Barton 2500+ - strange overclock problem - a last report

Just a quick post as promised.

I now have an Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe and still have the same problem with the
processor. I guess it is that I have a 2500+ that only just achieves its'
default speed. This is a shame, because the reason I have stuck with AMD
for the last few years is the ease of overclocking their chips. If they are
going to start to lock the multiplier, then their attractiveness over Intel
will severely diminish.

I will be building an office machine for a friend real soon, so the Barton
will be leaving my box for a less demanding environment - more suited to
its' fairly limited capacity. I now have to decide whether to go for a
3200+ or to jump ship altogether in favour of Intel.

Tom's Hardware recently benchmarked the 3.2GHz Northwood and Prescott chips
and they are almost indestiguishable from the Athlon 64 3200 in performance.
Given that the Northwood and Athlon are level pegging for price in the UK,
AMD has had to do something quickly to get its' 64-bit line into the market
in numbers. The Barton 3200+ is not far behind in performance and at £100
cheaper, there is currently no good reason to go 64-bit.

Perhaps AMD has locked its' 32-bit chip range to encourage the overclocking
fraternity to go for their unlocked 64-bit parts. After all, they need to
sell them to someone and it is pretty hard to justify a business based
purchase when 64-bit software is so thin on the ground. By the time the
software arrives, the present crop of 64-bit chips will already have been
superceded without ever seeing their native code. AMD don't want these
sitting on the shelf collecting dust and can not afford to lose the income.
However, it does seem a strange strategy to try to push 64-bit sales by
cutting out the early adopters from the competetively priced 32-bit range.
After all, bang-for-the-buck is what AMD is all about. AMD had better
remember who it is that has kept their company afloat.

All of a sudden, Intel is starting to look like a good value performance
option to AMD.

Thanks to everyone for the help and advice you have given.

Cheers,

Kayf

"Kayf" wrote in message
...

Just a quick post as promised.

I now have an Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe and still have the same problem with the
processor. I guess it is that I have a 2500+ that only just achieves its'
default speed. This is a shame, because the reason I have stuck with AMD
for the last few years is the ease of overclocking their chips. If they
are
going to start to lock the multiplier, then their attractiveness over
Intel
will severely diminish.

I will be building an office machine for a friend real soon, so the Barton
will be leaving my box for a less demanding environment - more suited to
its' fairly limited capacity. I now have to decide whether to go for a
3200+ or to jump ship altogether in favour of Intel.

Tom's Hardware recently benchmarked the 3.2GHz Northwood and Prescott
chips
and they are almost indestiguishable from the Athlon 64 3200 in
performance.
Given that the Northwood and Athlon are level pegging for price in the UK,
AMD has had to do something quickly to get its' 64-bit line into the
market
in numbers. The Barton 3200+ is not far behind in performance and at £100
cheaper, there is currently no good reason to go 64-bit.

Perhaps AMD has locked its' 32-bit chip range to encourage the
overclocking
fraternity to go for their unlocked 64-bit parts. After all, they need to
sell them to someone and it is pretty hard to justify a business based
purchase when 64-bit software is so thin on the ground. By the time the
software arrives, the present crop of 64-bit chips will already have been
superceded without ever seeing their native code. AMD don't want these
sitting on the shelf collecting dust and can not afford to lose the
income.
However, it does seem a strange strategy to try to push 64-bit sales by
cutting out the early adopters from the competetively priced 32-bit range.
After all, bang-for-the-buck is what AMD is all about. AMD had better
remember who it is that has kept their company afloat.

All of a sudden, Intel is starting to look like a good value performance
option to AMD.

Thanks to everyone for the help and advice you have given.

Cheers,

Kayf



What kind of problems did you have cause i just bought the exact same mobo
and cpu

Kayf wrote:
[...]
Tom's Hardware recently benchmarked the 3.2GHz Northwood and Prescott
chips and they are almost indestiguishable from the Athlon 64 3200 in
performance.

This is actually something I noticed and had a bit more of a look at. All
the sites agree that the P4 is better for AV encoding and compression
(though the A64 lays the smack down when doing compression in 64-bit mode),
but there's something quite wierd about the gaming performance: the main
determiner seemed to be the video card.

Those sites that were using an ATI card (for example AnandTech, XBitlabs,
HardOCP) almost always show the Athlon64 out in front in gaming benchmarks:
usually about equal to a 200MHz faster P4, so A64-3000 benches around a
P4-3.2, but sometimes much higher (eg: UT2003). However, those using a
NVidia card (eg: THG, sharkyextreme, aceshardware) show the race much
closer. TechReport is the most glaring exception to this rule: it uses a FX
5900 Ultra and the A64 hammers to P4 in just about all gaming benchmarks.

Of course, this could just be a coincidence. Those using the ATI cards could
have also been using tighter memory timings (which benefits the A64 more
than the P4), or be something else altogether. However, I do remember
something on sharkyextreme that benchmarked an ATI 9800 something against
a FX5900 something and showed that for the ATI card, the scores were about
the same, but for the NVidia card, the P4 pulled ahead.

[...]

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

Hi Chad,

I have copied my original post below. I hope this helps.

Kayf


**********************************
Hi,

I have a rather unique problem with a 2500+ overclock. My system is:

Barton 2500+ (AXDA2500DKV4D) - locked :-(
Asus A7N8X-Deluxe - v1.4 - 1007 Uber BIOS
2 off sticks of 512MB Crucial PC3200 XMS
SATA, IDE, both LANs and IEE1394 enabled
Using on-board sound

SATA - RAID0 using two DiamondMax 80GB drives - has boot partition
IDE1 - Another 80GB drive
IDE2 - Pioneer A105 DVD-R and LG CD-RW

Sapphire 9800 Pro

The problem occurs at boot. As the multiplier is locked, I am trying to
increase the FSB. However, if I go above 169MHz the system will not post.
I have increased the core to 1.75v but to no effect.

Now here is the weird part, if I boot at 166MHz FSB and get into WinXP, I
can use ClockGen to increase the FSB up to 190MHz (1.75v) and the system
runs stable with Prime95. The chip will run fine at stock voltage and
180MHz FSB. It just will not boot past 169MHz!

I have previously run the memory at 210MHz when overclocking a XP2400+,
using the same system set-up. The new 2500+ obviously has some headroom for
an overclock but put them together and they will not boot!

I have only found this problem mentioned one other time on the 'Net. Does
anyone have any suggestions or a solution to this please?

Cheers,

Kayf

**E-mail does not work, please post to group**
***************************************




"Chad" wrote in message
news
"Kayf" wrote in message
...

Just a quick post as promised.

I now have an Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe and still have the same problem with
the
processor. I guess it is that I have a 2500+ that only just achieves
its'
default speed. This is a shame, because the reason I have stuck with
AMD
for the last few years is the ease of overclocking their chips. If they
are
going to start to lock the multiplier, then their attractiveness over
Intel
will severely diminish.

I will be building an office machine for a friend real soon, so the
Barton
will be leaving my box for a less demanding environment - more suited to
its' fairly limited capacity. I now have to decide whether to go for a
3200+ or to jump ship altogether in favour of Intel.

Tom's Hardware recently benchmarked the 3.2GHz Northwood and Prescott
chips
and they are almost indestiguishable from the Athlon 64 3200 in
performance.
Given that the Northwood and Athlon are level pegging for price in the
UK,
AMD has had to do something quickly to get its' 64-bit line into the
market
in numbers. The Barton 3200+ is not far behind in performance and at
£100
cheaper, there is currently no good reason to go 64-bit.

Perhaps AMD has locked its' 32-bit chip range to encourage the
overclocking
fraternity to go for their unlocked 64-bit parts. After all, they need
to
sell them to someone and it is pretty hard to justify a business based
purchase when 64-bit software is so thin on the ground. By the time the
software arrives, the present crop of 64-bit chips will already have
been
superceded without ever seeing their native code. AMD don't want these
sitting on the shelf collecting dust and can not afford to lose the
income.
However, it does seem a strange strategy to try to push 64-bit sales by
cutting out the early adopters from the competetively priced 32-bit
range.
After all, bang-for-the-buck is what AMD is all about. AMD had better
remember who it is that has kept their company afloat.

All of a sudden, Intel is starting to look like a good value performance
option to AMD.

Thanks to everyone for the help and advice you have given.

Cheers,

Kayf



What kind of problems did you have cause i just bought the exact same mobo
and cpu

"Kayf" wrote in message
...
Just a quick post as promised.

I now have an Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe and still have the same problem with the
processor. I guess it is that I have a 2500+ that only just achieves its'
default speed. This is a shame, because the reason I have stuck with AMD
for the last few years is the ease of overclocking their chips. If they
are
going to start to lock the multiplier, then their attractiveness over
Intel
will severely diminish.

I will be building an office machine for a friend real soon, so the Barton
will be leaving my box for a less demanding environment - more suited to
its' fairly limited capacity. I now have to decide whether to go for a
3200+ or to jump ship altogether in favour of Intel.

Tom's Hardware recently benchmarked the 3.2GHz Northwood and Prescott
chips
and they are almost indestiguishable from the Athlon 64 3200 in
performance.
Given that the Northwood and Athlon are level pegging for price in the UK,
AMD has had to do something quickly to get its' 64-bit line into the
market
in numbers. The Barton 3200+ is not far behind in performance and at £100
cheaper, there is currently no good reason to go 64-bit.

Perhaps AMD has locked its' 32-bit chip range to encourage the
overclocking
fraternity to go for their unlocked 64-bit parts. After all, they need to
sell them to someone and it is pretty hard to justify a business based
purchase when 64-bit software is so thin on the ground. By the time the
software arrives, the present crop of 64-bit chips will already have been
superceded without ever seeing their native code. AMD don't want these
sitting on the shelf collecting dust and can not afford to lose the
income.
However, it does seem a strange strategy to try to push 64-bit sales by
cutting out the early adopters from the competetively priced 32-bit range.
After all, bang-for-the-buck is what AMD is all about. AMD had better
remember who it is that has kept their company afloat.

All of a sudden, Intel is starting to look like a good value performance
option to AMD.

Thanks to everyone for the help and advice you have given.

Cheers,

Kayf


Why the lower end Mobo
Asus A7N8X here with PC3200 DDR running at 200Mhz FSB with a 2100+ cpu at
11x gives me 2.2Ghz Stock speed for a 3200+ cpu
Yor 2500+ should run 11x200 No sweat....Have yet to see on that doesnt
accept the higher FSB.
Maybe add a little Vcore... and have yourself a 3200+ for the cost of a
2500+ like pretty much ever other 2500+ owner has done.
OZoNE




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----