Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

3200 90nm , clocking correctly...? YIKES!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 11, 2005 11:33:48 PM

Okay, I have an A8V-SLI deluxe mobo and a A64 S939 3200+ (90nm). The 3200 90nm should be at a regular clock of 2.2 ghz. In windows system info, it reads a CPU clock of 2.01 ghz. I had a similar problem with my old socket 754 3400+, but when I got the A64 drivers off of the amd.com site, it fixed it. However, this time, they did not. Also, I bought this 90nm becuase I was intereseted in overclocking because it runs much cooler...but check this out:

In the bios, it is set to "auto" for everything. I went in the bios and tried setting up the frequencies manually. I put it on a 10x multiplier and the cpu's frequency to 220 mhz. However, when I do just that, when it boots, it screams "overclocking failed" in a girly voice [a good use of technology to get me mad ;)  ] I left the voltages on auto. If it says overclocking failed...at the regular 220 x 10..2200 mhz speed, what the heck is going on? I was looking to overclock, not underclock. The windows cpu speed may be wrong, but I can't really check it in the bios. Anyone else have any ideas or similar problems?

-updated all drivers
January 12, 2005 1:09:07 AM

Socket 939:
3000+ = 1.8Ghz
3200+ = 2.0Ghz
3500+ = 2.2Ghz

That goes for both Newcastle and Winchester chips.
Related resources
January 12, 2005 2:01:34 AM

LMFAO

wow i suck :( 

i had a 3400+ 754 and thought it was a 2.4, dudes i'm way off on everything! LOL!

who's dumb? DOUG'S DUMB!!!

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by dougyfresh on 01/11/05 11:04 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 12, 2005 2:55:44 AM

Everyone gets confused by pr numbers, no big, so long as the performance is there.
January 12, 2005 3:35:04 AM

Dougy, at least you have future-ability in the 939 board. ;) 

<font color=green>AMD 64 3700+
ASUS K8N-E Deluxe
CORSAIR XMS (1gb) PC-3200
Gigabyte GF 6800gt 256mb
Audigy 2 ZS
2_36.7gb Raptors/Raid 0
Tt 480 watt PSU</font color=green>
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by lazerous on 01/12/05 00:35 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
January 12, 2005 7:19:44 AM

The 90nm 3200+ would be 2.0GHz, the 130nm 3200+ would be 2.2GHz.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
January 12, 2005 11:27:48 AM

Why did you switch for less performance?? the 3400+ perform way better than the 3000+, 3200+ 939 and even better than the 3500+ 939...that wasnt a smart move, unless you needed PCIe right now...

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
January 12, 2005 12:02:19 PM

Socket 939 chips utilise dual channel memory, this give a slight performance boost. So AMD in it infinite wisdom give the socket 939 chips higher ratings than equally clocked socket754 chips.
(Even though the performance increase from dual channel is lower than what you would get from a 200Mhz speed increase).
January 12, 2005 5:45:16 PM

Quote:
The 90nm 3200+ would be 2.0GHz, the 130nm 3200+ would be 2.2GHz.

Come again? That's deffinetely not correct. 90nm chips do not differ in specs than similar PR-rated 130nm chips.
January 12, 2005 5:53:57 PM

It is correct. The 130 nano part is s754, while the 90 nano part is s939. The s754 performs better at stock, while the s939 OCs much better.
January 12, 2005 6:36:12 PM

So what you are saying is that every S939 3200+ out there is 90nm? Sorry about that then, my mistake!
January 12, 2005 6:39:26 PM

That's right. Amd only started making the 3000 and 3200 for s939 on 90 nano tech. They have not been made for that board on 130 nano die.
January 12, 2005 9:53:39 PM

Yeh any socket939 that has a PR rating lower than 3500+ is 90nm. Higher than 3500+ is can be 130nm or 90nm.
I dont know if the S754 CPU's are going to be just 130nm, they will prob move them to 90nm soon enough (its cheaper for AMD that way).
!