Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Upgrade help... Socket 939 4400+ worth it?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 12, 2007 10:39:35 AM

Hey everyone... I'm currently running a socket 939 rig with a 3700+, 7800 GTX, and 2 gigs of ram. I've been trying to figure what the best upgrade could be right now... I'd rather not purchase a whole new CPU/mobo/ram combo right now. What I'm really looking at is picking up a 4400+ online for around $130... If I'm not mistaken it would essentially give me a 2nd 3700+ core... I know there's much more to it than that, but the specs seem roughly the same.

I'm also looking at picking up an 8800 GTS 320mb card sometime in the next few months as well...

Now I know there are quite a few posts on subjects like this, but I tried to use the search function and failed... Everytime I typed in "4400+" or "Socket 939" or even anything at all I failed to get a result. All I really need are some quick and dirty answers/opinions...

Question 1 - Is it worth upgrading from a 3700+ to a 4400+? Or would it be better to ride out my current CPU/Mobo/RAM combo for another year or so?

Question 2 - If I indeed got the 4400+, would it improve the performance of the 8800 GTS once purchased over the 3700+? I've seen articles indicated that it would, but most of those had the 4400+ OC'd to 5200+ speeds, which is not something I'm prepared to do quite yet.

Thanks for any help, and I apologize for repeating the topic.
June 12, 2007 3:12:03 PM

In all honesty, you'll probably be disappointed after the switch. I was, when I switched from my 3000+ to a 3800+ last year.

I went from a 1.8 ghz single core to a 2 ghz dual core. This was also an upgrade from an older stepping to a newer stepping with some revisions to the core and a few new extensions.

There was a slight improvement in games and the second core made things more responsive. The greater improvement came when I downloaded AMD's dual core drivers and the latest bios for my MSI motherboard.

Having the dual core made the system more responsive. There's no lag when doing things like there used to be from the antivirus and other programs running in the background.

I was happier when I did a mild overclock (using the software that came with my motherboard). I've been running my 3800+ at 2.2 ghz for over a year now and it's still running along nicely. So ....

Your idea could be a good move. Just don't expect your system to run 80 percent faster, or 50 percent faster, or even 30 percent faster -- except maybe in encoding files.

Most games still don't benefit much from dual cores. So if gaming is a priority, you'll probably be disappointed that the changes is not greater.

If you do a lot of encoding, then sure, you'll probably be pleased.
June 12, 2007 3:58:23 PM

Brainysmurf said it pretty well, though it's hard to give a definite answer without really knowing what a suitable outcome would be for you.
What type of "performance" are you expecting, and what level?
Faster framerates? What? 10%, 20%?

In general more games than not are single core and thus you would notice significantly more performance with the 8800gts 320mb although with that card resolution you play in can make a difference of just how much performance would be gained... either way should be significant.

A dual core would make even single core games smoother, but generally not faster unless the clock is higher for you but if money is a crunch I would get the cheapest dual core I could find and OC it, or just OC your current processor and ride it out a bit longer. There will still be the random chugginess in some games and apps the more stuff you have in the background but you'll survive.

If the question is of "prettyness" and how important that is to you, I'm willing to bet, that if you're happy with res's of 1280 or less, you're probably looking pretty good 80% of the time, even with newer stuff, with a fair amount of options on, with the system you have now.

My GF has a 3800x2 oc'd to 2.5ghz and 2gb of ram and a 256mb 7800GT.
She can play anything, still have it look real nice, and with more than suitable smoothness. With my x1950xtx, I can play in higher res and maybe with AA x4 on, but the difference compared with the money is only important to the purchaser.

That being said, if you're looking to upgrade for the sake of upgrading, don't and wait it out a year, your system will last just fine, granted not at the highest peak of graphical aptitude, but still damn good. Keep in mind the 7600gt is still a solid card and the 7800gtx is better still than that.

If upgrading a year from now, regardless of what you get, is what you're thinking just stick it out IMO.
Related resources
June 12, 2007 6:59:03 PM

I have a 4400+ CPU with a 7800GT card and performance is good. Dual Core does improve general system responsiveness, but there is only a handful of games currently available that make use of both cores. Although when a game is designed for Dual core or an older game receives a patch for multi core it really does boast performance. I play Flight simulator X with the SP1 patch and it's just so much smoother now its using both cores.
a b à CPUs
June 12, 2007 7:15:20 PM

I have them both. Unless you have the need to do two or three things at once, I wouldn't waste my money. There is little, if any, performance gain. An fx60 isn't worth it right now. Save up and get newer hardware.

Having said that, I'll never buy another single core chip for anything. I do put both cores to use at this time, and will be getting quad core on next purchase.
June 12, 2007 7:48:51 PM

What mobo do you have?
A 4400 should be pretty OC-able. From what i hear it should be able to go up to 2.6ghz easy, which will give you net performance of a stock fx60.
I went from a 3800 single core to a 4600 dual core last year. There isn't much of a performance difference until you start multi tasking, or have multi threaded apps. Some games will use the extra core; processes, like sound processing are run on the second core also. The biggest improvement will be found when running background tasks, like brainysmurf said. After my upgrade, i can play FEAR and download files or run a virus scan at the same time.
June 12, 2007 8:15:10 PM

Thanks for all the info, fellas.

I guess I'm looking for an overall system boost... I want to delay a complete upgrade as long as I can... I don't want to have to buy a whole new CPU/mobo/RAM setup all that much right now... I suppose, though, if I were looking to pawn off the existing parts in order to pay for the new parts the sooner I do so, the better....

In any case, I really think I'm just gonna look at upgrading the CPU in hopes that it lasts me another 1-2 years before worrying about an entire upgrade.

I'm currently running an eVGA nForce 4 mainboard... not sure if it's a NF41 or NF43. I'm also running OCZ PC3200 Dual Channel Platinum DDR400 RAM, but am unsure of what response timings I'm currently running at (probably stock, I haven't messed with that stuff in a while)...

Specifically, I do a wide range of things... Photo and video editing, some music conversion, that kind of stuff. I'm also concerned with gaming performance, although not obsessed with it... I'd mainly like to get in step with the dual-core crowd, as that was my plan when I first built this machine (bought the 3700+ san diego on the cheap in August 05 with thoughts of upgrading to dual core)... So while I'll definitely be looking for a boost in gaming performance, I'll also be measuring the boosts with video/photo/sound editing, downloading, background tasks, and everything else a dual core can benefit.
June 12, 2007 9:00:57 PM

Yoes, it actually IS a second 3700+ core but you've got to get some program to know how to use both, otherwise, it's just stupidly spent money. Video/Audio encoding software, rendering and scientific in general as well as very few new games DO BENEFIT from multicore CPUs. If your software does not use them, multitasking/megatasking/background processes etc, are not reasons to get a dual core, so you'd better stick with what you have in this case.
June 12, 2007 9:12:11 PM

I'll add just one more comment on a different tact.

Remember that AMD is not producing any more Socket 939 X2 CPUs. So if you're ever gonna upgrade, then now is probably the time to do it while there is still a (somewhat) plentiful supply.

On the other hand, you'll be able to upgrade your video card at any time. So you could get the dual core cpu now and get a faster video card (if you decided you need to) later on.

I agree with a previous poster that you could possibly reach 2.6 ghz with an overclock.
June 12, 2007 9:51:56 PM

Brainy, I've been figuring all that into my internal debate over the whole upgrade issue... Seeing as how 939 chip production has ceased, prices are not going to get any cheaper. I figure now is the optimum time to purchase a CPU upgrade if I want to extend the life of this particular machine. Over on OC Forums I'm getting a lot of advice to go with the Opty 170 or 175 for overclocking purposes... Specifically the 170 will supposedly work fairly well, but I'd be hesitant to get a chip whose stock speeds are actually lower than my current one.

I'm thinking that the X2 4400+ is my best option... For those of you saying I could probably crank it up to 2.6ghz... are we talking stable speeds here? I'd like to get the machine tweaked to a level that offers improved performance but also one that requires very little maintenance or observation. I have a Thermaltake CPU fan and heat sync as opposed to the stock stuff, and I'd like to refrain from buying any additional cooling components.

Essientially I guess I'd like to know if I can crank up the X2 to 2.6ghz speeds using stock voltage and near-stock cooling, I guess...
June 12, 2007 10:02:55 PM

I think it depends system to system how a chip over clocks. My 4400+ 939 does not overclock that well and the max I can reach is 2.4Ghz, but any further even with safe acceptable Voltage increases it fails prime 95. I'm not that bothered though because performance is still good.
June 12, 2007 10:31:07 PM

I think you should go with the Opty 170 - it's a pretty much guaranteed overclock to 2.7GHz, and a lot of people get to 3GHz with a small voltage bump.

