How much more overclock with water rig? - Page 2 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Overclocking and Modding
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 07-18-2005, 05:23 PM   #11 (permalink)
Beer
 
Calzinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 565
Send a message via AIM to Calzinger
Default

If I'm only going to be getting around 430 at the core and 1200 at the memory, would it really be worth it to spend $200 for a little bit more overclock?

I can currently get around 420/1120 on air. It doesn't seem worth it if I'm only going to get a little bit more overclock when spending that much money. With that limited addition to overclock, the only reason I see to get overclocking would be to make a safe overclock so that temperatures are reduced under load.
__________________

__________________
Calzinger is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 05:42 PM   #12 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
idiotec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,748
Default

Well I don't think I would get WC for just the GPU anyways.

If your going to get it I would stick it on the CPU as well, then any extra Mhz you get on the gfx card will just be a bonus
__________________

__________________

BE HEARD - Techonvent
DS3 | E6400 - 3.2GHz 24/7 | 2GB OCZ PLat. PC6400 | 6800GT | Zippy 460W
What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left.
idiotec is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 06:15 PM   #13 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Nubius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,600
Default

Quote:
In a couple of months a GT wotn be worth much so meh about frying one
It'll still be over $200 which isn't just 'meh' for me

Like Idiotec said, I wouldn't get WC simply for a GPU in any situation really.

420/1120 was an impossibility for me on air due to it being so damn hot in this house and the stock cooler for eVGA's is enough to get to Ultra speeds OK, but beyond that I really wouldn't want to risk.

However, it does reduce load temperatures in most cases around 20-30C...for me it was about a 33C reduce in load temperatures and the delta between idle and load is only like 5C whereas with air solutions it's generally 15C increase sometimes more, perhaps a little less if you have really good flow.

The CPU is the main cake for getting WC'ing....like idiotec also said, GPU is just a bonus
Nubius is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 06:17 PM   #14 (permalink)
Beer
 
Calzinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 565
Send a message via AIM to Calzinger
Default

Of course I will be water cooling the CPU, but the GPU as well. Water cooling the chipset is a waste though, eh?

How much overclock have people got on a 3200+? I have a 3200+ Winchester, but I haven't changed the front side bus since I'm currently on a stock cooler. How much overclock do you think I could get on my processor? Hopefully it could be worth more than the potential GPU overclock that you guys are saying.
__________________
Calzinger is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 06:22 PM   #15 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Nubius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,600
Default

Quote:
Water cooling the chipset is a waste though, eh?
I have to say it is...it'll only kill your flow, plus you don't even need to insanely cool it....a decent aftermarket is more than enough, but hell I think a lot of people just use the stock as the K8 boards seem to have done a little better on cooling that.

However, you may not even be able to play water cooling on the chipset even if you wanted to considering it's a SLI board, although I don't know that particular boards layout and I'm lazy to look it up right now


Quote:
How much overclock have people got on a 3200+? I have a 3200+ Winchester, but I haven't changed the front side bus since I'm currently on a stock cooler. How much overclock do you think I could get on my processor?
I really don't want to give you an answer because every CPU and motherboard will be and react different, so I don't want to tell you like 2.5GHz and you get pissed cause it maxes out at 2.3GHz ya know?

I'd say 2.3-2.5GHz is a realistic approximation, but it's impossible to give you a guess on how someone elses CPU will OC
Nubius is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 06:31 PM   #16 (permalink)
Beer
 
Calzinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 565
Send a message via AIM to Calzinger
Default

I think I would be able to water cool the chipset if I wanted as long as I don't run another GPU. If I through another card into the second PCI-e slot, then it will overlap ontop of the chipset. But like said, no reason to worry since I won't be water cooling it anyway.

As for OC'ing the CPU, I've been hearing that 3200+ owners can easily get their CPU up to 3500+ speeds without a problem as long as you aren't using a stock cooler. Do you think I can expect to easily hit 3500+ speeds on water cooling and perhaps surpass it? Or is it hard to predict because of varied hardware?

How will I know when the FSB has been set too high? I will obviously going in 5mhz increments, but will the system simply crap out when it's too high? I think my board is currently locked with a 10 multiplier with the FSB at 200. Can you predict a reasonable FSB I will be able to set this at? Or is this yet again an impossible prediction?

