Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Venice Athlon 64 3200+ or 3500+

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
July 23, 2005 2:47:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Both seem to be able to overclock to a similar speed, is there any good
reason to buy the more expensive 3500+ rather than the 3200+ ?

TIA
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
July 23, 2005 2:47:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Homer wrote:
> Both seem to be able to overclock to a similar speed, is there any good
> reason to buy the more expensive 3500+ rather than the 3200+ ?

The 3500+ has a maximum multiplier of 12, as opposed to11 for the 3200+.
The higher multiplier is useful if you wish not to use a memory divider and your
other system parts are not capable of running that fast, and/or you may wish to
run lower latency memory that won't run quite as fast. You may find this
article interesting:
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Guides/athlo...
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
July 23, 2005 2:47:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

> The 3500+ has a maximum multiplier of 12, as opposed to11 for the 3200+.

Nope. Try 11 and 10.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
July 23, 2005 3:14:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:47:49 +0100, Homer wrote:

> Both seem to be able to overclock to a similar speed, is there any good
> reason to buy the more expensive 3500+ rather than the 3200+ ?
>
Yes, you will make the retailer happier cause he'll make more money, and
you'll make AMD happier cause they'll make more money

--
KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233)
Need good help? Provide all system info with question.
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
July 23, 2005 6:48:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.07.22.23.15.42.45196@TAKEOUTverizon.net...
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:47:49 +0100, Homer wrote:
>
>> Both seem to be able to overclock to a similar speed, is there any good
>> reason to buy the more expensive 3500+ rather than the 3200+ ?
>>
> Yes, you will make the retailer happier cause he'll make more money, and
> you'll make AMD happier cause they'll make more money
>


He said a *good* reason.

--
Derek
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
July 26, 2005 3:42:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Most cpu's overclock roughly 200/300mhz with little overvolt and air
cooling.
So add that to the standard mhz you get from your cpu and that's the total
you can reach.
So in theory the 3200 would do 2300mhz opposed to the 3500 wich would go
2500mhz.
I would say the xp3200 would appeal more to an advanced overclocker since
it's cheaper and he will be able to squeeze out every bit of mhz he can get.
But for the novice ones,they are better of with a faster start.
Also i believe the higher clocked cpu's are somewhat better ressistant
against heat then the lower ones,hence the higher clock speed.

I vote for the xp3500.


"Fishface" <invalid@ddress.ok?> schreef in bericht
news:11e3a966ecnqn4b@corp.supernews.com...
> > The 3500+ has a maximum multiplier of 12, as opposed to11 for the 3200+.
>
> Nope. Try 11 and 10.
>
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
July 26, 2005 8:50:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:42:04 +0200, Flow wrote:

> Most cpu's overclock roughly 200/300mhz with little overvolt and air
> cooling.
> So add that to the standard mhz you get from your cpu and that's the total
> you can reach.
> So in theory the 3200 would do 2300mhz opposed to the 3500 wich would go
> 2500mhz.
> I would say the xp3200 would appeal more to an advanced overclocker since
> it's cheaper and he will be able to squeeze out every bit of mhz he can get.
> But for the novice ones,they are better of with a faster start.
> Also i believe the higher clocked cpu's are somewhat better ressistant
> against heat then the lower ones,hence the higher clock speed.
>
I don't know where you came up with this info but it is totally wrong. The
model number has nothing to do with how fast the cpu will run. It's the
core that deterimines that. Each core model has a top limit. The model
number doesn't matter. As for XP's, the 3200+ in general will clock no
higher than a 2500+ XP, Both have the same core, and both will max out
around the same 2400MHz. Same applies to K8 cores. A 3000+ and 3800+
venice core will both clock to about the same top speed in general. This
has pretty much been the same throughout the history of the cpu.

