x2 5200+ at 3.5Ghz

Hey there

Was an interesting article, never actually heard of said link beforehand even.

Myself, am always interested how people push the limits on hardware, especially in respects to cooling. Myself, haven't done serious modding or overclocking, but still fascinates me. All the best to them, and hope they keep the good work up. Don't think they are yanking our collective chains, as would be pointless.

Am running an AM2 Athlon64 3200+ at mo, would really love to get a higher spec chip, though pocket serious lacking in dosh!!!

phase-change @3.5, Would of been intresting about a year ago, but by todays standerds it is pretty avg, most people on these forums now have more cpu power than that under a stock hsf lol. One intresting thing though, if amd can mature 90nm to this level what could they get with 65nm, drooling over 3.5ghz oc on k8l
your name says it, you are a newbie. The max for an x2 5200 is like 3 Ghz, so 3.5 is excellent, this on a conroe or the 65nm process could be even more promising.

Not very interesting. Some bozos got a crappy P4 over 8GHz

Crppy cpu OCed to 8GHz---ooooold news


I dont overclock, but it would seem to me that if you have to use an excessively expensive(phase change) or even dangerous (LN2) cooling system to achieve those kind of results, it puts the OC out of reach of the typical OCer.
That was 65nm wit liquid nitrogen, okay, this is 90 nm on a cpu that wasn't thought to go over 3Ghz no matter what!

phase-change @3.5, Would of been intresting about a year ago, but by todays standerds it is pretty avg, most people on these forums now have more cpu power than that under a stock hsf lol. One intresting thing though, if amd can mature 90nm to this level what could they get with 65nm, drooling over 3.5ghz oc on k8l
your name says it, you are a newbie. The max for an x2 5200 is like 3 Ghz, so 3.5 is excellent, this on a conroe or the 65nm process could be even more promising.

Listen detective, first I have been a member here longer than you and unlike you i am not a fan of a company you sad little git, what i said is 100% true, my e6600 with a slight oc on stock cooler is faster that that cpu but because it is intel you get your nickers in a twist, GROW UP and try to see why this oc will not excite many people

I really hope amd take the lead again soon because the intel fanboys were not as hard-core as the amd boys we have now, I wish they would just realise thet we are enthusiasts and only care about the fastest stuff ffs

Sup

Not to get drwan into the amd or intel spat, was wondering what the ranks were for people on the forum? see there's "newbie", "nimble knuckle", "stranger", etc etc. How many freaking ranks are there?

Btw this rocks while working! Actually, in lieu of work! hehehe

Hehehehe! Yeah, is nice, though must get cracking on workload, otherwise my commission suffers! Best thing is, I can do what I'm doing now and get my paycheck, don't have to work case files!

Well, a lot of the stuff I post is just questions on thoughts etc I have from time to time, as I'm interested in the mechanics of the stuff, but have a tenous grasp on physics, chemistry and electronics at best!

Anyways, thanks for the reply!

Sorry but it doesn´t work that way. The most entertaining thing you would see or better hear is your HDD dying since the gel inside it would freeze rock solid. It would be interesting to know if the casing would crack open. 8O Oh, and then there is a phlentora of electrical problems with your idea too, but i´m not going to go into details.

i have a bonner over the overclock.

actually, i know what you mean, its hard to find a descent amd overclock these days (generally they are at max, 500mhz). you do realise that liquid nitrogen, hence being so cold would expand greatly at room temperature, so if the case were to be 100% sealed, it would probably explode

You dudes are totally missing the point. This was about the OCZ phase change cooler. They just happened to test it out on an AMD cpu first. I for one have been looking forward to this low-budget cryo-cooler for a long time. If it ever becomes a reality there'll be alot of dudes here buying them. A sub-$300 phase change cooler? Hell yeah. Where's my credit card.

--- if it can handle the heat load of a 5200+ at 3.5, it can most likely handle the heat load of a Kentsfield, at least to start

I can get to 3.7ish not stable on water. I also doubt the AMD x2 was putting out 200+watts of heat at that OC either. My goal is the magic 4.0. if i can hold there, more power to OCZ.

??? That is interesting stuff! Just assumed that nearly everything would become superconductive at nearly 200 below! thanks for clearing that up! what do you think would happen to flash memory if it was immersed, e.g a 512mb flash stick?

Man, my brain is fragged, work really takes it out of one.

Due to the lack of headroom on an AMD processor already clocked near the maximum speed (2.6 GHZ) the 35% OC is impressive. The Intel chips have always OC'd higher (from a percentage standpoint) but that doesn't minimize this achievement. If OCZ can deliver a phase change system that is easy to hook up and use for 200 to 300 dollars then I have my credit card ready too........

At $199 today a novice-friendly phase change system would likely use inferior parts to compensate for ample design safeguards, so I'd expect performance to be unreliable. But if the market expands in volume (like real refrigerators), I'd certainly be optimistic about quality at this price point. The problem is I don't think this will be a high-volume product because of the cost of ownership.

A veteran in the refrigeration business could of course buy and construct high quality phase change parts for $200, but what people are forgetting is the time value of that expertise in design/setup and the cost of labor assembling it - factors affecting profitability when attempting to sell such a system.

I think of OCZ's system more as a toy for benchmark enthusiasts with no refrigeration experience to get their feet wet in phase change. Phase change is generally an inefficient way to gain computing performance (an always-on refrigerator consumes 300w or so and removes <200w), and few phase change systems are even 24/7 reliable like refrigerators are. At the least, multisocket or multiple air-cooled computers can deliver this sort of performance while consuming less electricity.

.... well, LN2 on CPUs are not new either -- however, not all all materials superconduct at liquid nitrogen temperatures, Si does not nor do most al the metals. In fact, I cannot think of any materials on a PC that would superconduct --- typically superconductors are found with the conductive ceramics -- YCBO and superlattices of such materials.

Anyway... HDs would likely lock up wthin a few seconds of hitting LN2. But if you want to see a computer dunked in something, Toms dunked a computer in cooking oil once and actually had it working.

Jack, is correct the only high temperature superconductors are the creramics YBCO at 90K through HgBaCaCuO at 124K, however there are pure metals that do superconduct. The pure metals however superconduct at temperatures between liquid helium at 4.2K and nitrogen at 77K. Gold silver and copper materials that you might find in your computer, however do not superconduct at any temperatures. For those of you with a lot of time on your hands I would suggest reading the following NSA assesment on the future of superconducting microprocessors.
http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/nsa/sta.pdf

Just keep in mind that many of the coolers used on XS are cascade setups(several levels of phase-change). That can make a big difference.

1. It is 5000+, not 5200+
2. I bashed the fake 3.1GHz on the Brisbane, not Barcelona
3. +35% OC....not impressive!
I know, I reread it in the morning and realized my mistake, just didn't have time to come apologize. Sorry.
I do think 35% oc on the 2.6ghz part is pretty good considering it's almost hit the top right there.

It seems like you missed the whole thing. I frequent several sites and I posted a story about a 3.1GHz OC of a 65nm X2. I never doubt what sites report as it won't affect my pay scale either way.

It was just an OC and not benches but it was interesting on air. Now AMDZone has produced the benchmarks but had to lower to 3.085GHz.

He posted that here, not on AMDZone. My point was that why is it now required for a review site to post a CPU-Z validation?

I guess the other reviewers that got 3.1GHz, INCLUDING TOM'S, ARE NOW SUSPECT?


Let's not go through this again, please.


The same person who started this is now using the thumbnail from my blog as his avatar, AGAIN!

I find it suspicious that AMDZone had to backtrack to 3.085GHz instead of the 3.1GHz claimed, and even then, one benchmark would not complete - a sign of an 'unstable' overclock. I've had the same happen to me when trying to eek out an extra 50 points on 3DMark - the whole suite would complete but I couldn't get a score in the end. Odd things happen when you are teetering on the edge of 'benchmarking stability' (which is a whole lot different to 24/7 stability, may I add...)

I honestly doubt 3.085GHz is fully stable for 24/7 use since it's not even completely benchmark stable.

I think AMDZone is trying too hard to 'prove' to a particular forum that they can get 3.1GHz (or close to it) from the 3600+, even at the expense of one benchmark not completing.

Would it really hurt their pride if they just said 'OK, we could only get all benchmarks to run at 3GHz'? It'd still be an impressive overclock nonetheless, and it wouldn't look like they are clutching at straws to 'prove us wrong'.

Just my 2C...

I find it suspicious that AMDZone had to backtrack to 3.085GHz instead of the 3.1GHz claimed, and even then, one benchmark would not complete - a sign of an 'unstable' overclock. I've had the same happen to me when trying to eek out an extra 50 points on 3DMark - the whole suite would complete but I couldn't get a score in the end. Odd things happen when you are teetering on the edge of 'benchmarking stability' (which is a whole lot different to 24/7 stability, may I add...)

I honestly doubt 3.085GHz is fully stable for 24/7 use since it's not even completely benchmark stable.

I think AMDZone is trying too hard to 'prove' to a particular forum that they can get 3.1GHz (or close to it) from the 3600+, even at the expense of one benchmark not completing.

Would it really hurt their pride if they just said 'OK, we could only get all benchmarks to run at 3GHz'? It'd still be an impressive overclock nonetheless, and it wouldn't look like they are clutching at straws to 'prove us wrong'.

Just my 2C...

I don't think it would help. Hopefully, this kind of thing will stop here. Take your pinch of salt and stop acting like a little girl.

gettem baron

they have a cpu-z validation, what are these people crying about.

gettem baron

they have a cpu-z validation, what are these people crying about.

I was not the one who questioned their overclock, Godjo did. I gave them the benefit of the doubt as I believed faking an overclock would be a stupid move for any hardware site.

I was sceptical to the 3.1GHz overclock because it is a bit higher than most sites are getting from 65nm X2s.

Alas, 3.1GHz is not stable for benchmarking, and neither is 3.085GHz. Yet AMDZone decided to bench it at this speed - for what, to spite the people of this forum?

Jack,

Im sorry, but I have to call FUD on this one. You know the only way THG got that cooking oil setup to work was by grounding the CPU with a chunk of stryofoam.