Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

Most of what I read of overclocking on the NF7 involves maxing the FSB at
all costs -including relaxing memory timings and even lowering the CPU
multiplier.

Would 220fsb x 10multiplier be faster than 200fsb x 11multiplier? If the
memory timings need to be relaxed for the faster fsb, is there going to be a
net gain for overall system performance ?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

"Odie" <observer_11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VA6tc.48308$Np3.2088463@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Most of what I read of overclocking on the NF7 involves maxing the FSB at
> all costs -including relaxing memory timings and even lowering the CPU
> multiplier.
>
> Would 220fsb x 10multiplier be faster than 200fsb x 11multiplier? If the
> memory timings need to be relaxed for the faster fsb, is there going to be
a
> net gain for overall system performance ?
>
>
>

If the memory timings stay the same 220x10 is faster than 200x11.
depends how much you relax the timings - e,g. disabling CPU Interface will
make it easier to hit higher fsb but you will need to run something like an
extra 25fsb to regain the performance lost by disabling it.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

In message <_d8tc.304$E03.9@newsfe1-gui.server.ntli.net>, BUFF
<NOSPAM@HERE.COM> writes
>> Most of what I read of overclocking on the NF7 involves maxing the FSB at
>> all costs -including relaxing memory timings and even lowering the CPU
>> multiplier.
>>
>> Would 220fsb x 10multiplier be faster than 200fsb x 11multiplier? If the
>> memory timings need to be relaxed for the faster fsb, is there going to be
>a
>> net gain for overall system performance ?
>>
>
>If the memory timings stay the same 220x10 is faster than 200x11.
>depends how much you relax the timings - e,g. disabling CPU Interface will
>make it easier to hit higher fsb but you will need to run something like an
>extra 25fsb to regain the performance lost by disabling it.


I'm watching this thread with interest. At this moment in time, I'm a
firm believer that most people are blindly chasing those high FSB speeds
and spending ridiculous amounts of time, money and effort for such a
small increase in actual performance that it really isn't worth it when
you can alter the multiplier on certain chips and get virtually the same
performance.

Its almost a game ...... 'my FSB is higher than yours .... ne ne ne....'

I await someone to tell me I'm wrong and prove it!
:-)

--
__________________________________________________
Personal email for Gareth Jones can be sent to:
'usenet4gareth' followed by an at symbol
followed by 'uk2' followed by a dot
followed by 'net'
__________________________________________________

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

"Gareth Jones" <usenet@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j+HbKMGeVQtAFw1p@nospam.demon.co.uk...
> I'm watching this thread with interest. At this moment in time, I'm a
> firm believer that most people are blindly chasing those high FSB speeds
> and spending ridiculous amounts of time, money and effort for such a
> small increase in actual performance that it really isn't worth it when
> you can alter the multiplier on certain chips and get virtually the same
> performance.
>
> Its almost a game ...... 'my FSB is higher than yours .... ne ne ne....'
>
> I await someone to tell me I'm wrong and prove it!
> :-)


To a large extent I agree with you.
For certain people there is obviously an amount of one-upmanship involved as
well as the challenge of squeezing the utmost out of their system.

On the other hand if you can get extra performance for free/at little cost
why not take advantage of it?
You can prove that there is a difference between e.g. 12x200 & 10x240 (all
other things being equal) using synthetic tests (3DMark, SisoftSandra
etc.).

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

It's funny I have NOT seen a lot of benches associated with the high FSB
clockers. I'm talking about the high overclock's which require 'other'
compromises like lower CPU multiplier, lower memory timings, etc...

I feel like that lil ol' lady from the 80's Wendy's comercials..."Where's
the beeeef!!!!!" or rather ..."Where's the benches!!!"

Until I see some real benchmarks I remain skeptical....



"Odie" <observer_11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VA6tc.48308$Np3.2088463@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Most of what I read of overclocking on the NF7 involves maxing the FSB at
> all costs -including relaxing memory timings and even lowering the CPU
> multiplier.
>
> Would 220fsb x 10multiplier be faster than 200fsb x 11multiplier? If the
> memory timings need to be relaxed for the faster fsb, is there going to be
a
> net gain for overall system performance ?
>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

In message <M1btc.48450$Np3.2095621@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Odie
<observer_11@hotmail.com> writes
>It's funny I have NOT seen a lot of benches associated with the high FSB
>clockers. I'm talking about the high overclock's which require 'other'
>compromises like lower CPU multiplier, lower memory timings, etc...
>
>I feel like that lil ol' lady from the 80's Wendy's comercials..."Where's
>the beeeef!!!!!" or rather ..."Where's the benches!!!"
>
>Until I see some real benchmarks I remain skeptical....

I've just posted a new thread entitled 'does a high FSB speed really
matter'
(or something like that!)

Have a look. I've posted some 'real benchmarks'
;-)


--
__________________________________________________
Personal email for Gareth Jones can be sent to:
'usenet4gareth' followed by an at symbol
followed by 'uk2' followed by a dot
followed by 'net'
__________________________________________________

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

"Odie" <observer_11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:M1btc.48450$Np3.2095621@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> It's funny I have NOT seen a lot of benches associated with the high FSB
> clockers. I'm talking about the high overclock's which require 'other'
> compromises like lower CPU multiplier, lower memory timings, etc...
>
>

Lower multiplier isn't necessarily a compromise unless you are talking
someting like 6 ; )
Lower memory timings (e.g.2s instead of 3s) would usually be considered an
improvement & not a compromise.
My concerns are more re. the imho excessive voltages used by some people.

10x240 will be quicker than 12x200 all other things being equal but we are
talking small % improvements not 20% or similar.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

err i meant slower not lower memory timings....


"BUFF" <NOSPAM@HERE.COM> wrote in message
news:3svtc.344$%31.341@newsfe1-win...
>
> "Odie" <observer_11@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:M1btc.48450$Np3.2095621@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> > It's funny I have NOT seen a lot of benches associated with the high FSB
> > clockers. I'm talking about the high overclock's which require 'other'
> > compromises like lower CPU multiplier, lower memory timings, etc...
> >
> >
>
> Lower multiplier isn't necessarily a compromise unless you are talking
> someting like 6 ; )
> Lower memory timings (e.g.2s instead of 3s) would usually be considered an
> improvement & not a compromise.
> My concerns are more re. the imho excessive voltages used by some people.
>
> 10x240 will be quicker than 12x200 all other things being equal but we are
> talking small % improvements not 20% or similar.
>
>