Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Overclocking AMD 2500+ Barton and Geforce FX 5950 Problems!




  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Whats up everyone! I need some opinions!

    First here's my setup:
    AMD Athlon 2500 Barton @ 1.98
    Thermaltake Silent Boost with Ducting Mod and Artic Silver 3
    Asus A7V333 Rev1.01 BIOS 1018 with Vantec active chipset cooler with AS3
    2 Kingston 512MB PC2700 @ 344FSB 3-3-3-6 with copper heatsink
    BFG Geforce FX 5950 256MB @ 525/1000 AGP4x driver v53.03
    Audigy 2 ZS 7.1 with Inspire t7700 7.1
    2 Western Digital 80GB 8MB buffer ATA100 on RAID 0
    1 External USB 2.0 IBM Deskstar 160GB 8MB buffer
    Sony DVDRW 530A
    Sony CDROM 52x
    5 case fans and power supply fans

    Now for the Problems:
    My CPU Idles at 59C. Loads at 63C. This is a little hot! I did put on the AS3 thermal paste correctly! Fan is mounted on right! 5 case fans two blowing out 3 blowing in! 2 Power supply fans blowing out! Readings are from Asus Probe v2.22.04 and A7V333 BIOs! Any suggestion on getting my CPU temp lower!

    Another Problem:
    When overclocking my Geforce FX 5950 256MB to 525/1000 the settings always go back to 525/950. It will stay at 525/1000 for a couple of days, but when I check again it goes back to the default memory setting leaving the GPU @ 525. Any suggestion getting this thing to stay overclocked! I am using coolbits to overclock! I actually change the registy myself. \HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\NVIDIA Corporation\Global\NVtweak added DWORD Value named CoolBits setting the value to 3.

    Thanks Everyone! I am curious to hear all suggestions!
    All Replies will be greatly appreciated!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    4,825

    Default

    I have been away from nVidia for a while so I won't comment on that part of your message. But as for the first portion...

    The first thing I would recommend is to get a real thermal probe and see what kind of temperatures you are running. Asus Probe has always been notoriously inaccurate. Some have claimed readings being off by 10C or more! Considering there is only a 4C difference between idle and load values, it really doesn't seem to be a bad cooling problem or the disparity would be much greater. Once you are able to see what the temperatures REALLY are, we can take a second look and see if and where your problems might lie.

    Good luck! :D
    Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
    My Toys

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13

    Default

    I tried Motherboard Monitor, and it gives me the same results.
    I think that this Mobo can't handle Bartons that well. Since it was first meant for 266FSB Processors.

    I think I'll just go out and get a AMD 64 FX, and another Mobo.
    Asus or Abit.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    Don't bother with the FX.

    Get the 3400+, its within 1-5% speed wise and is $300 cheaper at least.

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter64bit
    I tried Motherboard Monitor, and it gives me the same results.
    I think that this Mobo can't handle Bartons that well. Since it was first meant for 266FSB Processors.

    I think I'll just go out and get a AMD 64 FX, and another Mobo.
    Asus or Abit.
    Im sorry, but I do not even see the need for going through the trouble of overclocking if you could have just saved yourself all of that money, and just went with a nice 64bit setup to begin with. I always thought that overclocking was for those that can't afford to buy VERY nice computer upgrades, so they overclock. That is why I overclock, because I had no more money, I was at my budget with this setup, and if I had more money, I would never bother overclocking, I would simply buy a 64 and a 9800XT and be good to go for atleast a year.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    Why?

    You can make things faster for free. I don't see any reason not to. There is just not a valid argument against it (if you know what you are doing).

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Well I went to the local computer store yesterday to buy an AMD 64 FX, but they had none in stock. They had to order it instead. All they had was the 64bit 3000+, and 3200+. I thought about just getting the 3200+, but I got scared that I would be getting a mid range 64bit processor. I think I am just going to wait for a while. I see no need to buy a new board or processor when PCI Express is coming out, and I want to see more 64bit applications. I also want to see what Intel's got with this 64bit Itaninum. I think I will save, and wait for more high end products to become available.

    Arsenal11,
    Even if I have enough money to buy a 64bit setup, I will still overclock the hell out it! You would too! Just because we are fanatics!

    Whats up with AMD not going over 2.2ghz!
    I know their architecture is different, but with AMD 64s their FSB is 800Mhz-1600Mhz why not go up to 3.0Ghz that would mean there processors would be rated like a 6400+! I guess I would have to study their architecture more, but its just a thought.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter64bit
    Whats up with AMD not going over 2.2ghz!
    I know their architecture is different, but with AMD 64s their FSB is 800Mhz-1600Mhz why not go up to 3.0Ghz that would mean there processors would be rated like a 6400+! I guess I would have to study their architecture more, but its just a thought.
    It takes -100c cooling to run an A64 a 3Ghz.

    They do many more instructions per clock and have many fewer stages to their pipeline, preventing high frequencies, but it doesn't matter.

    Intels is built the opposite way.

    And don't buy an FX, its $300 for no performance gain over a 3400+. Not to mention S940 is going to be killed when they move to S939. AND you have to buy registered memory (RE) which is more expensive than normal memory and hampers its performance.

    AND the S940 boards are more expensive than S754. You will end up paying a lot more for virtually nothing.

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    13

    Default

    SoulBurner,

    I know that architectures are different, and I know that it would take a lot of cooling to get the A64s to 3ghz. I'm just saying AMD would be stomping on Intel if they would just get pass the 2.2Ghz mark.

    I think I am not going to upgrade anyways. I want to wait for PCI Express and more 64Bit applications to be available.

    Plus things are getting too pricey when I add everything up. I think I will wait for prices to drop as well.

    Thanks for the opinion!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter64bit
    SoulBurner,

    I know that architectures are different, and I know that it would take a lot of cooling to get the A64s to 3ghz. I'm just saying AMD would be stomping on Intel if they would just get pass the 2.2Ghz mark.
    Of course they would stomp Intel at higher clocks:

    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7382155
    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7488703
    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7408721

    But by design, they cannot clock that high. I already explained why. Shorter pipelines give higher efficiency, more instructions per clock, and do not allow higher clock frequencies.

    Where the A64 chips are benching at 3Ghz under supercooling, the Intel chips are benching at 4.6Ghz.

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •