# X2 3200+



## Jet

Hey all!
My friend's (Lord of the Mings) comptuer is :

AMD 3200+ AM2 New Orleans
Biostar Tforce 6100
512MB G.Skill DDR2 800

In CPU-z it shows up as a X2 3200+. Any suggestions? I installed all of the drivers for the motherboard and also a cpu driver that came with the motherboard.


----------



## Praetor

> In CPU-z it shows up as a X2 3200+. Any suggestions? I installed all of the drivers for the motherboard and also a cpu driver that came with the motherboard.


Can we get a screenshot?


----------



## fade2green514

its because they produce some of their cpus as dual cores and just disable another core... at least thats what id guess, i know they do it but i dont know why it would show up as an X2 proc. lol


----------



## Praetor

Or better yet, just post the chip's OPN 




> its because they produce all their cpus as dual cores and just disable another core...


You've posted some seriously "flawed" crap in the past but I think this is your new best one .... in case you didnt know (which seems apparent), neither AMD nor Intel do the approach as you suggest:
- Intel takes two single core units and slaps them together
- AMD, when making dualcore chips, fabs them all at once
The singlecore chips are purely single-core ... none of this disabled core crap -- that's because it would be obscenely expensive (and thermally wasteful) to do anything else. As I've said in the past ... please refrain from posts like this as they only serve to obfuscate an already technical subject


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

^agree.


----------



## fade2green514

Praetor said:


> Or better yet, just post the chip's OPN
> 
> 
> 
> You've posted some seriously "flawed" crap in the past but I think this is your new best one .... in case you didnt know (which seems apparent), neither AMD nor Intel do the approach as you suggest:
> - Intel takes two single core units and slaps them together
> - AMD, when making dualcore chips, fabs them all at once
> The singlecore chips are purely single-core ... none of this disabled core crap -- that's because it would be obscenely expensive (and thermally wasteful) to do anything else. As I've said in the past ... please refrain from posts like this as they only serve to obfuscate an already technical subject



they definitely disabled a core on the newer E6 stepping single cores
http://www.short-media.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-42233.html


> "There are several revisions of the venice core out there right now, including E3, E4 and E6. When I wrote the guide, E6 single cores were pretty sparse. Now, there is even a Manchester dual core with one core disabled circulating around "


^lemonlime post #3
same way they just disable half the cache, and some of the clock frequency potential of each chip.
the E6 type chip had a better memory controller, and it was probably cheaper to just produce so many dual cores rather than incorporate the memory controller into the older single cores and therefore needing more machines to produce them.. i don't know how it worked out but they definitely ended up just disabling a core the way nvidia laser cut pixel pipelines out of the 7800gt... or the 7900gs.


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

I hope you know that your wrong.......not ALL 64s are dual core, only the X2s.  The normal 64s are just single core, there is no other disabled core.  Do you know how much the company would lose spending all that money probucing all dual core 64s but selling half of them as single?  That would be stupid.  Thats why they run the company, and not you.  And i will say i have never removed the IHS off a 64, and i take it you havent either, but you wont find 2 cores.  And if you do, its an X2, and not just a normal 64.  AMD would be losing ALOT of money if they did that.  And i dont have to PROVE that im right, becuz i know i am, whether anyone else does or not.  And actually, you stated that AMD produces ALL their cpus dual core.  Which is obviously wrong in a way i cant explain.  

Think before you post.

Oh and by the way, posting something that someone typed in another forum isnt proof at all.  For all we know, you could have posted that in that forum, or maybe its just someone like you who doesnt know.  

There might be 1/1000000 that are actually dual core and have one disabled becuz the other core didnt work right, like the HTT being disabled on my P4 becuz it didnt work right, but not all of them are produced like that.  And i doubt if thats even right.


----------



## fade2green514

{LSK} Otacon said:


> I hope you know that your wrong.......not ALL 64s are dual core, only the X2s.  The normal 64s are just single core, there is no other disabled core.  Do you know how much the company would lose spending all that money probucing all dual core 64s but selling half of them as single?  That would be stupid.  Thats why they run the company, and not you.  And i will say i have never removed the IHS off a 64, and i take it you havent either, but you wont find 2 cores.  And if you do, its an X2, and not just a normal 64.  AMD would be losing ALOT of money if they did that.  And i dont have to PROVE that im right, becuz i know i am, whether anyone else does or not.
> 
> Think before you post.
> 
> Oh and by the way, posting something that someone typed in another forum isnt proof at all.  For all we know, you could have posted that in that forum, or maybe its just someone like you who doesnt know.



actually most of the money that goes into the materials for the chip is spent on the gold pins... and yes, they do disable the core. not all athlon 64's are dual core, but the newer single cores with the E6 stepping do have an extra inactive core..



{LSK} Otacon said:


> And i dont have to PROVE that im right, becuz i know i am,


yea, the earth is flat. umm no its true because i know im right.

think about it though, why would his 3200 show up as an X2? duhh


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

I dont know why it would show up like that, and he hasnt even posted a screen of it yet, so who knows.  But i know for a fact that not all 64s are dual core. 

The only dual core 64s is the X2 series.  Its as simple as that.  There is nothing more to it.

And besides, if it did show up as an X2, that would mean that it reconized the other core which means its not disabled.  duhhh.


----------



## fade2green514

> I dont know why it would show up like that, and he hasnt even posted a screen of it yet, so who knows. But i know for a fact that not all 64s are dual core.


i never said they were, only the E6's, which is probably his processor.


> The only dual core 64s is the X2 series. Its as simple as that. There is nothing more to it.


incorrect, see the posts above.


> And besides, if it did show up as an X2, that would mean that it reconized the other core which means its not disabled. duhhh.


model name has nothing to do with how many cores show up. recognizing two cores would have to do with task manager, and how many cores show up there.

btw what did you build your rig for? 1gb doesnt seem like enough for video editing.... at least it would bottleneck the proc.. assuming you edit videos because of the one on your website in your sig.


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

I dont EDIT videos, but i do transfer them from my camera to my pc and convert them to AVI.  but thats besides the point, and yes my 1 gig is enough for everything i do.  My memory bandwidth is 4.2gb/s.  And if i run my fsb at 220mhz, my bandwidth goes to 4.5-4.6gb/s.  

Dude.......there is no dual core AMD 64 Athlon unless its an X2.  CPU-z makes mistakes dude.  Do you have the latest version of it? If not, that may be why.


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

fade2green514 said:


> i never said they were, only the E6's, which is probably his processor.



Really? Cuz thats not what you said here.......



fade2green514 said:


> its because they produce all their cpus as dual cores and just disable another core... at least thats what id guess, i know they do it but i dont know why it would show up as an X2 proc. lol



Here you say they ALL are dual core.  Even my DX-40?  damn......never woulda guessed.

In either case, both are incorrect statements.


----------



## Iluvpenguins

point of making it dual core and disabling 1 core is...?


----------



## Jet

Okay all I'll try to get a picture (or have him post one). Lol about this disabled core stuff. The only thing that people disable are graphics card pipelines


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

Well, not true.  They also have the HTT disabled on 2.66ghz Northwood P4s.  But i believe thats all.


----------



## fade2green514

{LSK} Otacon said:


> I dont EDIT videos, but i do transfer them from my camera to my pc and convert them to AVI.  but thats besides the point, and yes my 1 gig is enough for everything i do.  My memory bandwidth is 4.2gb/s.  And if i run my fsb at 220mhz, my bandwidth goes to 4.5-4.6gb/s.
> 
> Dude.......there is no dual core AMD 64 Athlon unless its an X2.  CPU-z makes mistakes dude.  Do you have the latest version of it? If not, that may be why.



why do i care what your memory bandwidth is, it doesn't effect most applications anyways... and besides, mines way higher at a 6.9GB/s... just to show off haha...
E6's and newer are dual cores with a core disabled. stop fighting it, its true and you know it lol


Iluvpenguins said:


> point of making it dual core and disabling 1 core is...?



to prevent having to make a new machine to produce more single cores with the  newer memory controller? i dono, they do it though.. silicon isn't exactly scarce hahaha


Jet said:


> Okay all I'll try to get a picture (or have him post one). Lol about this disabled core stuff. The only thing that people disable are graphics card pipelines



and cache in many processors, athlon 64 3000+ = athlon 64 4000+ underclocked 600mhz and half cache disabled.


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

How should i know why you care about my memory, you were the one asking about it.  And yea, bandwidth does effect the performance in pretty much everything.  Comparing my 4.2gb/s to my old 2.9gb/s its way faster, windows only takes 15-20 seconds to load, where as 2.9gb/s it would take almost a minute if not longer.  And if you ask me 4.2gb/s is very good considering its PC3200, rated at 3.2gb/s.

What a noob.  I feel sorry for ppl like you.


----------



## Geoff

{LSK} Otacon said:


> How should i know why you care about my memory, you were the one asking about it.  And yea, bandwidth does effect the performance in pretty much everything.  Comparing my 4.2gb/s to my old 2.9gb/s its way faster, windows only takes 15-20 seconds to load, where as 2.9gb/s it would take almost a minute if not longer.  And if you ask me 4.2gb/s is very good considering its PC3200, rated at 3.2gb/s.
> 
> What a noob.  I feel sorry for ppl like you.



Thats not because of the memory.  What makes Windows load time so long when you first boot it up is the hard drive, since its loading necessary files into the RAM.  And even SDRAM is significantly faster then a hard drive.  Games also dont show much improvement with faster ram, in a few games, using DDR333 and DDR400 showed only 1-2 fps difference.


----------



## Motoxrdude

fade2green514 said:


> its because they produce all their cpus as dual cores and just disable another core... at least thats what id guess, i know they do it but i dont know why it would show up as an X2 proc. lol



HAHA! That is just about the stupidist thing i have ever heard! Im putting that in my signature.


----------



## fade2green514

Motoxrdude said:


> HAHA! That is just about the stupidist thing i have ever heard! Im putting that in my signature.



dude its true... they disable a core. why do you think his proc is showing up as an x2 3200+
btw thanks goeff...  you probably started loading windows quicker with the change from ide to sata
if youd like i can explain lol...
take it out of your signature please.


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

Umm actually your wrong yet again. The reason i went from 2.9gb/s to 4.2 was becuz of my processor.  My old P4 had about a max bandwidth of 3.2gb/s, but it would only go to that if i OCed it to 3.5ghz.  Your harddrive has NOTHING to do with your ram bandwidth.  Nothing.  And yes, your hard drive does effect the speed at which windows loads, but so does your ram.  As you just said, it loads it into your ram.  Do you try to be stupid or does it come natural?  Switching from PATA to SATA have nothing to do with your memory bandwidth.  2 completely different things. I can run my PATA by its self and still get 4.2gb/s.  The only difference its the data rate of the info coming from the hdd, to the ram.  Which my PATA was 34mb/s and my SATA is 62mb/s.  Which actually my SATA seems to be running slow.


----------



## Iluvpenguins

has anyone wondered if maybe the program was being a jerk?

Right click on my computer and go to properties,it should list the type of cpu you have there aswell


----------



## Filip

The only way to find out is by removing the IHS 

http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showpost.php?p=1841180&postcount=1


----------



## Ku-sama

oh.... my.... god.... you.... are... f*cking.... RETARDED!!!!
my Athlon 64 FX-62 showed up as just an AMD processor with everything as question marks... because my CPU-Z was outdated.... and in fact, i have a E6 AM2 64 3200+ Orleans sitting right next to me.... hold on a sec.... *Fetches hobby knife and removes its IHS* uhm, yeah, let me see... i think theres only one little rectangle here.... let me see.... yeah, defiantly more than 0 and less than 2... so yeah SINGLE CORE ATHLON 64 IS EQUAL TO ONE CORE NO MATTER WHAT!!! AMD, to reduce processor cost, stopped producing higher cache in mid end X2 processors.... why might you ask? to cut down on prices.... it would cost MUCH less for AMD to throw away a non working processor in a batch of 1000 (1:1000 DOA ratio is estimated) then to make millions of dual core processors and have that 1:1000 chance so they enable the extra core.... hell, they don't test the processors, they just replace them when they are sent back........ please don't ever say something as misleading as that again.... honestly....


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

pwned.


----------



## Bobo

fade2green514 said:


> if youd like i can explain lol...


Please do? Or at least try...because you won't succeed.  How long will it take you to notice that your logic is totally flawed crap?


> take it out of your signature please.


I think I'll put it in my sig too.


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

lol.  Even bobo backed me up.  pwned squared man.


----------



## Burgerbob

Wow, just decided to read the thread... PWNED, the CPU-Z prob is just old or wrong... wowz.


----------



## fade2green514

yea, i definitely typed that wrong earlier. i edited it to correct you correctly. lol ram bandwidth doesnt effect how quickly windows loads. at all.


{LSK} Otacon said:


> Comparing my 4.2gb/s to my old 2.9gb/s its way faster, windows only takes 15-20 seconds to load, where as 2.9gb/s it would take almost a minute if not longer.  And if you ask me 4.2gb/s is very good considering its PC3200, rated at 3.2gb/s.



my pc3200 use to score 5.4gbps. that was Corsair XMS.
dual channel allows it to surpass 3200MB/s theoretical maximum bandwidth.
my newer Corsair XMS runs at DDR520 and scores around 7gbps.
PWNED
and also, quit calling me stupid... cause im not stupid.


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

PWNED? Not really dude.  Im sorry if i mislead anyone, but i when i last tested my bandwidth, my HT speed was set to 1x.  I just now tested it with 5x and wow, over 6gb/s.  But still, you have a better cpu then me, its no surprise you have a higher bandwidth.  





I will now test it at 220mhz.


----------



## fade2green514

umm actually ive got my hypertransport on a lower multiplier, under 1ghz, so yours would actually get a higher bandwidth than mine... my memory is just better... not to mention a core 2 duo would score WAY below ANY AMD proc just because of hypertransport alone... running on intels "fsb" at 1066mhz when hypertransport has two bus lanes ultimately giving 2ghz worth of performance...
cpu speed has nothing to do with memory speed or the fsb of the processor.


----------



## fade2green514

{LSK} Otacon said:


> PWNED? Not really dude.  Im sorry if i mislead anyone, but i when i last tested my bandwidth, my HT speed was set to 1x.  I just now tested it with 5x and wow, over 6gb/s.  But still, you have a better cpu then me, its no surprise you have a higher bandwidth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will now test it at 220mhz.



so i was right... it was because of the fsb and not the cpu speed...
plus, my memory is running at 260mhz, which is ridiculous for most ddr memory (of the density, at least)
don't crash your computer, i need someone to argue with. haha

btw, you keep mentioning my proc is better than yours... haha funny, cause i would called that PWNED
then of course theres the fact that i have 2gb of memory... not 1gb...
oh and the 7900gtx with 512mb of memory... lol
and my logitech G5 laser mouse haha... 
PWNED
hell i have 1671mb free memory, how much do you have free? lol


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

Ok, now your starting to make no sense once again. But anyway, 220mhz lowers my bandwidth oddly enough.  I even lowered the HT multi to 4x like i was supposed to, dropped me down to 5gb/s.  And how were you right about my fsb?  Believe me, im not gonna crash my computer, im smarter then most.  And 260mhz isnt THAT impressive for DDR ram, they have 1 gig sticks that run 300mhz at 2-2-2-2.  I choose not to push my RAM that far becuz i spent good money on it and im not gonna see just how fast it goes, considering it goes plenty fast enough right now.  I really dont care how much free memory i have.  There is no PWNED dude.  Your the one who got PWNED like 20 times in one thread.  I find that pretty funny.  

And for future referrence, your FSB basically is your CPU speed.  Your FSB directly effects your CPU speed.  No, they arnt the same thing, but the faster the FSB the better, your CPU speed can be 3ghz, but with a 133mhz FSB (or whatever) it will still be slow as hell.

As a matter of fact i have one stick of Gamer OC ram that i really dont care whether it dies or not, maybe ill pop it in and see how fast it goes.  Its rated at DDR500, 512meg stick.  Lets have fun shall we.

Well, my FSB wont go above 250mhz without locking up, so i cant really push my DDR500 past that.  But heres a screen anyway:




Not the best OC DDR400 ram, but its fun to play with, be more fun if i had a cpu with a 266mhz fsb.


----------



## fade2green514

> But anyway, 220mhz lowers my bandwidth oddly enough. I even lowered the HT multi to 4x like i was supposed to, dropped me down to 5gb/s. And how were you right about my fsb?


wow. you lowered fsb(hypertransport) to 4x and wonder how memory bandwidth went down.


> Believe me, im not gonna crash my computer, im smarter then most.


you dont have to be stupid to crash your computer, you just have to overclock it too far. generally crash != ruin though.
geil actually created ddr600 with a cas latency of like 1.5 i believe. speeds like that aren't really usable though... for system memory haha. it would do good for a 7900gtx... actually my 7900gtx has much faster memory than that. 1.6ghz 1.78ghz overclocked... 1.1ns


> And for future referrence, your FSB basically is your CPU speed. Your FSB directly effects your CPU speed.


'
hmm wow. i thought cpu speed was the core speed (not actually the front side bus, though its often referred to as the front side bus) times the cpu multiplier.
either way my memory is definitely better... and "for future refernce" the core speed (what you refer to as fsb) is what the motherboard bases the cpu speed off of, and what it bases the memory speed off of. some motherboards support memory dividers, some don't...
funny how my timings are lower than yours... and my frequency is higher... oh and my bandwidth is like twice yours. 
PWNED


----------



## Archangel

fade2green514 said:


> geil actually created ddr600 with a cas latency of like 1.5 i believe. speeds like that aren't really usable though... for system memory haha.



Well.. i have my Bus speed at 300MHz atm..  so if i had that RAM, i wouldnt need to put it on a divider.



fade2green514 said:


> funny how my timings are lower than yours... and my frequency is higher... oh and my bandwidth is like twice yours.
> 
> PWNED



could you cut that please?  its really getting annoying.   if you can Overclock higher than someone else with the same hardware..  doesnt mean you did something better than someone else.   then you just got lucky your hardware accepts those settings.   I'm sorry to say..  but you cant actually PWN someone, or however you want to call it.   if you want to overclock,.  and you do actually overclock it,  you did a good job already


----------



## fade2green514

> could you cut that please? its really getting annoying. if you can Overclock higher than someone else with the same hardware.. doesnt mean you did something better than someone else. then you just got lucky your hardware accepts those settings. I'm sorry to say.. but you cant actually PWN someone, or however you want to call it. if you want to overclock,. and you do actually overclock it, you did a good job already


buying the right parts that'll let you overclock a ton, is part of overclocking. i bought Corsair XMS... and a reputable model of the stuff.
if you read oc101 it says... you need a good power supply that'll power an overclock, you need good memory that'll let you overclock, and a good motherboard that'll let you do things such as overvolting, and memory dividers... i bought all the right stuff.
oh, you also have to get the a good cooler, and then apply it correctly. thats why i sanded the ihs and bottom of the heatsink down to a mirrored finish, and added a couple of case fans to my computer... so i could overclock much further.
overclocking is a skill, whether you think so or not... i didn't lower temps 5-15C by clicking a few buttons in the bios. lol


> doesnt mean you did something better than someone else.


to correct you, it _does_ mean that i did something better than someone else..
at least in this case lol...
lol btw i have a screenshot of my memory bandwidth but photobucket is being slow and im too lazy to try another site... lol


----------



## Archangel

fade2green514 said:


> buying the right parts that'll let you overclock a ton, is part of overclocking. i bought Corsair XMS... and a reputable model of the stuff.
> if you read oc101 it says... you need a good power supply that'll power an overclock, you need good memory that'll let you overclock, and a good motherboard that'll let you do things such as overvolting, and memory dividers... i bought all the right stuff.



well.. i have some rather cheap RAM,  yet i have my system overclocked to 300MHz bus speed..  so there is also a bit luck involved.   
about all motherboards have memory dividers ( premade systems excpuded)
and for a PSU..   you need one wich is strong enough..but thats kinda obvious.

you have to be lucky on the core of the CPU.. meaning if it 'likes' to be overclocked,  because the same model CPU can go unstable after 200MHz overclock,.. or after 1400MHz..   thats pretty random.
anyhow... in overclocking there is no 'skill' required..  jsut read some guides.. be a bit carefull with the hardware, and voilla.

dont get me wrong..  im not saying you didnt do a nice job..  but by the sound of your posts, it looks like you just look down on the performance of Otacon's system.. and those PWNED reactions are really getting on my nerves.


----------



## pbdr

PWNED....

Is that an acronym or did someone make a type and the a$$h@le switchboard propogate the error?

Appearently, I'm much too outdated for this thread.....


----------



## fade2green514

actually... if you cool your rig well enough on air, you can overvolt it a lot more. i overvolted my proc 200mV and its still running cool... in fact, i dont even need the performance so i normally leave it on default volts. i must say though, i did get unlucky with the processor. mine really didn't like overclocking compared to many others.
though, with some skill in applying the heatsink and cooling it like a professional i did keep it nice and cool even with an overvolt.


> well.. i have some rather cheap RAM, yet i have my system overclocked to 300MHz bus speed..


the point of buying good ram would be to overclock that part of the computer too. thats why im bragging about it. lol
i mean, i dont use all of my 2.6ghz... i just like to have it there to brag about. haha


> it looks like you just look down on the performance of Otacon's system..


its not even that, he just gets on my nerves with all his zealous reactions to things i say. i mean i admit sometimes i can be wrong but who cares? 
he just started butting heads with me thats all (about the memory and all), i wasn't going to let him win.
funny since memory bandwidth barely effects system performance anyways... lol
wait til i get my core 2 duo... then we'll have a processor benchmark haha, ill get like twice the performance... lol

lol btw some of the processors WERE created with a disabled core... not all of them, but some of them were haha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._1_core_disabled.2Fnot_functional.2C_90_nm.29
if wikipedia isn't reliable enough for you, then i don't know what is lol


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

omg.  Dude.  There isnt words to describe a person like you........seriously.  Have you even re-read the thread to see the things youv said? Hardly any of it makes sense at all.  And that site isnt really reliable, since pretty much any random person can input that information in there. But even with that, there isnt anything on that site that proves your point.  And you have never yet said that you were wrong.  

And to correct you once again, i INCREASED my fsb, not lowered, your HT freq and your FSB are different.  And my HT speed was 1.8ghz, which isnt that much lower then its stock, and the reason i lowered it was becuz the HT does not overclock well, so when overclocking any AMD with HT you have to lower the HT multi. 

I really think this thread should be closed, if an admin would please.  Its become nothing more then a competetion and an argument.


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

fade2green514 said:


> wow. you lowered fsb(hypertransport) to 4x and wonder how memory bandwidth went down.
> 
> you dont have to be stupid to crash your computer, you just have to overclock it too far. generally crash != ruin though.
> geil actually created ddr600 with a cas latency of like 1.5 i believe. speeds like that aren't really usable though... for system memory haha. it would do good for a 7900gtx... actually my 7900gtx has much faster memory than that. 1.6ghz 1.78ghz overclocked... 1.1ns
> '
> hmm wow. i thought cpu speed was the core speed (not actually the front side bus, though its often referred to as the front side bus) times the cpu multiplier.
> either way my memory is definitely better... and "for future refernce" the core speed (what you refer to as fsb) is what the motherboard bases the cpu speed off of, and what it bases the memory speed off of. some motherboards support memory dividers, some don't...
> funny how my timings are lower than yours... and my frequency is higher... oh and my bandwidth is like twice yours.
> PWNED



Ok, you just said the mobo bases the memory speed off your core speed.  Would you please explain how that works?  Becuz my memory doesnt run at 2ghz as my cpu does.  And never did i said they were the same thing, i said they pretty much were, as in your FSB directly effects the cpu speed. And yes, it is the FSB that is multiplied to get the cpu core speed smart one.


----------



## fade2green514

core speed =200mhz (stock)
cpu multiplier = 10 (for me at least)
10*200 = 2000mhz (stock)
memory = 1:1 (ratio of core speed to memory speed)... meaning 200mhz, or ddr400
lower the memory divider, to 166mhz... and then it takes .83 and multiplies it by the core speed to get the memory speed.
for instance, i overclocked my core speed to 240mhz making my memory speed 240mhz or ddr480... and my cpu speed 2400mhz. if i were to use a memory divider of 166/200 then it would just multiply .83 by 240mhz ultimately giving me 199.2mhz or about ddr400 anyways... so i kept my memory at stock speed, yet overclocked my cpu 400mhz.
also, hypertransport uses a multiplier (not a divider) like the cpu (not the memory)
default, it uses a multiplier of 5x making it 1ghz... but it runs in two different lanes like dual channel so technically its like 1ghz dual channel...
lower the multiplier to 4x with the fsb at 240 and youve got 960mhz instead of 1000mhz

so ultimately i leave my comp at those settings... around 2.4ghz cpu, ddr480 (though it can be increased to like ddr530 or so) and 960mhz hypertransport. and yes, hypertransport effects memory speed too, though memory speed bottlenecks it, it won't soon in the future because of ddr2 memory.
i used to keep my old memory on a 166mhz divider (.83multiplier) because it couldnt handle speeds like ddr480... but that was when i had 1gb of memory... not 2gb.
then, theres cas latency and other memory latency's which aren't effected by anything like a core speed... the lower the latency the better.

you can generally lower a cpu multiplier on any chip if the motherboard allows, but only the FX chips have an unlocked upward multiplier. so i could change my multiplier to 9x if i wanted, but 11x and up are locked because its not an FX chip.

they should make overclocking guides for AMD rigs and overclocking guides for intel rigs. lol they have two seperate sections for each on overclock.net ...
ill even type the AMD guide myself lol.. if they care...


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

wow........that was pretty funny.  Core speed 200mhz LOL.  This isnt 1995 dude, we have the technology!!  Its called the front side bus, which you refer to as the core speed.  The core speed is the multiplied front side bus.  Thank you for that, that was pretty freakin hilarious.

I just skimmed it, but everything but the first part seem to be good.


----------



## fade2green514

core speed != cpu speed.
core meaning central. meaning everything else is based off of it.
intel uses the word front side bus, amd uses the word hypertransport because its better than just a front side bus.
intels core speed is now 266mhz, and their fsb is 533, 800, or 1066 mhz, soon to add 1333mhz. too bad you're wrong.


----------



## Geoff

{LSK} Otacon said:


> wow........that was pretty funny.  Core speed 200mhz LOL.  This isnt 1995 dude, we have the technology!!  Its called the front side bus, which you refer to as the core speed.  The core speed is the multiplied front side bus.  Thank you for that, that was pretty freakin hilarious.
> 
> I just skimmed it, but everything but the first part seem to be good.



AMD's dont have a front side bus.  They have a similar technology called Hyper Transport.


