• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

3000+ venice

senorstealth

senorstealth

senorstealth

Permabanned
Joined
16 May 2006
Posts
265
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 :()
 
senorstealth said:
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 :()
Click to expand...

On air you're looking at 2.6-2.8 really, maybe higher on decent cooling.
 
Global_Inferno said:
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:
Click to expand...

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:
Global_Inferno said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Minstadave said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
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



166 Divider Pi 1Mb = 33 secs

288x9= 2595Mhz




150 Divider Pi 1Mb = 31.2secs

312x9= 2808Mhz

 
Last edited:
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):

 
Last edited:
Global_Inferno said:
Dont worry I've realised the error of my ways! However dividers DO LOWER PERFORMANCE, it is just by a negligable amount.. :D
Click to expand...

Very true. the performance is only deemed insignificant due to the boost given by being able to use lower latencies
 
Defcon5 said:
Very true. the performance is only deemed insignificant due to the boost given by being able to use lower latencies
Click to expand...

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).
 
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.
 
PapaLaz.uk said:
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.
Click to expand...

Now thats what i wanted to hear, think its time to buy some new ram :)
 
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
 
senorstealth said:
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
Click to expand...

The HZ or ZX are both very nice from Gskill :) Good to see you going for 2 gigs too, a wise move :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom