Anybody upgraded from an A643000+ to an A643700+ or higher?

[Blackhearted]

Re: Anybody upgraded from an A643000+ to an A643700+ or higher?

So far so good...

-set CPU voltage to 1.45V
-set RAM divider to 5:3 (333MHz)
-set FSB to 240 MHz
-set HT to 1000MHz

Now, in CPU-Z, it shows my CPU as being 2160.5 MHz. In the memory tab, however, it shows my frequency to be 216.1 MHz...that doesn't seem right. It says CPU/10...

I'll check into that and do a little BF2 benching and see if the whole machine comes crashing down

wierd, you sure you didnt set 250 as your FSB? you get 216.25mhz memory (ddr 333) if you set your FSB to 250.
still, if you havent crashed yet you could have lucked out with some extraordinary sticks of valueselect.

once you have an overclock that boots up and behaves normally in windows, the next step is to run prime95 on it for awhile and see if it is truly stable and error-free. it stresses the CPU and mem to 100% capacity with mathematical calculations and reports any errors. some people run it for a day after an overclock to be 100% sure, but personally i think if it runs for an hour straight without any errors you should be fine.

http://files.extremeoverclocking.com/file.php?f=103

you should also have motherboard monitor running, at least for the first week or so, to make sure you arent overheating your processor. im assuming you have the stock AMD heatsink, which actually isnt so bad - i overclocked my spare rendering machine to 250mhz FSB (its a sempron 64 3100+) and it only went up a couple of degrees. anything under or around 45 degrees idle and under 55-60 degrees full load should be OK. over 60 degrees and you need to look into better cooling, IMO, although opinions differ.

[Talus]

Re: Anybody upgraded from an A643000+ to an A643700+ or higher?

The CPU is running at 34 degrees right now (after running BF2 for a bit). And I'm keeping an eye on it.

But...not a single bit of FPS increase in BF2...MAN am I glad I asked

I double-checked the FSB..and yes, it is set to 240. I re-checked the RAM limiter and it's set to 5:3 (333). I'm assuming that it's supposed to be 240 x 5 / 3 = 400.

Is there another applet that I can run that can TRULY tell me what my RAM is running at? I thought CPU-Z was pretty much it...

Oh..and I set the AGP/PCI lock to 66/33 of course

[Talus]

Re: Anybody upgraded from an A643000+ to an A643700+ or higher?

Now, I didn't have a HT multiplier (you said to use 4x) ..I could pick from 200, 400, 800, and 1000. So I left it where it was already at 1000.

[Talus]

Re: Anybody upgraded from an A643000+ to an A643700+ or higher?

and it only went up a couple of degrees. anything under or around 45 degrees idle and under 55-60 degrees full load should be OK. over 60 degrees and you need to look into better cooling, IMO, although opinions differ.

..I just drove from one end of Kubra dam to the other..and the CPU temp hit 39 C. That doesn't seem bad. Heck..it's back down to 35 already.

CPU temp hits 41 when running Prime95...I'm using the 'Stress-Test' and so far, no problems.

Maybe my RAM IS running at 416...I guess stranger things have happened.

[lil_jimmy_norton]

Re: Anybody upgraded from an A643000+ to an A643700+ or higher?

The 3700+ is not a worthy upgrade from a 3000+.

The moral is if you want to upgrade do it properly :) . Go for a Dual Core setup. Your graphic card is still good.

Does the ASRock Dual Sata2 support X2

Unless you are overclocking, then the 3700+ makes all the diffrence in the world.

[Talus]

Re: Anybody upgraded from an A643000+ to an A643700+ or higher?

Well..I just overclocked my 3000+ to near-3700+ speed and I found no increase in BF2 performance...YET. I was just staring at a static screen and then running around an empty level and comparing FPS values...but my next step is to play on a full 64 player server.

[Blackhearted]

Re: Anybody upgraded from an A643000+ to an A643700+ or higher?

bf2 is not very cpu dependant. as long as your cpu isnt holding it back you wont see much of an increase. ie: a 3000 is more than enough to run it, so you dont get much of an increase from a 3700. most of your other apps and games will benefiit, however.

the hypertransport bus needs to be =<1000
by default its usually 5x the system bus, so 5x200=1000. many people when they first overclock dont adjust that, so when they bump their FSB to, say, 225mhz theyre overclocking their HT bus to 1100mhz which causes crashes.
im not sure how your motherboard works.. perhaps i just implies (for the comp illiterate) that 1000 is 5x, 800 is 4x, and so on. so if you run into some instability the next step would be to turn that doown to 800, or ask someone familiar with that board (or check the manual for it).

41 degrees with a 20% overclock, at full load when running prime95 is *very* good. i dont think i even get that at stock speeds with a stock cooler, so you must have lucked out and got a good chip. either that or your mobo isnt reporting the temp accurately, lol. either way the chips are fine under load till a lot more than that - some people run them at 65 degrees, although over 59 and id be worried.

since its running so cool, and your mem is running at 216mhz anyways, you could try a 250mhz FSB setting. although i seem to notice something with A64s - their temp doesnt go up in a direct relationship to overclocking. theyll overclock nice and cool for awhile, and then you bump the FSB up like 3-4 mhz and the temp skyrockets by like 10 degrees. keep an eye on your temps.

**edit:
oh, and now you see why people were saying theres no point upgrading to a 3700 for BF2 :)
youd get the same result with a dual core, since BF2 doesnt utilize the second core. i believe a dual core 4400+ is the equivalent of 2x3700s... so youd have to go higher than that to achieve any more than marginal gains.
professional 3d and video editing apps are another story entirely, but most people here use thheir rigs pprimarily for gaming. as much as some would like to justify spending $1000+ on a dual core rig, for gaming - at present - single core is by far the way to go especially when price/performance is concerned.




"Unless you are overclocking, then the 3700+ makes all the diffrence in the world."

ehh. you dont have nearly as much of a margin overclocking a 3700 as opposed to a 3000. mainly because theyre more or less the same core, and the 3700 is pretty much just clocked higher at the factory. the only advantage is the higher multiplier.

[Hephaistion]

Re: Anybody upgraded from an A643000+ to an A643700+ or higher?

Just wondering if there is a performance increase to be had in BF2 by going with a better processor than what I am running now:

A64 3000+ (Winchester) at 1.8 GHz (I don't overclock my CPU)
4 GB PC3200
XFX 6800GT 256 MB AGP
X-Fi XtremeMusic

I was thinking of this CPU:

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=17798&vpn=ADA3700CFBOX&manufacture=AMD

I'm really not too sure about Dual Core CPUs yet (although if somebody gave me an FX60, I'd plunk it in my system for sure )

I went from a 3200+ Clawhammer to a 3700+ San Diego and noticed a great difference. Considering the die size is smaller on the 3700 and oh yeah the 3700+ has 1mb cache vs. the 512kb on the 3500+ and below.
I have nearly the same system as you:
XFX 6800GS (2x SLi)
3GB Corsair CL2 DDR400
Xfi Sound Card

My CPU was a great buy, try here though: http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...ctCode=80719-5

[Talus]

Re: Anybody upgraded from an A643000+ to an A643700+ or higher?

the hypertransport bus needs to be =<1000
by default its usually 5x the system bus, so 5x200=1000. many people when they first overclock dont adjust that, so when they bump their FSB to, say, 225mhz theyre overclocking their HT bus to 1100mhz which causes crashes.
im not sure how your motherboard works.. perhaps i just implies (for the comp illiterate) that 1000 is 5x, 800 is 4x, and so on. so if you run into some instability the next step would be to turn that doown to 800, or ask someone familiar with that board (or check the manual for it).

Manuals for motherbaords, as you probably already know, suck BIG TIME. But I'm going to assume that you're correct in that 800 HT probably means a 4X multiplier. It would have been too simple to name it HT multiplier, wouldn't it

If I run into any problems, that's the first thing I'll do.

But, I figure that if the RAM is running nicely at 216, then there is no harm in leaving it there

[lil_jimmy_norton]

Re: Anybody upgraded from an A643000+ to an A643700+ or higher?

ehh. you dont have nearly as much of a margin overclocking a 3700 as opposed to a 3000. mainly because theyre more or less the same core, and the 3700 is pretty much just clocked higher at the factory. the only advantage is the higher multiplier.

Um, no. Venice and San Deigo cores are not the same. It's not uncommon to see 3700's hit 2.9 and upwards. Hell my last 3700 did 2.8 and it was the worst stepping available. As far as venices go you'd be doing good to hit 2.6. Not to mention the higher l2 cache. There is more than just a clockspeed diffrence. You may be thinking of the 3800 which is the same core as the 3000s.

[Blackhearted]

Re: Anybody upgraded from an A643000+ to an A643700+ or higher?

I went from a 3200+ Clawhammer to a 3700+ San Diego and noticed a great difference. Considering the die size is smaller on the 3700 and oh yeah the 3700+ has 1mb cache vs. the 512kb on the 3500+ and below.
I have nearly the same system as you:
XFX 6800GS (2x SLi)
3GB Corsair CL2 DDR400
Xfi Sound Card

My CPU was a great buy, try here though: http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...ctCode=80719-5

the 3700 definitely outperforms a 3000 clocked to 3700 speeds due to the larger cache, theres no debate about that.
with the way single core mid-range athlon64 cpu prices have plummeted, they look even more attractive. if memory serves, just a week or so ago i recommended the 3700+ to a friend as the 'sweet spot' of price/performance right now.

however we are not talking about building a new comp, and 'choosing' between the 3000+ and 3700+. he already *has* a 3000+. granted the extra cache is nice, but nice enough to upgrade from a 3000 clocked at 2.2ghz to a 3700+? ehh, your money would have to be burning a serious hole in your pocket to do that for a few % performance gain in certain apps.
theres no debate as to which is better, the question was 'is it worth it to upgrade'. the answer is no, unless you are rich. but if youre rich you wont be considering the 3700, but rather the FX-60.

[Talus]

Re: Anybody upgraded from an A643000+ to an A643700+ or higher?

Hrm...turning HT down to 800 MHz seemed to have no effect whatsoever...Memory frequency still showing as 216 MHz in CPU-Z.

[lil_jimmy_norton]

Re: Anybody upgraded from an A643000+ to an A643700+ or higher?

Ht multi isn't supposed to affect ram speed.

[Talus]

Re: Anybody upgraded from an A643000+ to an A643700+ or higher?

Then I still can't figure out why my RAM is showing a frequency of 216 MHz in CPU-Z yet my FSB is 240 and my RAM divider is 5:3.

[Blackhearted]

Re: Anybody upgraded from an A643000+ to an A643700+ or higher?

what happens if you bump your FSB to 250mhz? thats what im interested in - your mem should be at that speed at 250mhz bus, perhaps its some bug with your mobo? try it, at worst case it wont post because itll clock your ram higher. at best case the ram will stay at the same speed and youll squeeze another free 100mhz out of your cpu.

i had this huge post written but my cat attacked me and hit the thumb button on my mouse (webpage back) and i lost it. the fugger.

anyways, my point in a nutshell was this:
ive seen people get a stable 2.6 ghz out of a winchester 3000+ on air cooling. but were not talking about extreme overclocks here, i think its totally overkill. at some point you have to ask yourself wether the premium HSF (which can cost quite a bit these days), extra case cooling fans, and aggravation couldnt have just been better spent buying a faster chip in the first place. dont even get me started on people who spend $300+ on water cooling to overclock a chip - risk frying it and invalidate their warranty - when they could have practically gotten the faster CPU for that much anyway. or if not then a faster one than what they started wiith that could then be *mildly* overclocked.

with his FSB at 250 the OP would have his cpu clocked faster than a 3700+ at stock speeds, albeit with half the cache. currently a 939 3700+ is $350 in canada, with taxes thats just over $400. it would give him maybe a 1-2 FPS boost in BF2.
for just a bit more money he could get a 7800GT and a budget PCI-E motherboard. hed get much more performance out of that.

personally though, if i had your rig, 2 gigs of ram with a 6800GT - which will run BF2 on nearly maxxed settings, id just put the money in the bank and waiit till late summer. pick up an AM2 platform. no sense buying a PCI-E 939 board now, or a 939 processor when you have one thats 'good enough'. DDR2 is the future - when both intel and AMD completely switch DDR prices will rise significantly (look at SDRAM prices now, theyre rediculous) and DDR2 will fall to current DDR prices. the current 939 platform has memory issues - such as not running 4 sticks in 1T mode and variious other issues - that the AM2 should solve. im looking forwarrd to seeing how well things will run with 4x1024 megs of RAM in a machine :)
its possible now with the current platforms but it ffar from runs efficiently. look at the performance hit i just took from adding a gig of ram and having to drop down to 2T from 1T.