For your PC needs
Just like to know, like the other people reading this.
Thanks.
HELLO NURSE.
Just like to know, like the other people reading this.
Thanks.
HELLO NURSE.
"Orbital Defence" <ModenMr@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:fhahj0to5ruvsnr39tiuuv8f5glrg6m50h@4ax.com...
>
>
> Just like to know, like the other people reading this.
>
> Thanks.
>
> HELLO NURSE.
Since the multiplier only overclocks the processor and the FSB overclocks
memory as well, unless you have faster memory than the board requires, then
I would expect the multiplier overclock to be more stable at the same speed.
"Orbital Defence" <ModenMr@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:fhahj0to5ruvsnr39tiuuv8f5glrg6m50h@4ax.com...
>
>
> Just like to know, like the other people reading this.
>
> Thanks.
>
> HELLO NURSE.
Neither. There should be no difference, as long as you are running within
specifications. If you are stupid enough to overclock, then both higher fsb
and higher multiplier can cause stability problems. -Dave
> Since the multiplier only overclocks the processor and the FSB overclocks
> memory as well, unless you have faster memory than the board requires,
then
> I would expect the multiplier overclock to be more stable at the same
speed.
>
Well, you're half right. Components are generally matched to the
performance of a particular CPU. If that CPU is performing above
specifications, then other components are working harder to keep up, even if
their clock frequency is unaffected. That is, a CPU running at default FSB
but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default FSB to
have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for. If you are having
trouble grasping that, think of walking two miles to the local grocery store
at default walking speed. Now imagine walking two miles back from the
grocery store at the same speed carrying ten full bags of groceries. Now
you understand why changing a CPU multiplier can overload other components,
even though they are operating at the same speed. By upping the CPU
multiplier, you've just dumped many grocery bags on other components. -Dave
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 14:15:31 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:
>> Since the multiplier only overclocks the processor and the FSB overclocks
>> memory as well, unless you have faster memory than the board requires,
>then
>> I would expect the multiplier overclock to be more stable at the same
>speed.
>>
>
>Well, you're half right. Components are generally matched to the
>performance of a particular CPU. If that CPU is performing above
>specifications, then other components are working harder to keep up, even if
>their clock frequency is unaffected. That is, a CPU running at default FSB
>but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default FSB to
>have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for. If you are having
>trouble grasping that, think of walking two miles to the local grocery store
>at default walking speed. Now imagine walking two miles back from the
>grocery store at the same speed carrying ten full bags of groceries. Now
>you understand why changing a CPU multiplier can overload other components,
>even though they are operating at the same speed. By upping the CPU
>multiplier, you've just dumped many grocery bags on other components. -Dave
>
LOL! that's so silly, there are at least a dozen chips that all run at the same FSB speed and use a different multipliers, the chips are almost identical, in fact many
slower chips are just the faster ones marked down to fill the demand for them!
Ed
"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in news:2prqlfFo1ppgU1@uni-berlin.de:
> That is, a CPU running at default FSB
> but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default
> FSB to have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for.
This long post doesnt make any sence. Different speed CPUs are often
produced with same FSB and different multipliers.
If a very fast CPU is talking over a slow BUS it simply has to wait for a
reply.
--
Lordy
> > That is, a CPU running at default FSB
> > but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default
> > FSB to have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for.
>
> This long post doesnt make any sence. Different speed CPUs are often
> produced with same FSB and different multipliers.
>
> If a very fast CPU is talking over a slow BUS it simply has to wait for a
> reply.
>
>
This is why people shouldn't overclock if they don't understand how that
will affect ALL components. And the people who do understand it DON'T DO
IT. OF COURSE the CPU is waiting for a reply . . . and the CPU is only one
component of your entire system. If you don't understand that, don't worry
about it. Just don't overclock. -Dave
Dave C. wrote:
>> Since the multiplier only overclocks the processor and the FSB overclocks
>>memory as well, unless you have faster memory than the board requires,
>
> then
>
>>I would expect the multiplier overclock to be more stable at the same
>
> speed.
>
>
> Well, you're half right. Components are generally matched to the
> performance of a particular CPU.
Poppycock. No engineer in his right mind is designing motherboards, or
anything else for that matter, 'to the performance of a particular CPU' and
certainly no manufacturer that's been in business for more than a few days
is either because nobody wants to stock 16 bazillion parts 'tuned' to 'a
particular CPU', even if there were such a thing, and make special builds
for each 'particular CPU' in every model option that's going to change on
the next price adjustment anyway.
> If that CPU is performing above
> specifications, then other components are working harder to keep up, even if
> their clock frequency is unaffected. That is, a CPU running at default FSB
> but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default FSB to
> have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for.
More poppycock.
> If you are having
> trouble grasping that, think of walking two miles to the local grocery store
> at default walking speed. Now imagine walking two miles back from the
> grocery store at the same speed carrying ten full bags of groceries. Now
> you understand why changing a CPU multiplier can overload other components,
> even though they are operating at the same speed. By upping the CPU
> multiplier, you've just dumped many grocery bags on other components.
I warned you about the ridiculous analogies before.
> -Dave
>
>
Dave C. wrote:
>>>That is, a CPU running at default FSB
>>>but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default
>>>FSB to have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for.
>>
>>This long post doesnt make any sence. Different speed CPUs are often
>>produced with same FSB and different multipliers.
>>
>>If a very fast CPU is talking over a slow BUS it simply has to wait for a
>>reply.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> This is why people shouldn't overclock if they don't understand how that
> will affect ALL components. And the people who do understand it DON'T DO
> IT. OF COURSE the CPU is waiting for a reply . . . and the CPU is only one
> component of your entire system. If you don't understand that, don't worry
> about it. Just don't overclock. -Dave
What people shouldn't do is post absurd arguments about overclocking when
it's obvious they don't know what they're talking about.
"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in news:2psalkFolpbuU1@uni-berlin.de:
> This is why people shouldn't overclock if they don't understand how
> that will affect ALL components. And the people who do understand it
> DON'T DO IT. OF COURSE the CPU is waiting for a reply . . . and the
> CPU is only one component of your entire system. If you don't
> understand that, don't worry about it. Just don't overclock. -Dave
You post prior to this one was still full of nonsense.
I dont mind people being wrong. I have been on occasion! Its just when the
are stubbornly wrong and ignore correction...
You said
"That is, a CPU running at default FSB
but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default FSB to
have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for"
Which is bollox I'm afraid. Then you went on with a long "analogy" to
further illustrate your mistake.
--
Lordy
"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in news:2psalkFolpbuU1@uni-berlin.de:
>> If a very fast CPU is talking over a slow BUS it simply has to wait
>> for a reply.
>>
>>
>
>
> This is why people shouldn't overclock if they don't understand how
> that will affect ALL components.
Please explain how a CPU waiting for a response from a slow component over
a slow BUS affects the component. Esp as the FSB is running in spec and
thus the components attached to it are running in spec.(eg PCI, AGP etc)
If components cant run at specced FSB than what does that imply about them?
--
Lordy
"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in news:2psalkFolpbuU1@uni-berlin.de:
> This is why people shouldn't overclock if they don't understand how
> that will affect ALL components. And the people who do understand it
> DON'T DO IT. OF COURSE the CPU is waiting for a reply . . . and the
> CPU is only one component of your entire system. If you don't
> understand that, don't worry about it. Just don't overclock. -Dave
You post prior to this one was still full of nonsense.
I dont mind people being wrong. I have been on occasion! Its just when the
are stubbornly wrong and ignore correction...
You said
"That is, a CPU running at default FSB
but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default FSB to
have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for"
Which is bollox I'm afraid. Then you went on with a pointless "analogy" to
further illustrate your mistake.
--
Lordy
>
> You said
>
> "That is, a CPU running at default FSB
> but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default FSB
to
> have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for"
>
> Which is bollox I'm afraid. Then you went on with a pointless "analogy" to
> further illustrate your mistake.
>
>
Ah, what's the point of arguing with someone who doesn't understand duty
cycle and how overclocking affects it? When you can tell me how RAM (for
example) works on a bit-by-bit basis, come back and tell me again why you
think I'm wrong. Until then, you can scream at the top of your lungs that I
made a mistake, but that doesn't make it so. -Dave
"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in news:2ptk89Fovq4gU1@uni-berlin.de:
> When you can tell me how RAM (for
> example) works on a bit-by-bit basis, come back and tell me again why
> you think I'm wrong. Until then, you can scream at the top of your
> lungs that I made a mistake, but that doesn't make it so
OK, how does a XP2000 FSB 133 multiplier overclocked to equiv of a XP2400
with the same FSB, causes any increase "duty cycle" on other components
compared to a stock XP2400 at the same FSB on the same mobo ?
--
Lordy
>
> OK, how does a XP2000 FSB 133 multiplier overclocked to equiv of a XP2400
> with the same FSB, causes any increase "duty cycle" on other components
> compared to a stock XP2400 at the same FSB on the same mobo ?
>
> --
> Lordy
It doesn't. But that small of an overclock won't make any difference in
performance, either. Basically, you gain nothing by overclocking a small
amount, and overstress all the components of your system if you overclock
enough to gain a significant performance increase. Or as I've stated a
billion times before, if you need a faster system, build one. -Dave
Dave C. wrote:
>>OK, how does a XP2000 FSB 133 multiplier overclocked to equiv of a XP2400
>>with the same FSB, causes any increase "duty cycle" on other components
>>compared to a stock XP2400 at the same FSB on the same mobo ?
>>
>>--
>>Lordy
>
>
> It doesn't. But that small of an overclock won't make any difference in
> performance, either. Basically, you gain nothing by overclocking a small
> amount,
Besides your opinion of whether a 20% increase in processor speed 'makes a
difference' being irrelevant, it is, again, also irrelevant to your
argument because you flatly said, with no 'qualifiers', that overclocking
by raising only the multiplier, leaving the FSB the same, would increase
the 'duty cycle' on everything else in the system so he provided you with
an example 100% consistent with your claim and challenged you to support it.
You dealt the cards and you've been called. Either play or fold.
> and overstress all the components of your system if you overclock
> enough to gain a significant performance increase.
More wild generic claims with no basis whatsoever.
> Or as I've stated a
> billion times before,
Gobbledygook is not improved by repetition
> if you need a faster system, build one. -Dave
And overclocking is one way to "build one."
Dave C. wrote:
>>You said
>>
>>"That is, a CPU running at default FSB
>>but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default FSB
>
> to
>
>>have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for"
>>
>>Which is bollox I'm afraid. Then you went on with a pointless "analogy" to
>>further illustrate your mistake.
>>
>>
>
>
> Ah, what's the point of arguing with someone who doesn't understand duty
> cycle and how overclocking affects it? When you can tell me how RAM (for
> example) works on a bit-by-bit basis, come back and tell me again why you
> think I'm wrong.
Show me what RAM you use that has a 'duty cycle' spec less than it's
rating. Then show me the RAM you use that says it's PC2700, or PC3200, or
anything else for that matter, but for only a 'particular processor'; as
you claimed they make components for.
Show me the nforce2 chipset that's for XP3200+ CPUs and then the same
chipset that's made for XP2500+ CPUs 'particularly' so that the poor thing
will be 'over stressed' if we plug an XP3200+ into it, or transparently
overclock an XP2500+ to the same speed.
> Until then, you can scream at the top of your lungs that I
> made a mistake, but that doesn't make it so. -Dave
He isn't screaming. It's simply that you are wrong which makes it so.
"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in news:2ptrfjFp5jmpU1@uni-berlin.de:
> Or as I've stated a
> billion times before, if you need a faster system, build one
I agree with that. I just think you overstated your case.
--
Lordy
"Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote in news:2ptrfjFp5jmpU1@uni-berlin.de:
>>
>> OK, how does a XP2000 FSB 133 multiplier overclocked to equiv of a
>> XP2400 with the same FSB, causes any increase "duty cycle" on other
>> components compared to a stock XP2400 at the same FSB on the same
>> mobo ?
>>
>> --
>> Lordy
>
> It doesn't.
But you said
""That is, a CPU running at default FSB
but higher multiplier will cause other components running at default FSB to
have a higher duty cycle than they were designed for""
--
Lordy
David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in
news:10jjgrpr3utrfbe@corp.supernews.com:
> Show me what RAM you use that has a 'duty cycle' spec less than it's
> rating. Then show me the RAM you use that says it's PC2700, or PC3200,
> or anything else for that matter, but for only a 'particular
> processor'; as you claimed they make components for.
Exacty. Todays CPUs alreay have large multipliers compared to the FSB.
So they can already saturate the FSB without breaking a sweat. The FSB
throttles everything down so Memory, PCI, AGP and all other parts run
within spec.
In a way this supports Daves Cs ill-presented argument that multiplier
overclocks dont generally give much performance gain (but we all know this
already) as at the same clock speed, the faster CPU sits around twiddling
its thumbs almost as much as a slower one. If you have very CPU bound
applications then this can make a difference. (Photoshop Filters, Encoding
video etc) but for Joe Bloggs nothing to write home about.
--
Lordy
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote