Intel vs. AMD

Kivory666,

When it's all set up you may have to move the memory buss up a couple of clicks in order to actually run at the desired setting. I had to do this with Gina's P5N-E in order for the memory to run at 800MHz instead of 788! I believe I had to set it to 804MHz in the setup in order to display 800 on the post and 800 in CPU-Z!

Estuansis,
No, you can't unlink the memory on the DS3. You need to use the CPU multis and the memory multis available to get where you want to be within the limits of the multipliers for both. My E4300 won't run at any CPU multiplier but 9 and 6, so I was lucky in being able to get to 910MHz on the memory at a 5:4 ratio!

Clock On,
theone :}

 

Aha, Thank you,

Should have been OCing by now but it's just being used as normal for the time being. I want to make sure I'm doing this one with all the knowledge I can get.

Hopefully, 3.4GHz is well within my reach when I start.

I'll be overclocking soon but, for now, I'm happy to just have some better components

 

Another double but a new post.

I OC'd her finally. 3.4GHz with no stability problems so far. I need to run Orthos on it soon before I leave it on 24/7 but here it is for now.

Stock Clock – 2399.4MHz
Stock Bus – 266.6MHz
Stock Mem Speed – DDR2 533
Stock Multiplier – 9x
Stock Quad Pumped Bus – 1066MHz
FSB/RAM - 1:1

Overclock – 3402MHz
OC Bus – 378MHz
OC Mem Speed – DDR2 945
OC Multiplier – 9x
OC Quad Pumped Bus – 1512MHz
FSB/RAM - 4:5

I didn't need to unlink it to hit my speed goal on the memory. And as far as I can tell it's holding its 4-4-3-10 timings without relaxing.

If that ain't cool you can all die lol.

I turned it down to a 1:1 ratio like you said. And the ratios brought it right to 945 on a 4:5 ratio. Right in my goal area.

Give me a while and I'll at least put up a CPU-Z or something if I feel like getting around to it. But it's real to me for now.

I'm impressed how well the 680i chipset took it. No real blackspots or anything as far as I saw. Maybe between 340 and 350FSB it didn't wanna take it. But I bumped it up and it kept rising.

I'm excited now

 

Estuansis,

just for play run some benchmarks (memory bandwidth especially) with the memory at 756mhz running 1:1 and then again at 945mhz running at 4:5. I found at 3.4ghz my memory perform better running 1:1 even though it was a little underclocked. you might even try unlinking the fsb:dram ratio and set your memory at 800mhz and compare benchmarks to the other settings.

 

I should give that a look. I've been hearing that performance was sometimes better at 1:1 vs a monster clock.

But honestly, I'd rather leave it as is in the end. I got that memory to overclock and overclocked it shall be.

I'll see about all that stuff after it gets a day or so of burn-in. I'm pretty lucky to get such a nice overclock on my first go with the board. I don't want to end up with bad parts.

 

overclocked doesn't always mean better especially where memory is concerned. sometimes things will perform better at or close to their rated specs.

 

Hmm, point taken.

But what I wonder is, does the 1:1 ALWAYS produce better performance? *looks at docTY/Kivory666* Because I'd really like to leave it up there now that I've gotten it that high. There might be some differences in performance. But I'm a gamer with the second fastest consumer video processing unit known to man and a CPU faster than any other you can currently buy from retailer or wholesaler. So would it kill me to leave it up there? I don't think it would... unless Half-Life 2 bugs out on me because of the OC'd memory(which is known to happen).

Check this...

Pretty creepy huh? I pretty much hit the same thing you specced out. But... I was only just shooting for the 3.4 and not much else.

 

you won't know until you run some benchmark tests with the memory at different settings/speeds. maybe doc will chime in after bit and share his wealth of knowledge on the subject.

as I increased the cpu frequency when I was OC'ing, I determined that my memory performed best at the closest I could get it to it's rated speed (800mhz) whether it was OC'ed or underclocked a little.

 

Was the difference in performance drastic for you? That's really very interesting that you'd benefit from lower bandwidth vs higher.

I'd like to know more on this before I decide what to do with my memory.

As stated previously. Unless it has a solid impact on my performance I'd rather not underclock my RAM.

 

Estuansis,

If it winds up performing better closer to it's rating, then why stress it by overclocking it? With mine the numbers weren't different but my video performance improved greatly by overclocking it to 910. My 3DMark improved about 25%. If it hadn't, I would have set it back to 728 knowing I wasn't putting any strain on the memory! As it was I only thought to run 3DMark at the last minute just to see if it had any effect on the video, which it did by a fair amount!

Clock On,
theone :}

 

it wasn't lower bandwidth but rather lower frequency. the bandwidth was better at 756mhz as oppossed to 945mhz with mine. I also had to raise the dram voltage to reach 945mhz which put more stress and heat on the memory. my memory would OC to a little over 900mhz without requiring an increase in voltage.

I am just curious if your bandwidth would be better with it running closer to it's rated speed (800mhz).

800 - 756 = 44

945 - 800 = 145

although it would be running a little slower at 756 than rated speed (only 44mhz slower), it is much closer to it's rated speed than 945 (145mhz faster).

again I would run some benchmarks and check bandwidth and as I said before you can even unlink the fsb:dram ratio and run a benchmark at 800mhz. my mobo won't let me unlink the fsb:dram ratio but then with the cpu frequency at 400mhz I don't need it to since my memory is running at 800mhz.

 

Well, it's gonna be on burn-in for a while still. I want to make sure it's all stable before I try anything.

