Overclocking AMD 64 3000+

Status
Not open for further replies.
That shows that even with the same clock speed the 90nm peform better. That same site in another article had the 130nm peform better than the 90nm.
 
thermal paste is not required with stock cooling, but if you buy a new heatsink, than they will come with/need to get themal paste.
 
People seem to be confused here...

The 3000+ multi is locked upwards at 9X. (that means you cannot go HIGHER than 9X on multi...but you can go lower.)

The 3500+ is locked upwards at 11X (again...you can't go past 11X...but you can go LOWER)

So, The 3000+ requires a HUGE RAM overclock compared to the 3500+ to get the same overclock.

9*290 = 2610
11*237 = 2607

That's a whopping 53MHz difference in RAM overclocking. So if you plan on hitting 2.6GHz with your 3000+ plan on buying some expensive overclocking RAM, or running a pretty big ratio (i dunno 5:4 or something.

With a 3500+ you can get a relatively cheap pair of CH-5's (say ~$120 kit) and hit 2.6GHz easily) OR if you have a $300 kit of RAM already that will do 310MHz then turn the multi down and run a better HTT to hit 2.6GHz...the point is if you dont have RAM capable of doing 290MHz+ then you will not hit 2.6GHz on a 3000+ running 1:1.

I choose the 3200+, its upwards locked at 10...a nice and even #. I only need average performing RAM to hit 2.6GHz (10*260) and i like that. Running ratios like 5:4 is not what i like, it cuts yourt bandwidth if you have to lower your HTT alot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom