Processors, Overclocking & Else

[David_Hayter]

I have a lil question, I have an 2200+ (hey, is the best I could afford down here), running at 1800 mhx, or something like 1.76 ghz, which is supossedly the normal speed it should have as it said on the box, when I put in into 2000 mhz, it worked fine, except that when i tried to use something making use of 3D, (games of course) i got the we-all-love-it windows blue screen deluxe xp edition :crazy: , so, if i wanna have some stability at such speed, should I have another cooler (is that the right word in english???, perhaps fan cooler... whatever) or what?? I have an extra one in the superior part of my atx box, and could put one more into the backside though.
Whats like the max speed my processor would stand???

By the way, I have a ASRock K7VM2 mobo.


One other thing,the latest P4, has speeds of 3.2 (or 3.06) or whatever, but the latest athlon xp (3200+ ??) has speeds of like 2.6 or something, why??? isnt the 3000 series ones have speeds of 3 ghz and up, or it doesnt matters really, im asking coz the latest xp processor compete against the P4 but it has more speed, so dont understand quite well....

 

[joel_029]

To clarify the last part of your post. AMD's can process their cycles and such faster than Intel's most of the time. So that is why their slower clockspeeds can sometimes outperform Pentiums of a higher clockspeed, but not in all applications.

 

[Hexidecimal]

Yes, the AMD XP 3200 (2.6 gighrtz) is more or less the equivalent of a Pentium 4 3.2, it's all chip design, and it's all based on what you like.

 

[Remote]

The XP 2800, 3000, 3200 etc are AMD's current rating of processors. Because customers often go for speed, higher is better and AMD are obviously a bit behind Intel in that sense. They decided to rate their processors and named them to their Intel counterpart. So in most cases a AMD 3200 does rival or superseed a P4 3.2 Gz but mhz wize the difference is quite big. It's a little tricky for us customers but a good move from AMD's PR section.

 

[james.miller]

Yes, the AMD XP 3200 (2.6 gighrtz) is more or less the equivalent of a Pentium 4 3.2, it's all chip design, and it's all based on what you like.

the xp3200 runs at 2.2ghz (200x11) , not 2.6. Amd messed there numbering up - a barton3200+ just doesnt compare to a p4 3.0 or 3.2. Even my [email protected] can only just about keep up with a p4 3.0c

 

[Stezo2k]

yeah, there is quite a difference between the 3ghz P4 range and AMD's 3000 xp range of performence, i blaim it on the P4's fairly new hyperthread technology and the bus speed. It really isnt worth buying an XP 3200 or 3000, the XP 2800 is very similar in performence to the 3000 series, and much cheaper, so if you dont have enough money for a 3ghz P4, the Xp 2800 is a very good choice, and is probably a good overclocker.

When the Athlon 64 comes out, hopefully it should outperform the 3ghz serires of pentium 4's, i'm sure it will, being 64 bit has many advantages, the main one being able to cope with twice as much as any previous 32bit processor, it should improve performence quite drastically

 

[nullroute]

The 3200 actually runs at 2.217Ghz ( 6 2/3 x 333 ). The ratio that AMD uses ~2:3 is rightfully so as the Athlon has 3 instruction decoders to Intel's 2. The Athlon also has 3 ALU's (Arithmetic Logic Unit) to Intel's single ALU and 9 uExecution units to intel's 5 or 6 (depending on model/stepping). Overall (and you can lookup old benchmarks if you like) intel's P4 processor was designed to do less per cycle specificly so that they could get clock speeds higher than AMD's (remember that AMD beat Intel to the Ghz). The P3 1Ghz performed comparably to the P4 1.4Ghz, and the Athlon 1Ghz ran circles around it. Its a number mind game that Intel started and AMD gets blamed for.
I will agree, however, that HT is a nice architectural enhancement... can't wait until AMD adds a threaded architecture of thier own too.

EDIT : Perhaps on some motherboards that do not support the 333Mhz FSB, the 3200 is forced to run at 2200 flat; I'll not argue that.

 

[james.miller]

The 3200 actually runs at 2.217Ghz ( 6 2/3 x 333 ). The ratio that AMD uses ~2:3 is rightfully so as the Athlon has 3 instruction decoders to Intel's 2. The Athlon also has 3 ALU's (Arithmetic Logic Unit) to Intel's single ALU and 9 uExecution units to intel's 5 or 6 (depending on model/stepping). Overall (and you can lookup old benchmarks if you like) intel's P4 processor was designed to do less per cycle specificly so that they could get clock speeds higher than AMD's (remember that AMD beat Intel to the Ghz). The P3 1Ghz performed comparably to the P4 1.4Ghz, and the Athlon 1Ghz ran circles around it. Its a number mind game that Intel started and AMD gets blamed for.
I will agree, however, that HT is a nice architectural enhancement... can't wait until AMD adds a threaded architecture of thier own too.

the 3200+ runs at 200x11 - 2200mhz dead.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

I have a lil question, I have an 2200+ (hey, is the best I could afford down here), running at 1800 mhx, or something like 1.76 ghz, which is supossedly the normal speed it should have as it said on the box, when I put in into 2000 mhz, it worked fine, except that when i tried to use something making use of 3D, (games of course) i got the we-all-love-it windows blue screen deluxe xp edition :crazy: , so, if i wanna have some stability at such speed, should I have another cooler (is that the right word in english???, perhaps fan cooler... whatever) or what?? I have an extra one in the superior part of my atx box, and could put one more into the backside though.
Whats like the max speed my processor would stand???

By the way, I have a ASRock K7VM2 mobo.


One other thing,the latest P4, has speeds of 3.2 (or 3.06) or whatever, but the latest athlon xp (3200+ ??) has speeds of like 2.6 or something, why??? isnt the 3000 series ones have speeds of 3 ghz and up, or it doesnt matters really, im asking coz the latest xp processor compete against the P4 but it has more speed, so dont understand quite well....

Well, the above crashing problem don't always telltale processor overheating. The possible reasons your PC crashes when overclocking
(unable to get a stable processor overclock) are:

1. The processor simply cannot handle the higher frequency.
(maybe poor processor chip revision)

2. The processor requires more voltage, possibly at least 1.85V

3. A higher watt power supply is required.

 

[Malcolm]

About marked speeds on *anything*:
Manufacturers put a marked speed as what they know the hardware can achieve with out any problems, none what so ever.

If your P4 processor says 2.2Ghz is can preform at 2.2Ghz and be at the perfect temperature, not require extra voltage and so on.

Now with this in mind chips (be then video cards, CPUs, memory, etc) are almost ment to be overclocked, to gain the maximum output from them. My hardware teachers suggest to OC up to 15% of the rated speed without too much error.

Anyways... yea I have no conclusion...

 

[james.miller]

About marked speeds on *anything*:
Manufacturers put a marked speed as what they know the hardware can achieve with out any problems, none what so ever.

If your P4 processor says 2.2Ghz is can preform at 2.2Ghz and be at the perfect temperature, not require extra voltage and so on.

Now with this in mind chips (be then video cards, CPUs, memory, etc) are almost ment to be overclocked, to gain the maximum output from them. My hardware teachers suggest to OC up to 15% of the rated speed without too much error.

Anyways... yea I have no conclusion...

15%? mabey he doesnt know about these 1700+'s that run at 2.4ghz (stock is 1.4ghz) lol

 

[Malcolm]

15%? mabey he doesnt know about these 1700+'s that run at 2.4ghz (stock is 1.4ghz) lol

I'm generalizing; would you overclock your videocard ram 172%? Only if you wanna have your mobo burned to the ground with the video card too