Best Performance: 230MHz 1:1 or 250MHz 5:4

[Revo]

Ok folks need your expert opinions once again. My current system is a P4 2.8GHz OC'd to 3.2GHz (Can't get the damn thing to go any faster!) with PC3200 memory running 1:1 at 230MHz. Now I was wondering would my current configuration be faster than a P4 2.8GHz @ 3.5GHz with memory at 200MHz (i.e. with a 5:4 divider)? What do you think?

 

[scrotus]

IMO, running your memory at 1:1 will yield overall better results than pushing your processor a couple 100 MHZ faster. But as always, YMMV. HTH HAND

 

[robcy]

If running you can get better timings at 5:4 (like 2,2,2,6) Then 250/200 will be faster than 230/230. P4's differ from XP's in that sence.

 

[FPSguy]

It's heavily dependent on the application and the memory timings. See the overclocking section of this article for some comparisons. In general, though, for a 200 - 300 MHz processor speed difference, using the same memory, you should take the higher processor speed and use a ratio rather than the lower processor speed and the 1:1. This is especially true if you can tighten the timings using the ratio, which looks like it would be the case in your situation.

 

[Duvie]

Revo check this thread I did out...I had my 2.6c only run 233fsb with 1:1 but do 250fsb with 5:4 and tighter timings...even threw in a 3:2 ratio for you....Let the results speak for themselves...also look at the small differences even when ran at same clock speed but different timings...


1:1 vs 5:4 test

Notice this is app depending and I did not go into gaming much....Winrar is widely known for accessing memory a lot so no surprise that was faster....The big thing to notice in the encoding apps and ones with heavy cpu usage you can look at sizeable gains. NOw if you can run 1:1 vs 5:4 with similar timings at same clock speed do it....However the thread was created to show overclockers you do not need to hold on to 1:1 and sacrifice what can be a higher overclock and thus loose out on more performance...

 

[THUGSROOK]

230MHz 1:1 or 250MHz 5:4?

250fsb 5:4

 

[Soulkeeper]

i'm running mine at about 230 1:1 now with tite timings (decided to just boost my vdimm to 3.2v)
if i could run the 250 5:4 setup I would
the dual channel mem mode more than makes up for any lower mem speeds

so i agree with thugs

 

[THUGSROOK]

Soulkeeper despritely needs a chip that can run 250fsb

ya gotta admit ~ it kinda sux running below 400ddr

 

[Soulkeeper]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
Soulkeeper despritely needs a chip that can run 250fsb

ya gotta admit ~ it kinda sux running below 400ddr

yeah i noticed today that they have the 2.8e retail prescotts in stock over at newegg (3.0e oem too)
but i still gotta buy a truck, an office trailer, get my driver license back, insurance, etc
so it could be later rather than sooner unfortunately

also i kinda want one of those raptor drives and a new monitor
i'm bout to mug santa claus in a minute hehe

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: scrotus
IMO, running your memory at 1:1 will yield overall better results than pushing your processor a couple 100 MHZ faster. But as always, YMMV. HTH HAND

I agree, at least for me it is. I can run my 3.0c @260 FSB with a 1:1 ratio. I can run it at 275 FSB@5:4 but its barely any faster in the few benches and games I ran. I have to increase my CPU volts and memory volts to get it to run at that speed too. So I leave it set at 260 FSB for everyday useage. Perhaps Ill get some of that Corsair PC4400, but its $400 :/ Thats a lot just to run 275 FSB@1:1, when I already run 260 FSB@1:1.

That being said, I would take the 250 FSB @5:4 if I were you.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK

230MHz 1:1 or 250MHz 5:4?

250fsb 5:4

Absolutely..

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
Soulkeeper despritely needs a chip that can run 250fsb

ya gotta admit ~ it kinda sux running below 400ddr

Not really . . . .

Only for performance freaks.



But IF you can get it, 250FSB at 5:4 (definitely)

 

[FPSguy]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: scrotus IMO, running your memory at 1:1 will yield overall better results than pushing your processor a couple 100 MHZ faster. But as always, YMMV. HTH HAND

I agree, at least for me it is. I can run my 3.0c @260 FSB with a 1:1 ratio. I can run it at 275 FSB@5:4 but its barely any faster in the few benches and games I ran. I have to increase my CPU volts and memory volts to get it to run at that speed too. So I leave it set at 260 FSB for everyday useage. Perhaps Ill get some of that Corsair PC4400, but its $400 :/ Thats a lot just to run 275 FSB@1:1, when I already run 260 FSB@1:1. That being said, I would take the 250 FSB @5:4 if I were you.

Did you tighten your memory timings when you went to 275 FSB @ 5:4? I would think the difference would be noticeable. Is your graphics card keeping up or are you bottlenecking there?

 

[Revo]

Thanks for all your replies and thanks for those benchmarks Duvie. I'm slightly digressing here but for some reason I can't get my P4 2.8GHz over 230FSB. I've even run my PC3200 at 3:2 with timings of 3-8-3-3 and a Vcore of 1.7 (I dare not go over this due to NSDS) but the thing will not go over 230FSB! Could it be my Abit AI7 or maybe the CPU (SL6WT made in Costa Rica)? Is this all I can expect from this stepping? I was wondering if any one can suggest anything?

Thanks again for all your comments.

 

[Ackmed]

I cant. Its HyperX PC4000, with CAS3 4-4-8 timings. If I could lower the timings, it would probably be faster.

 

[cbuchach]

Revo--I am in the same boat as you. I have a 2.8 P4 and it is only stable up to 3200-3225. I am running on an Abit IC7-G at 5:4. My memory then runs at 183 MHz at 2-2-2-7.

Anandtech just did a great comparison answering your question about running synchronously FSB:Mem or asynch with tighter memory timings.

Here's the link:

Link