----------



## Ku-sama

its just funny, that i can crack open an AM2 Orleans 3200 E6 and whoa... no double core...


----------



## fade2green514

the core only looks bigger. AMD dual cores are fabricated together just making the core look larger than a single core... but yet looking like a single core. you would need to look at a comparison of a regular 90nm single core right next to it.


----------



## Ku-sama

same size core as my 4000+


----------



## fade2green514

not all of them were dual cores with a core disabled, as i already said.
post a picture though.


----------



## Ku-sama

if i had a camera, dont you think i'd be using it more often?


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

I do relize that AMD has HT, but i still call it front side bus as it just makes more sense to me.  But yes, technically its not the FSB.  But in intels case, he is right that the core speeds of intel was 266,533 and so on, about 10 years ago lol.  LOL. Im sorry dude, your just freakin hilarious.  But you did get one thing right, the core speed is part of the cpu speed.  Now we just need you to understand the concept of the front side bus/HT.

Do you not relize how incorrect your logic is?  Ill just post here the facts and watch you try and fight a losing battle everytime i need a good laugh, cuz iv really never laughed so much, i mean, most ppl are wrong 2-3 times tops and wont admit it, but you just keep goin and goin its pretty funny.


----------



## Jet

Core speed "would" be the same as FSB/HT, because if you think about it, it is the speed that everything else is based on. He meant FSB/HT, so don't keep making fun of him!!


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

Yes i relize that, but they are not the same thing.  I know the rest of the computer is based off the FSB.


----------



## Bobo

fade2green514 said:


> its because they produce all their cpus as dual cores and just disable another core...





fade2green514 said:


> not all of them were dual cores with a core disabled, as i already said.


Wait a minute, i thought it was all?  Or not all?  I see some discrepancy in the story here...


----------



## Ku-sama

he said any of the E6 processors...


----------



## fade2green514

{LSK} Otacon said:


> I do relize that AMD has HT, but i still call it front side bus as it just makes more sense to me.  But yes, technically its not the FSB.  But in intels case, he is right that the core speeds of intel was 266,533 and so on, about 10 years ago lol.  LOL. Im sorry dude, your just freakin hilarious.  But you did get one thing right, the core speed is part of the cpu speed.  Now we just need you to understand the concept of the front side bus/HT.
> 
> Do you not relize how incorrect your logic is?  Ill just post here the facts and watch you try and fight a losing battle everytime i need a good laugh, cuz iv really never laughed so much, i mean, most ppl are wrong 2-3 times tops and wont admit it, but you just keep goin and goin its pretty funny.



core 2 duo has an fsb of 1066mhz, but its core speed is 266mhz. dont believe me? then why do the core 2 duo's come in increments of 266mhz?
e6300 = 266mhz*7 = 1.862ghz (1.86ghz)
e6400 = 266mhz*8 = 2.128ghz (2.13ghz)
e6600 = 266mhz*9 = 2.394ghz (2.4ghz)
e6700 = 266mhz*10 = 2.660ghz (2.66ghz)

you keep confusing fsb with core speed. its not the same thing.
all of the above processors have a core speed of 266mhz, and an fsb of 1066mhz. the only difference is the cpu multiplier.
just how athlon 64's have a core speed of 200mhz, hence they come in increments of 200mhz. amd did the same thing, same fsb, same core speed... different cpu multiplier.


----------



## Geoff

fade2green514 said:


> the only difference is the cpu multiplier.


Also the E6600/6700 have 4MB of cache, but thats besides the point


----------



## fade2green514

[-0MEGA-];431344 said:
			
		

> Also the E6600/6700 have 4MB of cache, but thats besides the point



another example. they disabled cache. thanks goeff.


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

This is too good.  I cant stop laughing.  Ok, we will go with your logic.  But my cpu still has a core speed of 2ghz. So i guess i have the fastest processor in the world LOL.

Oh, and to nudge you in the right direction once again. What you are refering to as the core speed, is actually the front side bus/ht, and what you refer to as the front side bus is the bus speed. Do not confuse front side bus with bus, they are 2 different things.  In intels case, the bus speed is the front side bus quad pumped to give you your "front side bus" or as us ppl with knowledge would call it, bus speed.


----------



## fade2green514

okay, read it.
http://www.computerforum.com/106904-post5.html
"the net speed of a CPU is determined by the product of the core speed (sometimes called the FSB) and the multiplier"
core speed. commonly known as FSB.
core speed != speed of the cpu core
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/core2duo/specifications.htm
funny because intel doesnt call it a "bus" they call it a "front side bus" like i said.


> Do not confuse front side bus with bus


haha...

why are we arguing about the names of the different frequencies? oh well..
i was right anyways... haha


----------



## Geoff

Ok, just to clarify everything here.  Lets use an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 as an example.

The FSB of this CPU, is 266.
The Bus speed of this CPU, is 1066.
The Clock speed of this CPU, is ~1860.


----------



## fade2green514

yea i dont even care anymore. someone close the thread because it clearly went WAY off topic...


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

Ok, this is directly from Intels site, and i wouldnt call Intel liars.  Im pretty sure they know more about computers then all of us.  Here you go, this will clear everything up for all of you.  But mostly for the ones that dont already know.

http://www.intel.com/design/Pentium4/prodbref/

If you actually READ the entire thing, you will relize that your wrong, using my old P4 for an example:

Front side bus: 133mhz
Bus speed(fsb*4): 533mhz
Core speed(fsb*20): 2.66ghz.  

Correcting the other one posted:

Front side bus: 266mhz
Bus speed(266*4): 1064mhz(1066mhz)
Core speed(266*7): 1.862ghz

The front side bus is multiplied 4 times to get the bus speed becuz intel has it quad pumped, unlike AMDs better HT which is only dual pumped. Well actually, the HT is multiplied before its "pumped".  So yea.


----------



## Geoff

Sorry, I had it mixed up.

The FSB for the E6300 would be 266Mhz, and the Bus speed would be 1066Mhz.


----------



## Iluvpenguins

Ya...uh...fade is stupid because Ku-Sama just proved him wrong with the actual product in his possesion.


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

[-0MEGA-];431430 said:
			
		

> Sorry, I had it mixed up.
> 
> The FSB for the E6300 would be 266Mhz, and the Bus speed would be 1066Mhz.



And im sorry for correcting you like that. This has just become a hot thread.  Should be closed, but obviously no admin really cares right now lol.

I bet all the admins are watchin this thread, laughing their asses off.  I know i would be if i was an admin.  Or even if i wasnt an admin, pretty good thread lol.


----------



## Ku-sama

Iluvpenguins said:


> Ya...uh...fade is stupid because Ku-Sama just proved him wrong with the actual product in his possesion.


yeah, and i bent a pin while re attaching the IHS


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

Damn, that sucks.  But if its only one pin, should be sorta easy to bend back into place.  But damn, when you get about 100 bent out of shape, then your just f-ed lol.


----------



## Ku-sama

it was an easy fix, but when i bent about 210 pins on my 4000+ i thought i was about to cry


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

LOL. Damn, thats alot.  When i was messin with my old Socket 7 Intel Pentium, i had bent the pins all the time on it, and it still ran solid, but i always bent them back.  Till one day i had bout half of them all f-ed up and i started trying to bend them back, but everytime i got one right, i bent another one in the process lol.  : ( .  So i just said f it and chopped all the pins off and made a keychain out of it.


----------



## fade2green514

Iluvpenguins said:


> Ya...uh...fade is stupid because Ku-Sama just proved him wrong with the actual product in his possesion.





> 3. Rude, offensive or threatening comments as well as posting of adult material will not be tolerated.


http://www.computerforum.com/motherboards/announcements.html
read it.
i dont understand why they allow people to make fun of me for stupid shit that i had clear cites to back me up for... and the argument was about what you call a frequency... or what effects how fast your memory is.
im clearly not a stupid person, otherwise i wouldve never gotten my processor to 2.6ghz, and i also wouldn't have gotten a 3.6GPA as an average for high school altogether. id actually call that pretty smart.

yea, so im stupid just because i didn't remove my own IHS?
that makes no sense... thats a dangerous thing to do it, why would i do it.
i think i dont really care what the names are, because clearly one place calls it one thing, and another place calls it another thing. they should just have a standard for what they call it because clearly intel's site disagree's with itself... the link you posted disagrees with the link i posted.
either way, we both know what were talking about (at this point) and it doesnt matter what we call it because praetor would call it one thing in oc101, and intel would call it a different thing on their site.. but we all understand what speed and what frequency they speak of.


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

Ok, for one, a 5yo could overclock a computer, its not hard at all.  My cpu goes to 260mhz fsb on stock cooling, thats using a thermal pad and not compound, and i didnt have to change anything but the fsb.  So what skill does that require? Entering the bios?  I could pry reach 2.75ghz as some have with this cpu, or even a little more if i had a better cooling system on it, but i didnt buy this CPU to run it OCed all the time like some ppl do, i bought it becuz its good enough at stock speeds that there is no need for me to OC it.  Yea, i OCed it a few times, but that was just to see what it could do.

Yes, it does matter what you call it.  If you like being wrong then call it what you want.  But there is a difference between all of the frequencies, thats why they are named different.


----------



## Iluvpenguins

Fade,you spelled sites wrong.


----------



## StrangleHold

Praetor said:


> in case you didnt know (which seems apparent), neither AMD nor Intel do the approach as you suggest:


 
Dont keep up with Intel, But AMD does do that, ((few and I say very few are!!!)) On the X2 if one core is unstable and one is not, they disable it and release it as a single core with a different stock number, same with the L2, if one has a 1mb L2 and is not stable they will release it as a 512 L2 model. Think about it, thats cheaper than throwing it in the trash can. But to say there all dual cores with stuff disabled is stupid!!


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

Yes, that is correct, but not EVERY AMD 64 is made dual core as he suggest.  Its more about a 1/100000 ratio are actually dual core.  

And about all the frequencies, CPU-z has it covered:





Do you see a problem with your logic yet?


----------



## StrangleHold

Its the same with the sempron, there just crap Athlons. If the 64bit is unstable they disable it and call it a plain Sempron, if the athlons L2 is unstable they disable half of it and call it a sempron with 256 L2, if its really a crap processor they disable 3 fourths of it and call it a sempron with 128 L2. Dont tell me you really think they trash can those processors!!


----------



## fade2green514

no, i definitely said that some of them have the core disabled, and i was right. read through the thread.


> Fade,you spelled sites wrong.


http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=cite
a cite would be considered a reference. "site" would've worked too, as you suggested.
so picky sheesh lol
any flaw you _think_ i make is just attacked jeeze..
note you didn't mention anything about my high GPA haha.
overclock it to 2.75ghz. its harder to do than you think. plus, my proc was a bad egg.. i didn't get as lucky as most people did with this proc.
if i wanted it to run very hot i could overvolt it to 1.65V and probably get the thing to 2.7 or 2.8ghz... and it would only really run hot because my cpu's IHS is crap... it runs hot even on default clocks... and ive got everything sanded down to a mirrored finish. (about 2500grit)


----------



## Geoff

LSK Otacon.  I would really stop putting fade2green down, because if you remember, a few months ago you were the biggest noob out there.  You didnt know a think about computers, and you also had no clue what kind of CPU was better then others.


----------



## fade2green514

howd you get that sempron to 1.63ghz without pci/agp locks?
lol


----------



## Geoff

fade2green514 said:


> howd you get that sempron to 1.63ghz without pci/agp locks?
> lol



Im suprised, the "FSB" is at 233Mhz actually, which is suprising.  I still havent hit a wall yet, im going to raise it up a bit more and see how high i can get it.


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

[-0MEGA-];432212 said:
			
		

> LSK Otacon.  I would really stop putting fade2green down, because if you remember, a few months ago you were the biggest noob out there.  You didnt know a think about computers, and you also had no clue what kind of CPU was better then others.



And when was this? I was not a noob when i joined this forum.  But i was a major noob at one time.  Like when i bought an FX5200.  And then when i paid $200 for 512mb of ram.  But those days are way over man.  I knew alot when i joined this forum.  What makes you think i didnt?


----------



## Geoff

{LSK} Otacon said:


> And when was this? I was not a noob when i joined this forum.  But i was a major noob at one time.  Like when i bought an FX5200.  And then when i paid $200 for 512mb of ram.  But those days are way over man.  I knew alot when i joined this forum.  What makes you think i didnt?



Your not as much of one now, but the things you said a few months ago deffinetly were.

Lets just put it this way...  I have my ways of seeing what you said back then.


----------



## fade2green514

yea, maybe u were overclocking the pci slots and the agp slot too. i mean really, who cares as long as its stable right? lol


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

I almost for a second thought that an AMD 64 Sempron 3000+ was better then my P4 based on the fsb,cache, and all that.  But having used one on my gfs computer, i was very wrong.  And her computer isnt cluttered that bad that it would make it that slow.  There was hardly any programs running in the background other then your essentials(drivers and such).  But in any case, it was like 10 times slower then my P4 lol.  I always knew that Semprons were the lowest end of the Athlons, but i never expected that.


Also can you show me an instance where i said something completely noobish? Cuz i have no memory of saying such things.


----------



## Geoff

{LSK} Otacon said:


> Omega you have 768mb of ram? So your running in single channel with with 3 256s or a 512 and a 256 or what?  Also, its not a good idea to OC your PCI/AGP slots.  Thats a fast way to damage the cards and mobo.



Yes I'm in single channel mode.  I have 1x 512MB and 1x 256MB.  Socket 754 doesnt support dual-channel, so theres no real reason for me to ditch the 256MB stick.

Almost any motherboard before 939 and LGA775 didnt have an PCI or AGP locks.  It's not going to damage the card, and especially not the motherboard, anytime soon.  There designed to be run at different frequencies.



> Also can you show me an instance where i said something completely noobish? Cuz i have no memory of saying such things.


Do you want me to say something computer related, or can anything count?


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

Computer related.  

Oh and, sorry, i didnt relize it was a 754 socket.  I dont know much about older AMD systems prior to mine lol.  I was an intel man before.  I just read up on the 754 sockets.  Time to upgrade yet?


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

I still wouldnt risk overclocking the pci/agp frequencies.  How much OCed are they?  Here are 2 forums that say its not good to do:

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=470921

http://forums.amd.com/index.php?showtopic=45832

I couldnt find an actual site that said it, but its still very risky.

But i guess if its stable, then by all means have fun with it lol.


----------



## Geoff

{LSK} Otacon said:


> Computer related.
> 
> Oh and, sorry, i didnt relize it was a 754 socket.  I dont know much about older AMD systems prior to mine lol.  I was an intel man before.  I just read up on the 754 sockets.  Time to upgrade yet?



I upgraded from a P4 2.2 

I know its not _good_ for the cards if i raise the PCI/AGP frequencies higher, but given the fact that I only keep my parts for a few months, and not several years, doesnt make much difference to me.

And about you saying something noobish, here are a few things you've said on the forum:



> i know that on my hdds there is a jumper setting that only lets you use 30 gigs of its 75. Check your jumpers


There is no jumper to allow only a certain amount of storage capacity to be used.


> 500mhz IS DDR500 cuz i know cuz i have DDR500 ram. And also, there is no such thing as DDR1000, the highest DDR goes is DDR600


DDR400 runs at 200Mhz, and DDR500 runs at 250Mhz.

My memory is running a bit under DDR400, and this is what CPU-Z shows:


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

Ok, you got me on the second one.  But i am for certain on my old IBM PATA hdds, there was a jumper that allowed for only 32gigs to be used.  There is a diagram on the hdd that says it.

Yea, i guess it wouldnt matter if you only had your computer for a few months.  But spending alot of money on a computer youd want it to last as long as it can.


----------



## Geoff

{LSK} Otacon said:


> Ok, you got me on the second one.  But i am for certain on my old IBM PATA hdds, there was a jumper that allowed for only 32gigs to be used.  There is a diagram on the hdd that says it.



If you show me, then i'll believe it.


----------



## {LSK} Otacon

Well, i dont have an actual camera, but here is a picture from my video camera, i tried to get it focused as best i could.





Also, here is a site that explains it a little:
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Hardware/Q_20476118.html


----------