But it would be very interesting to see how it performs. Maybe there's magical number near 800 that will give me the best. Maybe at a 1:1 ratio.

And from what theonejrs said, I might run 3DMark 06 and see what it gives me.

I've looked at some memory reviews with different sets and some people have gotten better results at 1:1 and some have gotten better results from the OC.

It would actually be kinda cool to see better performance underclocked. You may be right.

 

With an 8800GTX, you should get well over 10,000.

 

My last run got 11007. So... yeah

 

Well, my friend finally built the PC I was talking about before(not the idiot who destroyed his.)

I asked about newegg payment policies before because he was building a budget gamer. And budget it is(but not slow!)

e6300
Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 original rev.
2 x 1GB G.Skill DDR2 677
EVGA 7600GT 256MB
Hiper R-Type 580W

All I can remember for right now... I think he used an old 120GB WD Caviar and an old DVD drive.

But the 7600GT is absolutely AMAZING for budget gamers. He got it for $89.99 and it's a real beast.

FEAR 1600 x 1200 MAX settings: 46-50 FPS average
Half Life 2 1600 x 1200 max settings: 70-80FPS average
Doom 3 1600 x 1200 max settings: mid 70's - low 80's
Quake 4 1600 x 1200 max settings: high 60's - mid 70's


That's all he played so far and I gotta say; I'm thoroughly impressed.

If you need budget gaming card... the 7600GT is absolutely mindblowing for $90! He's playing games at high settings that made his old 6800 256MB weep blood!

Man, I wish the 7600GT was around when I built my first rig... I might have never wanted to upgrade lol.

That's my amazing news for today.

 

Estuansis,

XFX makes at least 3 versions of the 7600GT.

XFX PVT73GUGF3 GeForce 7600GT 256MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail Core Clock 570MHz Memory Clock 1450MHz

XFX PVT73GUGD3 GeForce 7600GT 256MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail Core clock 590MHz Memory Clock 1600MHz

XFX PVT71JUHE4 GeForce 7950GT 256MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 HDCP Video Card - Retail Core Clock 480MHz Memory Clock 1400MHz

There is also a model called the Fatal1ty
Core clock 650MHz Memory Clock 1600MHz. Mine is the first one on the list, and the cheapest! It easily overclocked to the Fatal1ty specs with only a minor change in temperature of 1-2 degrees. There are other brands and models as well. I'm just partial to XFX as I've had very good success with them over the years. As you pointed out it does a very good job of playing most games! At around $99 or less it's a great bargain!

Clock On,
theone

 

Not only that but XFX has that crazy wicked black and green color scheme!

Reminds me of my Sempron 3100+. I had it outperforming a 3.6GHz pentium 4 for $71.00. It was at 2.4GHz. The P4 660 was about $400 at the time. Amazing bang-for-buck.

And my X800GTO. Think I got it for $120 at the time. It outperformed the 6800/6800GT and was still at a lower price than the 6800GT can be had for today. That's a good buy. Now you can get it for $90. Even better still.

I think ATi understands the budget consumer. It used to be the 6600GT was putting out good performance but was at $200. The X700XT was $150 and gave very close performance. And some of the X800 series had already dropped in price below $200.

And the X1950 Pro can be found for $139.99 while competing nVidia cards aren't even close to that low.

Cards like the Radeon X800 series released in early 2004 and still give good performance in most modern games(even Oblivion). And they can be had for under $150.

Barring the fact you can now get much better performance for that price, they were High-End at one point and offer features that the similar performing mid-range cards of today don't have. That makes them still worth the money IMO.

And the 6800 series was crap. Not really bad performance, but availability and price. You could never find them. And when you could the prices were disgustingly high.

I only ever saw one 6800 Ultra at newegg and it was $400 at the time when you could get an X1800XL/XT for around the same price. And I just saw a 6800GT for $350 a few months ago. That's just plain stupid!

Despite the fact I have an nVidia card I still think ATi is my favorite. Even the previously poor(but still pretty good) HD2900XT is picking up its performance as the drivers mature. And the price is sometimes $150 less than the 8800GTX.

I think, though, despite my dislike of nVidia's pricing, that the 7600GT is an incredible deal.

Not saying my 8800GTX is bad... because it's definitely not. I got my money's worth. But ATi can still seriously compete with nVidia.

Enough of my graphics related rant

 

the 7600gt would give those 1800 a run for their money at a fraction of its cost and is that continues to fall it makes them even better.

i totaly agree that there is more to come from ati/amd. the latest drivers for the 29s seem to get even more out of them, when you compare the top of each tree (xt vs ultra) only those with way more money than sense would buy the 88u, ok it performs better but at almost 150% more cost.



anyway, whos looking forward to gainstown.

 

As if XFX needed any moe publicity, they also offer passively cooled silent graphics cards, including I believe the 7600GT.
That score's nuts, it's as high as I got with my X1900! Perhaps I might have had AA turned on back then.

 

I myself went to his house and watched it hitting these framerates.

But, honestly my X1800XT goes quite a bit higher. So it might just be where he was in the games. But those were the averages from the framerates I saw with FRAPS.

Very crazy though, right?

That's why I'm thoroughly amazed. It's playing such high-end games at those frames

Your X1900XT should be getting much higher than that. My X1800XT stomps it. We almost have the same card with you having additional shader processors. I have at least a 20-30FPS lead in most cases. You should too.

Edit:

Looked it up and you have, at best, a 10-15FPS lead on me in most cases. It depends on the relative demands of the game.

Yes, it completely demolishes the X1800XL in most cases. But the X1800XT is a far different beast. I would be very surprised if it ever outpaced mine.