Zroc over @ [ H ] forums did some testing on various oclocking combos. You can see the full read on the hardforum page.. I pasted it here for the AT guys to see:
..................................................................................................
Ok, I started out exploring memory timings with an 8IRXP, 1.8 OC'd to 2.4, a 512MB stick of Samsung PC2700, and a Ti 4600...if you care to review, check it here:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=386912
I wanted to explore mem timings a little more, so I grabbed a 4BDA2+ and a 1.6 chip, 256MB Samsung PC2700, and a Ti 4600, just to mix it up a bit. I must say, OC'ing on this 4BDA2+ is a freakin' breeze, very nice, though I like the layout, look, and features on the 8IRXP much better.
Anyway, to the point...on the 8IRXP, I basically found that using max memory timings at default speeds (1.8GHz, 266 mem) produced noticable gains - again, check that thread for the actual differences. But what puzzled me is that, at 2.4GHz, 354 mem, using max memory timings did practically nothing...1 point gains in Sandra, and actual tiny decreases in Quake III and 3DMark 2K1SE scores.
So, onto the 4BDA2+:
Seems like I got a really nice board, chip, and memory. The chip is a Costa Rica, pack date 4/17/02, which I thought would be crappy due to being Costa Rica, but right now, I'm running it a 2.4GHz/400 mem no prob, at default 1.5v...I'm stoked about that. The mem is also at 400 2/5/2/2, with still default voltage for the board (2.65). I fired up Prime95 on it when I went to bed, and it was still chuggin' this morning, so kick ass. This is all on a 300w SH power supply, too
Ok, benches are Sandra Bandwidth, Quake III 1.17 default fastest settings with sound, and 3D Mark 2001SE default.
Running at 2.4GHz, 400 mem, with mem timings of 2/5/2/2:
Sandra- 3058/3054 QIII- 298.6 3DMark- 11707
Running at 2.4GHz, 400 mem, mem timings 2.5/6/3/3:
Sandra- 3057/3055 QIII- 296.7 3DMark- 11684
Really similar to the 8IRXP/1.8@2.4/354 mem speed. Basically, using max mem timings at high memory speeds does practically squat. One point again in Sandra, a 1.9 frame increase is QIII (a .6% increase), and 23 points in 3DMark (.1% increase). At 400MHz memory speed, max timings gave me a 0 to .6% increase, where at default 266MHz mem speed, I got roughly 20 points outta Sandra, a 3.7% gain in QIII, and a 2.7% gain in 3DMark...not noticable, mind you, but enough to make me use those max timings (I had calculated that in the other thread to be worth about 3MHz of FSB for Sandra and 5MHz of FSB for QIII/3DMark 2k1).
Ok, let me REALLY drive this home...I set the timings back to 2.5/6/3/3, went into the BIOS, and added one measly point to the FSB, so it's now 2.41MHz and 402 mem speed:
Sandra- 3078/3074 QIII- 300.6 3DMark- 11768
There you have it...a direct comparison at high memory speed (400+) between max memory timings and MHz. I got much better gains from simply pushing the FSB up 1 more MHz than from using max memory timings. Guys and gals, I feel this is important information to the P4/DDR overclocking community. Yes, max memory timings make a nice little difference at 266 (or even 333, as I showed in a previous thread with an Athlon/7VRXP KT333). But for some reason, once the memory speeds get up there (350/400+), max mem timings seem to amount to s**t, and certainly don't appear to be worth sacrificing even one MHz of FSB overclocking.
Please, share your thoughts, post comparisons, or offer your theories, as I think this is important.
I'm gonna go have a little more fun with this 1.6, as I seem to have a gem...I'll post back with an update on it's progress
-------------------------------------
Update on the chip: up to 2.6GHz now, though I had to lower the mem speed ratio ta 2.0 versus 2.66.
I found this interesting, as the question gets asked a lot. At 2.6GHz/163(652)FSB/ 326 mem speed, I got:
Sandra- 2493/2488 QIII- 296.1 3DMark- 11760
In essence, the QIII and 3DMark scores are roughly the same for 2.4GHz/400MHz mem and 2.6GHz/326 mem. So it would seem that any of you that could run at 2.4/400, but lowered your memory to get anywhere between 2.4 and 2.6 should probably put 'em back
Gonna see how much more this chip'll do...
..................................................................................................
Ok, I started out exploring memory timings with an 8IRXP, 1.8 OC'd to 2.4, a 512MB stick of Samsung PC2700, and a Ti 4600...if you care to review, check it here:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=386912
I wanted to explore mem timings a little more, so I grabbed a 4BDA2+ and a 1.6 chip, 256MB Samsung PC2700, and a Ti 4600, just to mix it up a bit. I must say, OC'ing on this 4BDA2+ is a freakin' breeze, very nice, though I like the layout, look, and features on the 8IRXP much better.
Anyway, to the point...on the 8IRXP, I basically found that using max memory timings at default speeds (1.8GHz, 266 mem) produced noticable gains - again, check that thread for the actual differences. But what puzzled me is that, at 2.4GHz, 354 mem, using max memory timings did practically nothing...1 point gains in Sandra, and actual tiny decreases in Quake III and 3DMark 2K1SE scores.
So, onto the 4BDA2+:
Seems like I got a really nice board, chip, and memory. The chip is a Costa Rica, pack date 4/17/02, which I thought would be crappy due to being Costa Rica, but right now, I'm running it a 2.4GHz/400 mem no prob, at default 1.5v...I'm stoked about that. The mem is also at 400 2/5/2/2, with still default voltage for the board (2.65). I fired up Prime95 on it when I went to bed, and it was still chuggin' this morning, so kick ass. This is all on a 300w SH power supply, too
Ok, benches are Sandra Bandwidth, Quake III 1.17 default fastest settings with sound, and 3D Mark 2001SE default.
Running at 2.4GHz, 400 mem, with mem timings of 2/5/2/2:
Sandra- 3058/3054 QIII- 298.6 3DMark- 11707
Running at 2.4GHz, 400 mem, mem timings 2.5/6/3/3:
Sandra- 3057/3055 QIII- 296.7 3DMark- 11684
Really similar to the 8IRXP/1.8@2.4/354 mem speed. Basically, using max mem timings at high memory speeds does practically squat. One point again in Sandra, a 1.9 frame increase is QIII (a .6% increase), and 23 points in 3DMark (.1% increase). At 400MHz memory speed, max timings gave me a 0 to .6% increase, where at default 266MHz mem speed, I got roughly 20 points outta Sandra, a 3.7% gain in QIII, and a 2.7% gain in 3DMark...not noticable, mind you, but enough to make me use those max timings (I had calculated that in the other thread to be worth about 3MHz of FSB for Sandra and 5MHz of FSB for QIII/3DMark 2k1).
Ok, let me REALLY drive this home...I set the timings back to 2.5/6/3/3, went into the BIOS, and added one measly point to the FSB, so it's now 2.41MHz and 402 mem speed:
Sandra- 3078/3074 QIII- 300.6 3DMark- 11768
There you have it...a direct comparison at high memory speed (400+) between max memory timings and MHz. I got much better gains from simply pushing the FSB up 1 more MHz than from using max memory timings. Guys and gals, I feel this is important information to the P4/DDR overclocking community. Yes, max memory timings make a nice little difference at 266 (or even 333, as I showed in a previous thread with an Athlon/7VRXP KT333). But for some reason, once the memory speeds get up there (350/400+), max mem timings seem to amount to s**t, and certainly don't appear to be worth sacrificing even one MHz of FSB overclocking.
Please, share your thoughts, post comparisons, or offer your theories, as I think this is important.
I'm gonna go have a little more fun with this 1.6, as I seem to have a gem...I'll post back with an update on it's progress
-------------------------------------
Update on the chip: up to 2.6GHz now, though I had to lower the mem speed ratio ta 2.0 versus 2.66.
I found this interesting, as the question gets asked a lot. At 2.6GHz/163(652)FSB/ 326 mem speed, I got:
Sandra- 2493/2488 QIII- 296.1 3DMark- 11760
In essence, the QIII and 3DMark scores are roughly the same for 2.4GHz/400MHz mem and 2.6GHz/326 mem. So it would seem that any of you that could run at 2.4/400, but lowered your memory to get anywhere between 2.4 and 2.6 should probably put 'em back
Gonna see how much more this chip'll do...
Facebook
Twitter