If these all seem to be very difficult answers to predict, is there a website that compares the speeds (CPU & GPU) between a stock cooled system and water cooled system?
__________________
Calzinger is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 06:42 PM   #17 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Nubius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,600
Default

Quote:
As for OC'ing the CPU, I've been hearing that 3200+ owners can easily get their CPU up to 3500+ speeds without a problem as long as you aren't using a stock cooler. Do you think I can expect to easily hit 3500+ speeds on water cooling and perhaps surpass it? Or is it hard to predict because of varied hardware?
Well a 3500+ is only 2.2GHz isn't it? I was saying 2.3-2.5GHz should be a realistic expectation (I apologize ahead of time if you don't hit 2.3GHz and you're thinking DAMN THAT NUBIUS CHARACTER lol )

so yeah with that notion, 3500+ speeds falls into that category.


Quote:
How will I know when the FSB has been set too high? I will obviously going in 5mhz increments, but will the system simply crap out when it's too high?
When your system won't POST pretty much....don't forget to change your HTT Link Multi...it'll be at 5x by default....200x5 = 1000x2 = 2000HTT (that extra x2 is because of the 64 architecture) and thus why your board is considered 2000HTT..

You will need 4x until you hit 250FSB (I'm using FSB just for familiarity because remember, technically AMD64s dont use FSB anymore)

250x4 = 1000x2 = 2000

Then if you go above 250 you need to set it at 3x which will last until 333FSB.


Quote:
I think my board is currently locked with a 10 multiplier with the FSB at 200.
Yeah that is the case for your CPU.


Quote:
Can you predict a reasonable FSB I will be able to set this at? Or is this yet again an impossible prediction?
Pretty much impossible. Since your RAM is DDR550, then you know for a fact your RAM will be able to go up to 275FSB....however there is no way in hell your CPU will get it (if does, then you got a REALLY good winchester and feel free to post about you hitting that cause it'd be 2.75GHz if you left it at 10x multi )

275 x 9 = 2.475GHz

275 x 8 = 2.2GHz (3500+ Speeds)

So hell, right now technically you could do 275x7 which would result in 1.925GHz...a little under clocked, but you'd be running your RAM at a 1:1 ratio atleast with the CPU, mind you HTT Link multi would need to be 3x....285 x 9 would be needed to get 1.995GHz which is closer to your default speed....I'm sure with a tad more voltage to the RAM your RAM could pull off going that extra 10MHz.

But umm yeah, kinda went off on a rant there, but just throwing out options.


Quote:
If these all seem to be very difficult answers to predict, is there a website that compares the speeds (CPU & GPU) between a stock cooled system and water cooled system?
not that I know of.
Nubius is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 07:17 PM   #18 (permalink)
Beer
 
Calzinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 565
Send a message via AIM to Calzinger
Default

This is a bit of a newbie question here, but why should I lower the multiplier? Wouldn't 250x4 be the same as 200x5? I heard you can get a higher clock by lowering your multiplier and setting a higher FSB. Why should I lower the multiplier as I increase the FSB? By the simple logic of math, I would be ending up with the same numbers. Obviously I would assume that there is something else behind this though.
__________________
Calzinger is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 07:42 PM   #19 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Nubius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,600
Default

Quote:
Wouldn't 250x4 be the same as 200x5?
You're talking about the link speed multi right there though...yeah they are the same, but in your case especially you've got RAM capable of 275Mhz, so why would you want to have your RAM running down at 200 with your CPU? It's insanely underclocked that way.

I don't know about a higher clock being achieved, but sometimes various combinations might yield different results.

The higher the HTT (while remaining close to 2000 overall as you can) will give you better performance...the RAM however is what really plays a roll in that...300x6 or 200x9, both being 1.8GHz would yield slightly different performance results...nothing ground breaking, but hey 200 is boring and everyone has that

Quote:
Why should I lower the multiplier as I increase the FSB?
You only do that once you've found out the max of your CPU, which you'll just be raising up the FSB until you can't post.

Lets say 275 is your max....that'd be 275 x 10 = 2.75GHz

You could run 308x9 and get the same clock speed (and assuming your board lets you either manually adjust the memory frequency or if you have enough ratio selections that you can have it at around 275MHz) in some cases it might offer a more stable configuration over 275x10 (not saying that's ALWAYS the case, but some CPUs or boards can be finicky..and perhaps it'll work with 308x9 but not 275x10 even though it's the same speed) and beyond that a slight performance difference...nothing you'd severely notice beyond thorough testing of various benchmarks but every little bit counts
Nubius is offline  
Old 07-18-2005, 07:58 PM   #20 (permalink)
Beer
 
Calzinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 565
Send a message via AIM to Calzinger
Default

I just loaded up my bios and found the HT Frequency to be set to 5x (like you said) and my FSB to 200. By changing the HT Freq. to 4x and the FSB to 250, I can get faster RAM?

Is the multiplier we keep referring to actually the HT Frequency * 2? There is no option in my bios that plainly is a multiplier with a value of 10x.
__________________

__________________
Calzinger is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.