Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Question on overclocking.

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,459
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    226 times in 192 posts

    Question on overclocking.

    It used to be that you needed to keep the RAM and FSB at 1:1 ratio.

    But nowadays, it seems that is no longer a requirement, with ratios and all.

    However, is there any difference in performance to use a high FSB with the memory locked at 200?

    I can understand that 250 x 10.0 would provide some performance advantage over 200 x 12.5 provided that the ram in the former runs at 250Mhz, and the ratio is set to 1:1.
    But would the same be true if the memory is locked at 200Mhz on both case? And what sort of performance increase are we looking at? 1%, 2% or something more?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Dark Horse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    999
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post
    Because Athlon 64's have the memory controller on the processor rather than the motherboard they have shedloads of memory bandwidth. Memory overclocking does increase this but in the majority of games (save Quake 3 and 4) there is very little difference, at most <5% from running your memory at 300 1:1 to 300 2:3.

    More and more these days it is worth just getting value ram and spending the difference on a better graphics card as this will give you a far bigger performance increase.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Rack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    LonDon
    Posts
    775
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    The other thing that has been fairly well proven with the A64's is that timings, in particular command rate, make more of a difference to performance than raw clock speed. By going from 2T to 1T @ 200MHz you will as much a performance increase as you will by getting some very high speed dimms and going from 200Mhz to 250.

  4. #4
    mush-mushroom b0redom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Middlesex
    Posts
    3,284
    Thanks
    139
    Thanked
    333 times in 258 posts
    • b0redom's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Some iMac thingy
      • CPU:
      • 3.4Ghz Quad Core i7
      • Memory:
      • 24GB
      • Storage:
      • 3TB Fusion Drive
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nViidia GTX 680MX
      • PSU:
      • Some iMac thingy
      • Case:
      • Late 2012 pointlessly thin iMac enclosure
      • Operating System:
      • OSX 10.8 / Win 7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 2713H
      • Internet:
      • Be+
    I was pretty sure it was the other way around. 2T->1T doesn't make that much difference 200Mhz->250Mhz makes a stack (if we're talking about the FSB/HTT)

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,882
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked
    175 times in 131 posts
    • Butcher's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z97 Gaming 3
      • CPU:
      • i7-4790K
      • Memory:
      • 8 GB Corsair 1866 MHz
      • Storage:
      • 120GB SSD, 240GB SSD, 2TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Antec 650W
      • Case:
      • Big Black Cube!
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
    The large cache on 64s helps as well - the larger the cache the less often you hit memory.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,459
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    226 times in 192 posts
    So really, there is no real (significant) benefit from upgrading from one motherboard to another if overclocking is the only thing in mind is it? Especially if you dont have premium ram to go 1:1

    Let's say on one motherboard you can only get 200 FSB and on another you can hit 300. The CPU roughly maxes at 2.4Ghz. So you can do 200x12 at 1:1 and 300x8 at 2:3. Would the performance be within 5% of each other?

  7. #7
    Senior Member sawyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sheffield University
    Posts
    3,658
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked
    22 times in 21 posts
    • sawyen's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Laptop motherboard
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i7 740QM
      • Memory:
      • 8192MB DDR3
      • Storage:
      • 256GB SSD, 1TB WD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • AMD Mobility HD 5870
      • PSU:
      • MSI stuff
      • Case:
      • N/A
      • Operating System:
      • Win 7 64bit
      • Internet:
      • Virgin ADSL rubbish
    I would just stick with 12x200.. 300x8 would just b extra stress for ur chip..

    Unless u bench, yea.. they are all within 3-5%..
    Me want Ultrabook


  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,459
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    226 times in 192 posts
    Interesting. How would a higher FSB and lower multiplier be extra stress?

    I would've thought that the temp etc. would be constant since the CPU is operating at the same speed... or not?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dorset, UK
    Posts
    352
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    1T performance over 2T is demonstrated more at higher fsb; dividers make little difference generally on A64 systems.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    612
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked
    35 times in 22 posts
    • toolsong's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P7P55D EVO
      • CPU:
      • i7 860 @ 3.8 GHz
      • Memory:
      • 2 x 4GB Corsair Vengeance
      • Storage:
      • SSDs
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GTX970
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic X650
      • Case:
      • Antec P180
      • Operating System:
      • Win7 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2515H
      • Internet:
      • Fibre @ 100/40
    All the evidence you need is here
    http://www.dfi-street.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40178

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    395
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked
    7 times in 7 posts
    • atmadden's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI P35 Neo2 FR
      • CPU:
      • QX9650@4.2ghz 420x10
      • Memory:
      • Crucial Ballisitix PC5300 C3@840 4 4 4 12
      • Storage:
      • Maxtor 250gb SATA
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI 8800GTS OC 512mb
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX620
    It is much more important to run at tight timings and low latencies but I will test theory as I have some ram that will run at 280mhz at 2.5 3 3 7 and at 200mhz 2225. Will post back later.

  12. #12
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by TooNice
    Interesting. How would a higher FSB and lower multiplier be extra stress?

    I would've thought that the temp etc. would be constant since the CPU is operating at the same speed... or not?
    The mem controler on the CPU would have to be workling a lot more to deal with 300mhz over 200mhz worth of data. Remember, its [the controler] on the CPU itself now
    Quote Originally Posted by Saracen View Post
    And by trying to force me to like small pants, they've alienated me.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,459
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    226 times in 192 posts
    I feel enlightened after reading toolsong's link and Agent's post above.

    I guess I don't -have- to switch my Asus A8N-Premium for a AR32-MVP Deluxe, especially considering that I don't need Crossfire.

    (So far, I've yet to work out how adding a 2nd graphic cards later on as the GFX card get cheaper can be better value for money than just selling the current card and upgrade to a new one a generation down the line).

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    2,882
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked
    175 times in 131 posts
    • Butcher's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI Z97 Gaming 3
      • CPU:
      • i7-4790K
      • Memory:
      • 8 GB Corsair 1866 MHz
      • Storage:
      • 120GB SSD, 240GB SSD, 2TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • MSI GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Antec 650W
      • Case:
      • Big Black Cube!
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7
    Quote Originally Posted by TooNice
    (So far, I've yet to work out how adding a 2nd graphic cards later on as the GFX card get cheaper can be better value for money than just selling the current card and upgrade to a new one a generation down the line).
    Heh, it's not. The only reason to go dual card is if you want two top-end cards. Value for money doesn't enter into it (despite what the vendors want you to think)].

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Overclocking Question
    By planetgong in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-12-2005, 09:29 AM
  2. Question about overclocking an Athlon 64
    By YorkieBen in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 15-01-2005, 05:01 PM
  3. overclocking question
    By Destroyer^ in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 22-12-2004, 11:12 PM
  4. overclocking a fx5800 ultra question
    By chaoticone in forum Graphics Cards
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 13-07-2004, 01:35 AM
  5. overclocking question newbie
    By louis in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-03-2004, 01:52 PM

Posting Permissions

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