Sinimeister Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 You're not entitled to any overclock, much less a 25% one. Granted, some chips do better than others, but the only speed you're 100% entitled to is what it says on the package. Sure we are - we own DFI boards. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeFlow Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 'wah wah my $150 chip can't even reach the performance of a $1000 chip! what BS!' Don't be so bloody greedy. My Venice 3200+ requires 1.7v just to remain stable at 2.6GHz. It can't go any higher without remaining stable. I'm happy with that. I run 1.7v 24/7 and don't mind it at all either. Though I did just order an Opteron so this venice can go into a secondary rig I am building from spare parts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimTjik Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 Sure we are - we own DFI boards. I hope you're joking, because it would be very boaring if our "demands" as users forced the producers to lock everything up, so there at the end weren't any possibilities what so ever to take risks. :cool: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinimeister Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 I hope you're joking, because it would be very boaring if our "demands" as users forced the producers to lock everything up, so there at the end weren't any possibilities what so ever to take risks. :cool: Never! They need us :nod: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thasp Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 Never! They need us :nod: True. While expecting high overclocks on a chip is 100% retarded, they need people who burn through processors every few months to buy more expensive ones. The early adoptors are a big part of their business. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri3eboi Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 Be happy, my Venny 3200+ can't even do 2.4 ghz with 1.6vcore 0526BPCW is the stepping on mine, absolute pos for oc. At least I got a winner 165, its doing 2.7 ghz at 1.4vcore Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinimeister Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 I am squeezing 2.75 on my 3500+ but with a ton of voltage in hopes of giving me a reason to support the exponential AMD fund and getting a dual core that I can melt next True. While expecting high overclocks on a chip is 100% retarded, they need people who burn through processors every few months to buy more expensive ones. The early adoptors are a big part of their business. Yeah, it's a mutualistic relationship except I think they're making out a ton better than we are! :nod: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulkanonistix Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 Be happy, my Venny 3200+ can't even do 2.4 ghz with 1.6vcore 0526BPCW is the stepping on mine, absolute pos for oc. At least I got a winner 165, its doing 2.7 ghz at 1.4vcore Wow, really, I guess I am not the only one with this issue. However, I think I made a breakthrough just now, the problem with my oc was due to this - the CPU Spread Spectrum was enabled and most importantly, the CPU Thermal Throttling was at 50%. I disabled both, now my chip can run 2.4 @ 1.42. However, I am going to push the oc a little further to see how stable it will be compared to last time. At this rate, I can definitely oc this to at least 2.6 @ about 1.57 volts. I have one question to you guys, do you like to overclock the CPU internally by leaving the CPU's multiplier at stock and increasing the FSB OR externally by lowering the multiplier and tweaking the FSB at greater numbers? I think overclocking externally would not benefit you with more performance compared to CPU internally but you have lower chance of instability. What do you guys think? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KimTjik Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 Wow, really, I guess I am not the only one with this issue. However, I think I made a breakthrough just now, the problem with my oc was due to this - the CPU Spread Spectrum was enabled and most importantly, the CPU Thermal Throttling was at 50%. I disabled both, now my chip can run 2.4 @ 1.42. However, I am going to push the oc a little further to see how stable it will be compared to last time. At this rate, I can definitely oc this to at least 2.6 @ about 1.57 volts. I have one question to you guys, do you like to overclock the CPU internally by leaving the CPU's multiplier at stock and increasing the FSB OR externally by lowering the multiplier and tweaking the FSB at greater numbers? I think overclocking externally would not benefit you with more performance compared to CPU internally but you have lower chance of instability. What do you guys think? Much ado for nothing OR you're a dream customer! Concerning performance I hasn't gained anything from lowering the multiplier. The only reason I might do that is to find a better spot for my memory, but even that doesn't really make a big difference either (what I mean is that my system don't gain much in tests if doing so). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DublinGunner Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 Well, for instance, if I had ram that would do ddr600, and my CPU I know will only do 2.4, I might lower the multi to 8x, raise LDT to 300mhz, giving me DDR600 on my ram, and 2.4ghz on my CPU. Other than that, I'd leave it on stock multi, unless you have killer ram. Count yourself lucky guys, my Winchester will only do 2.4 @1.525v! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinimeister Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 I ended up just doing a high multiplier and 250 FSB (Why do they still call it that for these boards?) which made my RAM end up at 200 MHz on low timings. I haven't noticed a difference either way... if you're going to make the timings higher for a higher frequency, isn't that just substitution? Angry made a thread about his findings too, which showed little gain to either way as long as he upped the FSB to get a higher CPU OC. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
punker Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 Um newer dose not mean bad i have an OSA170DAA6CD CCBWE 0543 TPMW 1349888k50026 (AMD Opteron X2 ) it's a GOOD overclocker it's at 2.6GHz .06 volts higher then stock Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now