quote: Overclocking: Not A Whole Lot Possible: Prior to the test, the THG engineers had some rather high expectations: overclocking with the smaller CPU core should prove to be easily accomplished. The serial settings run at 13.5 x 133 MHz = 1800 MHz. But our attempt to overclock the processor's FSB to 148 MHz, similar to the Athlon XP 2100+ (Palomino), failed. Here, it should be mentioned that both systems were operated with a high-quality watercooling setup. The result: the system remained stable only at 140 MHz FSB, meaning that the CPU clock was increased to 1890 MHz. This is an increase of 5%, which is clearly a weaker result than with the older Palomino, which ran with perfect stability at 1918 MHz (11.2% increase).
guys, maybe i'm just being dumb here so help me out some....
frank volkel (i love my ski's btw) apparently tried to overclock this t-bred by increasing the frontside bus. excuse me here frank, but athlon NEVER has been a good fsb overclocker. he never bothers to mention if he even attempted to adjust the multipliers or voltage settings (am i missing something in your article here frank, or was it even attempted?) i would suggest that increasing the multipliers (if possible, is this still possible with the t-bred?) or increasing the voltage (did you ever attempt this?) would reap better results.
anyhow i want to make it clear, i'm not trying to offend anyone here or cause any problems. i'm just intrested in the facts: was multiplier increases ever attempted? was there an attempt to increase the voltage? what were the subsequent tempature increases.
if you going to give the tbred such a harsh looking over, why omit such critical information from readers? are we not capable? seems to me his article has created more questions in my mind, than answers.....
asus a7v133 w/raid
gforce3 ti 500@255core/570memory
In the words of the immortal Bart Simpson: "ZING!" I can't believe I missed the voltage increase, but fine job Frank for realizing it. You did mention something that I had noticed as well, in NONE of the reviews I've looked at with bad O/C results did they touch the multiplier. Some couldn't get it right, some (like THG) didn't bother even trying. It should be obvious to anyone that when the FSB isn't stable past that point, you look to the lowest common denominator first (ie. any of the PCI cards or the RAM). If you notice, the T-Bred review on Amdmb.com (agreed it is Pro-AMD) got great results; and they changed the multiplier.
She said "I love a man in tight jeans" and I said "They're not supposed to be tight I just got fat."
Yeah, but <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1635&p=14" target="_new">Anandtech</A> adjusted the multipliers, as the samples they got were able to be unlocked with a conductive pen, and still got miserable results. They even kicked the voltage up to 1.85v. Still doesn't help too much. It's not a matter of poor methodology, but the unrefined nature of the core. Give it up, the core is a dying breed, soon to be replaced by the Hammer.