Is there a difference between O/C'ed speeds and stock? - Tech Support Forums

davidamarkley · April 14th, 2003, 08:44 PM

Hello!

This has been a thought out question by me, and I wanted to know you thoughts on this:

Is there a difference between an AMD Athlon 1700+ running at the speed of a 2100+ and a stock 2100+ running at stock speeds?

Why am I asking this question? Well, it's just really been working its way through my brain, and I haven't come to a conclusion yet.

Mind you, what I'm asking is: Would there be a difference between two processors if one was overclocked and one was stock but both were actually running the same FSB and CPU Mhz?

David

shady06 · April 14th, 2003, 08:45 PM

my guess is no, as long as the cache and architecture is the same

davidamarkley · April 14th, 2003, 08:49 PM

That is the dilema... Is it really the same? Provided everything else was identical...

David

wju425 · April 15th, 2003, 06:47 AM

It would seem indentical but the one at stock speed are guaranteed to retain data integrity and stability. After all the cpus came from the same batch and stress tested at different speeds then marked.

\o/ Billy

muno · April 15th, 2003, 07:24 AM

The oc'd athlon would be faster.

That is because most athlon overclocking is done by raising fsb. And, a computer with faster fsb is always faster than a computer with higher multiplier.

It's very logical if you think about it.

There would be no difference if it was only the multiplier that changed, but athlons (xps, not mps) are multiplier locked.
-M

wju425 · April 15th, 2003, 01:04 PM

Not entirely true Muno. Multipliers does matter but you won't see it hardly. Higher multipliers means faster data processings, faster file manipulations, and even faster win modems. The fsb is your interaction with devices. It'd be nice if the mems would run as fast as the caches instead of fsbs.

\o/ Billy

davidamarkley · April 15th, 2003, 01:08 PM

Well, I understand what you guys are saying. I have overclocked most of my machines, and I know that logically, it would seem that if the two were running at the same Mhz then they would produce the same ouput provided they both had the same architecture, FSB, etc. But, maybe I'm being too much of a philosopher, but is it truely the same exactly when everything is the same on both machines but one is just overclocked to reach the same Mhz as the other one?

David

skuz · April 15th, 2003, 01:35 PM

I never tried it, but here's a comparison, good or bad I don't know, but that's the way I see it.

A Chevette and a Ferrari are cruising at 60 MPH, which is going faster ?

EndobioticChaos · April 15th, 2003, 01:56 PM

David - they'll be as near alike as two 2100+ CPUs will be.

That's what benchmarks are for.

If you're still having trouble with it philosophically, think about this: what about the 1800+'s (and probably most of the JIUHB 1700+'s) that are actually a faster chip (ie. a 2400+) that's just set to run slower to meet the low-end demand? Apparently AMD thinks an underclocked 2400+ will function just like a normal 1800+.

davidamarkley · April 15th, 2003, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by skuz
I never tried it, but here's a comparison, good or bad I don't know, but that's the way I see it.

A Chevette and a Ferrari are cruising at 60 MPH, which is going faster ?

Ok, but the Ferrari will beat it accelerating to 60 MPH.

That's what I'm wondering. Are the two going to be different in the "acceleration"? These are probably crazy questions, but my mind won't let me be until I figure this out.

Maybe it's kinda like Einstein. He could think out the entire theory of relativity, but he said the process of using a hairbrush was to complex for him.

David