Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › FSB and Dividers: My Findings
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FSB and Dividers: My Findings - Page 6

post #51 of 85
The way I look at it is.... is Choggs' benefit of 1 point per FSB in 06 really worth the added voltage/heat/stress on your motherboard? Wow, even if it really is a performance benefit that's a.... 0.36% performance bump. Look out, BF2, you're gonna get pwned hardcore.

40 points in 3dmark06 is the equivalent to what? 0.1 FPS faster?

I'm not even sure why there's a debate here. And why isn't anyone looking at WHERE these points were picked up? Was it the CPU test or the GFX tests? If it's solely in the CPU then it's probably COMPLETELY worthless as when you're gaming at max res (I assume you're not so stupid as to own a 17" monitor and have a GTX calibre GFX) you're GPU limited anyway.

I'm leaving.
Raptor Raper
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Something with transistors FOXCONN Boodrage -> eVGA classified e760 GTX 480 / HD6850@1090/1200 3x2 gig G Skill Trident DDR2000 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x128GB Crucial C300 Sumsung SATA DVD-RW 64 bit Windows 7 Samsung 245BW 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft curve Tagan ITZ 800W DD Torture Rack Diamondback 
  hide details  
Reply
Raptor Raper
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Something with transistors FOXCONN Boodrage -> eVGA classified e760 GTX 480 / HD6850@1090/1200 3x2 gig G Skill Trident DDR2000 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x128GB Crucial C300 Sumsung SATA DVD-RW 64 bit Windows 7 Samsung 245BW 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft curve Tagan ITZ 800W DD Torture Rack Diamondback 
  hide details  
Reply
post #52 of 85
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ihatethedukes View Post
The way I look at it is.... is Choggs' benefit of 1 point per FSB in 06 really worth the added voltage/heat/stress on your motherboard? Wow, even if it really is a performance benefit that's a.... 0.36% performance bump. Look out, BF2, you're gonna get pwned hardcore.

40 points in 3dmark06 is the equivalent to what? 0.1 FPS faster?

I'm not even sure why there's a debate here. And why isn't anyone looking at WHERE these points were picked up? Was it the CPU test or the GFX tests? If it's solely in the CPU then it's probably COMPLETELY worthless as when you're gaming at max res (I assume you're not so stupid as to own a 17" monitor and have a GTX calibre GFX) you're GPU limited anyway.

I'm leaving.
Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning....

Um, thanks for you input though I guess.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6GHz (lapped) EVGA 780i SLI FTW @ 1600MHz FSB 2 x EVGA 8800GTX 768MB (SLI) @ 625/1500/2000MHz 2x2GB G.Skill PC2-8000 PQ @ 800MHz (linked to FSB) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x160GB WD RAID 0, 750GB Samsung Spinpoint F1 LITE-ON 20X SATA DVD/CD RW Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Viewsonic VA2702w 27" LCD 1920x1080 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Value 100 (beer magnet) Corsair TX 750W Cooler Master ATCS 840 Logitech SBF-90 (cheapest one on Newegg) 
Mouse Pad
Some kinda rubber thing (beer magnet) 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6GHz (lapped) EVGA 780i SLI FTW @ 1600MHz FSB 2 x EVGA 8800GTX 768MB (SLI) @ 625/1500/2000MHz 2x2GB G.Skill PC2-8000 PQ @ 800MHz (linked to FSB) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x160GB WD RAID 0, 750GB Samsung Spinpoint F1 LITE-ON 20X SATA DVD/CD RW Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Viewsonic VA2702w 27" LCD 1920x1080 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Value 100 (beer magnet) Corsair TX 750W Cooler Master ATCS 840 Logitech SBF-90 (cheapest one on Newegg) 
Mouse Pad
Some kinda rubber thing (beer magnet) 
  hide details  
Reply
post #53 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ihatethedukes View Post
The way I look at it is.... is Choggs' benefit of 1 point per FSB in 06 really worth the added voltage/heat/stress on your motherboard? Wow, even if it really is a performance benefit that's a.... 0.36% performance bump. Look out, BF2, you're gonna get pwned hardcore.

40 points in 3dmark06 is the equivalent to what? 0.1 FPS faster?

I'm not even sure why there's a debate here. And why isn't anyone looking at WHERE these points were picked up? Was it the CPU test or the GFX tests? If it's solely in the CPU then it's probably COMPLETELY worthless as when you're gaming at max res (I assume you're not so stupid as to own a 17" monitor and have a GTX calibre GFX) you're GPU limited anyway.

