The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Hey people.
I'm looking at upgrading me machine cos she's getting a bit old now. Her stats are:
AMD Athlon 1.2 Ghz
512mb RAM
Gigabyte MAYA Raedon 9000 Pro (128mb)
SBLive! PCI
60GB HD
I've got about £300 - £350 to splash out. What do I go for? I'm looking for gamesplaying (obviously!). Got Farcry on order and would like to be able to run it :)
I'm looking at upgrading me machine cos she's getting a bit old now. Her stats are:
AMD Athlon 1.2 Ghz
512mb RAM
Gigabyte MAYA Raedon 9000 Pro (128mb)
SBLive! PCI
60GB HD
I've got about £300 - £350 to splash out. What do I go for? I'm looking for gamesplaying (obviously!). Got Farcry on order and would like to be able to run it :)
Page:
Tallan wrote:
> Right, so if I push a 2500 and a 2800 up to the clock speed of a 3200,
> would the 2500 perform better due to the higher fsb?
If the 2500 had a high FSB then yes. My XP2800 is a earlier one so I can modify the FSB and Multipler. Currently its at 166 FSB which is standard and its standard multiplier, which gives it just under 2.1 ghz with something like 2083 mhz. I did lower the multiplier and upped the FSB to 200 so that its did actually run at 2100 mhz. I noticed benchmarking in 3Dmark 2001 went up by about 800 marks, not much but it was faster considering the total mhz went up by only 20 mhz or so.
I will probably start overclocking my CPU after I finish uni. Hopefully get it running at 200x11 or 11.5 so 2.2 Ghz and 2.3 Ghz respectivily.
> Right, so if I push a 2500 and a 2800 up to the clock speed of a 3200,
> would the 2500 perform better due to the higher fsb?
If the 2500 had a high FSB then yes. My XP2800 is a earlier one so I can modify the FSB and Multipler. Currently its at 166 FSB which is standard and its standard multiplier, which gives it just under 2.1 ghz with something like 2083 mhz. I did lower the multiplier and upped the FSB to 200 so that its did actually run at 2100 mhz. I noticed benchmarking in 3Dmark 2001 went up by about 800 marks, not much but it was faster considering the total mhz went up by only 20 mhz or so.
I will probably start overclocking my CPU after I finish uni. Hopefully get it running at 200x11 or 11.5 so 2.2 Ghz and 2.3 Ghz respectivily.
Right, so if I push a 2500 and a 2800 up to the clock speed of a 3200, would the 2500 perform better due to the higher fsb?
cookie monster wrote:
> What is your current 3dmark2001 score kernel?
I think it was about 10000 on 2001 and 5000 on 2003, but that was using stock speeds. I did have it clocked to Pro speeds at one point but I upgraded the drivers and never got round to fiddling about with the settings again.
> What is your current 3dmark2001 score kernel?
I think it was about 10000 on 2001 and 5000 on 2003, but that was using stock speeds. I did have it clocked to Pro speeds at one point but I upgraded the drivers and never got round to fiddling about with the settings again.
Yeah they have been known to do that. Record that I know of is 2730 MHz with fancy cooling.
2500 MHz is pushing it a bit though. Take it easy, you don't want an unstable computer. You don't know that it will work at that speed. So don't expect it because it might not happen.
On the chip itself you will have something like
AXDA2800DKV4D
AQZFA 0338VPMW
The top line is the model number.
The bottom line has the stepping, that being the five letters. Some steppings do better than others.
The four digits give you the week of production, that one would be week 38 of 2003. The actual meaning of the last four letters is not actually known.
Since around week 36 or so, most AMD processors have been locked. Unlocked is better as it gives you more room for manouever(sp).
www.overclockers.com has lots of articles about overclocking. The CPU database lets you search to see what the best results with different processors was. Some people remember to put in the stepping and week, but not all.
If you can't get an unlocked processor I would consider the 2500XP or 2600XP, the lower (locked) multipliers would allow you to reach higher FSBs more easily.
Oh and you want a Barton core processor. The Thoroughbreds have less cache memory, 256 Kb compared to the Bartons 512 Kb, and this in real life operation amounts to a performance difference of around 100 MHz.
2500 MHz is pushing it a bit though. Take it easy, you don't want an unstable computer. You don't know that it will work at that speed. So don't expect it because it might not happen.
On the chip itself you will have something like
AXDA2800DKV4D
AQZFA 0338VPMW
The top line is the model number.
The bottom line has the stepping, that being the five letters. Some steppings do better than others.
The four digits give you the week of production, that one would be week 38 of 2003. The actual meaning of the last four letters is not actually known.
Since around week 36 or so, most AMD processors have been locked. Unlocked is better as it gives you more room for manouever(sp).
www.overclockers.com has lots of articles about overclocking. The CPU database lets you search to see what the best results with different processors was. Some people remember to put in the stepping and week, but not all.
If you can't get an unlocked processor I would consider the 2500XP or 2600XP, the lower (locked) multipliers would allow you to reach higher FSBs more easily.
Oh and you want a Barton core processor. The Thoroughbreds have less cache memory, 256 Kb compared to the Bartons 512 Kb, and this in real life operation amounts to a performance difference of around 100 MHz.
Nice one. So if I upped the fsb on the 2800 to get it to go at 400mhz (and so get best RAM perfomance from DDR400) it would give me a clock speed of 2500mhz.
Does anyone know if anyone has tried this on this processor and did it work stabily (and not too hot)?
Does anyone know if anyone has tried this on this processor and did it work stabily (and not too hot)?
What is your current 3dmark2001 score kernel?
cookie monster wrote:
> Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Cookie Monster successfully soft modded a 9800 SE. Although I
> believe
> it did die on him after a while. I think someone else did it as
> well.
>
> I think it was unknown kernel.
It was, and mine soft modded perfectly. Bit of a bargain really. Now I just need to upgrade my motherboard and CPU to play Far Cry properly. Curses.
> Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Cookie Monster successfully soft modded a 9800 SE. Although I
> believe
> it did die on him after a while. I think someone else did it as
> well.
>
> I think it was unknown kernel.
It was, and mine soft modded perfectly. Bit of a bargain really. Now I just need to upgrade my motherboard and CPU to play Far Cry properly. Curses.
The 2500XP is clocked at 1826 MHz or so and the 2800XP at 2075 MHz or so, using a 12.5 multiplier. I mentioned the multiplier because most AMD chips are now locked, and the higher the multiplier then the higher you can go without insane FSBs. You would only need to go to 176 MHz FSB to get the 2800XP to 2200 MHz.
To low a multiplier and you hit a wall with your RAM before you max out the CPU, to high and you max out the CPU before the RAM. 11 to 13 is the sweetspot as that will get you a nice balance.
As for stability, it is debatable. The processors are all based on a core, the 2500XP, 2600XP, 2800XP, 3000XP and 3200XP all being on the Barton core. Previous cores were Thoroughbreds, Palominos and Thunderbirds.
Now all cores are the same, really. Every Barton core is the same. The difference between them, when there is a difference is that the higher rated chips, i.e. the 3000XP etc would probably have better quality silicon in them allowing them to go to higher clockspeeds stably.
AMD make a bunch of Barton's. They then run them all at a certain speed. All of them make 2500XP speeds say. Good. Then they test them at 2600XP speeds, and there might be a few that won't hack it. So they stay 2500XPs. Some might not manage 2800XP speeds, so they stay as 2600XPs. At least, that is generally what is thought to happen. In reality most will manage 3200XP speeds fine, and it is simply a matter of AMD relabelling them for various price points.
The 3200XPs will do 2200 MHz. That is what they are sold as. The 2500XPs probably will as well, but no guarantees.
Choice of cooling... well the best results are had with the expensive coolers, running on liquid nitrogen. Or water etc. Personally I'm sticking with heat sinks and fans still. The daddy of all heat sinks is a Thermalright. Current top of the range I think is the SP97. It doesn't really matter, most Thermalrights from the SLK 800 upwards have been virtually identical in performance.
To low a multiplier and you hit a wall with your RAM before you max out the CPU, to high and you max out the CPU before the RAM. 11 to 13 is the sweetspot as that will get you a nice balance.
As for stability, it is debatable. The processors are all based on a core, the 2500XP, 2600XP, 2800XP, 3000XP and 3200XP all being on the Barton core. Previous cores were Thoroughbreds, Palominos and Thunderbirds.
Now all cores are the same, really. Every Barton core is the same. The difference between them, when there is a difference is that the higher rated chips, i.e. the 3000XP etc would probably have better quality silicon in them allowing them to go to higher clockspeeds stably.
AMD make a bunch of Barton's. They then run them all at a certain speed. All of them make 2500XP speeds say. Good. Then they test them at 2600XP speeds, and there might be a few that won't hack it. So they stay 2500XPs. Some might not manage 2800XP speeds, so they stay as 2600XPs. At least, that is generally what is thought to happen. In reality most will manage 3200XP speeds fine, and it is simply a matter of AMD relabelling them for various price points.
The 3200XPs will do 2200 MHz. That is what they are sold as. The 2500XPs probably will as well, but no guarantees.
Choice of cooling... well the best results are had with the expensive coolers, running on liquid nitrogen. Or water etc. Personally I'm sticking with heat sinks and fans still. The daddy of all heat sinks is a Thermalright. Current top of the range I think is the SP97. It doesn't really matter, most Thermalrights from the SLK 800 upwards have been virtually identical in performance.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> I expect I have made it a bit too technical for you.
I like it techie :)
I just havn't had any experience overclocking so I've always left the fsb and multiplier stuff well alone, hence my lack of knowledge. So cheers for that indepth bit, it helped alot.
