440fsb amd

[DieHardware]

Originally posted by: valky
Benchmarks using SuperPi - 1M

XP2100+ default - 1733MHz(13x133) = 62s

1754MHz (10.5x166) = 58s

------------------------
1837MHz (11x166) - 56s
1704MHz (8.5x200) = 56s - 400FSB v. 333 FSB = +133MHz
------------------------

1921MHz (11.5x166) - 55s

------------------------
2005MHz (12x166) - 53s
1837Mhz (216x8.5) - 53s - 432FSB v. 333FSB = +168MHz
------------------------

2088MHz (12.5x166) - 51s
2105MHz (10.5x200) - 49s
2170MHz (11x197) - 48s

------------------------
2205MHz (11x200) - 47s
2172MHz (10x217) - 47s - 434FSB v. 400FSB = +33MHz
------------------------

2269MHz (10.5x216) - 46s

This is a limited set of tests based on a single benchmark, but it looks like going from a 333MHz FSB to a 400MHz FSB gives the same increase in performance as a 133MHZ increase in CPU core speed.

Going from a 400MHz FSB to a 432/434MHz FSB yields a rather dissapointing increase in speed equivalent to a 33MHz increase in CPU core speed.

It looks like FSB's higher than 400MHz may not be all that important after all. This would negate the NForce2's principal advantage over the KT600. I cannot run higher FSB's than those used in this test, but I would assume that higher FSB's would produce diminishing returns.

Any thoughts gentlemen?........

:beer:

Yes, stop posting.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: valky
Benchmarks using SuperPi - 1M

XP2100+ default - 1733MHz(13x133) = 62s

1754MHz (10.5x166) = 58s

------------------------
1837MHz (11x166) - 56s
1704MHz (8.5x200) = 56s - 400FSB v. 333 FSB = +133MHz
------------------------

1921MHz (11.5x166) - 55s

------------------------
2005MHz (12x166) - 53s
1837Mhz (216x8.5) - 53s - 432FSB v. 333FSB = +168MHz
------------------------

2088MHz (12.5x166) - 51s
2105MHz (10.5x200) - 49s
2170MHz (11x197) - 48s

------------------------
2205MHz (11x200) - 47s
2172MHz (10x217) - 47s - 434FSB v. 400FSB = +33MHz
------------------------

2269MHz (10.5x216) - 46s

This is a limited set of tests based on a single benchmark, but it looks like going from a 333MHz FSB to a 400MHz FSB gives the same increase in performance as a 133MHZ increase in CPU core speed.

Going from a 400MHz FSB to a 432/434MHz FSB yields a rather dissapointing increase in speed equivalent to a 33MHz increase in CPU core speed.

It looks like FSB's higher than 400MHz may not be all that important after all. This would negate the NForce2's principal advantage over the KT600. I cannot run higher FSB's than those used in this test, but I would assume that higher FSB's would produce diminishing returns.

Any thoughts gentlemen?........

:beer:[/]
Great, you proved our point for us! Thanks.:beer:

 

[jdogg707]

Originally posted by: valky
Benchmarks using SuperPi - 1M

XP2100+ default - 1733MHz(13x133) = 62s

1754MHz (10.5x166) = 58s

------------------------
1837MHz (11x166) - 56s
1704MHz (8.5x200) = 56s - 400FSB v. 333 FSB = +133MHz
------------------------

1921MHz (11.5x166) - 55s

------------------------
2005MHz (12x166) - 53s
1837Mhz (216x8.5) - 53s - 432FSB v. 333FSB = +168MHz
------------------------

2088MHz (12.5x166) - 51s
2105MHz (10.5x200) - 49s
2170MHz (11x197) - 48s

------------------------
2205MHz (11x200) - 47s
2172MHz (10x217) - 47s - 434FSB v. 400FSB = +33MHz
------------------------

2269MHz (10.5x216) - 46s

This is a limited set of tests based on a single benchmark, but it looks like going from a 333MHz FSB to a 400MHz FSB gives the same increase in performance as a 133MHZ increase in CPU core speed.

Going from a 400MHz FSB to a 432/434MHz FSB yields a rather dissapointing increase in speed equivalent to a 33MHz increase in CPU core speed.

It looks like FSB's higher than 400MHz may not be all that important after all. This would negate the NForce2's principal advantage over the KT600. I cannot run higher FSB's than those used in this test, but I would assume that higher FSB's would produce diminishing returns.

Any thoughts gentlemen?........

:beer:

Well, let's see, I have a Barton 2500+ I run at 11x218 (2.398GHZ). I used to run it at 12x200 (2400MHZ). Now, running any benchmark I can find, I have seen at least some improvement in scores, not to mention a faster feel to the overall system. For example, take 3DMark 2001SE, at 200MHZ FSB I got a score of 19,110 and at 218MHZ FSB I got a score of 19,450.

So, with your logic, I should just stop stressing my system because I am not gaining any performance by doing so. This is flawed because say I have two machines, both running at 2GHZ, but one does it by dropping the multiplier and raising the FSB, and the other does it by having s smaller FSB and a higher multiplier....now tell me, which system is going to be faster?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

So you upped the fsb 33mhz but gave it back in clockspeed, what was your point again?

