2.4C vs. 2.8C?

[cobrasvt]

Quick question comparing the 2.4C to the 2.8c...

Right now I have a 2.4c that does 3.30 @ 275 fsb with no problems. At 5:4 ratio's, I get about 5818/5804 - 2986/3037 on Sandra's memory bench. This is all at 1.55v vcore, using XMS PC3500C2 PT (1gb) ram, timings @ 2/6/3/2. I get 19353 on 3dMark2001SE with my Radeon 9800 Pro @ default settings.

My question is, I have a 2.8c sitting here still shrink wrapped in the box. Not knowing the OC abilities of this chip (especially being a Costa Rica week 17 chip?), do you guys think it would be a good speed increase going with the 2.8C over the 2.4C?

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

that's a nice oc for the 2.4c. one of the best I've seen. You would probably get a comparable speed from the 2.8, which a loss of speed from a lower FSB. I'd stick with what you have and sell the 2.8c.

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

question though...how are you able to do the 3dmark2001se test with your radeon 9800? I thought by installing directx9 you couldn't run 3dmark2001se any longer (required directx8)

 

[RIGorous1]

what I want to know is what kind of memory (brand and chips) you are using to get 275 fsb... cause that translates to ddr550.

 

[lookouthere]

he used 5:4 ratio so that translate into DDR 440, not DDR 550

 

[cobrasvt]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX
question though...how are you able to do the 3dmark2001se test with your radeon 9800? I thought by installing directx9 you couldn't run 3dmark2001se any longer (required directx8)

As long as you have the latest update for 3dmark2001se, it wokrs fine with directx9 installed...


My whole dilusion here is I am not sure if the 2.8c is going to be able to run at 250 fsb. If it can, then I have OCZ 3700 Gold here that will run at 500 and will make up for the sacrafice of the lower fsb...


However, not knowing that, and knowing that I can return the 2.8C since it was never opened without a restocking fee, I am at a stand still right now....


As far as what brand chips, they are Corsair XMS 3500C2PT (2 x 512)... DDR speed is 440 @ 275 fsb...

 

[Fallengod]

The problem with 3dmark2001 is, you need dx8.1 and not 9. But most people have 9 installed these days, for their video cards, games...so alot of people cant use it. Or maybe thats not true, and my win2k just wont run it with my dx9. : /

 

[cobrasvt]

like I said, 2001se works fine for me with XP Pro and Home...

 

[LastRide]

I run 3Dmark no problems either with XP Pro DirectX 9.The 2.8C would be better if you can run 250 DDR 500 1:1.Some of the Costa's are pretty good.Your not going to know unless you try it.I am running a 2.4C at 5:4 280FSB 448 DDR 2/3/3/6 timings.I am considering a 2.8C myself if I can find one that does 250 FSB.Thats when PAT reall kicks in at 1:1 and if you can run the Game Acelleration even on Turbo you will smoke your 2.4C.Even without Turbo you should see a good increase.

 

[motojeff]

do a search on madonion for the patch to 3dmark2001. It fixes the problem you have.

Originally posted by: modempower
The problem with 3dmark2001 is, you need dx8.1 and not 9. But most people have 9 installed these days, for their video cards, games...so alot of people cant use it. Or maybe thats not true, and my win2k just wont run it with my dx9. : /

 

[oldfart]

Lastride, have you checked out ctiaw? It tests for PAT operation and shows it as fully enabled on an IC7 when using 5:4. Not all boards can do this. Also, I highly doubt anything but auto can be used @ DDR500. Any of the other settings are WAY too aggresive at that speed.

As far as 2.4 Vs 2.8 goes, its always a crapshoot. That being said, a 2.4B @ 175 FSB has the FSB pushed pretty hard. The 2.8C would have a much lower FSB and has the potential for a higher overclock. I've seen people get 3.5 Ghz, but again, its a crapshoot. It may not go any higher than what you have.