4.1 GHz on a $130 CPU...

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-05-10 07:52pm

Tom's Hardware

The THG article is forty-five pages long.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2006-05-10 09:31pm

There's no way I'm reading all that. Can someone give us the Cliff's notes? Specifically, how much work does it take to get it to do that, and what are the risks?

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2006-05-10 09:44pm

I read about half of it-- seems like they didn't do anything weird, only considerations are a sufficient PSU (500W) and a good heatsink.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-05-11 03:06am

A very good heatsink + Very good mobo + cheap but technicly solid CPU = capability to OC ALOT, ALOT ALOT.

Short enough?

Oh, and it beats everything in benchs.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2006-05-11 03:42am

Ace Pace wrote:A very good heatsink + Very good mobo + cheap but technicly solid CPU = capability to OC ALOT, ALOT ALOT.

Short enough?

Oh, and it beats everything in benchs.

You'd need more than a 'very good heatsink' to dissipate 216+ watts of power.
Though if you need to heat your home in a 0 degree F environment, it could pay for itself.

By the time you add in the cost of a major league cooling system and premium DDR2 memory, the 'budget' CPU isn't very economical at all.
While the Pentium D 805 can be overclocked to the equivalent of a much more expensive processor (in much the same manner I OC my A64 3700+ to FX-55 performance), this extreme OC isn't so much a 'look how cheaply I can increase my performance WRT a more expensive processor' as it it an exercise in dick wagging while not caring about how much it costs to get there.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-05-11 03:44am

True, but so is all extream OCing.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2006-05-11 03:52am

Ace Pace wrote:True, but so is all extream OCing.

True.
But I OC'd my A64 to try and get better performance (2.65 GHz clockspeed) while saving money over what a genuine FX-55 running 2.6 GHz would have cost ($211 vs the $695 of a 2.6 Ghz FX-55).
If I have to spend a fortune on active cooling, premium RAM, and a humongous power supply to get a high clockspeed, I think we've entered the realm of 'not really worth it' for the majority of users.

Though I'm sure that there are some people who would consider the money well spent.

Note: I've pushed the clockspeed even higher (to 2.85 GHz), but had instability issues that I wasn't willing to put up with.
2.65 Ghz OTOH, is perfectly stable and plenty fast.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-05-11 03:54am

Personally, I just did a small OC, not even 2GHZ, and its enough. I value peace and quiet over sheer speed.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2006-05-11 03:59am

Ace Pace wrote:Personally, I just did a small OC, not even 2GHZ, and its enough. I value peace and quiet over sheer speed.

Agreed.
Right now, the A64's are the way to go if you want 'Cool & Quiet', so to speak.

My system temps even with the overclock are well within spec using the stock retail HS/Fan, and because my TrueControl 550 lets me dial down the case fan speeds, the whole system is pretty quiet unless I crank up the case fans while I game.
Though when Intel finally retires the netburst architecture and goes with Conroe, that will certainly change until AMD reponds to the challenge.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-05-11 04:04am

The problem is for proper OCing, you must disable Cool N' Quiet, not that I fully understood how to enable it, well, my power bills loss.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2006-05-11 04:08am

Ace Pace wrote:The problem is for proper OCing, you must disable Cool N' Quiet, not that I fully understood how to enable it, well, my power bills loss.

It was a pun.

I've never used C'n'Q myself for exactly that reason.
IMHO, it's not that hard to OC an A64 once you wrap your head around the HTT bus and understand how to keep it in the 800-1000 Mhz 'sweet spot' while changing the 'FSB', memory divider, and processor multiplier to increase CPU clockspeed*.

Of course it took me a while for this to finally sink in.

*Assuming of course that your mobo's chipset has working PCI/AGP buslocks.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-05-11 04:17am

While I enjoy watching the best OCers work, most of it is beyond me, simply due to lack of interest.

I due my job of making sure HT bus stays below 1000mhz, and playing around with FSB, other then that, I stick clear. Memory playing around is not for me.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2006-05-11 04:39am

Memory dividers can make or break your A64 OC.
Take mine for example:

You'll notice that my DDR 3200 (two 1GB sticks of Crucial PC 3200) is running slightly below its spec'd speed*.
That's because I changed the multiplier from the DDR 400 to DDR 333 spec.
I also changed the HTT multiplier to 4x instead of the default 5x.
According to the synthetic benches in Everest, the CR1 command rate and tighter timings enabled by running it slightly below DDR 400 spec more than makes up for the loss of running it 11 Mhz below the DDR 400 speed.

If I were willing to spend the $$$ to get premium memory, I could run it at DDR 400+ speeds and keep the tight timings, but then again, we're entering the territory of 'not worth the extra cost' in my opinion.

Not bad for a $211 processor, eh?

*This memory divider shit can be confusing to keep track of, but here's a nice program I found that computes your RAM speed for you when you input the divider and bus speed used.