• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why do people report O/C results in GHz?

C

Caveman

Platinum Member
Instead of "I reached 2.5 GHz", etc... Why not report something like:" I now have the equivalent of a Athlon64 4000+...

This would tell so much more of the story and include the effect of the multiplier...

Is there a table I can go to that include information such as this so that when I hit a certain GHz at my stock multiplier, I can know what my "real" speed increase is?

 
Because it is'nt "equivalent of a Athlon64 4000+... " due to higher bus speeds

That's the wonderful thing about overclocking. For example, Not only is it wayy cheaper to turn a 3000 in to a 3800 than buying a 3800...i.e. going from 1.8 to 2.4. The 3000 will now be even faster than 3800 at same Mhz due to increased Bus speed to get there!!!
 
So... isn't there a way to calculate/report the "true theorhetical" performance in a PR type spec that would be quickly meaningful?

Another way to ask my question might be:... I have an Athlon 64 3500+ 90nm and I want to make it the equivalent of 4000+ chip... What must the FSB be bumped to (at a stock multiplier) to get the equivalent of a 4000+ performance?
 
Not really. it's too many varibles like timings and multi used and mobo... Best way is direct comparison of your overclcok with the many reviews floating the net.
 
There are a couple of programs that do report your PR, but the ratings they give vary greatly. The two I know of are the Central Brain Identifier and the Sandra 2005 benchmark. The Sandra cpu looks a little more believable to me, although they both could be wrong.

Central Brain Identifier

Sandra CPU
 
Geez, I always thought the PR rating was kinda goofy and dis-regard it as meaningless. "Yeah I got an AXP3500+..." OK, so what speed is that? To me it's more informative to just state your o/c speed in Ghz/fsb/multi.
 
Originally posted by: Rhoel
There are a couple of programs that do report your PR, but the ratings they give vary greatly. The two I know of are the Central Brain Identifier and the Sandra 2005 benchmark. The Sandra cpu looks a little more believable to me, although they both could be wrong.

Central Brain Identifier

Sandra CPU
Click to expand...


I think the Sandra PR rating that comes for many years was designed for diferent use. I you benchmark a P4 3.0 at default, it will give some 3400 or 3500 PR rating. So i never did gave it much use.

I'm testing the Central Brain PR rating on my 939 3000+ with diferent setting to see how it goes.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
duvie and now Stormgiant buying AMD...what's next wingz? LOL🙂
Click to expand...


LOL... yes, after 14 years on Intel...

2 weeks ago the 3.2E that i picked for my tests was a dod on my P4C800, so i went to the store to change it. When i got there, a K8N Platinum was just looking at me, winking... and i couldn't resist.

I got a 3000+ to learn how the AMD's work, so later will proly go as most my friends are going, to the fx55...

Also, i was getting many complaints why there wasn't any AMD on my compares 😉

Life goes on...
 
After many days of testing, find the CBI very reliable as the config changes.

I'll be putting soon a file with my testings...
 
Why not report something like:" I now have the equivalent of a Athlon64 4000+
Click to expand...


What would that actually tell you? A ghz figure can be exact.. no one really knows what 4000+ even is. Amd just makes them up. When that crap first started it was supposed to be the same as a pentium of that speed. IE; 2400 = 2.4ghz. Now it's just so crazy that even the people who buy them don't know what it means......or if they do, I haven't seen it explained. If a 4000+ is really 2.4ghz and you oc it to 3.0ghz you know what you have done..... what is a 3ghz Amd called, 6000+?
 
Yeah AMD are sorta dumba55's for that whole ####+ idea IMO. Most people know cpus as GHZ. Trying to guess what every new number version that gets released is just confusing and lame. I know some people who say "I Have a 3500+" and when asked what speed that is. "Oh, I dont know" pfft.. 😛 I guess its one of those things that annoy me. : /
 
Originally posted by: Caveman
Instead of "I reached 2.5 GHz", etc... Why not report something like:" I now have the equivalent of a Athlon64 4000+...

This would tell so much more of the story and include the effect of the multiplier...

Is there a table I can go to that include information such as this so that when I hit a certain GHz at my stock multiplier, I can know what my "real" speed increase is?
Click to expand...

funny, i was thinking the exact opposite thing...why do people OC their AMD's and still try to use the PR scale when it doesn't apply? there are faaaar to many variables to consider to try and use the PR scale. every OC is not the same, most CPU's and mobos are slightly different. your FSB and multiplier may be different, but you ultimatly achieve the same clock speed as someone else.

also, there are some 3200+ procs that operate at 2ghz, some that operate at 2.2ghz.
 
another point:
my 64 3000+ winnie runs at 1.8ghz, right? it does NOT compete with 1.8GHz P4's. it competes with 3GHz P4's, and beats them in any game you throw at it. the PR number is fairly accurate, but not when overclocking. because of all the different variables that get mixed together. even with my 3000+ running at 2.4ghz, it outperforms a 3800+ (2.4ghz) because of the faster fsb/memory. so i wouldnt have a 3800+, i would have more of a 3900+.

and the 4000+ also has 1MB of cache, so it isnt just a regular 2.6(?) ghz chip, it has the extra cache to help it out. if my memory serves me right, it is the same thing as the fx52(?) but without the unlocked upward multis.
 
Better report as: my Athlon64 (s939) 3500+ 90nm is running at 220MHz x 11 = 2.42GHz (almost Athlon64 4000+) with 1:1 divider. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: FlameDeer
Better report as: my Athlon64 (s939) 3500+ 90nm is running at 220MHz x 11 = 2.42GHz (almost Athlon64 4000+) with 1:1 divider. 🙂
Click to expand...

exactly, saying 4000+ just doesn't do it justice =D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top