Printable View
Is this reasonable, i have my value giel pc3200 running at 3-4-4-8 at 410 fsb giving me 2.4ghz. Whats like like comparative to a 64 bit cpu? I have to pump the volts upto 1.75vcore and the vdim upto 2.75 so I'm getting 59 degrees under load, thoughts,John.
3-4-4-8 is pretty slack timings. Try 2.5-3-3-11 (The TRAS of 11 gives better performance on NForce2 systems). Bump up the VDIMM to 2.8 or 2.9V if necessary, that'll almost certainly be safe. If your RAM is 1:1 and running at 410DDR, that gives you an FSB of 205, and I couldn't find a multi that'd give you exactly 2.4GHz:confused:. 59C is an O.K. temp as long as it's stable; you can check with Prime95. I personally find that my OC is unstable above 57C.
Anyway, as to how it compares to A64- bit of an apples to pears comparison really, but I suppose for games it'll probably be about equal to an A64 at 2GHz, for most other things it'll be the equal of an A64 at 2.2GHz. Probably not worth an upgrade unless you really need 64 bit or you're going to get an A64 at 2.4GHz or faster.
I think there is prob with my RAM because it didn't liek stock timings at stock voltage at stock speed. Do you think I should just drop down the 200fsb and keep 2.3 ghz as the 10 extra fsb won't make an enormous amount of difference. This will get my temps down a fair bit as well. My multi is 11.5*210=2415.
Well, if you can't get tighter timings by reducing the speed, and your computer is stable, then there's not much reason to slow it down. Running at 59C will not do your processor any damage at all, my brother's Tbred-A has run at between 50-60C 24/7 for the last 2 1/2 years and it's still fine, it hasn't lost any overclock either, it's still as stable on P95 as it was when I first OCd it.
Ok, i have the timings on 2.5-3-3-11, it just needed a few more volts, but that's at 2.5 fsb, I could try and slowly increase it until it is stable @1.725v rather than needing to upp to 1.75 because that's what will bring my temps to 60. Is 2.8V on the RAM ok, more like 2.9 on the NF7 because it overvolts, but I'm quite pleased that I'm 100% stable at 2.35ghz, as my gaming performance has increased a lot. Thanks,John.
2.8V is within spec and should be totally safe. 2.9V is technically out of spec but loads of people in xtremesystems run their at 3.2V or more for long periods without any obvious problems. My RAM's been at 2.9V for months now.
For comparing Socket A Athlons to Athlon 64s, try taking a look at these two articles:
http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews...lld19JRD03MjI=
http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews...lld19JRD05MzM=
As you can see by the links posted by mike w the A64 slaughters the XP in games. The XP (provided it's stable) would do pretty well against a slower clocked A64 in SETI crunching, but clock for clock even crunching goes to the A64.
So which would you say is better for my pc, 2.43ghz @3-4-4-11, or 2.3ghz @2.5-3-3-11 for overall performance and gaming??
2.5-3-3-11 if it's stable.
I disagree. IMO they'll be about equal and the extra 130MHz will probably nudge the first option ahead, since AMD processors don't really gain as much from increased memory speed as they do from increased clockspeed. You could run 3DMark01 and any game benchmarks you have to compare.
It is a bit strange that it fails memetest at 205 fsb with 3-4-4-8 and good voltage and yet it can run prime 95 blend all day
guess i gave it too mcuh, 210fsb 3-4-4-8 stable
Oops...didn't look at the MHz. Of course the 130MHz will be best in most applications.