--
KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233)
Need good help? Provide all system info with question.
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
July 26, 2005 11:18:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> schreef in bericht
news:p an.2005.07.26.16.52.12.141090@TAKEOUTverizon.net...
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:42:04 +0200, Flow wrote:
>
> > Most cpu's overclock roughly 200/300mhz with little overvolt and air
> > cooling.
> > So add that to the standard mhz you get from your cpu and that's the
total
> > you can reach.
> > So in theory the 3200 would do 2300mhz opposed to the 3500 wich would go
> > 2500mhz.
> > I would say the xp3200 would appeal more to an advanced overclocker
since
> > it's cheaper and he will be able to squeeze out every bit of mhz he can
get.
> > But for the novice ones,they are better of with a faster start.
> > Also i believe the higher clocked cpu's are somewhat better ressistant
> > against heat then the lower ones,hence the higher clock speed.
> >
> I don't know where you came up with this info but it is totally wrong. The
> model number has nothing to do with how fast the cpu will run. It's the
> core that deterimines that. Each core model has a top limit. The model
> number doesn't matter. As for XP's, the 3200+ in general will clock no
> higher than a 2500+ XP, Both have the same core, and both will max out
> around the same 2400MHz. Same applies to K8 cores. A 3000+ and 3800+
> venice core will both clock to about the same top speed in general. This
> has pretty much been the same throughout the history of the cpu.
>
> --
> KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233)
> Need good help? Provide all system info with question.
> My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
> Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
>

So what you are telling is that a venice 3000 clocks 1000mhz higher opposed
to the 2800mhz a xp3800 will do?
Ofcourse when multiplier is unlocked for higher ones i pressume.You can be
right there.
But can a venice be unlocked for the higher multies?

In any case,i was telling (as you can read in my post) about the novice
overclockers.
They grab 200/300 mhz.
I also spoke about the experienced overclockers.
I have read someone clocking an a64 upto 3600mhz.

No need to say this can only be achieved by experienced ppl.
And as what i said,this is simply the truth,for the novice overclockers.
they get in trouble when going over 300mhz.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
July 27, 2005 1:26:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:18:58 +0200, Flow wrote:

> So what you are telling is that a venice 3000 clocks 1000mhz higher opposed
> to the 2800mhz a xp3800 will do?

No. I'm saying they will both clock to about the same top speed as long as
they are the same model core. if the 3800+ venice will hit 2700MHz, a
3000+ venice will also hit 2700MHz. You just have to set the system bus
faster because of the lower multiplier.

> Ofcourse when multiplier is unlocked for higher ones i pressume.You can
> be right there.
> But can a venice be unlocked for the higher multies?
>
No, and there's no need to. Raise the FSB. Multiplier x FSB = CPU clock
speed.

> In any case,i was telling (as you can read in my post) about the novice
> overclockers.
> They grab 200/300 mhz.
> I also spoke about the experienced overclockers. I have read someone
> clocking an a64 upto 3600mhz.
>
Not on a standard setup. Maybe with power mods and liquid nitrogen
cooling. But that still sounds too high.

> No need to say this can only be achieved by experienced ppl. And as what
> i said,this is simply the truth,for the novice overclockers. they get in
> trouble when going over 300mhz.

Anyone with a little common sense should be able to clock it up close the
max. It's not that hard. Raise vcore, raise multiplier and/or fsb clock.
Raising the fsb is where most people get into trouble, but it's really
simple too as long as one realizes how it affects the other system buses.
While all those so called experts couldn't get the FSB up over about
220MHz on the older chipsets I set mine to 233 the first time without any
problems. Of course I knew what was going to happen when I raised it that
high and adjusted the other buses accordingly. Booted first time, no
problem.

--
KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233)
Need good help? Provide all system info with question.
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
July 28, 2005 3:05:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

I just started tweaking the new system today. A venice 3200 on an msi k8n
neo4 platinum with pc3200 corsair generic memory. In about 20 minutes i had
it up from standrad 2000mhz to 2400mhz, with a very small increase in temps,
and that is with the standard amd supplied HSF. When i get the chance, i'll
aim for 2600mhz, but it has to be rock solid stable.

So, in response to the OP, i'd say go the 3200. It'll be cheaper by heaps,
and as wes points out, with a bit of skill and especially paying attention
to the memory divider, anyone can get a decent overclock out of a venice.


"Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.07.26.21.28.31.271422@TAKEOUTverizon.net...
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:18:58 +0200, Flow wrote:
>
>> So what you are telling is that a venice 3000 clocks 1000mhz higher
>> opposed
>> to the 2800mhz a xp3800 will do?
>
> No. I'm saying they will both clock to about the same top speed as long as
> they are the same model core. if the 3800+ venice will hit 2700MHz, a
> 3000+ venice will also hit 2700MHz. You just have to set the system bus
> faster because of the lower multiplier.
>
>> Ofcourse when multiplier is unlocked for higher ones i pressume.You can
>> be right there.
>> But can a venice be unlocked for the higher multies?
>>
> No, and there's no need to. Raise the FSB. Multiplier x FSB = CPU clock
> speed.
>
>> In any case,i was telling (as you can read in my post) about the novice
>> overclockers.
>> They grab 200/300 mhz.
>> I also spoke about the experienced overclockers. I have read someone
>> clocking an a64 upto 3600mhz.
>>
> Not on a standard setup. Maybe with power mods and liquid nitrogen
> cooling. But that still sounds too high.
>
>> No need to say this can only be achieved by experienced ppl. And as what
>> i said,this is simply the truth,for the novice overclockers. they get in
>> trouble when going over 300mhz.
>
> Anyone with a little common sense should be able to clock it up close the
> max. It's not that hard. Raise vcore, raise multiplier and/or fsb clock.
> Raising the fsb is where most people get into trouble, but it's really
> simple too as long as one realizes how it affects the other system buses.
> While all those so called experts couldn't get the FSB up over about
> 220MHz on the older chipsets I set mine to 233 the first time without any
> problems. Of course I knew what was going to happen when I raised it that
> high and adjusted the other buses accordingly. Booted first time, no
> problem.
>
> --
> KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233)
> Need good help? Provide all system info with question.
> My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
> Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
>
July 29, 2005 11:59:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

I overclocked a friend's 3200-64 to 2450 from 2000MHz. I increased the
voltage from 1.4V to 1.55V for the CPU, increased the RAM voltage by 0.2V,
as required by one of the DIMMs, increased the chipset voltage by 0.1V and
dropped the HTL to 4x and the RAM to 166MHz because one of the RAM modules
is a cheapie. That was on a Gigabyte GA-K8NXP-9 board and using the
standard AMD heatsink and fan. Unless running at 100%, the CPU temp is
about 3C above room temp due to CnQ. Running Prime95 and converting an AVI
to DVD I got the CPU to 44C in a room temp of 25C.

Dave


"Bushy" <ex(underscore)boss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:j_2Ge.65146$oJ.14779@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> I just started tweaking the new system today. A venice 3200 on an msi k8n
> neo4 platinum with pc3200 corsair generic memory. In about 20 minutes i
> had it up from standrad 2000mhz to 2400mhz, with a very small increase in
> temps, and that is with the standard amd supplied HSF. When i get the
> chance, i'll aim for 2600mhz, but it has to be rock solid stable.
>
> So, in response to the OP, i'd say go the 3200. It'll be cheaper by heaps,
> and as wes points out, with a bit of skill and especially paying attention
> to the memory divider, anyone can get a decent overclock out of a venice.
>
>
> "Wes Newell" <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message
> news:p an.2005.07.26.21.28.31.271422@TAKEOUTverizon.net...
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:18:58 +0200, Flow wrote:
>>
>>> So what you are telling is that a venice 3000 clocks 1000mhz higher
>>> opposed
>>> to the 2800mhz a xp3800 will do?
>>
>> No. I'm saying they will both clock to about the same top speed as long
>> as
>> they are the same model core. if the 3800+ venice will hit 2700MHz, a
>> 3000+ venice will also hit 2700MHz. You just have to set the system bus
>> faster because of the lower multiplier.
>>
>>> Ofcourse when multiplier is unlocked for higher ones i pressume.You can
>>> be right there.
>>> But can a venice be unlocked for the higher multies?
>>>
>> No, and there's no need to. Raise the FSB. Multiplier x FSB = CPU clock
>> speed.
>>
>>> In any case,i was telling (as you can read in my post) about the novice
>>> overclockers.
>>> They grab 200/300 mhz.
>>> I also spoke about the experienced overclockers. I have read someone
>>> clocking an a64 upto 3600mhz.
>>>
>> Not on a standard setup. Maybe with power mods and liquid nitrogen
>> cooling. But that still sounds too high.
>>
>>> No need to say this can only be achieved by experienced ppl. And as what
>>> i said,this is simply the truth,for the novice overclockers. they get in
>>> trouble when going over 300mhz.
>>
>> Anyone with a little common sense should be able to clock it up close the
>> max. It's not that hard. Raise vcore, raise multiplier and/or fsb clock.
>> Raising the fsb is where most people get into trouble, but it's really
>> simple too as long as one realizes how it affects the other system buses.
>> While all those so called experts couldn't get the FSB up over about
>> 220MHz on the older chipsets I set mine to 233 the first time without any
>> problems. Of course I knew what was going to happen when I raised it that
>> high and adjusted the other buses accordingly. Booted first time, no
>> problem.
>>
>> --
>> KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233)
>> Need good help? Provide all system info with question.
>> My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
>> Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
>>
>
>
!