If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
James Hanley wrote:
"Adam Webb" wrote in message ... it seems to me that nobody needs a high fsb. since they could just push the multiplier really high. you cant push the multiplier high because its locked on most modern CPU's nobody on an overclocking forum should be saying "oh no, the multiplier is locked, what am I going to do" Just like no technician is going to say, oh no, the file is 'hidden' what am I going to do. Better analogy: the technician saying "oh no, someone has wiped the disk then turned it into slag in a blast furnace, what am I going to do?". Given that people have spent close to 6 years trying to unlock Intel CPUs (no success) and about 1 year trying to unlock locked AMD chips (no success), I doubt there's going to be much progress on either front. The general view is that both companies are using fuses inside the die, which can't be altered once set. also higher FSB = higher bandwidth = higher performance. yeah, if it's greater width. i'm talking about speed only though. Umm, say what? It's obvious that more throughput = more performance, and throughput = bus width * bus speed, so increasing the bus speed (FSB) obviously increases performance. Or do you think a Athlon running sync with PC66 RAM (66MHz FSB, SDR, 64 bits wide) would perform just as well as the identical CPU running sync with PC3200 RAM (200MHz FSB, DDR, 64 bits wide)? -- Michael Brown www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
well, AMD can be unlocked. Maybe intel can. They are not really 'locked' they are 'locked' for people that don't know how to unlock them. OK Then, Tell us how to unlock the multiplier on the newer locked CPUs. Just as windows files are 'hidden', it's just a gimmick to make it 'harder'. Apples and Oranges there. LOL I fail to see the joke ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You should start drinking prune juice and KY jelly cocktails right now, that will make things a lot smoother. -Felatio Love |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Obviously I see the benefit of more cycles. What do you think I meant when I said "push the multiplier really high". That increases the cycles per second. CPU cycles = yes, memory frequency = no. Only raising the FSB increases the speed at which the CPU can access the memory. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You should start drinking prune juice and KY jelly cocktails right now, that will make things a lot smoother. -Felatio Love |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
James Hanley wrote:
David Maynard wrote in message ... James Hanley wrote: it seems to me that nobody needs a high fsb. since they could just push the multiplier really high. I can see the greatness of ddr since the same speed processor can read/write twice as much per cycle. (i assume that the cpu has to be ddr to receive or write double) How is it you can see the benefit to 'read/write twice as much per cycle' yet not see any benefit to more of the cycles? The CPU communicates to everything through the FSB, and that includes the memory, so the speed of it directly affects how fast the processor can communicate. And since the vast majority of that communication is fetching instructions from memory, it affects how fast it can process them. The FSB is not THE ONLY THING that affects the speed. The Multiplier*FSB create the speed. The Processor multiplies the FSB, I didn't say a thing about the CPU speed. I was talking about the FSB: the 'point' of the discussion. And, as I said, the only means the CPU has to COMMUNICATE to anything, including the memory, is through the FSB. Just how fast do you think it can get instructions to execute if you turned the FSB down to 1 Hz, eh? It doesn't make any difference how fast the CPU can execute instructions if you can't feed it the instructions to execute. and the RAM multiplies the FSB. No. It doesn't 'multiply' the FSB. It operates at the memory bus clock rate. I am saying that the multiplier can be increased, so low FSB speed doesn't matter. You missed the entire point, and are incorrect. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
James Hanley wrote:
David Maynard wrote in message ... James Hanley wrote: it seems to me that nobody needs a high fsb. since they could just push the multiplier really high. I can see the greatness of ddr since the same speed processor can read/write twice as much per cycle. (i assume that the cpu has to be ddr to receive or write double) How is it you can see the benefit to 'read/write twice as much per cycle' yet not see any benefit to more of the cycles? Obviously I see the benefit of more cycles. What do you think I meant when I said "push the multiplier really high". That increases the cycles per second. No, increasing the multiplier does NOT increase the FSB cycles. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
GTD wrote in message . ..
Obviously I see the benefit of more cycles. What do you think I meant when I said "push the multiplier really high". That increases the cycles per second. CPU cycles = yes, memory frequency = no. Only raising the FSB increases the speed at which the CPU can access the memory. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- memory frequency can be increased to a multiple of the FSB even before DDR is 'applied'. I have an option in my BIOS to set my DDR-SDRAM frequency, I can set my FSB to 100 and my SDRAM to 266 (effective). So my actual RAM speed is operating at a frequency of 133 internally, which is FSB*(5/4). I don't know if it uses its own multiplier to do that, I think it probably does. So both RAM and CPU can operate at a frequency that is a multiple of the FSB. So memory frequency can be increased without increasing the FSB. However, against me, I will say that it just occurred to me that the speed at which the CPU and RAM interfaces with the FSB is still going to be the speed of the FSB, regardless of how high their internals speeds are. Thus if one were to weigh doubling the FSB against doubling the Multiplier(timesing the current value of the multiplier by 2), they would find that doubling the FSB makes for a faster computer, since it would have doubled not just both the internal frequency of the CPU and RAM - thus their bandwidth, but the speed and thus bandwidth of the bus. (i'm assuming bandwidth=throughput, but I cannot check at this moment, since I'm leaving in a minute, so I have to click Send now!! Thanks for your response. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael Brown" wrote in message ...
James Hanley wrote: "Adam Webb" wrote in message ... it seems to me that nobody needs a high fsb. since they could just push the multiplier really high. you cant push the multiplier high because its locked on most modern CPU's nobody on an overclocking forum should be saying "oh no, the multiplier is locked, what am I going to do" Just like no technician is going to say, oh no, the file is 'hidden' what am I going to do. Better analogy: the technician saying "oh no, someone has wiped the disk then turned it into slag in a blast furnace, what am I going to do?". Given that people have spent close to 6 years trying to unlock Intel CPUs (no success) and about 1 year trying to unlock locked AMD chips (no success), 6 years? - but there are loads of articles on unlocking AMD chips, i'm sure I think I saw one for the AMD XP 1500+, that's less than 6 years old isn't it? The general view is that both companies are using fuses inside the die, which can't be altered once set. *******s. So how can anybody overclock? Just by upping the FSB to whatever the mobo supports? I suppose that a CPU will have a built in multiplier at a fixed value, and will assume a certain FSB speed. So if the FSB is lower then it's underclocked. If it's higher then it's overclocked. Or does it not even derive its clock by multiplying the FSB clock? Would most people have the FSB at the highest setting suported anyway, and they'd have a CPU that supports it, so how would they overclock? (they cna't up the FSB clock because it's already on the highest, and they can't up the multiplier because it's properly locked) also higher FSB = higher bandwidth = higher performance. yeah, if it's greater width. i'm talking about speed only though. Umm, say what? It's obvious that more throughput = more performance, and throughput = bus width * bus speed, so increasing the bus speed (FSB) obviously increases performance. Or do you think a Athlon running sync with PC66 RAM (66MHz FSB, SDR, 64 bits wide) would perform just as well as the identical CPU running sync with PC3200 RAM (200MHz FSB, DDR, 64 bits wide)? oh yeah, I just realised that in a post in reply to that other Geezer in the thread. btw, Some software tells me that my RAM is operating at a multiple of the processor speed. I can put my FSB=100 and have 266MHZ DDR-SDRAM(actual speed 133MHz) So si sandra tells me it's a multiple of my FSB. Is it correct that RAM uses a multiplier too? It sure looks like it from si sandra, though there is no option in the BIOS to set it, I can only set the ram frequency. I thought that RAM derives its speed from the FSB, the FSB is like the base clock, so it must multiply it, strange that there's no option in the bios to set the ram multiplier. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
try unlocking an A64 or a P3/P4
XP's yeah sure you can unlock them, but why? the higher the fsb the better -- From Adam Webb, Overlag www.tacticalgamer.com CS:SOURCE server now active "James Hanley" wrote in message m... "Michael Brown" wrote in message ... James Hanley wrote: "Adam Webb" wrote in message ... it seems to me that nobody needs a high fsb. since they could just push the multiplier really high. you cant push the multiplier high because its locked on most modern CPU's nobody on an overclocking forum should be saying "oh no, the multiplier is locked, what am I going to do" Just like no technician is going to say, oh no, the file is 'hidden' what am I going to do. Better analogy: the technician saying "oh no, someone has wiped the disk then turned it into slag in a blast furnace, what am I going to do?". Given that people have spent close to 6 years trying to unlock Intel CPUs (no success) and about 1 year trying to unlock locked AMD chips (no success), 6 years? - but there are loads of articles on unlocking AMD chips, i'm sure I think I saw one for the AMD XP 1500+, that's less than 6 years old isn't it? The general view is that both companies are using fuses inside the die, which can't be altered once set. *******s. So how can anybody overclock? Just by upping the FSB to whatever the mobo supports? I suppose that a CPU will have a built in multiplier at a fixed value, and will assume a certain FSB speed. So if the FSB is lower then it's underclocked. If it's higher then it's overclocked. Or does it not even derive its clock by multiplying the FSB clock? Would most people have the FSB at the highest setting suported anyway, and they'd have a CPU that supports it, so how would they overclock? (they cna't up the FSB clock because it's already on the highest, and they can't up the multiplier because it's properly locked) also higher FSB = higher bandwidth = higher performance. yeah, if it's greater width. i'm talking about speed only though. Umm, say what? It's obvious that more throughput = more performance, and throughput = bus width * bus speed, so increasing the bus speed (FSB) obviously increases performance. Or do you think a Athlon running sync with PC66 RAM (66MHz FSB, SDR, 64 bits wide) would perform just as well as the identical CPU running sync with PC3200 RAM (200MHz FSB, DDR, 64 bits wide)? oh yeah, I just realised that in a post in reply to that other Geezer in the thread. btw, Some software tells me that my RAM is operating at a multiple of the processor speed. I can put my FSB=100 and have 266MHZ DDR-SDRAM(actual speed 133MHz) So si sandra tells me it's a multiple of my FSB. Is it correct that RAM uses a multiplier too? It sure looks like it from si sandra, though there is no option in the BIOS to set it, I can only set the ram frequency. I thought that RAM derives its speed from the FSB, the FSB is like the base clock, so it must multiply it, strange that there's no option in the bios to set the ram multiplier. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 29/10/2004 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Obviously I see the benefit of more cycles. What do you think I meant
when I said "push the multiplier really high". That increases the cycles per second. theres no point having a 2000mhz CPU if its connection to the rest of the system is only 100mhz. if the ram is running at 200mhz, and the fsb is running at 100mhz do you really think it gets max performance out of the ram? no it just sits there waiting for stuff to do, exaclty what the CPU does also, sure it can do stuff at 2000mhz but it has to send it down a small 100mhz pipe, dont you think thats a rather SLOW way of doing things? the fsb is the limit on todays systems hence the reason for pushing it so high, id much rather have a 8x250 than a 10x200 A64 system. Oh and about the locks: Intel P3 and P4s can not be unlocked (ES dont count) A64s cant go up on multiplyers, just down. FX's are totaly unlocked. 2003 week 39 XP's are unlockable, but alittle harder than before 2003 week 39 XP's are unlockable with ease. -- From Adam Webb, Overlag www.tacticalgamer.com CS:SOURCE server now active --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 29/10/2004 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to speed up my CPU? | MC | General | 11 | December 12th 04 08:11 PM |
AthlonXP 2000 on MSI KT4AV with (VIA KT400A) chipset Mainboard has Speed | ÎÔ»¢²ØÁúCrouching Tiger Hidden Dragon | Overclocking AMD Processors | 18 | May 6th 04 12:14 AM |
AthlonXP 2000 on MSI KT4AV with (VIA KT400A) chipset Mainboard has Speed Complexity | LongBow | Overclocking AMD Processors | 7 | May 2nd 04 12:23 AM |
D865GLC + CPU Fan Speed HELP | Ron Reaugh | General | 1 | December 16th 03 02:28 PM |
CD burning speed determines read speed? | David K | General | 4 | July 22nd 03 09:31 AM |