill, I just completed the same benchmark @ 7x428 (edited first post in thread). Results are the same: no benefit of an even higher FSB.
    http://encoding.n3.net <--- for all your DVD and audio CD backup needs!


  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    406
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    13 times in 13 posts
    • Agrippa's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock X299 Taichi XE
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7 7820X @ 4.8GHz (delid)
      • Memory:
      • 4x8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 C14 @ 3600 CL15
      • Storage:
      • Samsung SM961 256GB, 850 EVO 1TBx2, 850 EVO 250GB, 840 512GB, Seagate 1TB, 2TB, 8x8TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus GTX 1080 Ti RoG Strix
      • PSU:
      • Corsair RM1000x
      • Case:
      • Lian Li D8000
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Acer Predator Z35P
      • Internet:
      • 500/500 Fiber
    Good work graysky! Always nice when the numbers prove your common sense and intuition correct.

  15. #15
    Flat cap, Whippets, Cave. Clunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    11,056
    Thanks
    360
    Thanked
    725 times in 459 posts
    Could you just confirm that you actually got 16 seconds for 1M superpi @ 333FSB x9 with ram running at 666mhz and timings as per your "my system"?

    And the same for the 375x8 as well please.

    Could you post screenshots and settings used to achieve these runs please, as I'm really stuggling to get below 16.75 seconds with same speeds on the CPU, and the ram running at 666mhz, or even with the ram running 1200mhz with 4-4-4-4 timings.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blitzen View Post
    stupid betond belief.
    You owe it to yourself to click here really.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    160
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    4 times in 4 posts
    • graysky's system
      • Motherboard:
      • DFI LT P35-T2R
      • CPU:
      • X3360 @ 8.5x400 (vcc=1.12500V)
      • Memory:
      • 2x2 Gb/Corsair Dominator DDR2-1066 (TWIN2X4096-8500C5DF) @ 5-5-5-15 @ 960 MHz (5:6)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 8800 GTS 512
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX-620
      • Case:
      • Antec P182
      • Operating System:
      • Debian
    Quote Originally Posted by Clunk View Post
    Could you just confirm that you actually got 16 seconds for 1M superpi @ 333FSB x9 with ram running at 666mhz and timings as per your "my system"?

    And the same for the 375x8 as well please.

    Could you post screenshots and settings used to achieve these runs please, as I'm really stuggling to get below 16.75 seconds with same speeds on the CPU, and the ram running at 666mhz, or even with the ram running 1200mhz with 4-4-4-4 timings.

    Sure dude, I never changed my RAM timings or voltage for these 3 runs; DRAM:CPU was always 1:1 and beyond the CPU-Z screenshots above, the timing settings were and still are as follows:

    The only 3 things that got changed were:

    1) Voltages (vcore, NB, SB, etc.)
    2) FSB
    3) Multiplier

    Here's a super pi from the most recent run snap:
    http://encoding.n3.net <--- for all your DVD and audio CD backup needs!


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. ATI Catalyst 5.8 released
    By =TcQi= in forum Graphics Cards
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 18-08-2005, 12:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •