Now I'm building a athlon 64 system and I was thinking which athlon 64 3200+ I should get, the 2.0ghz 1 meg cache or the 2.2ghz 512k? Does anyone know which one will overclock better? I was thinking the 2.0 1 meg cache would overclock better since it is at a lower mhz rating. Thanks alot.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Overclocking with the Athlon 64 3200+
- Thread starter sianlogic
- Start date
xSyzygy666x
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 534
lol.....if your going to OC....get the 1mg cache.......you can OC the difference......if your going stock...the 200mhz will make a bigger difference....
Hey I'm looking to overclock my Athlon64 3200+ too. But here's the thing -- I have no idea how to do it. Never looked into overclocking before. Any guides out there for complete noobs? What exactly does it entail? Moving jumpers? Flashing the BIOS? See, I have no idea.
kinghovn@hotmail.com
kinghovn@hotmail.com
yah sure you can get 2.4 on the newcastle but allot of people have been gettin 2.4 and up with the stock cooling solution from amd also it doesn't perform as well in cahce intensive things like video compression. there is another thread on this forum that shows amd 64 overclocks here is the link http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=726998 also cahe adds between a 5% and 10% increase to performance so a 2.24 3200+ with 1 mb l2 is roughly the equivalent of a 2.4 newcastle oc and since if you wanted a max overclock on a 64 3200+ with 1mb l2 which is generally 2.5 you would have to overclock the newcastle to 2.75 to get a equivalent overclock or at least 2625 before you get roughly equal perfomance. 2.5 is easier to reach than 2.75 so I say go with the 3200+ 1mb l2 if you plan to oc otherwise get the newcastle
Nomad said:
That 2500 on 1mb cache one is not a sure thing. There are 1mb CG versions floating around I heard. I would go that route if you have good chance of CG core. I have newcastle that is doing fine @ 2500 right now but waiting for better cooling to arrive coming friday. If I can't hit 2600 on H2O, I probably will move on to 1mb cache version or 939 solution. As for the adequacy of either core, even with current oc I got, this is in league with P4 running around 3.6ghz... faster in game by far though and bit slower in encoding. Socket 939 probably is marginally better than P4 at just about everything (not in cost though... MB cost is much higher than intel right now due to newness).
CG 512k will most likely OC better in general. But than you can never disregard the not so speed binned C0...
Whatever you feel better deal is or gut instinct is what I would recommend
The lower multiplier is going to require you to get faster memory to achieve a similar core speed. I'm only running my Newcastle 3200+ at 2,320 MHz. My MoBo won't do all those huge HTT frequencies for whatever reason. If I had a Clawhammer, I'd be running at 2,100 MHz with the same settings. As for the cache difference, the real world difference in performance is supposed to minimal at best. The core and memory are the most important factors with these things it appears. People claim to be getting these huge OC's from Newcastles otherwise, but take that with a grain of salt.