Shovel Ready
Everest is reporting correctly.Originally Posted by Vamp
Your core clock is right on the button @399 (theoretically running 400) and you double the RAM speed (552) to get 1104.
So, the spec is 400/1100 and you are really running 399/1104, which is pretty damn close.
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
Hmmm... In Rivatuner when I goto Target Adapter settings it gives me 399/1104 but but when I goto driver settings it gives me 400/1100 (and that is settable option) How do I get that clock speed up to 400 just for peace of mind?
Forum Star
BT Rep: +2
Don't worry about it. 399 is 400. Just the software reads it a bit wrong.Hmmm... In Rivatuner when I goto Target Adapter settings it gives me 399/1104 but but when I goto driver settings it gives me 400/1100 (and that is settable option) How do I get that clock speed up to 400 just for peace of mind?
Shovel Ready
Your circuits are doing the best they can, there isn't anything you can do.
This is not a problem...it is very common (ubiquitous, if you will) and nothing to worry about.
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
What hardware is to get the computer speed my comp now is 2.6 ghz is it the mobo? I just want it to be 2.6 or higher and money is a prob I dont want to be spending over 1500$ just want whats best out of the computer im building.
L33T Member
BT Rep: +5
Its the processor. You have an intel. If you want something over 2.6 then you eaither get a higher end intel.
muchspl3 > muchspl2
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Most of the popular games will take advantage of SLI.
Last edited by muchspl3; 05-28-2005 at 08:47 PM.
L33T Member
BT Rep: +5
[QUOTE=muchspl3]Probbly, But like most of us wedonthave 2 grand to spend of 2 video cards.
Last edited by S!X; 05-28-2005 at 08:57 PM.
muchspl3 > muchspl2
[QUOTE=Linkin Park]apparently he does...
Probbly, But like most of us we done have 2 grand to spend of 2 video cards.
.
Intel's basic chip design has been quite poor over the years, the only way they could stay ahead of the competition was to throw money at improving the wafer process, which in turn allowed them to increase clock speeds.
By designing better circuits AMD (and others) managed to make chips which were just as good (and often better) but at lower clock speeds and could consequently use older, cheaper wafer technology, resulting in cheaper chips.
Unfortunately the public seemed to be convinced that more speed was better, and of course for identical designs that would be true. Intel's marketing strategy played upon this fact. But if you look at the way Intel is heading now, they too are going away from the MHz is better strategy.
Their new mobile chips run much slower for the same performance as their predecessors, so they are now going for a model number. Unfortunately that confuses things even more because it is hard to see the correlation between the model number and it's performance.
As has been said, you can either stick with Intel in which case you will need a higher speed LGA775 format chip, and a mobo to match. There's no point in going for another socket 478.
Or you can go for AMD and get a chip with a performance rating as the model number (eg 3500+), again with matching mobo (this time Socket 939).
I've rather lost track of whether there's much difference in price these days, but AMD's roadmap seems to be going forward exactly as planned while Intel's seems to be faltering a little. That's probably largely due to the fact that Intel are working very close to the cutting edge for their top performance products while AMD have still got plenty of headroom.
The choice is your's, but I think most people here would recommend AMD every time for desktop processors.
.Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks