Quantcast

Maximum PC

It is currently Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:46 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Better for OCing
AMD 49%  49%  [ 18 ]
Intel 51%  51%  [ 19 ]
Total votes : 37
Author Message
 Post subject: AMD or Intel for OCing
PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:34 pm 
Team Member Top 50
Team Member Top 50
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 1:55 pm
Posts: 3886
Location: Kicking the crap out of the people who lied to me about using Folding@Home and those who declined!!
which is a better chip for OCing? i think Intel is but im just wondering if that had no back up. would u rather have a FX-53 or 3.6 Prescott? well most of u are AMD fans so ull probably say the FX-53, but if u wanted to OC it a lot, then which one. price matters :wink: and the 3.6 is less money, but also u can say 3.4EE.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:58 pm 
Celeron
Celeron
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Posts: 7362
Location: New York City
Neither. Top-end chips usually do not have much headroom for overclocking.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:09 pm 
Contributing Writer
Contributing Writer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:09 pm
Posts: 9602
Location: Land of the Lounge Lizards
Looking at their top-end chips, I would have to agree. As far as AMD and Intel in general, they both have their OCer's dream chips. For AMD, it would have to be the mobiles that have the ability to be cranked up and multiplier goodness. For Intel, the Northwoods (specifically the 2.4c-2.8c) are a sheer joy to crank up the fsb on.

I voted Intel on the sole reason that I took much satisfaction from a full 1GHz overclock on air. However, I'll admit it's personal preference and I would not turn my nose up at a mobile. If you had a third category that said "tie" I likely would have given that one the nod.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:10 pm 
Smithfield*
Smithfield*
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 9:17 am
Posts: 7159
Location: In HyperTransport
if you want a killer overclock get a nice socket A mobo from msi or another good vendor then buy a 2400+ mobile with some nice pc3200 and you will get an amazing overclock on that. you can go from 2 to 2.3 with the stock cooler and with aftermarket air 2.6 has been hit. its not a new gen cpu but you can get massive overclock and that proc. will fold like a beast


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:57 pm 
8086
8086

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:16 pm
Posts: 6
I would concur that high-end wise, there isn't too much going on. But for me, I absolutely love the 2500+ mobile. It has amazing overclocking capabilities. Personal favorite. :P Right now though I'm running on a normal old 2500+ barton. I have it at 2200Mhz and it runs great. I'm thinking of investing in a mobile very soon.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:51 pm 
Little Foot
Little Foot

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:27 pm
Posts: 126
get the 3500+, great overclocker!


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:40 pm 
Team Creamsicles
Team Creamsicles
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 12:06 pm
Posts: 1397
Location: Montreal, Canada
3000+ have been known to go high as 2.4-2.8, fx-53 on lliquid nitrogen can go uo to 3.5-3.6 the fx-55 wil prob go hifgher.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:02 pm 
Little Foot
Little Foot

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:27 pm
Posts: 126
liquid nitrogen isnt really accesible to all of us!


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:59 pm 
Celeron
Celeron
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Posts: 7362
Location: New York City
Obsidian27 wrote:
liquid nitrogen isnt really accesible to all of us!


Not to mention the luxury of owning an FX chip.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:54 pm 
Boy in Black
Boy in Black
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 1:40 pm
Posts: 24339
Location: South of heaven
Wow...these are some odd voting results. I have no idea where all these awesome AMD overclocks are, but from the thread, it seems that 600Mhz is the top end?

Let's see...of the last 4 chips I've purchased: 2.4C@3.4, 2.8C@3.4, 3.4D-0@4.25(500)/3.7(1066), and finally a 550J that's basically untested, but has posted a 4352 (1 out of 4 boots gets it steady). That's an average of 850.5Mhz through them all. And these aren't pick-o-the-litter units, but same ones we all get from newegg/zipzoomfly. Perhaps it's the fact that I won't get top-tier procs that are already near their threshold.

