Tom's Can't Overclock An Athlon FX!

The "THG Tuning Test: Core 2 Extreme vs. Athlon 64 FX-62" is a shame for the site in terms of overclocking ability ( or luck with the sample).
They could only achieve +3Ghz, using a 12x254mhz.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/0 [...] page3.html

Quote :

Compared to Intel's newcomer Core 2 Extreme, the overclocking potential of the Athlon 64 FX-62, which runs at a stock speed of 2.8 GHz, is pretty narrow. We couldn't achieve stable operation at more than 9 percent faster than stock speed, whether we used air or water cooling. This resulted in a top speed of 3.05 GHz. As soon as the clock multiplier was increased by 1, the motherboard won't start up any more. Let's be perfectly clear for the benefit of the hard-core overclockers among our readers: there is nothing more you can do at this point to squeeze any more speed out of this CPU. The step up to 3.2 GHz is simply too big, because of the 90 nm fabrication process used to build this processor.

Our friends at HardwareZone have some info for Tom's:

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articl [...] =2&id=2010

Quote :

Since our Athlon 64 FX-62 and Core 2 Extreme X6800 processors are both multiplier unlocked, we are able to overclock them to these speeds through a simple multiplier increase.

I know that C2DE is faster than the FX. Its not the point here.

Im questioning Tom's ability to know what a false statement is:

Quote :

Let's be perfectly clear for the benefit of the hard-core overclockers among our readers: there is nothing more you can do at this point to squeeze any more speed out of this CPU.

Add a reply

Register or log in to remove.

3GHz out of an FX-62 is a really poor OC, disappointingly, the THG team was quick to blame it on the CPU.

I saw no mention of dropping the HT multiplier down in order to keep it within specs (4x or 3x usually does the trick) and a Vcore over 1.5V would have been much more appropriate since we are dealing with a 90nm CPU.

IMHO, this was a crude and amateurish attempt at overclocking.

I can do 2.9GHz on an old Manchester core that was fabbed on the 43rd week of 2005, provided that I stacked all the odds in my favor with watercooling and a rather high Vcore I find it hard to believe that 3.05GHz was the best that FX-62 was really capable of.

I am not questioning the superiority of the C2D, I am questioning the THG team "Savoir Faire".

Reply to SidVicious

Even if you take into account that the 90nm SOI process ought to hit a wall at some point, given decent cooling, an high-end motherboard, premium RAM and a team that actually know what they are doing, I would have had expected at least 3.2GHz out of an FX-62...

Since the hardware they used was spec'ed out, it leaves us with a single option :?

Reply to SidVicious

Quote :

Im questioning Tom's ability to know what a false statement is:

Let's be perfectly clear for the benefit of the hard-core overclockers among our readers: there is nothing more you can do at this point to squeeze any more speed out of this CPU.

The only thing is Hardwarezone only overclocked their FX-62 to 3GHz.

Reply to accord99

fx-62 vs 6700 I looked around and was curious also.. but I haven't seen anyone post much over 3.1ghz. That's not a huge margin of difference. But is what is is. Any review or article has to be taken with a grain of salt. Past performance may not predict future results

Reply to jimytheassassin

Dude... they were only using STOCK COOLING for both systems. The overclocking scenario was supposed to represent "easiest methods" for overclocking. Additionally they wanted to keep both CPU's in a similar temperature threshold.

And like someone said earlier, you ain't gonna get all that far beyond 3.0Ghz w/ a FX-62. Even with performance cooling...

Reply to mpjesse

Quote :

Im questioning Tom's ability to know what a false statement is:

Let's be perfectly clear for the benefit of the hard-core overclockers among our readers: there is nothing more you can do at this point to squeeze any more speed out of this CPU.

The only thing is Hardwarezone only overclocked their FX-62 to 3GHz.
accord99 is right. The FX-62 is clocked at 3.013Ghz...
HardwareZone just increased the multiplier 15x200, but THG increased the memory speed...

If you have other proof that the FX-62 can go over that on air, lets see it.

Reply to nobly

Quote :

Dude... they were only using STOCK COOLING for both systems. The overclocking scenario was supposed to represent "easiest methods" for overclocking. Additionally they wanted to keep both CPU's in a similar temperature threshold.

And like someone said earlier, you ain't gonna get all that far beyond 3.0Ghz w/ a FX-62. Even with performance cooling...

[quote="nobly"]

Quote :

accord99 is right. The FX-62 is clocked at 3.013Ghz...
HardwareZone just increased the multiplier 15x200, but THG increased the memory speed...

If you have other proof that the FX-62 can go over that on air, lets see it.

agreed

Neo 3 its a shame you didnt read toms article, or maybe you did and did not understand it
Yep, I dont know what they put in the water in brazil

Reply to icbluscrn

Quote :

Yea it does not make much sense. I got 2.5ghz out of my older winchester core 3000+ on a budget board with genaric ram. Something just does not seem to add up at all. If i can get 700mhz more out of an older cpu why can they not get more than about 200 with a much better one? :roll:

Perhaps 3.0 area is the clocking limit of the current generation of K8's, unless you use some exotic cooling.

Reply to spud

Quote :

Dude... they were only using STOCK COOLING for both systems. The overclocking scenario was supposed to represent "easiest methods" for overclocking. Additionally they wanted to keep both CPU's in a similar temperature threshold.

And like someone said earlier, you ain't gonna get all that far beyond 3.0Ghz w/ a FX-62. Even with performance cooling...

Word.

Reply to spud

Heh, you should have written ' TOM'S "CANT" OVERCLOCK AN ATHLON FX!'...
TH is a great site but it looks like they aren't totally inpartial, their titles show it:
>Conroe enters and it's immediately Core2 knocks out Athlon64, picture is an AMD marked Zidane being showed the red card
>The FX60 beats every contender and it's just AMD Athlon FX-60's Dual-Core Assault... not mentioned against, who, what, and with what results. The old fashioned picture shows a quiet FX-60 floating lost in space :roll:
>The benchmarks don't show anything interesting but it's worth a Woodcrest preyn on Opetron (Woodcrest for Opetron's head and things like this)
>The whole sempron line is THE star performer in value CPUs, the benchmarks show it a blade near A64s but the title reads A Dissatifying Compromise With AMD's 64 bit Sempron 3400+
Going back we find articles with the "SUPER P4" breaking the "poor" athlon XP, even if the edge (if there was one) was pretty slim...

Hope they're reading this & correct themselves, it really has nothing to do with a serious authority.

Reply to m25

I'm sorry.. I read it and I missed where they said stock cooling? But in either case it does say they could not reach above 3.05 with air, OR water.. Now..the point remains..what would 100mhz do..not much, but here's a link pointing to an fx-62 at 3.1 aircooled and how they did it in detail. Oh and by the way.. TomsHardware is not gospel

Reply to jimytheassassin

Isn't it known that the FX is not a good overclocker, they are already pushed to the limits (Similar to the overlocking of 4800s and 5000s I belive). Which is why some older processors could be overclocked better, like opterons and such, they came out of the fab underclocked to increase yields. I bet the sample Tom's has is a good representation of all FX chips, most likely that is all you get.

Reply to xBlueBoron

Quote :

You have to wonder why THG is known to be an intel paid site by many IT journalists and hardware sites. Now you know where all the bias comes from. :wink:

If that's truly how you feel, then go bugger-up some other forums....maybe AMDZone,
and don't bother coming back here....You won't be missed.

Reply to 1Tanker

can we all stick to the point here. this idiot neo3 comes on here shouting using caps about how badly toms is at oveclocking. he then cites another site as being better even though they didn't get a higher overclock.

the guys who come out of the woodwork to attack toms should just leave. i mean they have not done anything wrong yet you jump at the chance to nitpick at them.

PATHETIC sums up this whole thread. it should be deleted and neo3 given a warning for trolling.

Reply to strangestranger

Quote :

I'm sorry.. I read it and I missed where they said stock cooling? But in either case it does say they could not reach above 3.05 with air, OR water.. Now..the point remains..what would 100mhz do..not much, but here's a link pointing to an fx-62 at 3.1 aircooled and how they did it in detail. Oh and by the way.. TomsHardware is not gospel

Its on page 1...

Quote :

In this battle, performance is the only thing that counts. We'll explore the upper bounds of thermal stability for both of these top-of-the-line CPUs with standard retail components, the Intel versions of which have just hit store shelves.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/0 [...] ning_test/

Yeah, THG isn't gospel, but neither is the title of this thread... Just because THG said they couldn't make it over 3.05 doesn't translate into the broad statement "No one will ever reach over 3.05".
Besides, an extra 50Mhz (3.1Ghz-3.05Ghz) isn't enough to catch Conroe.

Reply to nobly

If they're not obscuring the truth, at least, they play with peoples' interests and the FIRS IMPRESSION influence that a title has.
If you read this for instance, you won't find a single comparision with the CeleronD 351 mentioned at the beginning (because it would show all the crap of the celerons despite the "D" marking). The title does not certainly reality.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/0 [...] page2.html

Reply to m25

There are reports of higher OC on air.
For example 3.15 GHz on stock cooler.

http://www.amd3d.com/overclocking/ [...] cords.html

Quote :

Dude... they were only using STOCK COOLING for both systems. The overclocking scenario was supposed to represent "easiest methods" for overclocking. Additionally they wanted to keep both CPU's in a similar temperature threshold.

And like someone said earlier, you ain't gonna get all that far beyond 3.0Ghz w/ a FX-62. Even with performance cooling...

Reply to geralt

Quote :

You have to wonder why THG is known to be an intel paid site by many IT journalists and hardware sites. Now you know where all the bias comes from.

Prove it. If it's a known fact, it shouldn't be too difficult, right?

Yeah... that's what I though. No evidence.

So do us all a favor and STFU with your lame conspiracy theories.

Thanks,

-mpjesse

Reply to mpjesse

Now...where is that "Report" option...
Done. :lol:

Reply to NEO3

i'm amazed he hasn't been banned yet. i think he is kept around so people have someone to take out their anger on and abuse how they like.

Reply to strangestranger

Quote :

I'm sorry.. I read it and I missed where they said stock cooling? But in either case it does say they could not reach above 3.05 with air, OR water.. Now..the point remains..what would 100mhz do..not much, but here's a link pointing to an fx-62 at 3.1 aircooled and how they did it in detail. Oh and by the way.. TomsHardware is not gospel

Where did I say THG was gospel? I'm not ignorant enough to read only one hardware site. I regularly visit Anandtech, Xbit, and Trustedreviews to keep perspective. In fact, I probably spend more time reading anandtech and xbit than i do THG.

Reply to mpjesse

Quote :

In this battle, performance is the only thing that counts. We'll explore the upper bounds of thermal stability for both of these top-of-the-line CPUs with standard retail components, the Intel versions of which have just hit store shelves.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/0 [...] ning_test/

Yeah, THG isn't gospel, but neither is the title of this thread... Just because THG said they couldn't make it over 3.05 doesn't translate into the broad statement "No one will ever reach over 3.05".
Besides, an extra 50Mhz (3.1Ghz-3.05Ghz) isn't enough to catch Conroe.

Right..that's what i was saying..thanks i guess..it was an example for mpjesse in response.. though this topic is a non–topic

Reply to jimytheassassin

Hey mpjesse, don't get too flustered. It wasn't an attack, just my opinion to the general populous and more to the original poster of this thread. It's good you read other reviews.. more people should.

Reply to jimytheassassin

The only person here who deserves a report and a ban is you, loser.

Reply to shinigamiX

:lol:
I hope the "Report" option on the msg's will work. What a bunch of "bad mouths" plain rude/ignorant comments.

Dont you get that Tom's could have done it better?
Is that SO hard?

tsc tsc tsc...
:roll:

Reply to NEO3

Quote :

Hey mpjesse, don't get too flustered. It wasn't an attack, just my opinion to the general populous and more to the original poster of this thread. It's good you read other reviews.. more people should.

I'm not flustered. :-) But I did think you were implying that I only read this site. So I took a little offense to my intelligence. But since you cleared all that up... it was my misunderstanding.

Thanks!

Reply to mpjesse

Quote :

Yeah, it's a shame.
You have to wonder why THG is known to be an intel paid site by many IT journalists and hardware sites. Now you know where all the bias comes from. :wink:

ROFLMAO

9 inch, my god, do bother to engage your brain prior to exhaling through your mouth?

Quote :

You have to wonder why THG is known to be an intel paid site

It was the reviews and benchmarks posted by THGs and some other sites as well as the INTELLIGENT people on the THG boards who prompted my descision to try an AMD T bird years ago. It was THG again, that guided my descision to upgrade to an Athlon XP 1900. THG, its forum and a few other sites also guided me to the XP 3200. People like you put me off AMD

If Intel is paying THG, they dam well better put a stop payment on the check, because THG has cost Intel a lot of business over the past 5 years, at least. Probably more if I think about it.

You are delusional. For your own sake, wake up and smell the coffee. Your behaviour is indicative of a socially isolated personality suffering from dementia.

Reply to turpit

NEO3,

Yes, THG could have done better. Everyone could always do better. They probably could have overclocked the X6800 better too.
The point is that the title of this thread is:
1) A lie - they did overclock it, but not to its "maximum" that you seem to think.
2) Its offensive to the authors of the article because its a lie.
3) You have provided little evidence that the FX-62 could be pushed farther - so far we have 3.15Ghz. Again, 50-100Mhz won't have any difference on the conclusion of the article.

In addition, they stated that it is as far as they could go:

Quote :

We couldn't achieve stable operation at more than 9 percent faster than stock speed, whether we used air or water cooling.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/0 [...] page3.html
However, this does not mean it can't be pushed farther.

If you would like to prove everyone wrong, then go get a FX-62 and overclock it to whatever you think is the maximum and share the results with us here.

Reply to nobly

I admit the approach is totally agressive but the boy is not all wrong; While saying "The sample we used for our tests OC pretty bad" is no issue writing down things like:
"Let's be perfectly clear for the benefit of the hard-core overclockers among our readers: there is nothing more you can do at this point to squeeze any more speed out of this CPU."... they put a cover on it; the FX-62 (not only their sample buut ALL FX-62s) can't go beyond 3.05GHz. "Don'y buy FX-62s" they say "because they don't OC". I'd not think twice to call it missinformation.
or
"The step up to 3.2 GHz is simply too big, because of the 90 nm fabrication process used to build this processor", "forgetting" that 3.8GHz prescotts were also 90nm

All this is simply ridiculous! :oops:

Reply to m25

Quote :

Yes, THG could have done better.

And they should.

Quote :

You have provided little evidence that the FX-62 could be pushed farther - so far we have 3.15Ghz. Again, 50-100Mhz won't have any difference on the conclusion of the article.

But It can, ergo, It could.

Quote :

If you would like to prove everyone wrong, then go get a FX-62 and overclock it to whatever you think is the maximum and share the results with us here.

I agree. Please, send me and FX-60 and all the components used in this review.

:lol:

Reply to NEO3

Quote :

take mpjesse's advice,and take strange strangers advice.

I only take good advice's. Not rude/ignorant/crap comments as those.

Quote :

This topic would have been better named...

Dont be so afraid of oppening a topic! Go for it, You can do it! :lol:
(Btw...I dont have an AM2 system - see my sig.)

Quote :

and hopefully jack barnes or someone will lock this idiocy.

And hopefully my "Reports" will teach to some people manner's.

Reply to NEO3

Quote :

I admit the approach is totally agressive but the boy is not all wrong; While saying "The sample we used for our tests OC pretty bad" is no issue writing down things like:
"Let's be perfectly clear for the benefit of the hard-core overclockers among our readers: there is nothing more you can do at this point to squeeze any more speed out of this CPU."... they put a cover on it; the FX-62 (not only their sample buut ALL FX-62s) can't go beyond 3.05GHz. "Don'y buy FX-62s" they say "because they don't OC". I'd not think twice to call it missinformation.
or
"The step up to 3.2 GHz is simply too big, because of the 90 nm fabrication process used to build this processor", "forgetting" that 3.8GHz prescotts were also 90nm

All this is simply ridiculous! :oops:

Very well said! Perfect comment.

Reply to NEO3

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - Tom's Can't Overclock An Athlon FX!

Please mind

Twitter

Tom's Can't Overclock An Athlon FX!

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - Tom's Can't Overclock An Athlon FX!

Please mind