However, I am a little biased - I've got an Opteron 165@2.7GHz stock voltage - it runs very nicely, totally stable.
June 12, 2007 10:55:17 PM

Quote:
I think it depends system to system how a chip over clocks. My 4400+ 939 does not overclock that well and the max I can reach is 2.4Ghz, but any further even with safe acceptable Voltage increases it fails prime 95. I'm not that bothered though because performance is still good.

Really?
My 4600 has a lazy OC with a cheap mobo, but it does 2.6ghz. Sport's nforce4 mobo should be able to muster up some speed in these old-ish cpu's.
June 12, 2007 11:05:31 PM

I have both of the same cpu,s and didnt see much if any improvment.
But i dont encode video or that kind of shistuff.

But you would have a dualcore though.
June 12, 2007 11:10:03 PM

http://freespace.virgin.net/roy.longbottom/#anchorSSE3DNow
Quote:
I think you should go with the Opty 170 - it's a pretty much guaranteed overclock to 2.7GHz, and a lot of people get to 3GHz with a small voltage bump.

However, I am a little biased - I've got an Opteron 165@2.7GHz stock voltage - it runs very nicely, totally stable.


Yeah, the 170 OCs WAY better. Mine is at 2.9. It will load Windows and run stable at 3, but I found out it was generating errors at that speed.

I've tried a dozen 4400s at work, and while most will run at 2.6, they'd all actually generate errors above 2.5. My buddy was using a 4800 @ 2.6 for months. Started crashing recently and I found it was generating errors.

I used this program to check for errors...

http://freespace.virgin.net/roy.longbottom/#anchorSSE3DNow

Run the Soakmp.bat for Dual cores
June 12, 2007 11:11:54 PM

Lots of votes for the Opty 170... It's certainly cheaper... I think I'm just hesitant to get back into the OC game... I haven't even been gaming all that much recently (as in firing up a game once or twice a month) so I'm not even sure why I care. It's definitely tempting to get a chip and crank it up to fx-60 speeds, though. It'd be quite a swan song for my 939 set up if I could ride out a final $115 investment for another two years...

How much better is the Opty 170 than the 175 at reaching higher speeds on stock voltage? And how about overall OC ceiling?
June 12, 2007 11:15:32 PM

Quote:
Lots of votes for the Opty 170... It's certainly cheaper... I think I'm just hesitant to get back into the OC game... I haven't even been gaming all that much recently (as in firing up a game once or twice a month) so I'm not even sure why I care. It's definitely tempting to get a chip and crank it up to fx-60 speeds, though. It'd be quite a swan song for my 939 set up if I could ride out a final $115 investment for another two years...

How much better is the Opty 170 than the 175 at reaching higher speeds on stock voltage? And how about overall OC ceiling?


Those Optys are actually the same Toledo core as the 44/4800, but they are binned better. Like getting a "golden sample" chip.

The 175 has a higher multiplier, so its just easier for the board to OC it. Just like comparing an E66/6700 :) 
June 12, 2007 11:39:04 PM

I think I'm gonna take a few warmup tosses and try to OC my 3700+ a little... Probably best to try that before dropping a new chip in, anyway. At this point it looking like I'll try the Opty 170, but it's tough considering I've had my eye on the X2 4400+ for so long.

I'm also beginning to realize that, regardless of what direction I take, I'm most likely going to have to redo my system cooling. It runs a little hot at stock speeds, so I don't know how much realistic OCing I'm gonna get with my current setup.
June 12, 2007 11:53:52 PM

The 4400 is a good investment for the later 8800gts as it will run quite a bit better with a dual core chip compared to the 3700. I myself went from a 3700 to a 4600 and no the performance difference wasn't stellar but the second core will come in handy in the future so it's worth it if you can get it cheap enough. Most games these days are gpu limited, I'm not planning to change to AM2 for a while as it's too much hassle and quite frankly games just don't use your cpu enough.

Some benchmarks for your delectation:

3700 machine 3dmark score of - 2932
4600 machine 3dmark score of - 3621

The fps tests only went up by around 1 each but the cpu scores doubled. Admittedly 3dmark is a poor indicator of real world performance but you don't want to later get an 8800gts and have it really limited by the 3700. Up to yourself, if you've got the cash and want to hold off a major upgrade do it but it might be better to pickup a cheap am2 motherboard, some ram and a 3800 dual core X2 instead.
June 13, 2007 12:12:20 AM

TBH, any dual core will work really (especially if youre intending to OC at all)... for s939, my X2 3800+ OCs to 2.71 stable with a budget ecs mobo (but overheats due to the voltage increases necessary), so i just have it running at 2.4 stock voltage, so the memory is in sync as well.

you can try voltage reductions too, while OCing, if you really want to keep temperatures down, and still have a performance increase (though not as much most likely)
June 13, 2007 12:24:30 AM

unforetunately my opteron 175 only got to 2.5 without any errors. Although I barely had to bump the vcore for that. After 2.5 I seem to get errors no matter what vcore I try.
June 13, 2007 12:34:24 AM

that could be due to several things though, mobo, memory, psu, cpu... im less inclined to think your opteron is limited in its OC to 2.5, so much as other components might not be up to the task... possibly

im sure youve changed settings enough to find out what works... but if you havent, you could try reducing your htt multiplier to 3x, memory speed from 200 down to 133, or 100 even (though no guarantee of being able to boot when its that low)... increase the voltage going to memory to 2.79v (higher is up to you, i dont though personally, i just stay around 2.63v currently)... relax memory timings some... ...increase cpu voltage some, maybe +.25 - +.5v... but not above 1.5v, if you go more than +.5v (risk frying then)... if you find a stable combination that doesnt endanger your hardware (voltages primarily), you can fine tune settings then

thats just what i do anyhow, to find the highest possible OC, then start over and see how much i can work up to it and tune settings while remaining stable... orthos works pretty well for testing
June 13, 2007 1:23:55 AM

I'm just not prepared to go the whole CPU/Mobo/RAM route... I didn't really invest all that much in the mobo or the CPU, but I probably spent a little more on the RAM than I should have two years ago and would like the overall investment to last a little longer.

If I can get an Opty 170 up to 2.6ghz I think I will be fine. I'd love to be able to just pop something in for a performance boost, but I know it's gonna take some tweaking and OCing to get there. Again, I'd like to get a chip with stock speeds that equal my 3700+, but if the 170 is going to give me an easy 2.6ghz OC then it may be my best option.
June 13, 2007 1:44:04 AM

Probably the best bet, it's a bit annoying that the 939 chipset has been discontinued as there are still plenty of people who would buy the chips if they were still available, the ram difference between an am2 and 939 chip are negligible anyway, in some cases the 939 is actually faster.
June 13, 2007 2:10:57 AM

Gotta agree on that one... It's rather inconvenient that they're constantly pushing the socket standards forward, but that's the nature of the business I guess..

In any event, I've come across a new problem... I'm currently evaluating my system to see if I could possibly overclock my 3700+ for now... Long story short, my CPU temp is hovering around 55C and my system temp around 45C... I used to think those were in the normal range, but now I can't help but think they're way too high. I have an upgraded heat sync and fan on my CPU, too, so I'm not sure why the temp is so high.

Is this normal? It doesn't seem as if OCing is a viable option as long as my stock speeds are running temps this high...
June 13, 2007 2:20:49 AM

55C isnt too much to worry about, in itself... since the cpu is rated up to 71C, as long as youre below ~66C-67C, you should experience no real problems with stability (from what ive found)

aside from that though, make sure your case is ventilated well enough... take the side panel off temporarily (a few minutes at least), and see if that improves temperatures by much... if it does, you need better case ventilation (move wires and cables out of the way, find a good placement for fans)

see if dust is clogging anything (such as the cpu hsf), removing clumps of dust can improve temperatures by at least a few degrees
June 13, 2007 2:24:05 AM

Not too bad, mine are only five degrees cooler.
June 13, 2007 3:07:35 AM

That's kind of what I remembered... I asked around and found that quite a few people had temps running in that range, and knew the ceiling was about 15-20C higher than my idle temp.

Also, removing my side panel doesn't really improve much in terms of temp... I've had it off for about 20 minutes. The CPU temp has dipped a degree and the system temp has dipped between 1-4C, depending on whether I use SpeedFan or MyGuard (MyGuard being more accurate for my machine)... Ventilation has never really been a problem I don't think... I have 4 system fans plus the CPU fan... Two in front, one on top, and one blowing out the back.
June 13, 2007 4:16:28 AM

Update... I'm now using CoreTemp to measure the CPU temperature, and it's now coming in at 36C... Can that be right?
June 13, 2007 4:21:08 AM

My father in law went from a 3400+ to a 4800x2 and he loves it....

he still rocks the 6800GT and is in the process of building a new pc

His load times are much quicker and lag is almost nonexistant.

Plus, if you rip movies a lot, there is a big diff in burn and rip times.

When i went from my 3400+ to my 5200X2 my time went from about 20 minutes to rip to about 8 minutes to rip.
June 13, 2007 4:21:42 AM

that definetly sounds more likely (considering youre on a single core with 3rd party cooling even i think you said)... though to be honest, the bios temperature reading is the most accurate one youre going to get under load, it also runs the cpu at 100% usage when youre in it... amds dashboard demo is accurate as well (it usually corrects speedfans temperature to be accurate if theyre both loaded)

the 55C temperature is closer to what youll get with a dual core most of the time when not idle
June 13, 2007 5:20:18 AM

CoreTemp has two temperature readings... One for "Core" and one for "TCaseMax"... the Core temp is 34C, while the TCase is 55C, which is more in line with the other program measurements. Can someone tell me the difference?
June 13, 2007 6:25:17 AM

Quote:
I think you should go with the Opty 170 - it's a pretty much guaranteed overclock to 2.7GHz, and a lot of people get to 3GHz with a small voltage bump.

However, I am a little biased - I've got an Opteron 165@2.7GHz stock voltage - it runs very nicely, totally stable.


Bingo!
The Optron 170 (dual core) will do 2.7-2.8Ghz easy on stock volts and some with correct RAM settings have it @ 2.97Ghz on stock volts .
Not bad at all for a dual core CPU that is 2Ghz stock.

Newegg had them for $114 boxed (cooler and 3 year warrenty) on Fathers Day.

If you have nothing that uses more than one core like 99.97% of us in the currant real world then look into a sgl core Optron 150 for $119 online....stock 2.4Ghz.

Mate that up with some DDR1-500 RAM like G.Skill 4000HZ and without overclocking the RAM you get an instant 3Ghz @ a 1:1 ratio and T1/CR1 3.4.4.8 speed that will eat up and spit out a C2 with DDR2-800 for Read/Write/Copy/Latency without even OC the RAM.
Its alot faster than my Optron 146 and I already do the same.

Optrons that I have all OC 50% @ stock volts with a clean PSU and without getting into heavy RAM settings.
June 13, 2007 6:29:26 AM

Quote:
I think you should go with the Opty 170 - it's a pretty much guaranteed overclock to 2.7GHz, and a lot of people get to 3GHz with a small voltage bump.

However, I am a little biased - I've got an Opteron 165@2.7GHz stock voltage - it runs very nicely, totally stable.


Bingo!
The Optron 170 (dual core) will do 2.7-2.8Ghz easy on stock volts and some with correct RAM settings have it @ 2.97Ghz on stock volts .
Not bad at all for a dual core CPU that is 2Ghz stock.

Newegg had them for $114 boxed (cooler and 3 year warrenty) on Fathers Day.

If you have nothing that uses more than one core like 99.97% of us in the currant real world then look into a sgl core Optron 150 for $119 online....stock 2.4Ghz.

Mate that up with some DDR1-500 RAM like G.Skill 4000HZ and without overclocking the RAM you get an instant 3Ghz @ a 1:1 ratio and T1/CR1 3.4.4.8 speed that will eat up and spit out a C2 with DDR2-800 for Read/Write/Copy/Latency without even OC the RAM.
Its alot faster than my Optron 146 and I already do the same.

Optrons that I have all OC 50% @ stock volts with a clean PSU and without getting into heavy RAM settings.

As for better case cooling with ANY case...remove the exit fans grill/guard for as much as 70% more airflow.

This gives a better return than any non-stock air cooler alone without the mod.

Mate that with a Thermalright cooler and Silverstone FM-121 120mm fans (110 QFPM) and you can have the same cooling as any non-chilled water system.

I have built many such systems with Coolermaster TO-1 cases that idle 2C over room temps and only hit 13C over room temps after an hour of Prime.....everything on stock volts.

If you can't find the G.Skill PC-4000 2 GB packs then go for Patriot.
Corsair and OZC are stupid priced.
June 13, 2007 6:48:25 AM

Quote:

When i went from my 3400+ to my 5200X2 my time went from about 20 minutes to rip to about 8 minutes to rip.


Two cores help out with Divx (XVID is faster and torrent standerd) but almost all games still use 1 core.

In any event I bet your games also run alot better even thought they use half of your CPU action.

Long live socket 939!
June 13, 2007 11:07:57 AM

Quote:
I'm just not prepared to go the whole CPU/Mobo/RAM route... I didn't really invest all that much in the mobo or the CPU, but I probably spent a little more on the RAM than I should have two years ago and would like the overall investment to last a little longer.

If I can get an Opty 170 up to 2.6ghz I think I will be fine. I'd love to be able to just pop something in for a performance boost, but I know it's gonna take some tweaking and OCing to get there. Again, I'd like to get a chip with stock speeds that equal my 3700+, but if the 170 is going to give me an easy 2.6ghz OC then it may be my best option.

Well, if you don't like that much the idea of overclocking, a stock X2 4600+ is better than a X2 4400+; cache does not matter that much for this architecture and the 200MHz bonus will give you more performance than the 1M of L2.
June 13, 2007 12:27:07 PM

If you are upgrading a socket 939 board then there is no reasonable option other than an Opteron 170 or higher. Otherwise upgrade to an AM2 platform or s775 platform. Its a simple choice.
June 13, 2007 3:12:19 PM

Hmm, I had the memory down to 166 and the HTT down to 4x so both were below stock speed so not sure why I'd go lower on those but I suppose I could try it. I've tried 2 different mobos and the psu has changed too since I first got this processor(I tried before and after). I believe I pushed the vcore up to 1.47 just trying to get it stable and no go, I would still get errors on things like prime95 after less then 15 minutes of running it. I'm willing to play around with it some more but I don't feel like I can squeeze much more out of it.
a c 108 à CPUs
June 13, 2007 4:18:20 PM

Quote:
If you are upgrading a socket 939 board then there is no reasonable option other than an Opteron 170 or higher. Otherwise upgrade to an AM2 platform or s775 platform. Its a simple choice.
Yup . . .

And the retail Opty 170 HSF works really well - and looks preety *cool* on top of that . . .
June 13, 2007 4:30:38 PM

55 C = 131 F
45 C = 113 F

37 C = 98.6 F (body temperature).

I figure if the human body can tolerate 37 C, the metal and silicon components of my computer can run a little hotter. But yeah, 55 C is getting to be a little too much.

My 3800+ is currently at 2.2 ghz and runs consistently @ 45 C at full load, 32 to 37 C at idle, in a room that is probably around close to 36 C right now (just running the fan, trying to save money on the A/C). I have a big intake fan and big exhaust fan on the case and the system temp hovers around 38 C.

I'm running the big all copper Zalman cooler (the one they were selling in 2005, before the heat pipe version). Of course at 2.2 ghz mine is only a mild overclock of 200 mhz.

My 3800+ could do 2.4 ghz error free but the Zalman was spinning a lot faster and making more noise, so I tuned it back down to keep things quiet.

Back to you. A different, better heat sink and reapplication of compound might help. I use Artic Silver 5 on mine.
June 13, 2007 7:59:14 PM

I tried a few other programs that work much better in measuring system temp, and they all gauged my CPU core temp at 33-36C. I still don't really understand the discrepancy, nor do I understand this "TCaseMax" reading.

Anyway, that's not my problem anymore. I attempted to overclock last night and ran into a big snag. I upped the CPU bus speed from 200mhz to 210mhz, thinking I could get an easy jump from 2.2ghz to 2.31... But when I saved changes and restarted, I got a Post Code 26 and the whole system failed to boot. I had to clear the CMOS and start all over again. I'm not sure why that happened, but I think it's because I didn't loosen the memory timings. I wouldn't think I'd have to set a memory divider that low, as my RAM is pretty good and almost certainly can run higher than 200mhz...

Anyone have any ideas?
a c 108 à CPUs
June 13, 2007 9:18:31 PM

Did you drop the HT multiplier back to 4x

???
June 13, 2007 10:40:51 PM

well, aside from the HTT multiplier needing to be reduced from a default 5x, down to 4x, and even 3x (depending on how much you OC, just so you can keep your HTT speed at or below 1000MHz... cpu bus speed * HTT multiplier)

reducing memory speed helps, to ensure it isnt running above stock by much at all when you OC your cpu, as your memory will go up the same amount

increasing memory voltage some can help ensure stability (in this case, booting)... loosening memory timings simultaneously can help too if needed (and then tightened later possibly)

increasing cpu voltage usually isnt necessary till at least a few hundred MHz above stock, though again, a small bump wont hurt, as long as youre not above 1.5v

some motherboards you can lock the pci bus at 33MHz, thats something you should do if you have the option to, so it doesnt run out of sync

disabling Cool n Quiet in the bios might be necessary
June 14, 2007 2:02:54 AM

Quote:
well, aside from the HTT multiplier needing to be reduced from a default 5x, down to 4x, and even 3x (depending on how much you OC, just so you can keep your HTT speed at or below 1000MHz... cpu bus speed * HTT multiplier)

reducing memory speed helps, to ensure it isnt running above stock by much at all when you OC your cpu, as your memory will go up the same amount

increasing memory voltage some can help ensure stability (in this case, booting)... loosening memory timings simultaneously can help too if needed (and then tightened later possibly)

increasing cpu voltage usually isnt necessary till at least a few hundred MHz above stock, though again, a small bump wont hurt, as long as youre not above 1.5v

some motherboards you can lock the pci bus at 33MHz, thats something you should do if you have the option to, so it doesnt run out of sync

disabling Cool n Quiet in the bios might be necessary


Actually the HT multiplier is lacking a setting... instead I can set the HT bus speed itself at 200mhz increments up to 1000mhz. I'm not quite sure why that is, but it currently is set at 800mhz by default. I'm going to flash my BIOS with a newer revision, but I'm not so sure what to do if it doesn't include a multiplier setting...
June 14, 2007 2:49:20 AM

Quote:
well, aside from the HTT multiplier needing to be reduced from a default 5x, down to 4x, and even 3x (depending on how much you OC, just so you can keep your HTT speed at or below 1000MHz... cpu bus speed * HTT multiplier)

reducing memory speed helps, to ensure it isnt running above stock by much at all when you OC your cpu, as your memory will go up the same amount

increasing memory voltage some can help ensure stability (in this case, booting)... loosening memory timings simultaneously can help too if needed (and then tightened later possibly)

increasing cpu voltage usually isnt necessary till at least a few hundred MHz above stock, though again, a small bump wont hurt, as long as youre not above 1.5v

some motherboards you can lock the pci bus at 33MHz, thats something you should do if you have the option to, so it doesnt run out of sync

disabling Cool n Quiet in the bios might be necessary


Actually the HT multiplier is lacking a setting... instead I can set the HT Frequency itself at 200mhz increments up to 1000mhz. I'm not quite sure why that is, but it currently is set at 800mhz by default. I'm going to flash my BIOS with a newer revision, but I'm not so sure what to do if it doesn't include a multiplier setting...
June 14, 2007 3:45:42 AM

yeah, 800MHz (i would think, as you pointed out) is equal to 4x... you could try reducing it down to 600MHz (3x) also... ...1x and 2x dont work in my experience, only resulting in my system not booting, and needing the cmos battery cleared again
a c 108 à CPUs
June 14, 2007 11:42:07 AM

Too bad about the suckie BIOS settings .. . Have you flashed to the latest version ???

Have you considered nTune for any additional OC options? It might be worth a shot . . .

Is there a way for you to 'dial-back' the clock on the PCIe bus in the curreny BIOS ???
June 14, 2007 7:58:06 PM

Quote:
Too bad about the suckie BIOS settings .. . Have you flashed to the latest version ???

Have you considered nTune for any additional OC options? It might be worth a shot . . .

Is there a way for you to 'dial-back' the clock on the PCIe bus in the curreny BIOS ???


This is, in fact, the newest BIOS. It does seem to be ok for this kind of stuff, but not great. I figured out the HTT multiplier and all that stuff... The RAM divider is a little funky, but I'm able to figure that out as well.

There is a setting for the PCIe bus clock speed, but what would that do if I dialed it back? I've seen people dial it back to 8x, but I have no idea as to what the benefits would be.

I was actually about to fire up nTune to see what I could eek out of it.

Thanks for the suggestions.
June 14, 2007 9:01:48 PM

your best best is to overclock the hell out of your single core. Then tend to oc better than the dualcores. You'll get better gaming performance than a dualcore if you do it that way.
!