1:1Quote:
Originally posted by pik-ard v1.1
what would be the point of using a higher multiplier?
why would intel release a higher multiplier then they have running at stock speeds anyways? ;)
Printable View
1:1Quote:
Originally posted by pik-ard v1.1
what would be the point of using a higher multiplier?
why would intel release a higher multiplier then they have running at stock speeds anyways? ;)
and the 2nd question?
For the same reason why they would have lower?
A multiplier of 17 would be amazing, 260 x 17 = 4.4 something, if you can run 1/1 with good timings your set.
Are they going to make a 3.4 version of a "C" Chip or "EE" Version?
IIRC they are making a 3.4EE, but its not being released till the beginning of next year
Yes a 3.40Ghz and 3.40Ghz EE are on the roadmap.Quote:
Originally posted by Iridium192_217
Are they going to make a 3.4 version of a "C" Chip or "EE" Version?
what roadmap are you looking at?Quote:
Originally posted by Soulburner
Yes a 3.40Ghz and 3.40Ghz EE are on the roadmap.
Why one earth would you not use it ?
The whole point of extreme overclocking is to get the highest performance possible. There is no "fair", or "unfair". There is only scores.
If you are trying to see what is best stock vs. stock, then both contenders must remain stock.
If you are trying to get your personal best performance then lower that multiplier and raise that FSB man ! High FSB at 5:4 ram divider kicks a$$ (as long as you have low latency ram :D ) ! what are you waiting for ! :D There are no rules in overclocking CPU's.
theoretically, which would be better:
17x260 = 4420, ram 1:1 @ ddr520
14x325 = 4550, ram 5:4 @ ddr520
is there something "special" about 1:1? or would it be just dependent on the extra 130mhz, and that prove better, just because its 130mhz faster?
i dont really have a good way to test this, as my mobo is so weak, i run my ram at 4:5, not 5:4, thats as in ram is faster then the cpu fsb. :rolleyes:
I agree; USE THE DIFFERENT MULTIS!!! :thumbsup:
I know this is being pedantic but if FUGGER cant change the default multi on his cpu then all you AMD pplpe must use the defautl Multi too :rolleyes:
Show us some scores pls fugger :banana:
I voted yes, but can see both points to the debate.
But consider.
260 X 17 = 4420
275 x 16 = 4400
Damned hard to find sticks doing 260 at hard timings.
Almost impossible to do 275 with tight timings. Note I said "almost".
like a custom -100C cascade is any more fair?
Option #2 would EASILY be faster without even trying. You are posting a system with 130mhz more clock speed and +65fsb.Quote:
Originally posted by pik-ard v1.1
theoretically, which would be better:
17x260 = 4420, ram 1:1 @ ddr520
14x325 = 4550, ram 5:4 @ ddr520
is there something "special" about 1:1? or would it be just dependent on the extra 130mhz, and that prove better, just because its 130mhz faster?
And it 's grammar iirc :D ;)Quote:
Originally posted by JBELL
but his grammer still sucks.
I am a IPD???
it's AN!!!!
Silly question. OC'ers use any means possible to achieve the result as long as it doesn't involve falsifying.
SAE, just noticed your sig, you have a Raddy coming at last!
Bout time mate, I expect results soon. :D
Thats absolutly correct. the higher the fsb, the better.Quote:
Originally posted by Soulburner
Option #2 would EASILY be faster without even trying. You are posting a system with 130mhz more clock speed and +65fsb.
14x325 = 4550, ram 5:4 @ ddr520 totally smokes
17x260 = 4420, ram 1:1 @ ddr520
I tested this… with a p4 2.4c and a 3.0c
285x12= 3420 ram at 5:4 = 228 (2-2-2-5)
228x15= 3420 ram at 1:1 = 228 (2-2-2-5)
All settings exactly the same for both tests. CPU speed, and ram speed are EXACTLY the same, only the FSB was higher.
285 @ 5:4 was 2-4% faster in every bench I threw at it.
Even if the CPU speed was exactly the same, the FSB would hella improve the performance.
DO IT ! :toast:
So it should give him about a 5% speed boost....putting him at 30,750 :eek:.
I dunno, we would have to see.
yup... it would be interesting to see... Hopefully he will.Quote:
Originally posted by Soulburner
So it should give him about a 5% speed boost....putting him at 30,750 :eek:.
I dunno, we would have to see.
I dont know how much itll scale, but the main difference could be the 5% extra in just lobby, so that could buy him another 300 or so marks :)
Oh... That's kinda misunderstanding :)Quote:
Originally posted by st0nedpenguin
SAE, just noticed your sig, you have a Raddy coming at last!
Bout time mate, I expect results soon. :D
I meant the vapo 's waiting for my 9800p :D (But I am too lazy or afraid of damaging sth to do it)
I think I 'll switch over to a new raddy when the r420 hits the shelves :)
But first I am getting my new dfi tomorrow. At least I hope so. Maybe then I am able to get my sys to 24k :D
Yeah you're right I wasn't thinking, it wouldn't really do anything for Nature just the others. I would think 30k is definetely doable though, he does have a faster board now and more volts he says. He was limited by the 1.925vcore on the MAX3.Quote:
Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
I dont know how much itll scale, but the main difference could be the 5% extra in just lobby, so that could buy him another 300 or so marks :)
I think he should... ;)
Ah, my bad. :rolleyes: :DQuote:
Originally posted by SAE
Oh... That's kinda misunderstanding :)
I meant the vapo 's waiting for my 9800p :D (But I am too lazy or afraid of damaging sth to do it)
I think I 'll switch over to a new raddy when the r420 hits the shelves :)
But first I am getting my new dfi tomorrow. At least I hope so. Maybe then I am able to get my sys to 24k :D
umm you dont work for intel, but your an Intel processor developer.. how does that work... sounds cool lol