# effect of HT LINK SPEED on performance - myth or reality???



## Urizen (Jan 30, 2008)

here's the problem: I have an AM2 CPU (the 4400+) that's meant for *HT2000 *(that's an HT link speed of 1000mhz ie. HT multiplier of 5x)

but my mainboard only supports HT1600 maximum (ie. HT link speed of 800mhz maximum ie. multiplier goes up to 4x only)
yeah that means a crappy board but one of the only few that still supports AGP


which means my current HT link speed is 800mhz only
(my CPU still runs at its stock 2300mhz speed though)


now a few days ago I read this article which basically states that HT link speed has virtually no effect on performance (even 3D)
so I felt kinda relieved, sure I couldn't get my Ht link speed to 1000Mhz but apparently that wouldn't have changed anything performance-wise



but then I came across a topic on this forum, and specifically this post  where the author clearly states that not only is there a difference in performance between 800 and 1000mhz, but also that the difference is *HUGE*, which completely contradicts the previous article 


so the question (for expert experts only) is : which of the two is right ? in the article I linked the reviewer states (and explains) why HT link speed has little to no effect, yet here we see just the opposite !!! so is this paranormal or is there another explanation ? 



and if accordpower99's right and an HT of 800 really is crap, then this means my CPU is operating BELOW its potential and I really absolutely MUST find a way to bypass bios limitations & increase my HT speed to 1000mhz ! 
is there a windows utility that can do it ? 
any help greatly appreciated !


----------



## hat (Jan 30, 2008)

Can you drop your multiplier and raise the FSB to 250?


----------



## Darknova (Jan 30, 2008)

Only in synthetic benchmarks does the HT link matter...even then it's no where near as much as you'd think he made it sound.

The HT link can go down as low as 750Mhz with a dual-core Athlon with no adverse effects.

You want to stay between 800 and 1000Mhz just to be safe though.

In the real world you will see no noticeable difference between 800Mhz and 1000Mhz

Hope that helps


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jan 30, 2008)

When the guys says, 

"no i finally found it man, my ht link speed at 1000mhz finally fixed it. I had it at 800 apparently, but eveythings great now!"

How do you know he is talking about performance increase, typical increasing the and bringing to normal the HT Link speed brings a huge amount of stability.

Maybe the guy was trying to overclock, it was not working, then brought the HT linkl speed to normal and it was stable again.

Simply said, HT link effect mostly Stabilty and practicly has no perfromance increase unless in help stabalize your CPU overclock in which case it aided to help increase the speed of the CPU whcih effected performance.

But, hey I'm no expert, thats just what I think is the case, besides I didn't even read the whole thread just one post that you gave me from it.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 30, 2008)

back when i was AMD, i had my HT link from 2000 to 3000 (200 FSB to 300, without lowering it)

Wasnt very stable, but it wasnt any faster either - so i lowered it.

I dont think the speed difference will be that great, the guy who claimed it made a huge difference was probably from other factors - overclocking other components for example.


----------



## theonetruewill (Jan 30, 2008)

I keep mine at 600, instead of 1000, because I actually find it faster- yeah it's odd but I have the proof with superpi. There is a pitiful synthetic performance difference for the people that have it higher (pm pos_pc) but there's no noticeable performance differnce in the realworld.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 30, 2008)

i ran it between 600~1200 and i think i got a difference of .2s in superpi between the lowest and highest. it make almost no difference so dont worry about it.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 30, 2008)

yes anywhere between 600 and 1200 wont show any real difference.. higher just brings in possible instability with no gain..

trog


----------



## Urizen (Jan 30, 2008)

thanx for the positive replies folx 



hat said:


> Can you drop your multiplier and raise the FSB to 250?


maybe but I'm not sure what you mean by FSB here (looks like things are more complicated with recent AMD setups)

apparently there's two completely separate "base frequencies", one for RAM & one for the bus (HT)
then there's the CPU base clock but I'm not sure if it's the same as the RAM or the same as the HT base clock 

here this is what Everest shows about my mainboard :







both ram and HT have a base clock of ~200mhz but it's not the same 200mhz 

(the HT link is at 848mhz instead of 800 because I activated something called "AM2boost" option in bios)


----------



## Urizen (Jan 30, 2008)

btw this is the topic I was talking about, it's still in the same page as mine, same section :
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=50970&page=2

it's definitely a performance issue, at least that's what he says





Darknova said:


> Only in synthetic benchmarks does the HT link matter...even then it's no where near as much as you'd think he made it sound.


well he did say it was "day & night" in terms of performance (he didn't know why his games ran a lot slower with his new 6400+, and he was even about to reformat his hdd, it was that bad) then he went from 800 to 1000 & according to him there was a huge boost 






AphexDreamer said:


> How do you know he is talking about performance increase, typical increasing the and bringing to normal the HT Link speed brings a huge amount of stability.
> Maybe the guy was trying to overclock, it was not working, then brought the HT linkl speed to normal and it was stable again.


no he said it fixed the "slow" problem - besides if it were about stability only then 800 would've been better than 1000, no? instead he went up from 800 to 1000 


Mussels said:


> I dont think the speed difference will be that great, the guy who claimed it made a huge difference was probably from other factors - overclocking other components for example.


that's what I thought (hoped) at first but in the topic - I linked to it again - he definitely says his games were running a lot _slower _depsite his new CPU before he made that simple change in the bios 

so...how come?


----------



## accordpower99 (Jan 30, 2008)

how about this tell me how to screen shot my bios, my mulitplier is at 16x bus speed 200, eveyrthing else auto except ht link.

nothing else has worked for me in overclocking thats why its still at stock settings. letme know how to screen shot if you dont believe me. 

the night and day was the both games runing extemely choppy vs. nice and smooth after ht link set at 1000mhz


----------



## xvi (Jan 31, 2008)

Download and run PerfMonitor from www.cpuid.com. Left click one of the bars and choose "HyperTransport bus 0 Bandwidth". If that maxes out, do anything you can to raise your FSB. Don't know what to say other than that.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 31, 2008)

xvi said:


> Download and run PerfMonitor from www.cpuid.com. Left click one of the bars and choose "HyperTransport bus 0 Bandwidth". If that maxes out, do anything you can to raise your FSB. Don't know what to say other than that.



you can SEE that? sweet! i'll try this out on my AM2 system.

with my housemate watching pokemon on the system, the HT0 went between 250 and 800 (of 2000)
Will have to test it with something else later, but that seems a great diagnostic and perfect for this thread. Thanks for linking that.

P.S the HT0 option is low down on the list - there are lots of options, so scroll down to find it.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 31, 2008)

that amd boost thing is some kind of auto overclocking.. it caused me problems till i turned it off..

u have a baseline clock (fsb) 200mhz.. memory.. cpu speed and htt speeds are controlled by that..

htt is 5 x baseline clock = 1000..

memory would be 2 x baseline clock = 400/800

cpu would be 15 x baseline clock =  3000...

if everything is on auto raising the baseline clock will increase the speed of the other three things..

on manual u can independently adjust the speed of the other three things..

messing with the htt speed on its own will not make any real difference to performance.. but if u raise the baseline clock too much without lowering the htt multiplier to x 4 it might cause instability issues..

trog


----------



## Urizen (Jan 31, 2008)

trog100 said:


> messing with the htt speed on its own will not make any real difference to performance..


but then how d'you explain this :





accordpower99 said:


> how about this tell me how to screen shot my bios, my mulitplier is at 16x bus speed 200, eveyrthing else auto except ht link.
> 
> nothing else has worked for me in overclocking thats why its still at stock settings. letme know how to screen shot if you dont believe me.
> 
> the night and day was the both games runing extemely choppy vs. nice and smooth after ht link set at 1000mhz


see folks that's what I meant - that's also what he said in the other topic, he only changed the HT speed (from 800 to 1000), _nothing else_

which basically contradicts everything that's said on the net about HT speed not affecting performance, because according to his results not only does HT link speed affect performance but it also has a *HUGE *effect  at least that's the only rational explanation, afaik  




Mussels said:


> with my housemate watching pokemon on the system, the HT0 went between 250 and 800 (of 2000)


yeah me too

but isn't that bad news ? cos' this also suggest that HT link affects performance (unlike what many ppl think)


----------



## Urizen (Jan 31, 2008)

xvi said:


> Download and run PerfMonitor from www.cpuid.com. Left click one of the bars and choose "HyperTransport bus 0 Bandwidth". If that maxes out, do anything you can to raise your FSB. Don't know what to say other than that.


yeah it maxes out but only during CPU-intensive stuff like winrar archiving (with multithreading option on)

maybe an HT link of 1000Mhz is necessary for *dual-core* systems ? 



I tried raising the FSB in bios

now the thing is my CPU is meant for 200 x 11.5

so I raised the FSB to 220 and lowered the multiplier to 10.5

it booted and sure enough the HT link speed was 880mhz



but then anything above 220mhz won't boot ! 
I tried 225x10 and it didn't boot
fortunately I had "boot failure guard" enabled, and when it did post then it showed a multiplier of...11.5 ! (and CPU frequency of 2.6Ghz or something !) 
so basically when I raise the FSB above 220 then it _ignores _the manual multiplier settings & reverts back to the default 11.5  



so looks like I'm stuck with a maximum FSB of 220mhz thus maximum HT of 880mhz 





so is there any other way I can force an HT of 1000mhz ?

is there a utility to override bios *HT multiplier *settings & force it to 5x instead of 4x? 

if I make a bios dump is there a simple way to add the 5x option ? (a bit crazy but I'm desperate now )


----------



## trog100 (Jan 31, 2008)

Urizen said:


> but then how d'you explain this :see folks that's what I meant - that's also what he said in the other topic, he only changed the HT speed (from 800 to 1000), _nothing else_
> 
> which basically contradicts everything that's said on the net about HT speed not affecting performance, because according to his results not only does HT link speed affect performance but it also has a *HUGE *effect  at least that's the only rational explanation, afaik




i would make no attempt to explain that.. i know what i know.. i dont give too much credence to one guys post as to what happens for him.. attempting to explain the inexplicable is a fools errand..

trog

ps..u could turn of the stupid auto overclock thing if u still have it running..


----------



## Urizen (Jan 31, 2008)

trog100 said:


> i would make no attempt to explain that.. i know what i know.. i dont give too much credence to one guys post as to what happens for him.. attempting to explain the inexplicable is a fools errand..
> 
> trog
> 
> ps..u could turn of the stupid auto overclock thing if u still have it running..


he'd have no reason to lie  unless there's another explanation (I hope)



anyway, I usually leave AM2boost (auto-overclock) on as I've had no stability probs with it (even with memtest)
 HOWEVER I had to turn AM2boost off to be able to manually overclock (FSB, etc.) so the results I mentioned before (about system going unstable when FSB went above 220mhz) were with AM2boost OFF 

btw the maximum vcore bios lets me set is 1.3V
now I suppose the necessary voltage depends *only *on the CPU's baseline clock (and not the "overall clock" which is baseline x multiplier), right ? in other words for example 200x1 requires as much voltage as 200x20 ? 
if so maybe that explains why it wouldn't boot above 220mhz, if you need more than 1.3V for high FSB speeds


----------



## Mussels (Jan 31, 2008)

CPU voltage depends on the overall clock, not the HTT speed.

Motherboard (northbridge) voltage may need to increase as the HTT goes up. - also you may be overclocking your ram, so it will need more volts too.


----------



## Urizen (Feb 1, 2008)

so a CPU setting of, say, 200x15 will need exactly the same voltage as 300x10 ? 



iirc there's no "northbridge" or "chipset" voltage option in bios, only vcore, dram & AGP voltage 



btw. when I changed the FSB, the RAM clock was unchanged (it stayed at 400mhz (or 800mhz, whatever)) 

maybe it's an HT thing, maybe with hypertransport the chipset & RAM clocks are independent


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 1, 2008)

Ima give you a story.  I have my CPU.  I have the HTlink at like 500mhz during OCIng.  I do some benchies.  I raise the HT to 765.  I do benchies.  Almost the same.  It is about a 3% difference for me.  It is not a myth but on the quad core phenoms expect a 20% difference.


----------



## Darknova (Feb 1, 2008)

Urizen said:


> so a CPU setting of, say, 200x15 will need exactly the same voltage as 300x10 ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, because the CPU is still running at exactly the same speed as it was before. 3Ghz.

A lot of boards (especially cheaper ones) don't give you that many options for overclocking. We're talking in general terms, but if there is no option then there's nothing you can do about it unfortunately.

I think you'll find that unless you have the RAM divider set to Auto then the RAM clock will have changed, but most RAM will overclock to some degree, and you didn't push it very far.

And no, everything is dependant on your bus speed. CPU, RAM, HT, everything.


----------



## Urizen (Feb 1, 2008)

well I set the FSB values from 200mhz up to 220mhz and each time the RAM clock remained unchanged @ 400mhz (according to cpuz & everest) 

however activating AM2boost does increase my ram clock by about 5% (as well as HT clock) but also disables manual overclocking

I haven't overclocked my RAM though (I set my DRAM voltage to "auto")

however my RAM is certified for 5-5-5 and I set its timings to 4-4-4 & it still works without a problem  I dunno if decreasing timings counts as "overclocking" though



PVTCaboose1337 said:


> Ima give you a story.  I have my CPU.  I have the HTlink at like 500mhz during OCIng.  I do some benchies.  I raise the HT to 765.  I do benchies.  Almost the same.  It is about a 3% difference for me.  It is not a myth but on the quad core phenoms expect a 20% difference.


thanks m8 that's good news ! 


btw I just tried my own benches using 3Dmark05

I did all tests except the CPU ones (3Dmark05 doesn't use both cores)

I did the benchmarks using various HT link speeds from 200mhz up to 800mhz (checked in cpuz & everest to make sure new HT clock settings were applied)


the average FPS for most test didn't change at all regardless of HT clock 

with the exception of one test, *"vertex shaders - simple"* (it's also 3dmark05's toughest test)
with this test, the average fps were as follows :
- HT clock @ 200mhz : 9fps
- HT clock @ 400mhz : 11fps
- HT clock @ 600mhz : 12fps
- HT clock @ 800mhz : 12fps (same as with 600mhz)

so apparently full potential is achieved at around 600mhz HT

I couldn't test it at 1000mhz but if performance is the same at 600mhz & 800mhz then it's likely it won't change at 1ghz 



so you're probably right it only affects performance with quad-core & super-high-end CPUs but by the time I get one of these (not anytime soon) I'll have a new mobo & ram by then 

PS. and I dunno what happened with accordpower99's setup but maybe it's cause he's got a top-line CPU over 3ghz and at those speeds HT link does have greater effect


----------



## accordpower99 (Feb 2, 2008)

Urizen said:


> PS. and I dunno what happened with accordpower99's setup but maybe it's cause he's got a top-line CPU over 3ghz and at those speeds HT link does have greater effect



OK UPDATE ON THIS I DUNNO WHAT MADE THE BIG CHANGE, I CHANGED IT BACK TO 800 AND GOT THE SAME PERFORMANCE, MAYBE THE AUTO WHICH KEPT IT AT 200? BUT THAT DOESNT MAKE SENCE, I DIDNT OC ANYTHING ELSE IM ALMOST POSITVE. SO TO EVERYONE 

I SERIOUSLY THOUGHT THATS WHAT IT WAS, TRUST ME THERE WAS A BIG DIFFERENCE I JUST DONT KNOW WHAT IT WAS NOW.


----------



## accordpower99 (Feb 2, 2008)

Another Question Will The Htlink Make The Cpu Run Hotter?


----------



## Urizen (Feb 2, 2008)

accordpower99 said:


> I CHANGED IT BACK TO 800 AND GOT THE SAME PERFORMANCE


**phew** <- mega-sigh of relief

THANKS A LOT M8 that's a relief  


to all the others who told me not to worry about HT link : forgive me for having doubted yall  



accordpower99 said:


> Another Question Will The Htlink Make The Cpu Run Hotter?


nope, only *global *frequency counts (baseline bus frequency (200mhz by default) X cpu multiplier)


----------



## Mussels (Feb 2, 2008)

accordpower99 said:


> Another Question Will The Htlink Make The Cpu Run Hotter?


no. Increasing MHz rarely increases heat, its voltage that does that.

(yes it increases a little, but its a night and day difference compared to voltage)


----------



## xvi (Feb 2, 2008)

It should make your chipset run hotter too. Again, not by much.


----------



## Urizen (Feb 8, 2008)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> but on the quad core phenoms expect a 20% difference.


ah so _1000_ghz HT link speeds is still required for _quad cores _?


I ask this 'cause my mobo supports AM2+ CPUs as well (phenoms) so you're saying that a *quad *core CPU would be overkill for my mobo as it wouldn't be running at its full potential ? (since my mobo only does HT up to 800mhz) 



so to summarize :

800Mhz HT is enough for 1 or 2 core CPUs
but
800Mhz is *not *enough for 4 core CPUs ?

is that correct ?


----------



## xvi (Feb 9, 2008)

I just tested a dual proc, dual core Opteron 1U Gateway server with 1000MHz HT. Prime95 loaded the HT to about 700 *MAX*.

A Phenom isn't going to be much different.

*MYTH*, people...


----------



## hat (Feb 9, 2008)

Yeah, I didn't get a difference in SuperPi with my HT speed running at 2500MT/s vs 2000MT/s... well, not enough to change the score by even one second (at that time I was using the non-modifed super-pi that only gave you whole-number values, no decimels).


----------



## Urizen (Feb 9, 2008)

xvi said:


> I just tested *a dual proc, dual core* Opteron 1U Gateway server with 1000MHz HT. Prime95 loaded the HT to about 700 *MAX*.
> 
> A Phenom isn't going to be much different.
> 
> *MYTH*, people...


wait just so we're clear : you mean dual proc AND dual core ? so a total of *4 cores* ?



hat said:


> Yeah, I didn't get a difference in SuperPi with my HT speed running at 2500MT/s vs 2000MT/s... well, not enough to change the score by even one second (at that time I was using the non-modifed super-pi that only gave you whole-number values, no decimels).


but what's 2000MT/s - is that 1000mhz ? 

if so did you also test it at *1600MT/s* for comparison with 2000MT/s? that's the important part


----------



## xvi (Feb 9, 2008)

Thank you, hat. Point and case.


----------



## xvi (Feb 9, 2008)

Urizen said:


> wait just so we're clear : you mean dual proc AND dual core ? so a total of *4 cores* ?
> 
> but what's 2000MT/s - is that 1000mhz ?



They added DDR to the HyperTransport bus. AMD should be rolling out 3600MT/s HyperTransport soon.


----------



## Urizen (Feb 9, 2008)

xvi said:


> They added DDR to the HyperTransport bus.


ok so that means he only tested it at 1000Mhz and 1250mhz and the results were the same, but he didn't test it at 800Mhz (1600MT/s) which is my mobo's limit 

hat> what are the results @ 1600MT/s?


----------



## hat (Feb 9, 2008)

By 2000MT/s I mean 1000MHz HTT link. 2500MT/s is 1250MHz, and right now at 2420MT/s that is 1210MHz... get it?

MT/s means Mega Transfers/second if you want to know. I don't know what Mega Transfers means, but I get to do up to 2420 of them every second... at least you can look it up now that you know what you're looking for if you're that interested in it.


----------



## Urizen (Feb 9, 2008)

ok thx so that means you tested at 1000Mhz and 1250Mhz and u said there was no difference by even 1 second

but what about *800Mhz *? (that's my mobo's limit) did you test it at 800Mhz ? 
was it slower than with 1000mhz ? (I hope not )


----------



## xvi (Feb 9, 2008)

..and yes. A total of four cores.

It's not going to be slower unless you have something else saturating the last 400MT/s of the HT bus like... 50 SATA Barracuda drives in RAID?


----------



## hat (Feb 9, 2008)

Urizen said:


> ok thx so that means you tested at 1000Mhz and 1250Mhz and u said there was no difference by even 1 second
> 
> but what about *800Mhz *? (that's my mobo's limit) did you test it at 800Mhz ?
> was it slower than with 1000mhz ? (I hope not )



No I did not test it at 800MHz. Let's see, right now my FSB is 242... so if I dropped the HT multi to 4x it would be 968MHz, or 1936MT/s. If I dropped it to 3x it would be 726, or 1452MT/s, 2x would be 484 or 968MT/s, and if I put it at 1x (I'm not even sure I have this setting but I think I do) it would be 242MHz or 484MT/s. Tell ya what...

I will run SuperPI 1m 3 times under the same circumstances with the MT/s speed at:
2420MT/s
1936MT/s
1452MT/s
968MT/s
484MT/s (if I have it).

I'll post back in about 5 min.


----------



## Urizen (Feb 9, 2008)

k thx for the trouble I'll be waiting


----------



## xvi (Feb 9, 2008)

..if you can even boot at 2x or 3x.


----------



## Urizen (Feb 9, 2008)

I can boot at 3x 2x or even 1x

why, is lower HT speed less stable ?


----------



## hat (Feb 9, 2008)

Here are my results running SuperPI mod 1.5 calculating 1M:
2420MT/s: 29.578s
1936MT/s: 29.547s
1452MT/s: 29.532s
968MT/s:  29.531s
484MT/s: 30.141s

Interesting indeed. It ran faster and faster until I booted at 1x and ran it. My conclusuion is that it's perfectly fine until it gets lower than your RAM speed, then it's slightly slower. My RAM, if you check my specs, is running at DDR645 4-4-4-12-1T.

My guess for it running faster on a lower HTT speed is purely out of luck of the small core frequency fluctuations. But it's kind of weird how consistient it is... maybe it fluctuates less at a lowet HTT speed.
Is 1m good enough for you or do you want me to run a longer test? My options are:
16K
32K
64K
128K
256K
512K
1M (what I did just now)
2M
4M
8M
16M
32M


----------



## Mussels (Feb 9, 2008)

Urizen said:


> I can boot at 3x 2x or even 1x
> 
> why, is lower HT speed less stable ?



none of my 939 systems wouldnt boot at 3x, and my AM2's dont work below 5x.

Probably mobo dependant.


----------



## Urizen (Feb 9, 2008)

hat said:


> Here are my results running SuperPI mod 1.5 calculating 1M:
> 2420MT/s: 29.578s
> 1936MT/s: 29.547s
> 1452MT/s: 29.532s
> ...



nah thanx a lot hat that's will do!  

so I guess I can move on to a 4core on my *HT800* mobo without losing any of its potential then, right ? 
if so I'll get a Phenom as soon as they fix that L3 bug



Mussels said:


> none of my 939 systems wouldnt boot at 3x, and my AM2's dont work below 5x.
> 
> Probably mobo dependant.


that's weird


----------



## hat (Feb 9, 2008)

My mobo works will all settings... 
which is werid. Why would a motherboard have a setting available that it simply won't work with? And why would it not work at a SLOWER, EASIER TO RUN speed anyway?


----------



## hat (Feb 9, 2008)

Urizen said:


> nah thanx a lot hat that's will do!
> 
> so I guess I can move on to a 4core on my *HT800* mobo without losing any of its potential then, right ?
> if so I'll get a Phenom as soon as they fix that L3 bug
> ...



You seem new here. There is a thanks button under every post. If someone helped you, you can click the thanks button under thier helpful post and give them some extra stars/stripes/ribbons/medals to flaunt around on thier, uhh, shirt... I guess...


----------



## Mussels (Feb 9, 2008)

hat said:


> My mobo works will all settings...
> which is werid. Why would a motherboard have a setting available that it simply won't work with? And why would it not work at a SLOWER, EASIER TO RUN speed anyway?



well for all i know it was CPU dependant, and none of mine worked with it. dont have any of them around anymore, so i cant test.

Good info on those HT benchies - would you mind dropping your ram speed (leave the rest the same) and get it below 484 - and then do the tests again.
Would like to confirm your theory on HT should be above ram MHz


----------



## Urizen (Feb 9, 2008)

hat said:


> You seem new here. There is a thanks button under every post. If someone helped you, you can click the thanks button under thier helpful post and give them some extra stars/stripes/ribbons/medals to flaunt around on thier, uhh, shirt... I guess...


yeah I know in fact you're not the 1st as I've thanked quite a lot of other ppl too on this thread (all those who wrote "optimistic" posts in fact )


cool sig u got btw - I think that's the 1st tech vB forum I've been to without censorship ^_^


----------



## hat (Feb 9, 2008)

I'm running at 322.6MHz right now on a 266MHz divider. If I drop it to the 200MHz divider it will be running 242MHz. Which is DDR484, and equal to the speed of 484MT/s, lol...

but yeah I'll drop it and post results, but then since the RAM would be so slow I think the scores would be much more RAM influenced than HTT speed influenced. But I'll do it anyway..

As for the non-sensored sig, it wouldn't suprise me if Thermo came along and edited it for me, but even now the mods are pretty lax on things like that unless someone comes along, gets thier panties in a twist and reports it. HAT HAS A BAD WORD IN HIS SIG!!


----------



## hat (Feb 9, 2008)

here it is at 242MHz or DDR484, again SuperPI 1m

2420MT/s: 31.000s
1936MT/s: 31.063s
1452MT/s: 31.703s
968MT/s: 31.844s
484MT/s: 31.219s


----------



## Mussels (Feb 9, 2008)

and there we go - keep it above your ram speed for best results.


----------



## hat (Feb 9, 2008)

Not really. As I said you asked me to run my RAM at DDR484, and at a lower RAM speed the test was more adversly affected with every drop in HTT speed. So that test really proves only that SuperPi is more RAM influecned than HTT speed influenced, which we all knew/assumed anyway. It doesn't have a noticible impact on gaming, only benching, so who cares, really...

wow @ 5 people viewing this lol


----------



## Mussels (Feb 9, 2008)

the scores are lower on the lower ram speed - but there isnt much change between the tests on the lower ram speed.


----------



## hat (Feb 9, 2008)

Yeah, not much change to be concerned about, if you're trying to break a world record...

But right now, if you were trying to break a world record:
1. You wouldn't be using AMD anyway
2. You wouldn't be running your RAM at DDR484 
3. You wouldn't be dropping your HTT link like that in the first place if you were dumb enough to try to use AMD to break a world record...  again!


----------



## jfarr1978 (Mar 17, 2012)

Not a myth. Overclock depends of many things and one of them is a stable voltage setting. If you don't have enough the devices will not operate at that frequency. Another biggy is cooling.

I recently overclocked my AMD Phenom II 555 x2 3.2GHz to 4GHz. I set the multiplier to 20 and went with it. It was unstable. I bumped the voltage from 1.4v to 1.45v. Still unstable. Then I bumped the voltage from 1.45v to 1.5v. It was still not stable yet. I bumped a little more to 1.525v. Rock solid stable.

Now it was time to set my Mushkin blackline ram up to 1600MHz from 1333MHz. It was stable for the most part at the stock voltage of 1.6v. I bumped the voltage to 1.63v and now that is stable.

It seemed weird but when I would boot and all the apps were loading like my system would choke. At least until everything was loaded. It took forever. So I examined the HT Link Speed. I raised it from 2000HMz to 2200MHz. It was like a flood gate opened and let the data through.


----------

