OC'ing CPU- no difference?

squiffy · 23 Aug 2006 at 09:58

I've overclocked my 4400+ X2 from 2.2ghz to 2.7ghz and I don't notice any difference in 3D mark final results. Surely if the CPU is faster I should get an increase? ATI is at 662/774. Regardless whatever I do to CPU it stays around 18K in 3dmark 03. I would expect to be 19K when the CPU is overclocked? I did notice a increase when the GFX card was overclocked (17.x before, 18.x after)

oh is 1.350+ 200mV safe for 4400+ X2 (BIOS setting)? BIOS Vcore in power managment and CPU-Z reports that it's around 1.5-1.536.

Or would a better comparison speed CPU test be purely maths (prime 95)

squiffy · 23 Aug 2006 at 10:22

Socaddict said:
have you got cool and quiet enabled?

check that its off.

CAQ is disabled.

squiffy · 23 Aug 2006 at 11:24

3d mark 05 cpu tests only

2.2ghz / mem 200 cas 2 - 5802
2.6ghz / mem 217 cas 2.5 - 6378
2.7ghz / mem 224 cas 2.5 - 6245 :confused:

--------------------
3d mark 06 cpu tests only

2.2ghz / mem 200 cas 2 - 1696
2.6ghz / mem 217 cas 2.5 - 2000
2.7ghz / mem 224 cas 2.5 - 2068
--------------------

ATI X1900XT at 662 and 774 for all tests. Ran 06 cpu tests as well that's supposed to support dual core?
------------------

3dmark 05 full test
2.2ghz / mem 200 cas 2 - 10959
2.6ghz / mem 217 cas 2.5 - 11630

squiffy · 23 Aug 2006 at 17:32

manveruppd said:
Yeah, 05 is very graphics-card dependent. Not that having a faster CPU doesn't make a difference in games, but this is more noticeable at higher resolutions: you won't see a difference in 05 cause the unregistered version doesn't let you change the test settings so you can't set it at a resolution which would stress your CPU. I think the default is 800x600 or something like that, right?

So you think I should run the complete test set to maximum supported rez of the monitor for both 2.2ghz and 2.6/2.7ghz speeds?