I say from my own experiences, it's not even a show. Intel OC's, and has for a while now. I left out anything prior to the 2.4C, as those 1Ghz and below CPU's would drag down an honost ratio. Besides, going from 500Mhz to 620 needs a percentile, not an average.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 1:23 pm 
Team Member Top 500
Team Member Top 500
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:10 pm
Posts: 6657
Location: Houghton, MI (Michigan Technological University)
its different, you get less performance increase per mhz with Intel, and since they are already running at a higher mhz, the percentile increase is lower. nothing can beat the overclocking prowess of an xp mobile chip.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 1:27 pm 
Little Foot
Little Foot

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:27 pm
Posts: 126
not a whole lot of performance, but hey, high clock speeds


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 2:42 pm 
Smithfield*
Smithfield*
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 9:17 am
Posts: 7159
Location: In HyperTransport
yeah oc's should be in %'s. after all ocing a 300Mhz chip to 500Mhz is amazing compared to oc'in a 2.4 to 2.6.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:42 pm 
Team Member
Team Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:50 pm
Posts: 1344
Location: Illinois
OCNoob wrote:
Obsidian27 wrote:
liquid nitrogen isnt really accesible to all of us!


Not to mention the luxury of owning an FX chip.


Good point!


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 12:00 am 
Team Member
Team Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 12:58 pm
Posts: 591
Location: ND
Obsidian27 wrote:
get the 3500+, great overclocker!

This is the CPU I am considering for my next build, probably the 90nm (Winchester?) version and OC potential is definitely one of the major considerations when choosing. I will definitely have to do some more research, got a couple of months before my pocketbook will be able support the move. Plus, Feb/March is usually a good time to upgrade as components usually drop in price around that time.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 1:18 pm 
Klamath
Klamath
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:18 pm
Posts: 240
Location: Transmitting from Alpha Centauri
Obsidian27 wrote:
liquid nitrogen isnt really accesible to all of us!


Sounds like someone is a really big talker or is aidiot with his money!


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 1:18 pm 
Klamath
Klamath
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:18 pm
Posts: 240
Location: Transmitting from Alpha Centauri
Obsidian27 wrote:
liquid nitrogen isnt really accesible to all of us!


Sounds like someone is a really big talker or is aidiot with his money!


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 6:53 pm 
Willamette
Willamette
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 12:53 pm
Posts: 1242
Location: in trouble
OCNoob wrote:
Neither. Top-end chips usually do not have much headroom for overclocking.


This is not true. Once they have made say many 5ghzP4s (lol. not yet tho) and you buy it 6 months or so after it came out it will ahve much headroom.

My 1.8ghzP4 is overclocked (actually its not but it used to be. Not anymore.) to 2.5ghz. Stock cooling. Oh yeah...


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:40 pm 
Celeron
Celeron
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Posts: 7362
Location: New York City
ATI4EVER! wrote:
OCNoob wrote:
Neither. Top-end chips usually do not have much headroom for overclocking.


This is not true. Once they have made say many 5ghzP4s (lol. not yet tho) and you buy it 6 months or so after it came out it will ahve much headroom.

My 1.8ghzP4 is overclocked (actually its not but it used to be. Not anymore.) to 2.5ghz. Stock cooling. Oh yeah...


That's cause 6 months later, it wouldn't be Top-end anymore, and would have matured more. Also notice I said "usually".


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:47 pm 
Contributing Writer
Contributing Writer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:09 pm
Posts: 9602
Location: Land of the Lounge Lizards
OCModerate is right, and ATI your example is flawed. Using the Barton as an example, the 2500+ was the desirable overclocker (as well as the mobiles), while the 3200+ had very little headroom.

Fast forward to today, and the 3200+ Barton STILL has very little headroom. The A64 3200+ is a decent overclocker, but we're no longer talking about the same chip.

In most cases, at any given time, the top end chip is going to be a poor overclocker. This isn't without exception of course, but it's a valid general statement. This also doesn't take into account exotic cooling methods.


Top
  Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group