I'm currently running an AMD Athlon XP 3000+ Barton on an Asus A7N8X deluxe motherboard. The Asus system monitor says my current speed is 2166MHz but the max speed is listed, of course, at 3000MHz. How do I go about getting the 3000MHz out of this processor. BIOS is set at 166 external clock speed with a mulitple factor of 13. Just playing around, I set the speed to 200 and got a post message saying it would not boot due to overclocking.
What's the secret?
Asus A7N8X Deluxe board
NForce 2 Chipset
Athlon XP 3000
1Gbx2 Corsair TWINX 3200 Pro RAM
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro Vidcard
Windows XP SP2
Hi, this is because the XP 3000+ doesn´t run at 3000MHZ. I got a Barton XP2800+ and it runs at 2080MHZ. This is normal, it is a "feature" amd calls quantispeed. Then, your processor runs at 2166 MHZ but it performs as a ATHLON (Classic Athlon) at 3000MHZ... Correct me if I´m wrong.
The 3000+ is a performance rating. It's supposed to have the performance you'll get from a 3GHz Intel CPU.
You'll have to decrease the speed on your RAM lower the multiplier to 12 and then setting the FSB to 200. but that'll give you 2.4GHz.
<font color=blue>Left to themselves, all things go from bad to worse</font color=blue>
The CPU is operating at right speed. 3000+ does not mean MHz, but rather "as fast as P4 3.0GHz". When you clocked FSB to 200, the clock speed of the processor would have been 2600MHz, which is the speed of a FX-55. No wonder it wouldn't boot up
I'm not really a pro, I just act like one..
Its not the max speed its the speed the processor was made to run at so basically the"certified" speed. It will run absolutly stable anything above that is called overclocking.
And to say they "rate" their speed differently is not exactly right. AMD introduced the 3000+ notation because intel was playing the GHZ race. Their cpu would peform worst in most case but had higher mhz. That would fool unaware customer to buyy inel.
labbbby you are right in explaning that this is AMD's answer to the Intel Ghz race, but even you (and I a major AMD fanboy) must admit that this system is getting very confusing lately. I think they should abolish this form of naming all together. We no longer look at these numbers and think of clock speed, nor do we think of how good it is compared to an Intel of equal clock speed. Now we know that it is time for them to give performance relative ratings.
I have screen shots at home, I will post them on the forum when I get back. I also have some digital photos. I have yet to recieve some of the cooling components, but for now the guy is using it with air cooling (so I haven't overclocked at all).
I think they should abolish this form of naming all together. We no longer look at these numbers and think of clock speed, nor do we think of how good it is compared to an Intel of equal clock speed. Now we know that it is time for them to give performance relative ratings.
It would be nice if a 4000+ would be twice as fast as a 2000+, in a system where the cpu is the performance bottleneck. I've interpreted AMD's ratings that way since they introduced them, and I always looked at the intel equivalence with appropriate caution.
Thing is, it is nice to have a single label on a processor giving some indication of how fast it is relative to the other models of the same manufacturer (if I need a comparison between two manufacturers I look for some independent source). I'm getting seriously confused by intel's product labeling nowadays but maybe that's just because I'm not paying enough attention. Anyone see any performance logic in that labeling?
I could really throw a monkey wrench into this ghz thingy. I bet someone will take this totally out of context.
<font color=green>NED FLANDERS FOR PRESIDENT</font color=green> Its justa nother gansta PARTY!
Intel P4 Extreme(3.73)@<font color=green>5.6Ghz</font color=green>
Crucial Ballistix DDR2 667@DDR2 855
June 22, 2005 5:55:17 PM
Yah well GHZ was good at 1st because it was a nice and easy number for ppl to understand. witht he 1st athlon and the PIII it was almost valid.
Now I dont see how they could and I dont even think(intel at least) would want to have a number for a fair comparison.
On the other hand with all the added feature(64 bit, NX bit, VanderPool Tech, HT, bigger cache etc) you have to differentiate them. BEcause in the end your not only buying performance but also features. Thats why intel naming scheme is usefull for something but doesnt really serve any purpose because ppl who really knows computer will simply call it a P4 with 2 mb of L2 and HT with EMT64 running at 2 ghz. Now noobs will simply, assume the 531J is slightly better than the 530 and thats why it cost 50$ more(numbers are made up btw)
I appreciate everyone's input. I had recently upgraded from 1 gig of Geil RAM to 2 gigs of pricey Corsair RAM and didn't see much improvement in frame rates. That's what got me thinking maybe I had to clock settings too low, etc..
Someone already mentioned this so I am kinda ripping off someones post... I'm too lazy to check who's (sorry). But the new naming system wouldn't need to show to be fair when comparing Intel and AMD to eachother. I just want AMD to get a naming system that compares performance.
For example if they ran the program "AMD test" (made up program name) and got these results:
AMD CPU 1: 845 cycles in 10 minutes
AMD CPU 2: 652 cycles in 10 minutes
They could now name these like this:
CPU1 = A64 845+
CPU2 = A64 652+
This would be really cool, as I am sure that "AMD test" would be the first program I would run to benchmark my new CPU. You could actually find out whether your CPU is running at average or what.
Of course I realize that this program would be specifically designed to reap rewards of the AMD chips, and would not be good for comparing Intel vs. AMD... but it would definitely give a good reference to compare the AMD chips to eachother.
June 22, 2005 8:30:23 PM
Thats interesting! And they could even remove the + lol
I think the plus was added by the marketing departement saying! Its like a 3.2ghz but a little + tells you tis better.
And frankly I dont really care about whatever number they put as long as the 3500 is better than the 3200. If you follow the scene a bit you'll know the number doesnt equal to intel's ghz anymore and you also know that the new 4800+ is not 1.5 times better than a 3200+
I know its misleading but hey! what can you do its the same when you go get your car fix, most ppl dont know jack and will just say "oh yes I get it, how much?"