Recent content by KenDawg

I have an answer to your first question. The point of running with a lower multiplier is the higher FSB. 8x375 is faster than 9x333 because the motherboard/RAM are running faster. Right now I am running my e4300 at 9x358 but I have been trying to run at 8x400 because it would be faster...

Hey, I have an e4300 on a S3 board and I'm running at 358*9=3222 I tried 400*8 and it won't boot for me either. I think the MCH gets too hot, but I didn't get too many other people to confirm/deny whether or not 400mhz is possible with the D/S3 without a fan on the MCH.

this might sound stupid, but did you turn all the graphics settings down in the control panel?

ok ... i guess I'll just stick with 358*9=3222mhz I am glad i got my e4300 to 3.2 on air but kind of disappointed that i couldn't get my ram running at 400mhz, which WOULD make it faster....but not by too much

Yeah, that's the problem. It IS the mobo, or at least I think it is. I figured others could get 400mhz easily, but mine doesn't. I'm running my CPU at 3222MHz as we speak, so that's not the problem. (358x9) I ran my memory at 833MHz before with a little extra voltage (333x2.5) But I...

@SentToSchool I know my RAM and CPU can run faster than 800mhz and 3200mhz. I can do both of those separately using different FSB settings, so I know the problem is with the motherboard hitting 400mhz (or anything over ~380mhz for that matter) @BillParrish Thanks Bill. I realize that to get a...

Hi, I have a Gigabyte 965P-S3 and e4300 CPU. I can get the CPU to over 3.2GHz by using 358*9 = 3.222. I have also tested my RAM separately and I know for sure that it can get to 833+MHz. So, what I am trying to do is get 400*8=3.2 - fast enough to get the most out of the RAM and CPU at the...

The obvious answer here is the 6420. It will put less stress when overclocking because of its 8x multiplier. That way, 3GHz = 375x8 instead of 429x7 with the 6320.

From what I have heard, if it has a 3-year warranty, it is RETAIL. You might want to wait for another source, but I think that is a retail CPU.

RooK, BOTH cards use the same information in their own memory. it goes like this: 320 MB of info ----> gpu1 same 320 MB of info ----> gpu2 since it's the same data and they both work with it, the cards are technically using 640 MB, but it's the same stuff twice.

nope, it's not a big deal. i'm just warning him not to spend extra on the 640 when it'll be exactly the same speed as if he gets a 320 :)

hey RooK, the thing is this... even if you DO get them to run in SLI: you won't get 640+640 = 1280MB -- that's obvious because you have a 320 and 640 you won't get 320+640 = 960MB you won't get 320+320 = 640MB you will actually get ONLY the lesser of the two cards, in this case 320MB. Yeah...

MBigD011, can you link to those benchmarks? I am assuming everyone goes for the Intel CPUs because they overclock like mad. My 1.80 GHz e4300 is running at 2.80 GHz easily -- undervolted with the stock cooler. So, in other words, my $160 processor outperforms a stock e6700 -- a $500 processor...

shred, if you have windows XP, I believe you can do the coolbits thing and overclock using that. If you have Vista, that won't work, but ATITool will work on your Nvidia card.

I have a question. Why don't the CPU manufactures just make a chip that operates at 3000MHz with a unity multiplier? There's really nothing in the chip that would stop a higher FSB, am I right? So we're not really waiting for Intel to release 1600 MHz chips, but we're waiting for the...