Overclocking Bad in x64?

[aquafire]

I don't know how to explain this.. If I over clock like I could in XP 32-bit, x64 won't even load.. But I can over clock like 5% and applications will run much faster for compression routines.. But when I play farcry 64-bit I loose 2 fps when the cpu is overclocked. My 3200+ is kinda old I think it's a winchester. Is it the core of the older ones arn't good for overclocking? Say if I get 32fps on average in farcry with 8x AA and max all other setting, how much more fps will I get if I put in a AMD Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego 1GHz FSB 1MB L2 ? thanks.

 

[Fox5]

Parts of the cpu that aren't used in 32 bit windows are now being used in 64 bit, maybe the overclock is just unstable now that 100% of the cpu is being used. Makes me wonder what will happen to all those ultra high clocked A64s....I'm sure no one would want to give up an overclock for 64 bit.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: aquafire
I don't know how to explain this.. If I over clock like I could in XP 32-bit, x64 won't even load.. But I can over clock like 5% and applications will run much faster for compression routines.. But when I play farcry 64-bit I loose 2 fps when the cpu is overclocked. My 3200+ is kinda old I think it's a winchester. Is it the core of the older ones arn't good for overclocking? Say if I get 32fps on average in farcry with 8x AA and max all other setting, how much more fps will I get if I put in a AMD Athlon 64 3700+ San Diego 1GHz FSB 1MB L2 ? thanks.

Get a new video card.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Dude, he's got a 7800gt, thats pretty damn good.

 

[mamisano]

Not sure, I have an Opteron 165 dual core running 2.26Ghz @ stock voltages. Stock is supposed to be 1.8Ghz. My main issue right now is my memory, or I think I could have clocked much higher. I am running XP64 as I type this, no issues.... was playing GUN last night for about 3 hours straight, again with no issues.

 

[aquafire]

The problem I stated earlier was on my other boards for my other systems with same cpus (soltek k8tpro, epox 9npa+ultra). I just put in this new board on my main system (a8n-sli prem) and was reluncant to overclock since it didn't work well on the others in x64. But last night I checked out its overoverclocking section in the bios, and in the end I have it running at 2.51 hgz without changing anything else! Although if it can go higher I wouldn't know what else to change since I'm not a savvy overclocker. I was able to have it at 2.6 ghz but got a blue screen once so I thought backing it to 251 was a good idea. But I can't believe I got a half a ghz more out of this thing, decoding things that used to take 100% cpu now fully saturate the raid i/o and dip to 97%.. it's like getting a new $250 cpu. but far cry shows no fps improvement, maybe .5fps since I have that keen of a sense lol. games don't care about cpu's over 2.0 ghz? I remember upgrading from athlon xp 1800+ to xp 3200+ and got nearly 20+fps, keep in mind that that too is a half ghz jump in speed.. so something doesn't sound right? it's solely video card dependent?

 

[xtknight]

I think someone else had this problem just the other day.

 

[1Dark1Sharigan1]

Originally posted by: aquafire
but far cry shows no fps improvement, maybe .5fps since I have that keen of a sense lol. games don't care about cpu's over 2.0 ghz? I remember upgrading from athlon xp 1800+ to xp 3200+ and got nearly 20+fps, keep in mind that that too is a half ghz jump in speed.. so something doesn't sound right? it's solely video card dependent?

Depends on the game . . . some games are absolutely not CPU dependent even at lower resolutions (i.e. BF2) and some are CPU dependent even at higher resolutions (i.e. HL2) but generally speaking at very high resolutions and with loads of eye candy most games stop being CPU dependent . . . I assume since you're getting 32 FPS in FarCry that you're running the game with very high resolutions and high graphical settings? (High AA/High AF, etc.) In that case, pretty much all Athlon 64 CPUs would perform about the same (unless you're comparing a 1.8 GHz with a 3.0 GHz, but even then the difference would be minimal)