I'm leaving.
Sorry dude...I don't buy any of that.

Every one of us stress the crap out of components all the time. I'm not going to worry about 'added voltage/heat/stress' on my motherboard when I'm overclocking and looking for added performance. Whenever we OC a processor, we're stressing it and adding heat, as well as shortening it's expected life span. Same story with a GPU. Look up... this is overclock.net, not baby-your-rig-and-make-it-last-forever.net
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E4300 @ 3150MHz Gigabyte P35-DS3R Diamond HD2900XT 1GB 4GB DDR2-1000 G.SKILL 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Samsung 750GB 32mb + 3x 250GB Samsung SATA Windows XP SP2 Samsung 941BW (HANNS.G 28" on the way) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Old Dell Clicky-Type w/ Cherry Sliders PCP&C 510 SLI LIAN LI PC-7B Razer Lachesis 
Mouse Pad
Func F10.S 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E4300 @ 3150MHz Gigabyte P35-DS3R Diamond HD2900XT 1GB 4GB DDR2-1000 G.SKILL 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Samsung 750GB 32mb + 3x 250GB Samsung SATA Windows XP SP2 Samsung 941BW (HANNS.G 28" on the way) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Old Dell Clicky-Type w/ Cherry Sliders PCP&C 510 SLI LIAN LI PC-7B Razer Lachesis 
Mouse Pad
Func F10.S 
  hide details  
Reply
post #54 of 85
Great post. I thought it was very clear.. I also think some people dont understand that the title is not "zomg .5 extra FPS!! read here"

The post did not simplify to:
"Hey, I think I found out how to get better FPS in BF2"

It came down to:
"non 1:1 memory dividers appear to decrease performance, I wonder whats going on here chaps?"

my two cents
My Computer
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6600 Badaxe2 7900 GS 540/1600 4gb Corsair Dominator 1066 
Hard DriveMonitorPowerCase
Striped 320GB Seagate 7200.10 30" Dell LCD, 20.1" Dell Widescreen LCD Corsair 620W Mystique 
  hide details  
Reply
My Computer
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6600 Badaxe2 7900 GS 540/1600 4gb Corsair Dominator 1066 
Hard DriveMonitorPowerCase
Striped 320GB Seagate 7200.10 30" Dell LCD, 20.1" Dell Widescreen LCD Corsair 620W Mystique 
  hide details  
Reply
post #55 of 85
while i still disagree with Choggs' methods, i think most of us appreciate the work he's putting into this to help educate all of us.

for the record, the original argument wasn't about running your RAM at crazy volts to try to achieve a 1:2 ratio; it simply stated that higher memory speeds can improve performance if you have the means. it was also said that those of us with Conroes can't realistically get a 1:2 ratio until DDR3 becomes mainstream.

i continue to run my setup at a 1:1, but if i hit a FSB wall and still had headroom with my memory, i would probably use it.
The C'roe
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6320 @ 2.8 Asus P5W DH Deluxe (2) Radeon X1900XTX CF 2GB G.Skill HK 4-4-3-5 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
640 - 2x320 Samsung RAID-0 Dual DVDs XP MCE Acer 22" + Dell 19" LCDs - 2960x1024 rez :D 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech MX Zalman 600W RT Modified Antec 900 Logitech MX 
Mouse Pad
Giant 
  hide details  
Reply
The C'roe
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6320 @ 2.8 Asus P5W DH Deluxe (2) Radeon X1900XTX CF 2GB G.Skill HK 4-4-3-5 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
640 - 2x320 Samsung RAID-0 Dual DVDs XP MCE Acer 22" + Dell 19" LCDs - 2960x1024 rez :D 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech MX Zalman 600W RT Modified Antec 900 Logitech MX 
Mouse Pad
Giant 
  hide details  
Reply
post #56 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
I again face you with the exact same scenario (which you failed to answer in the last thread):

I have my E6850 (333Mhz x 9), P35 motherboard, and my very nice DDR3-1600 Ballistixs. I am going to overclock this beast.

I decide to initially set the memory to 1:1 with the FSB. This will allow me to find the limit of my CPU. So I do this, and I find my CPU will not go past 400Mhz. I drop the multiplier and I find that I get to 500Mhz FSB with a 8 multiplier now.

So I have my machine at 500 x 8 (4.0Ghz) and my memory in 1:1 at DDR3-1000. Well I have this very expensive DDR3-1600 Ballistixs that can easily do 2000Mhz

So I crank it up! I still have my CPU at 500 x 8, but now my memory is at 1000Mhz (DDR3-2000) and it is in a 2:1 ratio with my FSB.

Which one will be faster?
You have a water tank (your CPU), a pipe (your FSB), and a another water tank (you ram). What use is having a water tank (RAM) that can hold more water than the water tank (CPU) and the pipe (FSB) can support? You'll have extra headroom, but though if you were to tighten the freq. you might be able to tighten your timings and end up with a change that'll actually matter.

How about this test:

You clock your system to a FSB of 500, set your CPU to a multi of 8, and set your RAM to a divider of 1:1. You run a few benchmarks. Then you set the RAM to a divider of 2:1. Run some more tests. Then go back down to 1:1 and tighten your timings as tight as you can keep stable and run even more tests.

Report back to us all, and let's see what matters the most!
post #57 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guswut View Post
How about this test:

You clock your system to a FSB of 500, set your CPU to a multi of 8, and set your RAM to a divider of 1:1. You run a few benchmarks. Then you set the RAM to a divider of 2:1. Run some more tests. Then go back down to 1:1 and tighten your timings as tight as you can keep stable and run even more tests.

Report back to us all, and let's see what matters the most!
i've already done this test... well, i did the poor man's version of this test (same principle, lower frequencies ). my memory bandwidth was higher when i ran a divider. full stop.

i've seen numbers that say Conroes can process X amount of data at Y speed - DDR memory moves Q amount of data and Z speed and so forth. the fact is that our processors are able to process more data than the memory can feed it at a 1:1. as far as i know, this is not disputed. Choggs has been arguing (unsuccessfully) against this for a long time.
The C'roe
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6320 @ 2.8 Asus P5W DH Deluxe (2) Radeon X1900XTX CF 2GB G.Skill HK 4-4-3-5 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
640 - 2x320 Samsung RAID-0 Dual DVDs XP MCE Acer 22" + Dell 19" LCDs - 2960x1024 rez :D 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech MX Zalman 600W RT Modified Antec 900 Logitech MX 
Mouse Pad
Giant 
  hide details  
Reply
The C'roe
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6320 @ 2.8 Asus P5W DH Deluxe (2) Radeon X1900XTX CF 2GB G.Skill HK 4-4-3-5 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
640 - 2x320 Samsung RAID-0 Dual DVDs XP MCE Acer 22" + Dell 19" LCDs - 2960x1024 rez :D 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech MX Zalman 600W RT Modified Antec 900 Logitech MX 
Mouse Pad
Giant 
  hide details  
Reply
post #58 of 85
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBungle View Post
i've already done this test... well, i did the poor man's version of this test (same principle, lower frequencies ). my memory bandwidth was higher when i ran a divider. full stop.

i've seen numbers that say Conroes can process X amount of data at Y speed - DDR memory moves Q amount of data and Z speed and so forth. the fact is that our processors are able to process more data than the memory can feed it at a 1:1. as far as i know, this is not disputed. Choggs has been arguing (unsuccessfully) against this for a long time.
I find it ironic how you come in and basically tell me my data doesn't prove anything by using a short, simple, opinionated post with no data of your own.

I do understand what you wrote, believe me this is not the problem here.

I've said before I may be wrong about a lot of this. That's why I left this thread up to everyone to come to their own conclusions. But this:

"You're wrong because I've seen or know this." is completely pointless, and does absolutely nothing besides comfort yourself in your own little thought bubble.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6GHz (lapped) EVGA 780i SLI FTW @ 1600MHz FSB 2 x EVGA 8800GTX 768MB (SLI) @ 625/1500/2000MHz 2x2GB G.Skill PC2-8000 PQ @ 800MHz (linked to FSB) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x160GB WD RAID 0, 750GB Samsung Spinpoint F1 LITE-ON 20X SATA DVD/CD RW Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Viewsonic VA2702w 27" LCD 1920x1080 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Value 100 (beer magnet) Corsair TX 750W Cooler Master ATCS 840 Logitech SBF-90 (cheapest one on Newegg) 
Mouse Pad
Some kinda rubber thing (beer magnet) 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6GHz (lapped) EVGA 780i SLI FTW @ 1600MHz FSB 2 x EVGA 8800GTX 768MB (SLI) @ 625/1500/2000MHz 2x2GB G.Skill PC2-8000 PQ @ 800MHz (linked to FSB) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x160GB WD RAID 0, 750GB Samsung Spinpoint F1 LITE-ON 20X SATA DVD/CD RW Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Viewsonic VA2702w 27" LCD 1920x1080 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Value 100 (beer magnet) Corsair TX 750W Cooler Master ATCS 840 Logitech SBF-90 (cheapest one on Newegg) 
Mouse Pad
Some kinda rubber thing (beer magnet) 
  hide details  
Reply
post #59 of 85
well that's kind of harsh. honestly, i'm not going to bother looking up the links again. i ran PCMark05 and the Everest memory benchmark myself and my bandwidth was higher using a divider. it's that simple. (i also posted screenshots of my results in the last thread.) so don't act like proof will change your mind about this. nothing will.

you continue running these slanted tests where you're changing your FSB and multi between runs and calling it fair and balanced, but i'm not buying what you're selling. the way to test your theory is simple:

test 1 - FSB @ 200, default multi, memory @ DDR 400. run benchmarks.

test 2 - FSB @ 200, default multi, memory @ DDR 800 (timings the same). run same benchmarks.

compare your results and you will see that your system is faster with a divider. you continue to do everything you can to dodge the real issue. you're changing the multi and FSB between tests, changing your memory timings, you're running 3DMark to test your memory... this has become ridiculous. you just can't admit that you're wrong. the only reason i'll post in this thread is so nubs know that your theory is not accepted by others.
The C'roe
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6320 @ 2.8 Asus P5W DH Deluxe (2) Radeon X1900XTX CF 2GB G.Skill HK 4-4-3-5 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
640 - 2x320 Samsung RAID-0 Dual DVDs XP MCE Acer 22" + Dell 19" LCDs - 2960x1024 rez :D 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech MX Zalman 600W RT Modified Antec 900 Logitech MX 
Mouse Pad
Giant 
  hide details  
Reply
The C'roe
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6320 @ 2.8 Asus P5W DH Deluxe (2) Radeon X1900XTX CF 2GB G.Skill HK 4-4-3-5 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
640 - 2x320 Samsung RAID-0 Dual DVDs XP MCE Acer 22" + Dell 19" LCDs - 2960x1024 rez :D 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech MX Zalman 600W RT Modified Antec 900 Logitech MX 
Mouse Pad
Giant 
  hide details  
Reply
post #60 of 85
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBungle View Post
the only reason i'll post in this thread is so nubs know that your theory is not accepted by others.
Heh, sure, that's why I've gotten so many reps for it, too. (Including respected members here at OCN)

I didn't think I was being harsh. You just force me to defend myself for every twitch I make.

Of course you had results like you say. The memory speed was *twice* as much --- I am saying the loss in performance from the divider may be smaller (but still there) than the performance increase from twice the memory speed. Can you not see that? We don't know this for sure... I'll admit this.... will you?

I understand it's not completely provable. You make it impossible for me to avoid redundancy here. Neither of our tests, outright, prove the theory (concerning any divider performance drop). But I still thank you for bringing in some test results. It shows favor towards your side of the argument. Could you not pay me the same respect, after all the tests I've done, to at least say the same thing yourself?
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6GHz (lapped) EVGA 780i SLI FTW @ 1600MHz FSB 2 x EVGA 8800GTX 768MB (SLI) @ 625/1500/2000MHz 2x2GB G.Skill PC2-8000 PQ @ 800MHz (linked to FSB) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x160GB WD RAID 0, 750GB Samsung Spinpoint F1 LITE-ON 20X SATA DVD/CD RW Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Viewsonic VA2702w 27" LCD 1920x1080 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Value 100 (beer magnet) Corsair TX 750W Cooler Master ATCS 840 Logitech SBF-90 (cheapest one on Newegg) 
Mouse Pad
Some kinda rubber thing (beer magnet) 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6GHz (lapped) EVGA 780i SLI FTW @ 1600MHz FSB 2 x EVGA 8800GTX 768MB (SLI) @ 625/1500/2000MHz 2x2GB G.Skill PC2-8000 PQ @ 800MHz (linked to FSB) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x160GB WD RAID 0, 750GB Samsung Spinpoint F1 LITE-ON 20X SATA DVD/CD RW Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Viewsonic VA2702w 27" LCD 1920x1080 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech Value 100 (beer magnet) Corsair TX 750W Cooler Master ATCS 840 Logitech SBF-90 (cheapest one on Newegg) 
Mouse Pad
Some kinda rubber thing (beer magnet) 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › FSB and Dividers: My Findings