Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Gustaf

Building a new PC

51 posts in this topic

I run WW2OL @ 1152 x 864 with everything on/at max bar the water reflections, which I don't think anyone can actually run anyway. Lowest I've seen fps dip is 35 (very heavy fighting) but they typically sit comfortably in the 60-70 region, higher when flying. Got 300 offline once :D

Still subject to the fps crashes that everyone experiences atm but that's down to CRS

Not very impressive resolution u playing with, I got 1440x900 with max grafik settings on a year old budget CPU (sempron) and it runs just fine in the range of 20-60 fps.

Back to subject

If you going to build a computer soley for this game, there is one Core that stands out, and its a Singel core. Cedar Mill 3.2GHz

It will easily outperform any dual core for this game, since its brute 65nm singel core power, wich is exactly what this game needs, plus it overclocks like the rest of Intels 65nm Cores... exellent that is.

For memory, I have yet another surprice to trow at everyone in this thread. First I have to agree that Team Xtreem and Super Talent makes exellent memories, fine. But they cost there after.

I would go with Wintec Ampo because they run stable and overclocks exellent, but also is 50$ cheeper than the previous mentionend. (and yes they can run in pairs for dual channel)

For motherbord, Asus P5N-E SLI. No doubt.

Grafix is up to you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you going to build a computer soley for this game, there is one Core that stands out, and its a Singel core. Cedar Mill 3.2GHz

It will easily outperform any dual core for this game, since its brute 65nm singel core power, wich is exactly what this game needs

Hmmm.... Is the cedermill faster than X2 amd's, Core2duo's, and the pentium4 extreme edition@3.73 Ghz in this game?

Here's my dual core up against some AMD's and the old top P4ee.

sandrabench.jpg

They're not bad but they just don't do as much work per clock cycle as AMD or the new Core2. I've had it explained to me like this. If the old pentium 4 could do 6 operations per clock cycle, than AMD's can do 9, and core2duo's can do 12 operations per clock cycle. That's why the speeds have went down clock wise.

I'd like to see some statistics before I believe that the cedarmill can outperform a new core2duo. I think I can bench agaist some cedarmills in sisoftware sandra. I'll check and may post some numbers later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm.... Is the cedermill faster than X2 amd's, Core2duo's, and the pentium4 extreme edition@3.73 Ghz in this game?

Here's my dual core up against some AMD's and the old top P4ee.

They're not bad but they just don't do as much work per clock cycle as AMD or the new Core2. I've had it explained to me like this. If the old pentium 4 could do 6 operations per clock cycle, than AMD's can do 9, and core2duo's can do 12 operations per clock cycle. That's why the speeds have went down clock wise.

I'd like to see some statistics before I believe that the cedarmill can outperform a new core2duo. I think I can bench agaist some cedarmills in sisoftware sandra. I'll check and may post some numbers later.

Sisoftware Sandra is not ww2online, thats your problem in your resoning, Sisoft can utilise all the funktions of a Dual core and SSE3, Ww2ol can not.

Thats why you need to benchmark in ww2 and not some Benchmarking program. Gustaf did not ask what CPU he should buy to score high points in Sisoft. ww2ol is still a few years behind newly produces games and still need brute force clockcycles from one core.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not very impressive resolution u playing with, I got 1440x900 with max grafik settings on a year old budget CPU (sempron) and it runs just fine in the range of 20-60 fps.

Back to subject

If you going to build a computer soley for this game, there is one Core that stands out, and its a Singel core. Cedar Mill 3.2GHz

It will easily outperform any dual core for this game, since its brute 65nm singel core power, wich is exactly what this game needs, plus it overclocks like the rest of Intels 65nm Cores... exellent that is.

For memory, I have yet another surprice to trow at everyone in this thread. First I have to agree that Team Xtreem and Super Talent makes exellent memories, fine. But they cost there after.

I would go with Wintec Ampo because they run stable and overclocks exellent, but also is 50$ cheeper than the previous mentionend. (and yes they can run in pairs for dual channel)

For motherbord, Asus P5N-E SLI. No doubt.

Grafix is up to you

20fps is not acceptable to me. That (35fps) resolution is perfectly acceptable to me and I'd rather take more stable frame rates over resolution anyday.

Back to subject

You're a nasty little piece of work and you've proved your ignorance on a multitude of matters besides this one since joining these forums.

A fairly comprehensive graphic overhaul is somewhere in the near future.

A fairly comprehensive terrain overhaul is somewhere in the near future.

The graphical overhaul ought to yield more performance( fps if you will).

The terrain overhaul should spend a fair amount of that.

Both overhauls will take advantage of the latest processing/compiling techniques. I doubt they will be optimising the code for a dead in the water, year old processor based on an outdated design.

I forgot to mention that you're as wrong as wrong can be on the ol' processor front. Like xanthus suggests below, I suspect you are comparing CPUs on the basis of clock speeds, which is absolutely the wrong thing to do. A 1.86 ghz Core2duo absolutely annihilates my old 3.0ghz P4 in any benchmark test - suggesting that someone should build a system for WW2OL on that outdated 3.2ghz hunk of poo is not only incorrect, but dangerous - someone might even take your advice and waste lots of money!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will easily outperform any dual core for this game, since its brute 65nm singel core power, wich is exactly what this game needs, plus it overclocks like the rest of Intels 65nm Cores... exellent that is.

Sorry, but that's total BS.

I mean no offense, honestly, but that's 100% false.

Are you telling me it would beat a 65nm Core 2 Duo with 4mb of L2 cache, a higher FSB, and clocked at the exact same speed???

Sorry, but you're wrong.

To say that a Pentium D could even come close to the same performance is flat-out wrong.

Maybe you're confused merely because the Cedar Mill and Conroe are both on a 65nm process.....maybe you equate their speed on a clock-for-clock basis.

That would be faulty logic.

And yes, as I said before, this game *DOES* use multi-threading.

But even on a core-per-core basis, a single Conroe core mops the floor with a Cedar Mill core any day of the week. Everyone knows this.

Let me make this clear:

Cedar Mill will NOT beat Conroe at the same clock speed in THIS game, WWIIOL, and I'm confident that it would not beat a Conroe that was clocked at a lower speed either.

To state otherwise is simple misinformation.

ww2ol is still a few years behind newly produces games and still need brute force clockcycles from one core.

Maybe this is where your faulty logic is.

Conroe does MORE operations per clock cycle than Cedar Mill. A Conroe with LESS clock cycles WILL outperform a Cedar Mill with more clock cycles; the Conroe has MORE "brute force" per clock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that people might want to keep in mind is that AM2 motherboards will accept K8L (Agena [quad core], Kuma [dual core] & Rana [sempron equivalent] but not Barcelona [server chips]) with a BIOS update so that might actually be a good choice for a later upgrade path. Of course, K8L chips will be limited to HT2.0 on AM2; not HT3.0 like in AM2+ and AM3 platform. This should not significant impact performance, though. A well clock AM2 dual core CPU should be able to run WWIIOL fine for now and upgrade path to K8L would be available when they add more "features" to the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

motherboard - ASUS M2N32 - SLI Deluxe 198.99$ (Best motherboard I've ever had and it has everything you could ever need.

Memory - CORSAIR XMS2 2GB DDR2 - 217$ (Newegg currently offering 30.00$ Rebate 187$)

ive had my eye on this MOBO/memory combo for awhile now. when you put the M2N32 SLI together with Corsair XMS2 memory,the 590 chipset enables a feature called E.P.P. or enhanced performance profile. E.P.P. add options in your BIOS allowing you to set more agressive timings on your memory.

have you looked at the new settings vatoface? if so,i would like to hear what some of them are,if you dont mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20fps is not acceptable to me. That (35fps) resolution is perfectly acceptable to me and I'd rather take more stable frame rates over resolution anyday.

Yeah but I have a 2,5 year old sempron, and you have a core2crapo, with your reasoning later in your text, you should get much better frames, but I guess you are either completely wrong or not very good at putting a computer together. Also its Nativ resolution for my screen, prefer LCD rather than CRT.

Back to subject

You're a nasty little piece of work and you've proved your ignorance on a multitude of matters besides this one since joining these forums.

lol, you couldnt take the fact your computer costs 2 times more than mine and performs like a lame donkey. You are one sensitiv guy, its got to be tough to be outsized everytime for you.

A fairly comprehensive graphic overhaul is somewhere in the near future.

A fairly comprehensive terrain overhaul is somewhere in the near future.

The graphical overhaul ought to yield more performance( fps if you will).

The terrain overhaul should spend a fair amount of that.

Both overhauls will take advantage of the latest processing/compiling techniques. I doubt they will be optimising the code for a dead in the water, year old processor based on an outdated design.

So whats the next step? SSE3, SSE4? Will it support Dual Core? Virtualization technology? Cedar mill is 6 month older than Core 2 duo, and thats mainly because Core2 duo got delayed. So its design is as "outdated" as Core2 duos.

I forgot to mention that you're as wrong as wrong can be on the ol' processor front. Like xanthus suggests below, I suspect you are comparing CPUs on the basis of clock speeds, which is absolutely the wrong thing to do. A 1.86 ghz Core2duo absolutely annihilates my old 3.0ghz P4 in any benchmark test - suggesting that someone should build a system for WW2OL on that outdated 3.2ghz hunk of poo is not only incorrect, but dangerous - someone might even take your advice and waste lots of money!

Here is were your tomshardware knowledge comes in again, you belive this Cedar mill is the same as your old pentium 4 with 90nm architecture. And again a benchmark program is not ww2 online. Suggesting to buy a CPU from the result of a benchmark program is like saying: My ferrari is much faster than your Volvo on a racetrack therefor I will get faster to work in my ferrari in rushhour.

The only risk a person is taking is saving alot of money to put into a better grafic card and thus wastly outperform core2duo in this game, just look at your own computer, crapy core2duo, doesnt lift a finger in ww2online, and doesnt produce any eyelifting performance as your benchmarking program suggest.

The benchmark we have in this game is:

your core2duo E6600

res: 1152 x 864

Video: 7900GT - Max Grafik settings.

FPS: 35-70

My Sempron Singel core OC @ 2600,

Res: 1440 x 900

Video: 6800Gs - Max Grafik Settings.

FPS: 20-60.

So you were saying?

This outdated hunk of poo currently have the frekvenzy record btw...

http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=159553

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but that's total BS.

To say that a Pentium D could even come close to the same performance is flat-out wrong.

Cedar mill is not an Pentium D, again you get these two mixed up is beyond me and well ohnestly reflects your computer knowledge.

Maybe you're confused merely because the Cedar Mill and Conroe are both on a 65nm process.....maybe you equate their speed on a clock-for-clock basis.

That would be faulty logic.

It would be as you say, faulty do so, if comparing these two in a benchmarking program. Core2duo will always outperform cedar mill in any benchmarking program and tests. And that is were you guys are deriving your information from. But again, Sisoft sandra is not ww2online. Thats your whole problem.

With a single core, ww2 will and can use the whole cpu and maximize its performance. With dual cores that is impossible today in ww2ol. The only best result we have on performance in ww2 is what the playerbase can inform us with. Sadly everyone is falling for the Benchmarking bluff, and buys core2 duos, before reconsidering the 65nm singel cores from intel.

But even on a core-per-core basis, a single Conroe core mops the floor with a Cedar Mill core any day of the week. Everyone knows this.

Yes, everyone that reads tomshardware and claps himself over the chest

Cedar Mill will NOT beat Conroe at the same clock speed in THIS game, WWIIOL, and I'm confident that it would not beat a Conroe that was clocked at a lower speed either.

To state otherwise is simple misinformation.

Because your tests shows?

Atleast I have a singel core wich in your minds would not be able to run this game with, but as of magic it performs on par with the most low end core2 duos.

Maybe this is where your faulty logic is.

Conroe does MORE operations per clock cycle than Cedar Mill. A Conroe with LESS clock cycles WILL outperform a Cedar Mill with more clock cycles; the Conroe has MORE "brute force" per clock.

Yes I agree, Core2 duo performs more operations than a Cedar Mill.... IN A PERFECT ENVIORNMENT!

A bencmarking program is ideal for a cpu, ww2ol IS NOT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have some sort of numbers, statistics, or articles to back up what you say? You keep bringing up sisoftware sandra like it's the only benchmark in the world because I happened to mention it. There are thousands. It's just cool because you can set your machine agaist roughly any other in the benches. It carries statistics for almost all cpu types.

If what you say is true than any older openGL game should perform close to the same as WW2. Why don't you pull up the benchmarks where the cedarmill cpu beats the pants off of the core2duo in quake4 or some other openGL game benchmark.

How about 3dmark2001 is that old enough for you?

I can get 38,000 in that. It's more of a cpu test than the newer 3dmark05, 06. I can get 11,800 in 05 and 5,500 in 06. What are these awsome cedarmill's getting? In 2001 perhaps because it's for single cpu's as you like to point out.

Cedarmills are not any kind of new design they are a simple die shrink. Plus they are over a year old not six months. They are the final product of the netburst architechture and share most all design parameters with the pentium 4. That's all it is. A 65nm pentium 4. Just like the new 65nm brisbane AMD's. All they are is a 65nm Windsor. The presler is 2 cedarmill cores.

This site has any benchmark you could ever think of.

*put this link on your favorites people* It's very nice. Everything but the kitchen sink.

http://www.benchmarkhq.ru/english.html?/b_e.html

Here's a quote from tomshardware in an article dated 10/7/05 talking about the new cedarmill release. Looks like it's a year and a half old.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/05/the_65_nm_pentium_d_900s_coming_out_party/index.html

Here's your quote right above the tomshardware quote.

you

Cedar mill is not an Pentium D, again you get these two mixed up is beyond me and well ohnestly reflects your computer knowledge.

tomshardware

First things first: Cedar Mill does not perform better than Prescott since it basically is a shrunk Netburst design without major architectural modifications (details below). As a result, the performance level of the Pentium 4 653/651 we used for testing is absolutely on par with that of the Pentium 4 650 (both run 3.4 GHz).

It's no better than any other pentium4 running identical clock speeds with similar cache, it just runs cooler because of the smaller die. As has been stated before many times WW2 does take some advantage of dual cores.

They were cool processors most could overclock to 4.0 gHz, awsome overclockers, but to recommend someone buy one today is silly. They won't even work on a good portion of socket 775 boards, look into it. You must check for cedarmill support before you buy a MB. Most people don't overclock either so the headroom is for not.

It's definatly worth the $90 bucks it is for a budget machine. I wasn't aware that is what we were building though. I thought this was top of the line discussion. There's also a 4000 san diego AMD singlecore for $83 with 1 meg of onchip cache. I'd take that over the cedarmill myself long as we're talking budget. When I build a new machine I build it to last 2/3 years not with year old parts.

So you also don't even have a cedarmill? Have you seen one play WW2 or are you just guessing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok you have some good pointers Lazyboy, but the 641 releasedate were 16 Jan -06. So you missed some points there.

Anyway. I would buy the 641 because it overclocks very well, and Im a budget freak overclocker. Hitting 5Ghz+ should not be a problem, and 85% overclocking is possible on air if you put your head into it. Netburst in its all glory (joke) but at those speeds, and in this game, you would not be disapointed. S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok you have some good pointers Lazyboy, but the 641 releasedate were 16 Jan -06. So you missed some points there.

Anyway. I would buy the 641 because it overclocks very well, and Im a budget freak overclocker. Hitting 5Ghz+ should not be a problem, and 85% overclocking is possible on air if you put your head into it. Netburst in its all glory (joke) but at those speeds, and in this game, you would not be disapointed. S!

I can respect that I'm a budget overclocker myself. I feel like the e6300 is the best thing to ever come about for budget overclocking, though. There's people hitting 575fsb with these dude. Stock is 266. I went from 1.8 to 3.0gHz with mine. That's one hell of an overclock on air. Each clock means more with the new cpu's too don't forget. Get one they're only 90$ more than the cedarmill and they have all the new advantages.

intel 45nm cpu's are coming out with 6megs of cache in 6 months. The price should drop on the e4300 very soon too, that's a new budget overclocker.

I linked the wrong article before too. Here's the first cedarmills in october of 05.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/10/07/a_sneak_peak_at_intel/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can respect that I'm a budget overclocker myself. I feel like the e6300 is the best thing to ever come about for budget overclocking, though. There's people hitting 575fsb with these dude. Stock is 266. I went from 1.8 to 3.0gHz with mine. That's one hell of an overclock on air. Each clock means more with the new cpu's too don't forget. Get one they're only 90$ more than the cedarmill and they have all the new advantages.

intel 45nm cpu's are coming out with 6megs of cache in 6 months. The price should drop on the e4300 very soon too, that's a new budget overclocker.

yes for any other game/application I would go for e4300

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cedar mill is not an Pentium D' date=' again you get these two mixed up is beyond me and well ohnestly reflects your computer knowledge.[/quote']

Cedar Mills are in the same price range, and have similar application performance. For the sake of brevity, I bunched them together, and I stand by that.

The only one who is bluntly reflecting his extreme lack of computer knowledge in this thread is YOU.

This isn't a contest to prove what you know, this is simply a matter of you providing misinformation to the playerbase, and giving them FALSE data upon which to base their PC component purchases.

Frankly, I think that giving out such information is harmful to people who are genuinely trying to make the best PC purchases they can make.

If you don't know what you're talking about, it's best not to say anything.

Fans of Tom's Hardware can "slap their chests" all they want, but Tom's Hardware is a respected source of well-regarded PC component performance data.....YOU ARE NOT.

I'd love to see you provide a single source, just one single source, one single benchmark for your self-evidently false statement that a Cedar Mill will "outperform any dual-core in this game".

By saying that you've removed yourself from any serious consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just ran this on an e6300. Not bad

3dmark01.jpg

I'd love to see a Cedar Mill at the same clock come anywhere near that score.

.....and please don't tell me that 3DMARK 2001 takes anymore advantage of dual cores than WWIIOL does. ;)

BTW to Grandien:

Kudos to you for being an "extreme overclocker". Maybe you have some useful overclocking tips.

But "a cedar mill will outperform any dual core in this game"????

Seriously, this still makes me laugh.....

I'll go so far as to say this:

A cedar mill @ 4ghz will not outperform a Core 2 Duo E6400 @ stock speed (2.13ghz) in THIS GAME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im upgrading again in the next 3 weeks tops, hopefully in 1 week :). Ive decided on a qx6700 quad core, xfx 8800 gtx 768mb, 2gb corsair ddr2 8500 dominator ram, ocz gameXtream 700w psu and lastly an asus striker extreme mobo. Ill use alot of my old parts also 4x80gb w/d hdd's. 1x150gb w/d hdd and 1x 150gb wd raptor and my watercooling setup (might get a new fan tho 3 120's on it aint doing the job).

Atm my system is 6-8 months old its a amd 4200 dualcore o/c'd to 2.7ghz, 1 gb of ocz 3200 el patinum rev.2, and a 7900gtx on a lanparty expert mobo. Get around 40-80 fps in town fights at a fb thats quiet 120-80 and in the air 230-40 in combat. That is with every conceivable trick to get fps outta my slowly fading comp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd keep that machine another year I don't get any better fps numbers than you with my core2duo and x1950. That's alot of money to be spendin.

Some people want to stay cutting edge and it costs. You can always sell your old pc while it's still worth something and get $1000 bucks for it. It will pay for your new cpu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the current patch my $1000 7 month old AM2 is getting 35-80 fps in town and 60-100+ at FBs with Medium settings and maxed visual players.

This on the 3800 SC with NO overclocking.

So I have overhead to go with just a cooling improvement and overclock room to spare, and an upgrade plan that will only likely cost me $200 two years from now, which is what I designed for.

The NT compatability setting that I missed changing on the last few patches is a big part of that, care with drivers is another- if I didn't take care of those I would likely get half that.

A bad virus security package upgrade took it down half again before I went back to the earlier version.

So watching your software usage is a Big Deal and can easily double your performance. Keep that in mind when figuring out your system.

A machine-hungry Vista is another factor to consider.

Bottom line, a lot of the planning of your machine should be based on how long it will have to last you with the machine you are buying, and an upgrade path if you going for anything less then the best.

I have a squaddie who is still in game with a PC from 4 years ago. He hasn't been able to fly for years, but he got the best he could get then and the RAMDAC memory that was on that box is likely what kept him from being completely gone from the game. His outrageously expensive machine for the time ended up being a good investment given his finances has not allowed for a replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.6 should be no problem with a 3800 on the stock cooler. That would put you over 4400 performance wise. A good boost anyway. Some are getting those single core orleansAMD's up to 2.9 You may get lucky. I built one for a friend and that's what we run it at (2.6). Raise the fsb to 220 and depending on what ram you're using you may want to change ram/cpu ratio's or slack timings.

Lower your ram speeds if you have to you'll get much better performance because it's limited by the slow cpu fsb on AMD's (200x2) Anything closer to 1:1 like 4:5 would work I think. My buddies doesn't run hot whatsoever. Even with the ram at ddr880 220x12 for 2.6 Most of the time it's in the 20's & 30's celcius just cracking 40 at high load but I live in Alaska too. =)

newegg customer reviews on AMD 3800orleans am2

rock solid @ 2.88 GHz and only gets up to 40 degrees under 100% load with the provided heatsink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The machine I was talking to you about runs the exact same memory. It will hit 900 without adjusting the timings. I'm just telling you that you can get another 10% out of that processor right now with just the stock cooler, it doesn't break a sweat at 2.6. No aftermarket needed for mild/med overclocks. Download orthos, boot it at 220 and watch the temps. As long as you can run orthos at under about 55 load for 10 min than you can keep going up.