Edit: BTW, that was extremely lazy testing using a single comparison that takes less than 1 minute a run, try doing some real testing next time and your law of diminishing returns nonsense is just that, since he has stability@those settings and isn't using sick voltages, any performance increase resulting from bandwidth and/or clockspeed is a positive, which is the desired result and entire point of overclocking=free improved performance.

This would negate the NForce2's principal advantage over the KT600

There went your last opportunity to establish any credibility.

 

[Richdog]

lol amusing thread.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Richdog
lol amusing thread.

Yes it is, especially since Valky's ramblings are horribly unorganized and pointless. Also since he proved himself wrong with his own example.

 

[Richdog]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Richdog
lol amusing thread.

Yes it is, especially since Valky's ramblings are horribly unorganized and pointless. Also since he proved himself wrong with his own example.

Hehe that's it Jeff, take the knife, plunge it deeper and twist it a little... I like!:beer:

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Richdog

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Richdog
lol amusing thread.

Yes it is, especially since Valky's ramblings are horribly unorganized and pointless. Also since he proved himself wrong with his own example.

Hehe that's it Jeff, take the knife, plunge it deeper and twist it a little... I like!:beer:

When it's all the way in, slap the handle a few times too.

 

[Richdog]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Richdog

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Richdog
lol amusing thread.

Yes it is, especially since Valky's ramblings are horribly unorganized and pointless. Also since he proved himself wrong with his own example.

Hehe that's it Jeff, take the knife, plunge it deeper and twist it a little... I like!:beer:

When it's all the way in, slap the handle a few times too.

Ahhh... but did you add the salt?

 

[high]

Silly Valky, dix r 4 chix

Sorry, I HAD to add some sort of intelligence to this thread.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Richdog

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Richdog

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Richdog
lol amusing thread.

Yes it is, especially since Valky's ramblings are horribly unorganized and pointless. Also since he proved himself wrong with his own example.

Hehe that's it Jeff, take the knife, plunge it deeper and twist it a little... I like!:beer:

When it's all the way in, slap the handle a few times too.

Ahhh... but did you add the salt?

No, diced jalapenos.

 

[stardust]

Originally posted by: valky
Benchmarks using SuperPi - 1M

XP2100+ default - 1733MHz(13x133) = 62s

1754MHz (10.5x166) = 58s

------------------------
1837MHz (11x166) - 56s
1704MHz (8.5x200) = 56s - 400FSB v. 333 FSB = +133MHz
------------------------

1921MHz (11.5x166) - 55s

------------------------
2005MHz (12x166) - 53s
1837Mhz (216x8.5) - 53s - 432FSB v. 333FSB = +168MHz
------------------------

2088MHz (12.5x166) - 51s
2105MHz (10.5x200) - 49s
2170MHz (11x197) - 48s

------------------------
2205MHz (11x200) - 47s
2172MHz (10x217) - 47s - 434FSB v. 400FSB = +33MHz
------------------------

2269MHz (10.5x216) - 46s

This is a limited set of tests based on a single benchmark, but it looks like going from a 333MHz FSB to a 400MHz FSB gives the same increase in performance as a 133MHZ increase in CPU core speed.

Going from a 400MHz FSB to a 432/434MHz FSB yields a rather dissapointing increase in speed equivalent to a 33MHz increase in CPU core speed.

It looks like FSB's higher than 400MHz may not be all that important after all. This would negate the NForce2's principal advantage over the KT600. I cannot run higher FSB's than those used in this test, but I would assume that higher FSB's would produce diminishing returns.

Any thoughts gentlemen?........

:beer:

Valky i noticed ur MCSE certified... i invite u to the NETWORKING forums.. :beer:

 

[valky]

Yes it is, especially since Valky's ramblings are horribly unorganized and pointless. Also since he proved himself wrong with his own example

Sorry if you didnt understand me the first time. I had to show you this bench so you could understand what I was saying a little more but not saying you do...... :beer:

 

[DerwenArtos12]

beat your brother up for me!

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: valky
Yes it is, especially since Valky's ramblings are horribly unorganized and pointless. Also since he proved himself wrong with his own example

Sorry if you didnt understand me the first time. I had to show you this bench so you could understand what I was saying a little more but not saying you do...... :beer:

Are you retarded or just stupid? All you showed with that "benchmark" was that you have no idea what you're talking about or what you're doing. If you really are MSCE Certified like the other guy said, maybe you should stick to the software side of things and leave the hardware for your brother to figure out.

 

[valky]

Are you retarded or just stupid? All you showed with that "benchmark" was that you have no idea what you're talking about or what you're doing

-With my benchmark I showed you what I was talking about, when it comes to using multis and FSB combos with NFS-2, as there is a wall with this chipset not far beyond 420 that allows the CPU to be cranked-up past this wall without any noticeable performance gain excepting added heat. If you are looking for performance beyond the wall you wont find it. If you are simply trying to raise the numbers on the CPU= it is NOT performance dude, it goes the other way and will prematurely burn-up your board.
-There is one missing piece in my answer to this thread and that is the type of Ram and the timings used. I will run a bench on that and show you my findings only to confirm what I have been saying here and it is the topic of this thread I am answering to. Simply put, this thread is the misconceptions in overclocking and we are talking AMD here.
-By-the-way, it looks like you dont understand what your looking at..........

 

[valky]

Are you retarded or just stupid? All you showed with that "benchmark" was that you have no idea what you're talking about or what you're doing.

It doesnt look like you understand what the benchmark is saying here not I............. :beer: