Just had a little go at OC, this can't be good

Mikebert4 · 18 Jun 2006 at 21:06

Mikey1280 said:
However your current speeds of 130mhz and incredibly odd timings 2-3-3-15 2T need sorting out. I suggest you read the overclocking guide before you fiddle further

Second that.... i didn't spot 2-3-3-15 2T.... erk! *shudders*

Soulja · 18 Jun 2006 at 21:10

any better?

Defcon5 · 18 Jun 2006 at 21:48

kinda..

use a different divider, 130mhz is very slow (keep at about 200)

change the bank cycle time to about 6

Soulja · 18 Jun 2006 at 22:01

got the frequency to 225, going to try the bank cycle now

Mikey1280 · 18 Jun 2006 at 22:09

Change to 1T as well

Soulja · 18 Jun 2006 at 22:39

best i can get it stable, any good?

Defcon5 · 18 Jun 2006 at 22:55

perfect.

for the love of god clean up your desktop!

daveydave · 18 Jun 2006 at 23:02

here here!

Soulja · 18 Jun 2006 at 23:02

Thanks for the help

o and i just tided my desktop now

also 4 lines max for a sig david.n.c

tsinc80697 · 19 Jun 2006 at 02:55

is a 4400+ @ 2.75ghz stock ? my 4000+ runs at 2.64ghz stock and 2.87ghz easy

thought 4400+ would have been a fair bit higher

Soulja · 19 Jun 2006 at 08:47

it runs at 2.2 at stock

Mikey1280 · 19 Jun 2006 at 09:44

tsinc80697 said:
is a 4400+ @ 2.75ghz stock ? my 4000+ runs at 2.64ghz stock and 2.87ghz easy thought 4400+ would have been a fair bit higher

4000 is a single core chip whereas 4400 is dual core, the stock speed for a 4400 is 2.2ghz

Defcon5 · 19 Jun 2006 at 12:22

tsinc80697 said:
my 4000+ runs at 2.64ghz stock

bit of a strange speed, surley its 2.6?

Soulja · 19 Jun 2006 at 12:50

This i what i finished up with, is it a decent OC?

Andy298 · 19 Jun 2006 at 13:36

Soulja said:
This i what i finished up with, is it a decent OC?

You on stock cooling with that? Is it not stable with max multi? 11 I believe it is on a 4400.

Soulja · 19 Jun 2006 at 17:13

Andy298 said:
You on stock cooling with that? Is it not stable with max multi? 11 I believe it is on a 4400.

Im using a freezer pro, i try 11x multi tonight when i get back from work

Soulja · 20 Jun 2006 at 11:48

isn't it better to have HTT faster and multiplier lower?

Andy298 · 20 Jun 2006 at 12:14

Soulja said:
isn't it better to have HTT faster and multiplier lower?

I think that was the case on the old Athlons (XP's), but don't think so with A64's.
That's my understanding anyway. Maybe someone could clear that up?

Soulja · 21 Jun 2006 at 10:22

anyone?

Mikebert4 · 21 Jun 2006 at 10:41

On A64's it's not such a big problem,

You can go for max speed on the core, whatever multi/FSB you have. The big thing to watch is the RAM speeds/timings , these play a large part in how a system performs.

FOr example, My CPU at 2.6GHz puts out RAM at 2.5,3,2,6 1T (235Mhz)

whereas at 2.7Ghz I have to up the divider and I get 2.5,3,2,6 1T (189Mhz)

this 46Mhz drop equates to around 3 seconds in SuperPi, and If I run my RAM at the SPD of 3,3,3,8 i suffer another 3second drop.

however with a bit of fiddling i was able to try 2.0Ghz ans 2.2Ghz with nearly the same RAM speeds and the performance boost was around 1 sec in SuperPi.

Hence, with the A64 Core clock is overshadowed by your ability to clock the RAM well.

this is all tested on my system (one you se in my Sig) - may not be true for all A64 systems, but I think the trends hold.