The reason I say to reduce the memory divider is if you run an AM2 with ddr800 than every 1 mHz you raise the fsb the ram goes up 4. At that rate it doesn't take long for the ram to reach it's limit. It's somewhere around 900-1000 which only give you about 25-30 Mhz of headroom on the main clock at that memory divider.

Making the memory divider closer to 1:1(am2 amd's don't have 1:1 ram ratio) Gives you more ram headroom. It won't slow you down either. I'd change it to ddr667 then maybe you can overclock back to 800 and bring the fsb with you.

If you had 2 3800orleans 1 running ddr533 the other running ddr1000, as long as the cpu's are at stock speed the performance difference in game will be less than 2 fps. Both the ddr533 and the ddr1000 are crippled and must run through the 200x2 fsb of the cpu to talk to it.

Performance ram like ddr667 and above is made for overclockers only. It give no benifit to people who run their system at stock speeds. It will all be limited by the sad mainclock of AM2 cpu's (200x2). That's why they have no 1:1 ratio. They're basically a cpu built for ddr1 stuck in a MB that supports DDR2. If they were going to support ddr2 the mainclock should be able to match 533. The standard for ddr2 is 533 (266x2) or what the intels run that's why they have 1:1 in the bios. The lowest AMD's can go is 400/533 on the divider.

It's a AMD single core Orleans 3800@2.6

an Abit KN9ultra nforce570chipset

2 gigs of corsair xms2 ddr800c4's

ATI x1800xt 256

Hiper580w type R psu

Here's a pic. I take a pic of all the machines I build. I loved this Gigabyte case. They're really high quality. The front door is 1/8" thick aluminum.

IMG_5080.jpg

I was really excited finding out that both this machine and you will be able to slot a new K8L when they come out this fall. The new AMD design is going to be backward compatable with AM2 slots. You know AMD will throw the overclockers a bone. They always do. Some low end cpu about $200 with a bunch of headroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The machine I was talking to you about runs the exact same memory. It will hit 900 without adjusting the timings. I'm just telling you that you can get another 10% out of that processor right now with just the stock cooler' date=' it doesn't break a sweat at 2.6. No aftermarket needed for mild/med overclocks. Download orthos, boot it at 220 and watch the temps. As long as you can run orthos at under about 55 load for 10 min than you can keep going up.[/quote']

Already done it, but backed it out and made driver and setting changes that yielded great results. Nice to know though.

The reason I say to reduce the memory divider is if you run an AM2 with ddr800 than every 1 mHz you raise the fsb the ram goes up 4. At that rate it doesn't take long for the ram to reach it's limit. It's somewhere around 900-1000 which only give you about 25-30 Mhz of headroom on the main clock at that memory divider.

Making the memory divider closer to 1:1(am2 amd's don't have 1:1 ram ratio) Gives you more ram headroom. It won't slow you down either. I'd change it to ddr667 then maybe you can overclock back to 800 and bring the fsb with you.

My playing with overclocking had made me think the 800 was a bottleneck but I haven't had enough performance concerns to go that direction. Thanks for the tip.

If you had 2 3800orleans 1 running ddr533 the other running ddr1000, as long as the cpu's are at stock speed the performance difference in game will be less than 2 fps. Both the ddr533 and the ddr1000 are crippled and must run through the 200x2 fsb of the cpu to talk to it.

Performance ram like ddr667 and above is made for overclockers only. It give no benifit to people who run their system at stock speeds. It will all be limited by the sad mainclock of AM2 cpu's (200x2). That's why they have no 1:1 ratio. They're basically a cpu built for ddr1 stuck in a MB that supports DDR2. If they were going to support ddr2 the mainclock should be able to match 533. The standard for ddr2 is 533 (266x2) or what the intels run that's why they have 1:1 in the bios. The lowest AMD's can go is 400/533 on the divider.

I'm not so certain about this, I'm definitely seeing the greater load speed (due to the dual channel if nothing else).

It's a AMD single core Orleans 3800@2.6

an Abit KN9ultra nforce570chipset

2 gigs of corsair xms2 ddr800c4's

ATI x1800xt 256

Hiper580w type R psu

That's meh baybee, except I have a BFG 7900 GTOC and not as good Antec case.

That price/performance 3800 SC was what made the machine for me, get to AM2, max out on other components, then bring the CPU along later.

I was really excited finding out that both this machine and you will be able to slot a new K8L when they come out this fall. The new AMD design is going to be backward compatable with AM2 slots. You know AMD will throw the overclockers a bone. They always do. Some low end cpu about $200 with a bunch of headroom.

Yeah, backwards compatability was a big thing for me given the strategy, another reason I went ahead with this configuration rather then wait the extra month for Core Duo, and I trust AMD to do it far moreso then Intel.

AMD better get cracking, Intel is riding hard and not taking prisoners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had 2 3800orleans 1 running ddr533 the other running ddr1000, as long as the cpu's are at stock speed the performance difference in game will be less than 2 fps. Both the ddr533 and the ddr1000 are crippled and must run through the 200x2 fsb of the cpu to talk to it.

Performance ram like ddr667 and above is made for overclockers only. It give no benifit to people who run their system at stock speeds. It will all be limited by the sad mainclock of AM2 cpu's (200x2). That's why they have no 1:1 ratio. They're basically a cpu built for ddr1 stuck in a MB that supports DDR2. If they were going to support ddr2 the mainclock should be able to match 533. The standard for ddr2 is 533 (266x2) or what the intels run that's why they have 1:1 in the bios. The lowest AMD's can go is 400/533 on the divider.

I'm not so certain about this, I'm definitely seeing the greater load speed (due to the dual channel if nothing else).

It's true. I once found another article where they compared identical cpu's on 939 and AM2. With ddr400 vs ddr800. The differences were minimal because of the identical mainclock of the cpu. In some intense applications the 800 saw a 4% improvement, not what you expect for twice the speed mHz wise.

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=0&id=1915&pg=10

We set out to find out if DDR2 memory did any good to AMD's processors than if it had stayed on with DDR1 and after compiling the test results from various benchmarks, we've a very clear picture of the impact. The results are within 1% differential or less sometimes and this outcome was quite synonymous in many scenarios between the Socket-939 and Socket AM2 processor of identical specifications (with the fractional lead going to the new AM2 variant).

The bars in light green/yellow have ddr400 the brighter green have ddr800

ddr1vsddr2.gif

One of the fx-60's is overclocked to 2.8 as you can see. The lack of difference between ddr400 and 800 is striking though.

You need an intel to take advantage of DDR2.

I still recommend buying it for amd systems because it's roughly the same price gig for gig excluding dominators and such and when the new K8L's come out they will be able to match the ddr2 with the fsb and slot into the old boards. Not to mention all that additional overclocking headroom is nice. Your ram won't limit your overclock ever with ddr800 on an amd running 200x2 fsb.

My guess is when the K8L's come out all the manufaturers will have to add a 1:1 ram ratio in a bios update. It will probably take a bios update to stable out the new processors too.

My NF7s is the first board I knew of that would let you change ram dividers. I got an old barton and some giel ddr433 when it first came out. I overclocked my 2500@333 to 400fsb (it did 410 or so max but i settled on 400 for 24/7 speed) to match the 400 ram and then I tried some of the new ram dividers. 433/466

My ram would boot fine up to 466 but when I ran benchmarks and games my machine was faster at ddr400 noticably. ddr400@200x11cpu was 100's of points better in sisoftware sandra multimedia than ddr466@200x11 CPU's like the 1:1 ratio. It performs best. Runing the ram and cpu fsb at the same speeds is optimal for performance. You can't even do that on an AM2. It defaults to always running the ram faster than the cpu. That's one of my grips and reasons for going to intel. I can run my core2duo at 1:1 and match my ddr800.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For value for money the best processor is definitely the E6300. Ignore those that say the 4MB cache over the 2MB cache is worth the extra £200. You won't notice the difference in games anyway.

Pair the E6300 with a good 965P chipset like Gigabytes DS3 and you have a processor that can overclock well over 3Ghz for only £200 including the mobo.

Throw in 2GB of good RAM like Geil or Corsair and all you need then is your pick of graphics cards. RAM, mobo and CPU altogether shouldn't be more then $5-600 so you have a large amount to spend on a decent gfx card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.