Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Why adjust multiplier on e5200?

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
March 8, 2009 11:54:50 PM

im doing 280x12.5 multi so far, and slowly increasing fsb/vcore. why do people do like 333x10 or some other multi other than the max (12.5)? is it better? how do i figure out whats best for me?
March 9, 2009 8:08:37 AM

sleepychink125 said:
im doing 280x12.5 multi so far, and slowly increasing fsb/vcore. why do people do like 333x10 or some other multi other than the max (12.5)? is it better? how do i figure out whats best for me?


For some people a mild overclock is good enough for them. Not everyone goes for broke. Like with the E5200 a nice mild OC would be (11.5 x 266) = 3.0GHz @ 1066 fsb. So a person went from 2.5GHz @ 800 fsb to 3.0 Ghz @ 1066 fsb.
Score
-1

Best solution

a b K Overclocking
March 9, 2009 9:25:11 AM

Some people think that going with a low multiplier and high fsb will grant them a little bit of extra performance, which is why they do it. Though to be quite honest I heard it a thousand times and tried to find out if its true and from what I've seen if it does give any performance increase it's neglectable in my opinion.

Others use a lower multiplier because for some reason they may hit a wall on a high OC when the use a higher multiplier, it's wierd but I have heard it happening before. Than there are people who find out they can achieve the same OC using different multipliers and it just so happens they can achieve a stable one with a lower vcore with the one with the smaller multipler. There's really a bunch of reasons for using a small multiplier.

As for me my system is setup at 10 x 300fsb for a 3ghz OC with my e2180, stock was 2ghz. I used the high multiplier because im lazy and that was the first one I used and I found that 3ghz is the sweet spot for my CPU and that if I wanted to go higher than that I would have to pump in alot more voltage.
Share
Related resources
March 9, 2009 3:13:18 PM

sleepychink125 said:
im doing 280x12.5 multi so far, and slowly increasing fsb/vcore. why do people do like 333x10 or some other multi other than the max (12.5)? is it better? how do i figure out whats best for me?


The main reason behind this is to achieve a relation between memory speed and FSB near the perfect 1:1.
Many test have said that a ratio memory: FSB of 1:1 or 3:2 or even 5:4 are better than an oddly one (there are many BM about this).

So if you have DDR2 at 1066 (266X4) if you have a FSB of 266 you have got a 1:1 ratio, if you have an FSB of 333 you've got 5:4 ( many processors work better with this ratio, for example, AMD processors paired with ddr2 800 have a very good performance with FSB=250). It's better to try to achieve an even ratio.
Score
0
a c 172 à CPUs
a c 197 K Overclocking
March 9, 2009 3:14:24 PM

assasin is right. There are two ways to go: one - theoretically a lower multiplier X higher fsb for the same core speed will give better performance. However, based on a couple of CPU chips and different motherboards, about the only way to tell is with benchmark programs. The second is whatever works.

Again, I favor assasin's approach. Increase fsb. Sooner or later, you will need to increase vcore to maintain stability. You will reach a point where for a small fsb increase, you will need a large vcore increase. I stop there, even if I haven't reached the maximum vcore "suggested" by Intel or the maximum temperature I am comfortable with (70 C ).

That approach has worked for a G0 Q6600 (3.6 GHz @1.42 volts, 61 C to 65 C) and a C1 Q9550 (3.6 GHz @ 1.37 volts, 57 C to 61 C). The Q9550 needed almost 1.48 volts to run at 3.8 GHz. Core temps were close to 70 C.
----------
Overclocking since 1978 - Z80 (TRS-80) from 1.77 MHz to 2.01 MHz
Score
0
June 13, 2009 3:56:52 AM

Interesting comments. So assassin does not believe that people who use low multipliers do so because they are trying to "bypass" the FSB wall? How else to classify the idea as being "weird". I guess that makes me weird because the highest I could have overclocked on the E2180 was at 10 multi*300fsb, but after jumping the FSB wall I am able to run at 9 multi*400. If being able to overclock to 3.6GHZ by lowering my multi makes me weird...so be it. I'm just another weirdo with an E2180 overclocked to 3.6GHZ. :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2012 4:31:53 AM

Best answer selected by Proximon.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2012 4:32:02 AM

This topic has been closed by Proximon
Score
0
!