Overclocking a Pentium 4 3.4GHz

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

I'm going to be buying a new computer soon and am looking to buy parts
that will allow for a lot of overclocking (hopefully). I've been
thinking about the Pentium 3.4.(I'm guessing after the new Intel
pentium releases on the 21st the price on these should drop enough
that I will buy it) My question is can I expect a lot of overclocking
on this? Also, what would be the better one to buy, the Prescott or
Northwood? Also, any ideas on good memory or motherboard to go with
that would also be helpful. Thanks in advance to any advice.

DavidR.
10 answers Last reply
More about overclocking pentium 4ghz
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "DavidR." <d1reynolds@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:19a6d4f4.0406142233.4f797eb6@posting.google.com...
    > I'm going to be buying a new computer soon and am looking to buy parts
    > that will allow for a lot of overclocking (hopefully). I've been
    > thinking about the Pentium 3.4.(I'm guessing after the new Intel
    > pentium releases on the 21st the price on these should drop enough
    > that I will buy it) My question is can I expect a lot of overclocking
    > on this? Also, what would be the better one to buy, the Prescott or
    > Northwood? Also, any ideas on good memory or motherboard to go with
    > that would also be helpful. Thanks in advance to any advice.
    >
    > DavidR.
    3.6 GHz if your lucky.
    I asked the same thing a while back, and I was told that's about
    all I'll get.
    I would say go for a 3.06 or a 2.8
    Reason is, it uses a much higher multiplier to get to that speed.
    If I remember right, and seems to sound right, you'll be lucky to
    hit a FSB of 220 = 3740
    I can almost hit 3.4 with my 2.8C (Northwood Core.)
    I can get 700 MHz out of this, without too much extra on the vcore.
    500 MHz over, I don't need to do a thing with vcore.
    One more time, I'd get a 3.06 GHz CPU if I were you.
    Memory, Kingmax PC2700 (DDR333) or PC3200 (DDR400)
    Video (AIW) 9600 Radeon or better Is what I would get.
    Power = Antec or Enermax, either way, I would say get a 500 or 550.
    Case,, ThermalTake makes some really nice one's. Some with a little more
    room for HD's then others.
    MB???????????????????
    MSI Makes some Very good boards.
    But, so does Asus & Gigabyte, abit is good too.
    Anyway, I suggest against getting a 3.4 GHz CPU
    I think you may have better luck with something slower...
    Good Luck to you.
    Denny. :-)
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Newbie question - what's the (important) difference between a 3.0 and a
    3.0C? What's the 'C' for?
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "Slacker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    news:8eednTCcBr6B403d4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > Newbie question - what's the (important) difference between a 3.0 and a
    > 3.0C? What's the 'C' for?
    >
    >
    Oops, I goofed...
    Pentium 4A = 400 MHz Bus Speed
    FSB = 100 MHz Per Clock Cycle X 4 = 400 MHz
    Some of the PIII's were better then the first P4's

    Pentium 4B = 533 MHz Bus Speed
    FSB = 133.25 MHz Per Clock Cycle X 4 = 533 MHz (This one gets a little
    Odd.)
    Cause the Multiplier would be so high, you wouldn't be able to Overclock
    this one
    much better then the P4C 3.4GHz,, My bad.

    Pentium 4C = 800 MHz Bus Speed
    FSB = 200 MHz Per Clock Cycle X 4 = 800 MHz
    The Multiplier would still be low enough to get a really nice Overclock.
    15x200=3000 or 3.0GHz my guess is you shound be able to do around 240.
    240x15=3600 or 3.6GHz with a little more on Vcore, I would guess you could
    get a 700MHz Overclock. Might even get lucky to get a little more.

    I don't know man, I think I would rather something more simple like
    133x2=266
    133x the Multiplier 13.5 1795.5? I didn't know it didn't total to 1800 or
    1.8GHz....
    161MHz x 2 = 322 or 161x13.5=2173.5
    Oops, sorry for that, this is more of an Intel Group.

    And I messed up, P4C 3.0GHz

    Denny. :-)
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Slacker wrote:
    > Newbie question - what's the (important) difference between a 3.0 and
    > a
    > 3.0C? What's the 'C' for?

    Okay; the P4 history in a nutshell:
    - P4 (1.4-2.0 GHz?) Willamette core, .18 core, 256 kbyte cache. Slow, not
    O/Cable, shitty thing ;-)
    - P4(A) (1.6, 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6 GHz) Nortwood core, .13 core, 512
    kbyte cache
    - P4 (B) same, with 533 MHz FSB. This runs from 2.23 GHz to 3.06 GHz. Only
    the last one, the 3.06, has Hyper threading. Because it's at the top oof
    this family, it's barely overclockeble.
    - P4 (C) same, with 800 MHz FSB. Starts at 2.4, runt to 3.2? I have the 2.6,
    overclocks to 3.2.
    - P4 (E) Prescott core: 90 nanometer core. 1 MB cache, but longer pipeline.
    This is the latest version, has it's advantages and disadvantages. It's a
    hothead, consumes an enormous amount of power, and at best performs on par
    with the previous generation, clock for clock.

    My advice, a 2.8C or 3.0C... These overclock (very) nicely....

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

    Hi,

    So what your saying is that the P4 that I have below is no better than a P3?
    Just to clear up.

    Spence


    Processor Properties
    Manufacturer Intel
    Version Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4A Processor
    External Clock 144 MHz
    Maximum Clock 4000 MHz
    Current Clock 3024 MHz
    Type Central Processor
    Voltage 3.3 V, 2.9 V
    Status Enabled
    Socket Designation FC-478


    "Dennis E Strausser Jr" <dstrausser33@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:br2dnehJbKMpO03dRVn-sw@comcast.com...
    > "Slacker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    > news:8eednTCcBr6B403d4p2dnA@comcast.com...
    > > Newbie question - what's the (important) difference between a 3.0 and a
    > > 3.0C? What's the 'C' for?
    > >
    > >
    > Oops, I goofed...
    > Pentium 4A = 400 MHz Bus Speed
    > FSB = 100 MHz Per Clock Cycle X 4 = 400 MHz
    > Some of the PIII's were better then the first P4's
    >
    > Pentium 4B = 533 MHz Bus Speed
    > FSB = 133.25 MHz Per Clock Cycle X 4 = 533 MHz (This one gets a little
    > Odd.)
    > Cause the Multiplier would be so high, you wouldn't be able to Overclock
    > this one
    > much better then the P4C 3.4GHz,, My bad.
    >
    > Pentium 4C = 800 MHz Bus Speed
    > FSB = 200 MHz Per Clock Cycle X 4 = 800 MHz
    > The Multiplier would still be low enough to get a really nice Overclock.
    > 15x200=3000 or 3.0GHz my guess is you shound be able to do around 240.
    > 240x15=3600 or 3.6GHz with a little more on Vcore, I would guess you could
    > get a 700MHz Overclock. Might even get lucky to get a little more.
    >
    > I don't know man, I think I would rather something more simple like
    > 133x2=266
    > 133x the Multiplier 13.5 1795.5? I didn't know it didn't total to 1800 or
    > 1.8GHz....
    > 161MHz x 2 = 322 or 161x13.5=2173.5
    > Oops, sorry for that, this is more of an Intel Group.
    >
    > And I messed up, P4C 3.0GHz
    >
    > Denny. :-)
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Spencer wrote:
    > So what your saying is that the P4 that I have below is no better
    > than a P3? Just to clear up.

    <snip>

    Though he makes a mistake by calling it the P4A, he's referring to the FIRST
    P4's, with the Willamette core. Like I said before, these were not Intel's
    finest invention ever. The P4A set everything straight.

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

    "Thomas" <thomas_@lycos.nl> wrote in message
    news:vwJAc.2093$%27.79519@zonnet-reader-1...
    > Spencer wrote:
    > > So what your saying is that the P4 that I have below is no better
    > > than a P3? Just to clear up.
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > Though he makes a mistake by calling it the P4A, he's referring to the
    FIRST
    > P4's, with the Willamette core. Like I said before, these were not Intel's
    > finest invention ever. The P4A set everything straight.
    >
    > Thomas
    >
    >
    Right, the socket 423 (PGA423) If I got the pin count right.
    Then they moved to the socket 478 &
    603/604 for Xeon's
    Case & PSU, me hopes it will only be a few weeks yet.
    2.66 GHz CPU's (PGA604) Need HSF setups too, I'm sure I'll have em.
    Might just get them by the same ppl as my case Tt. X1000 one of em.
    Denny. :-)
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Wouldn't the 3.4 be faster than than overclocked 3 ghz processor anyways,
    overclocked or not?

    "Dennis E Strausser Jr" <dstrausser33@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:yJ6dnSurqvsHZlLdRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
    > "DavidR." <d1reynolds@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:19a6d4f4.0406142233.4f797eb6@posting.google.com...
    > > I'm going to be buying a new computer soon and am looking to buy parts
    > > that will allow for a lot of overclocking (hopefully). I've been
    > > thinking about the Pentium 3.4.(I'm guessing after the new Intel
    > > pentium releases on the 21st the price on these should drop enough
    > > that I will buy it) My question is can I expect a lot of overclocking
    > > on this? Also, what would be the better one to buy, the Prescott or
    > > Northwood? Also, any ideas on good memory or motherboard to go with
    > > that would also be helpful. Thanks in advance to any advice.
    > >
    > > DavidR.
    > 3.6 GHz if your lucky.
    > I asked the same thing a while back, and I was told that's about
    > all I'll get.
    > I would say go for a 3.06 or a 2.8
    > Reason is, it uses a much higher multiplier to get to that speed.
    > If I remember right, and seems to sound right, you'll be lucky to
    > hit a FSB of 220 = 3740
    > I can almost hit 3.4 with my 2.8C (Northwood Core.)
    > I can get 700 MHz out of this, without too much extra on the vcore.
    > 500 MHz over, I don't need to do a thing with vcore.
    > One more time, I'd get a 3.06 GHz CPU if I were you.
    > Memory, Kingmax PC2700 (DDR333) or PC3200 (DDR400)
    > Video (AIW) 9600 Radeon or better Is what I would get.
    > Power = Antec or Enermax, either way, I would say get a 500 or 550.
    > Case,, ThermalTake makes some really nice one's. Some with a little more
    > room for HD's then others.
    > MB???????????????????
    > MSI Makes some Very good boards.
    > But, so does Asus & Gigabyte, abit is good too.
    > Anyway, I suggest against getting a 3.4 GHz CPU
    > I think you may have better luck with something slower...
    > Good Luck to you.
    > Denny. :-)
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Wouldn't the 3.4 be faster than than overclocked 3 ghz processor anyways,
    overclocked or not?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----------------------
    Yes it would,but you also speed up the FSB and memory controller which speeds
    up everything when you overclock. Go with the 3.4C and not the 3.4E,the
    prescott runs hotter than the northwoods which will hurt the overclocking
    ability. DOUG
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "Courseyauto" <courseyauto@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:20040622072336.05675.00000373@mb-m14.aol.com...
    >
    > Wouldn't the 3.4 be faster than than overclocked 3 ghz processor anyways,
    > overclocked or not?
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > ----------------------
    > Yes it would,but you also speed up the FSB and memory controller which
    speeds
    > up everything when you overclock. Go with the 3.4C and not the
    3.4E,the
    > prescott runs hotter than the northwoods which will hurt the overclocking
    > ability. DOUG
    DOUG your forgetting something here, the multiplier would have to already be
    17
    So chances are you won't be able to get very far with extra FSB.
    In other words, you might just be able to get a 3.0 GHz C "Northwood"
    further then a 3.4 GHz CPU.
    15 x 200 = 3.0 GHz
    I'm starting to understand this thing a little better.
    This would mean that you can pump more FSB in to 15x200
    then you'll be able to pump in to the 17x200
    My guess is, with a 3.4 you'll get about 200 MHz Over.
    & with a 3.0 you should be able to get 400 Over or even better, just cause
    of the lower
    Multiplier.
    Some1 on these groups was trying to explain this to me already, but I didn't
    right away understand it.
    But I'm starting too.
    + with a little more FSB you should notice a good speed difference as well.
    If your lucky enough, you should be able to hit 3,750 MHz
    With just a little extra vcore.
    Also if I remember right, I think that same person said you might be able to
    hit 220 FSB
    but for a 3.4 GHz chip, it might be hard to keep it stable.
    One reason, the higher multiplier. So, lets see now, 3,740 17x220
    You choose for yourself though.
    ++ I hear that the 3.4 EE are nice Overclockers, but how many ppl have
    near to 1,000$
    to just go blow.
    Denny. :-)
Ask a new question

Read More

Overclocking Pentium Product