One last q,
The difference between an XP2500 and an XP2800. What is the performance difference like, and the overclockability like? Can the 2800 be overclocked to a 3200 more stabily, or are they (2500 and 2800) the same chip just limited, or can the 2800 be overclocked a bit further?
Also whats a recommended cpu cooler for overclocking?
Sorry, that was a bit more than 1 q
Cheers again for ya help.
> I expect I have made it a bit too technical for you.
I like it techie :)
I just havn't had any experience overclocking so I've always left the fsb and multiplier stuff well alone, hence my lack of knowledge. So cheers for that indepth bit, it helped alot.
One last q,
The difference between an XP2500 and an XP2800. What is the performance difference like, and the overclockability like? Can the 2800 be overclocked to a 3200 more stabily, or are they (2500 and 2800) the same chip just limited, or can the 2800 be overclocked a bit further?
Also whats a recommended cpu cooler for overclocking?
Sorry, that was a bit more than 1 q
Cheers again for ya help.
Right well the CPU speed is worked out from something called the multiplier x the actual FSB.
The FSB number here is 2 x the actual frequency. This means that an FSB of 333 MHz is actually 2 x 166 MHz and a 400 MHz FSB is really 200 MHz. The real FSB is the 166 MHz or the 200 MHz etc.. not the 333 or 400 or any other DDR number.
So.. back to the Athlon 2500XP. It runs at 11 (the multiplier) x a real frequency of 166 MHz. This gives an actual clock speed of 1826 MHz.
All chips work this way. If you work it out, the 3200XP is also an 11 x multiplier as it runs at 2200 MHz in reality. Which is 11 x 200 (which would give 2200 MHz.
Now that I have explained the concept, now I can explain how that helps you to overclock. Imagine you had a 2500XP and a 3200XP. Both have the same multiplier, 11. So to get a 2500XP to run at 3200XP speeds, you would change the FSB to 200 MHz from the normal 166 MHz.
So there would be no performance difference as to overclock the 2500XP you would be running it at the same FSB.
With AMD chips made up until around September last year, you could change the multiplier. This was great because then you could make it 10 x 220 MHz say. This would make the CPU run the same speed, but the memory would be running faster as it is 2 x frequency, i.e. DDR 440.
All Intel chips, and all AMD chips now, have locked multipliers though, meaning that the only part you can change is the FSB.
I expect I have made it a bit too technical for you.
Erm, get the DDR 400 stuff. That would run fine at lower speeds, but would also give you head room to overclock, whereas DDR 333 would have much less head room.
I would buy this: [URL]Http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/Online_Catalogue_TwinMOS_147.html[/URL] . I would get some of the DDR 400 stuff, also known as PC3200. As you can tell from it being DDR 400, it runs at 200 MHz. Well that is what it is rated to run at. I however have run it at 227 MHz, or DDR 454. It has gone up a bit in price though, so look around.
Of course more expensive RAM will go faster, but that stuff is cheap and high performance.
The FSB number here is 2 x the actual frequency. This means that an FSB of 333 MHz is actually 2 x 166 MHz and a 400 MHz FSB is really 200 MHz. The real FSB is the 166 MHz or the 200 MHz etc.. not the 333 or 400 or any other DDR number.
So.. back to the Athlon 2500XP. It runs at 11 (the multiplier) x a real frequency of 166 MHz. This gives an actual clock speed of 1826 MHz.
All chips work this way. If you work it out, the 3200XP is also an 11 x multiplier as it runs at 2200 MHz in reality. Which is 11 x 200 (which would give 2200 MHz.
Now that I have explained the concept, now I can explain how that helps you to overclock. Imagine you had a 2500XP and a 3200XP. Both have the same multiplier, 11. So to get a 2500XP to run at 3200XP speeds, you would change the FSB to 200 MHz from the normal 166 MHz.
So there would be no performance difference as to overclock the 2500XP you would be running it at the same FSB.
With AMD chips made up until around September last year, you could change the multiplier. This was great because then you could make it 10 x 220 MHz say. This would make the CPU run the same speed, but the memory would be running faster as it is 2 x frequency, i.e. DDR 440.
All Intel chips, and all AMD chips now, have locked multipliers though, meaning that the only part you can change is the FSB.
I expect I have made it a bit too technical for you.
Erm, get the DDR 400 stuff. That would run fine at lower speeds, but would also give you head room to overclock, whereas DDR 333 would have much less head room.
I would buy this: [URL]Http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/Online_Catalogue_TwinMOS_147.html[/URL] . I would get some of the DDR 400 stuff, also known as PC3200. As you can tell from it being DDR 400, it runs at 200 MHz. Well that is what it is rated to run at. I however have run it at 227 MHz, or DDR 454. It has gone up a bit in price though, so look around.
Of course more expensive RAM will go faster, but that stuff is cheap and high performance.
Page: