Better for overclocking P4 2.4 400mhz or...

[Hobbit]

P4 2.4 533mhz. Probably the P4 2.4 400mhz?

Balls, said the Queen if I had them I would be king!

 

[lhgpoobaa]

depends on your motherboard, ram and cpu cooler really.
choosing the one with the lower fsb means you have more room to pay with regarding bus and ram speeds, assuming of course that the processor can go high enough.
a 2.4A running on a 133fsb would mean 3200mhz. a tad unrealistic.


<b><font color=blue>I prefer to blend into the background, because it's much easier to sneak up on people and disembowel them that way. Arr!</b></font color=blue>

 

[slvr_phoenix]

Yeah, theoretically the lower FSB is the better OCer because you know that the processor itself can at least handle a higher FSB. However 2.4 / 2.5GHz isn't likely to get much out of either chip. But then again, with water cooling, maybe 3.2GHz is possible. **shrug** Who knows? There are no guarantees, which is why OCing is best left to those really determined.

<pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>

 

[LtBlue14]

i know a guy planning on getting a 2.0 around 2.8 ghz, so 2.4 could go to 3.2...water cooled of course. in any case the 2.4 400 mhz will clock higher than the 533 mathematically...

 

[slvr_phoenix]

i know a guy planning on getting a 2.0 around 2.8 ghz, so 2.4 could go to 3.2...water cooled of course. in any case the 2.4 400 mhz will clock higher than the 533 mathematically...

That's all true, <i>in theory</i>. Realistically, processors from the same batch often have similar ceilings. So just because a 2.0 can reach 2.8 doesn't mean that a 2.4 can reach 3.2. It might very well get stuck at 2.8. It might even be that the OC of the 2.0 was a lucky fluke and the 2.4 will only reach 2.6. (Okay, not likely with Intel CPUs lately, but I think you get the point.)

There is no such thing as a guaranteed OC. Even a 1.6GHz P4A might choke at 1.8GHz because it was only good enough to just run at 1.6GHz. With OCing, you never know until you try. However, thanks to OCing sites, you can at least get reasonable estimates of what your chances are before you buy the chip and find the right batch codes to look for to improve your odds. In the end though, it's still <i>always</i> a gamble. With enough research it can be a gamble with high odds of coming out on top, but it is still a gamble none the less.

<pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>

 

[scarywoody]

Umm let's say someone has an unlocked 2.4 NW, and they bumped the FSB up to 133, then just backed the multiplier off till the chip was stable? Would that be a good idea? That way you could get the benefit of PC1066 and still OC the chip a little.

 

[Crashman]

Most of the better boards are limmiting bus speeds to just over 150MHz. Stupid but true. You want a high bus speed for the best performance. Ideally 133MHz or more. You'll never get the 2.4A to 133, but you can get the 2.4B to 27000MHz at 150MHz FSB.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>

 

[a2112a]

150fsb limit is that for rambus boards?

My BD7II supports up to 250fsb
If I had to choose I'd go for the 2.4b and ddr for overclocking. At 150fsb you be able to run at ddr400 speed which would be better than PC800 but still behind PC1066.
If you're lucky you might get up to 160fsb and with good PC3200 you could run at ddr426 and have almost PC1066 performance. The bandwidth would be lower but the real world performance would be very close.
But then a 2.26b would be a better choice. With luck and the right memory you could get 2.89 at 170fsb and mem at ddr453.

 

[Crashman]

Most of the most highly rated boards are using this crappy new clock generator that tops out just over 150MHz, like 156MHz or something. Aopen makes a board with a better clock generator, but I couldn't get much info on it. At 150MHz FSB, I can run PC1066 at PC1200 speed, which is far beyond anything DDR400 can do.

Of course I could have gotten an Abit TH7-II for higher bus speeds, but it can't take the higher memory speeds I'm looking for due to its week DRCGs (tiny memory clock generators).

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>