Tried overclocking, failed, cried - Page 3 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Overclocking and Modding
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-18-2005, 10:04 PM   #21 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Nubius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,600
Default

Quote:
Could have sworn that i read somewheres that the winchester core was the first core made for socket 939.....
nope, newcastles have been there from the beginning....I remember advising people to NOT get the newcastles when the winchesters came out...infact last year I built a computer for a kid I met through these forums and he got a 3500+ newcastle because at the time they didn't have winchesters
__________________

Nubius is offline  
Old 09-18-2005, 10:17 PM   #22 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: asdf
Posts: 8,886
Default

wow..... i need to read more crap......
__________________

c0rr0sive is offline  
Old 09-18-2005, 11:19 PM   #23 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 133
Send a message via AIM to Augsy
Default

hey i got a question is a 46 load temp a good temp to be OCing with with a 3500 venice core?
__________________
My LeEt CoMp
Asus A8N-SLI
AMD Athlon 3500+ venice
Enermax 535 watt PS
2 x 512mb OCZ premier series
XFX 6800 GT (1100/400)
WD Sata II 250 GB HD w/16mb cache
Lite-on 1693S DVD-RW
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS
windows xp pro
Augsy is offline  
Old 09-18-2005, 11:28 PM   #24 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Nubius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,600
Default

yeah it's not too bad....if you got lucky and have a venice that'll OC pretty far with little voltage then the max you should hit is like 50C
Nubius is offline  
Old 09-19-2005, 03:39 PM   #25 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 765
Default

What the hell is a memory divider?! I can't grasp the concept.
septoid2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2005, 04:02 PM   #26 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
PZEROFGH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,553
Send a message via AIM to PZEROFGH
Default

If you want to raise your FSB to a higher speed than your RAM supports, you have the option of running your RAM at a lower speed than your FSB. This is done using an FSB:RAM ratio. Basically, the FSB:RAM ratio allows you to select numbers that set up a ratio between your FSB and RAM speeds. So, say you are using the PC-3200 (DDR 400) RAM that I mentioned before which runs at 200MHz. But you want to raise your FSB to 250MHz to overclock your CPU. Obviously, your RAM will not appreciate the raised FSB speed and will most likely cause your system to crash. To solve this, you can set up a 5:4 FSB:RAM ratio. Basically, this ratio will mean that for every 5MHz that your FSB runs at, your RAM will only run at 4MHz.

To make it easier, convert the 5:4 ratio to a 100:80 ratio. So for every 100MHz your FSB runs at, your RAM will only run at 80MHz. Basically, this means that your RAM will only run at 80% of your FSB speed. So with your 250MHz target FSB, running in a 5:4 FSB:RAM ratio, your RAM will be running at 200MHz, which is 80% of 250MHz. This is perfect, since your RAM is rated for 200MHz.

This solution, however, isn't ideal. Running the FSB and RAM with a ratio causes gaps in between the time that the FSB can communicate with the RAM. This causes slowdowns that wouldn't be there if the RAM and the FSB were running at the same speed. If you want the most speed out of your system, using an FSB:RAM ratio wouldn't be the best solution.
__________________
Hmmm?
AIM/Xfire - pzerofgh
PZEROFGH is offline  
Old 09-19-2005, 05:02 PM   #27 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Nubius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,600
Default

Quote:
This solution, however, isn't ideal. Running the FSB and RAM with a ratio causes gaps in between the time that the FSB can communicate with the RAM. This causes slowdowns that wouldn't be there if the RAM and the FSB were running at the same speed.
well considering AMD64s dont have an FSB per se, it doesn't matter on these systems...yeah 250 with 1:1 would be ideal but it won't completely bottleneck your system like the K7 days
Nubius is offline  
Old 09-19-2005, 06:50 PM   #28 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
PZEROFGH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,553
Send a message via AIM to PZEROFGH
Default

HTT, w/e...anyways running the divider or running without the divider i dont think you can see any slowdown or gain
__________________
Hmmm?
AIM/Xfire - pzerofgh
PZEROFGH is offline  
Old 09-19-2005, 06:54 PM   #29 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,013
Send a message via AIM to DJ-CHRIS
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by charles_scott
Could have sworn that i read somewheres that the winchester core was the first core made for socket 939..... And i also looked at the AMD site and the 3400+ was released on socket 754 only....
3400+ in Socket 939 are like a ghost, they are here but you never see them. I am one of the few to have one.

Proof:
http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/6164/valueram4rq.jpg
DJ-CHRIS is offline  
Old 09-19-2005, 06:56 PM   #30 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
PZEROFGH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,553
Send a message via AIM to PZEROFGH
Default

whoa geez 1.7V!
__________________

__________________
Hmmm?
AIM/Xfire - pzerofgh
PZEROFGH 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 12:34 PM.


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