1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

3000+ venice

Discussion in 'CPUs' started by senorstealth, 4 Jun 2006.

  1. senorstealth

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 16 May 2006

    Posts: 276

    Location: down the pub

    Whats the maximum overclock people have managed to get from this processor.

    I don't know what the stepping is, as cpu-z won't read it and i don't want to remove the HS (again :()
     
  2. Minstadave

    Caporegime

    Joined: 8 Jan 2004

    Posts: 26,938

    Location: Rutland

    On air you're looking at 2.6-2.8 really, maybe higher on decent cooling.
     
  3. Global_Inferno

    Hitman

    Joined: 1 Mar 2004

    Posts: 859

    Location: Cardiff, UK

    Really? with only a 9x multiplier?? He'll need some AMAZING RAM to pull THAT outta the bag! Thats more than my 4000+ does! :rolleyes:
     
  4. senorstealth

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 16 May 2006

    Posts: 276

    Location: down the pub

    Was thinking that 2.2 - 2.3 was a realistic figure
     
  5. Minstadave

    Caporegime

    Joined: 8 Jan 2004

    Posts: 26,938

    Location: Rutland

    Not if you use a memory divider......and I stand by 2.6-2.8 thats normal for a Venice, especially anyone bought recently.

    2.6 on stock air with volts around 1.5-1.55V.

    2.8 if you're lucky with the chip and have a decent aftermarket aircooler and give 1.55-1.6V.

    (Edited for knee jerk reaction to rolleyes and being talked to like I don't know what I'm talking about.)
     
    Last edited: 4 Jun 2006
  6. Global_Inferno

    Hitman

    Joined: 1 Mar 2004

    Posts: 859

    Location: Cardiff, UK

    Yeh but dividers lower performance :( So I think i'd rather have it clocked at 2.2GHz without a divider than 2.4-2.6 (ok.. maybe 2.6) with a divider. :p
     
  7. Minstadave

    Caporegime

    Joined: 8 Jan 2004

    Posts: 26,938

    Location: Rutland

    Completely wrong I'm afraid. A64 does not suffer in any significant way with dividers, its not memory bottlenecked at all. Performance on A64 is simply about clock speed, 2.7Ghz (300x9) with the memory running at 200mhz on a 133mhz divider will outperform any 1:1 clock that you'd be able to get otherwise.

    Try benching it yourself, only takes a few minutes, A64 is all about raw clockspeed, memory clocks gain you very little.
     
  8. Global_Inferno

    Hitman

    Joined: 1 Mar 2004

    Posts: 859

    Location: Cardiff, UK

    Prove it. ;) Because from my experience, dividers SUCK ass.

    EDIT: On closer searching of google.. seems, your right! I think I must have been having a blonde moment and was thinking about ye' olde Barton cores *blink* :confused: In which case, lets see what it can do :)
     
    Last edited: 4 Jun 2006
  9. Minstadave

    Caporegime

    Joined: 8 Jan 2004

    Posts: 26,938

    Location: Rutland

    You don't have enough experience then, I'll find some figures.
     
  10. Global_Inferno

    Hitman

    Joined: 1 Mar 2004

    Posts: 859

    Location: Cardiff, UK

    Dont worry I've realised the error of my ways! However dividers DO LOWER PERFORMANCE, it is just by a negligable amount.. :D
     
  11. senorstealth

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 16 May 2006

    Posts: 276

    Location: down the pub

    Thanks for the advice guys, least u know wht its capable of now
     
  12. Minstadave

    Caporegime

    Joined: 8 Jan 2004

    Posts: 26,938

    Location: Rutland

    Ok, glad we've got that sorted out, after I did all the work :p

    Here's what dividers can do on the 9x multi.

    All have memory at 235Mhz:

    1:1 Pi 1mb = 40.9secs

    235x9= 2115Mhz

    [​IMG]

    166 Divider Pi 1Mb = 33 secs

    288x9= 2595Mhz

    [​IMG]


    150 Divider Pi 1Mb = 31.2secs

    312x9= 2808Mhz

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: 4 Jun 2006
  13. Minstadave

    Caporegime

    Joined: 8 Jan 2004

    Posts: 26,938

    Location: Rutland

    32% increase in clock speed = 25% reduction in Pi times

    This is all at the same memory speed, so using a memory divider makes a negligable decrease in the scaling of the system, even at 1:1 at 311x9=2808Mhz you'd be seeing 30sec pi time.

    Here's a shot of 2700Mhz at 300x10 1:1 I did a fair while back with 2x512mb of Gskill LE TCCD, thats a massive increase in the memory bandwith and it still only pulls 31 secs in pi (though the CPU is a Winchester, so is slightly slower than the Opteron 144 I used for todays pics):

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: 4 Jun 2006
  14. Defcon5

    Soldato

    Joined: 4 Sep 2005

    Posts: 6,424

    Location: Whitwood, West Yorks

    Very true. the performance is only deemed insignificant due to the boost given by being able to use lower latencies
     
  15. Minstadave

    Caporegime

    Joined: 8 Jan 2004

    Posts: 26,938

    Location: Rutland

    No its not the lower latencies that are important, its the higher CPU clock you can achieve without being held back by memory restraints. I wouldn't use a divider in order to get lower latencies, thats not going to get you significant performance gains (unless you changing from very slack to very tight).
     
  16. PapaLaz.uk

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 10 Sep 2005

    Posts: 68

    As above, if RAM constraints aren't an issue, then obviously no point using a divider. However, if you're RAM limited, then it makes sense to chuck on a divider and etch more out of the CPU. Also running a divider can help keep the timings v.tight, which the AMD chipsets seem to love.

    The current 3000+ Venice chips are clocking nicely - bought one the other day and it's currently running @2.6 on stock volts - memory is on a divider, though still slightly clocked and running with tight timings.
     
  17. senorstealth

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 16 May 2006

    Posts: 276

    Location: down the pub

    Now thats what i wanted to hear, think its time to buy some new ram :)
     
  18. Minstadave

    Caporegime

    Joined: 8 Jan 2004

    Posts: 26,938

    Location: Rutland

    Whats your current RAM?
     
  19. senorstealth

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 16 May 2006

    Posts: 276

    Location: down the pub

    You really don't want to know, tried underclocking it the other day so i could push the cpu and it really didn't like that very much.

    It Crucial pc3200 3.4.4.8 @ T1, though its not a matched pair (ones a double sided stick)

    Looking at something along the lines of G.Skill 2GB DDR HZ PC4000
     
  20. Minstadave

    Caporegime

    Joined: 8 Jan 2004

    Posts: 26,938

    Location: Rutland

    The HZ or ZX are both very nice from Gskill :) Good to see you going for 2 gigs too, a wise move :)