Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Tbred oced at 2600-2700 (mhz or pr tbd...)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 2, 2002 1:35:18 AM

<A HREF="http://thecoldshop.com/display.cfm?articleid=42&page=4" target="_new">http://thecoldshop.com/display.cfm?articleid=42&page=4&...;/A>

""
But the more interesting point is that with their overclocking utility, Easy Tune 4, they were able to get a Thoroughbred 2200+ to 2.6-2.7 GHz, quite the impressive feat
""


gigabyte OCed a 2200+ by 50%...dunno if they were using a hand picked chip or not, even still this seems pretty cool to me.

MStakem<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by MStakem on 06/03/02 03:40 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
June 2, 2002 2:01:00 AM

As Will smith said in independance day- "I have got to get me one of these!" True, true, sound slike I should wait til june 10, really sounds worth it!

If an orange was driving a racecar would it peel out? www.jxfiles.com
June 2, 2002 2:52:39 AM

::smiles smugly::

" If this is the norm for these chips Pentium 4’s definitely have a run for their money."

If that is the norm for those chips not even a 3.5ghz p4 should be able to compete, 2.7ghz is what, pr 3500+, looks like my prediction has more weight now eh.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 2, 2002 3:03:54 AM

:)  I can't wait to get my hands on one of them...damn you june 10th come faster.

MStakem
June 2, 2002 8:07:10 AM

Hmmmm....a backfilled Northwood (1.6GHz) typically gets a 50% overclock, and a near-top-end Northwood A (2.4GHz) typically gets a 40% overclock (if extreme cooling is applied). And here we have a top-end (1.8GHz) T-bred getting a 50% overclock. Imagine that... :wink:

(Note: I didn't mention Northwood B's because they are known to overclock rather worse than Northwood A's)

<pre>We now <b>return</b>(<font color=blue>-1</font color=blue>) to an irregular program scheduler.</pre><p>
June 2, 2002 8:12:07 AM

Quote:
And here we have a top-end (1.8GHz) T-bred getting a 50% overclock. Imagine that...

This particular chip was on the high end of the curve Id imagine, but it does demonstrate the core is capable of 2.5ghz+ core speeds as my theory stated, we will wait for more chips to be sure, but it looks as if my prediction was mostly correct.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 2, 2002 8:43:31 AM

"(Note: I didn't mention Northwood B's because they are known to overclock rather worse than Northwood A's)"

What a crock of [-peep-], 3+ Ghz is "worse" in your book. ROFL

My brothers friends oldest sons wifes brother also has a Tbred said he says that it will do 2.9Ghz. I read it on the net so it must be true.

With the lack of any new benchmarks and reviews of the tbred, I doubt any and all hallow tbred claims until release and known guru's have tortured them.

I was hoping to see a benchmark or sceenshot or something. G1

You are limited to what your mind can perceive.
June 2, 2002 8:54:49 AM

On that webpage look on the left side at recent articles and you will find "price watch comparison 1/2/2002" as the most recent article besides this one.

Thats a real cutting edge site you found there. strange that no other people at the AMD tech tour seemed to notice the 2.6-2.7Ghz AMD machine, what a surprise.

You are limited to what your mind can perceive.
June 2, 2002 9:26:08 AM

Quote:
What a crock of [-peep-], 3+ Ghz is "worse" in your book. ROFL

Yes, 3GHz is "worse" when it's all a <b>2.53GHz CPU</b> can do. Northwood B's do overclock rather worse than Northwood A's, for two reasons:

1) Northwood B's are generally closer to the core's theoretical limit, both for FSB speed and clock speed.

2) To overclock a Northwood, you have to overclock other components (like the chipset) as well, simply because Northwoods can only be OC'd via FSB. The Northwood B's FSB pushes the chipset and possibly other components closer to their limits. Thus a Northwood B does not O/C as well as a Northwood A of similar stock clockspeed. Q.E.D.

Quote:
My brothers friends oldest sons wifes brother also has a Tbred said he says that it will do 2.9Ghz. I read it on the net so it must be true.

You can whine and keep on saying that everyone who publishes pro-AMD info is lying, but it doesn't change reality much.

Your assertion that "CPU fans only last a year" didn't make my CPU fan fail any faster.

Your protests against the purported existence of 760MP test boards didn't render them nonexistent, or keep the released 760MP from trouncing anything Intel had to offer.

Funny how you only question reality when it falls in AMD's favor. :tongue:

<pre>We now <b>return</b>(<font color=blue>-1</font color=blue>) to an irregular program scheduler.</pre><p>
June 2, 2002 9:59:12 AM

Thank you.

Seems very hopeful.

<b> Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal </b>
June 2, 2002 12:59:34 PM

I wonder if the writer meant 2600-2700+ instead of 2.6-2.7 gHz?

"Just the facts ma'am"
June 2, 2002 2:24:29 PM

Pretty big mistake if he did, but that is a possibility.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 2, 2002 2:27:41 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>Svar på:</font><hr><p>but it looks as if my prediction was mostly correct.
<p><hr></blockquote><p>Don't jump your guns on one single undocumented claim. It sounds incredible, and I would like to see some hard proof to back it up.

Even if I'm not too optimistic about the OC'ability of TBred, I've decided to wait and see what it offers. It's silly to buy a system now, with only about one week to the official launch of TBred. I'll wait until some trustworthy overclocking reports starts to emerge before I make my choice. If the above claim turns out to be the general picture, I would not hesitate to switch over to AMD for the first time in my life.


<i>/Copenhagen - Clockspeed will make the difference... in the end</i> :cool:
June 2, 2002 2:43:59 PM

Has anyone used Easy Tune 4?

"Just the facts ma'am"
June 2, 2002 2:45:38 PM

I didnt, both of my other posts showed caution, and note I said if this is true my predictions are right.

Not jumping the gun at all.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 2, 2002 2:56:35 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>Svar på:</font><hr><p>(Note: I didn't mention Northwood B's because they are known to overclock rather worse than Northwood A's)<p><hr></blockquote><p>Actually that's not true. According to xbitlabs the core of the 'B' versions are different from the 'A' ones. Apparently Intel took the liberty to make some enhancements (shrinked the core by 10% and made some re-arrangements) which should make the 'B' versions able to go past 3GHz. These enhanced cores are "primarily going to be used in 533MHz versions", but may also later be used for the 400MHz versions. (Do I have to mention how much I would like to get my hands on a 1.6A with the above mentioned enhancements. :tongue: )

For this reason I've put my eyes on 2.26B as my next CPU instead of the 2.0A. Price-difference is not overwhelming. But to make it all worthwhile, it has to be paired with (expensive) PC1066 validated RDRAM which should have some OC headroom.

My goals would then be:

2.55GHz @ PC1200
or
3.02GHz @ PC1060 (using memory divider)


<i>/Copenhagen - Clockspeed will make the difference... in the end</i> :cool:
June 2, 2002 3:22:45 PM

Quote:
Actually that's not true. According to xbitlabs the core of the 'B' versions are different from the 'A' ones.

That doesn't cover other components, though. Since the FSB has to go up for the clockspeed to go up, this is a bit of a problem. As you noted, better components are necessary--higher binned chipset parts, and possibly better memory as well.

<pre>We now <b>return</b>(<font color=blue>-1</font color=blue>) to an irregular program scheduler.</pre><p>
June 2, 2002 4:53:10 PM

Quote:
I wonder if the writer meant 2600-2700+ instead of 2.6-2.7 gHz?


I think it's unlikely since Athlon 2200+ runs at 1800MHz and 2600-2700+ is about only 2066-2133MHz, that is, 266 to 333MHz difference. Not worth mention at all.


<b> Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal </b>
June 2, 2002 5:08:15 PM

Quote:
I think it's unlikely since Athlon 2200+ runs at 1800MHz and 2600-2700+ is about only 2066-2133MHz, that is, 266 to 333MHz difference. Not worth mention at all.


Just some calculations as examples.

2200+ 1800MHz Athlon = 133 MHz FSB x 13.5x multiplier

2600+ 2066MHz Athlon = 133 MHz FSB x 15.5x multiplier

3400+ 2600MHz Athlon = 133 MHz FSB x 19.5x multiplier

3600+ 2700MHz Athlon = 133 MHz FSB x 20.0x multiplier



<b> Searching for the true, the beautiful, and the eternal </b>
June 2, 2002 6:49:37 PM

Trying to imagine the mongrels covered with all those foam...

<b>Did we come here to laugh or to cry? Are we dying or being reborn?</b>
June 2, 2002 6:52:18 PM

I guess everyone who plans on buying Tbred will be unlocking to OC? Doesn't seem likely.

<font color=blue> There's no such thing as hell, but you can make it if you try.</font color=blue>
June 2, 2002 7:30:12 PM

Quote:
I guess everyone who plans on buying Tbred will be unlocking to OC? Doesn't seem likely.

The fact they can is a huge advantage, however for the p4 what kelledin is trying to say is that a northwood b starts at 133fsb, and its lower multiplier gives it less core mhz per unit of fsb increase, and you will hit the limit of your fsb and system buses before you reach the cores limit.

Therefore a northwood A, which will have the same improvements that any b's have as soon as the old stock is exhausted(if the nw b's have any improvement at all) will be able to attain a higher overclock simply because the jump from 100 to 133 included, and the fact that a NW A@2ghz gains 20mhz per 1mhz fsb, whereas a 2ghz nwb(for example) Would only gain 15mhz per fsb increase.

If your motherboard/ram limits you to say 155fsb, a northwood A will give you a net total of 3.1ghz, whereas the northwood B will give you 2.180 ghz(due to the lower multiplier both chips start@2ghz in this hypothetical example) and since the fsb will most likely limit the total oc(unless you refridgerate everything and hax0r your motherboard) and you cannot change the p4's multiplier, the northwood b is a bad idea for overclocking, period.

So while the chip may(at this time) have improvements which enable it to hit 3ghz+(over a NW a), in order to take advantage of it you need to get the very fastest ones for the high multiplier(such as the 2.53b thus negating the point of overclocking the cheaper chip), or you need to be able to run your fsb@200mhz, which isnt happening all that often.


That I believe is what kelledin is trying to say, and he is right.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 2, 2002 7:37:34 PM

Actually, Matisaro, in this case, you're wrong. The FSB is almost never the limit in motherboards that lock the PCI/AGP bus. As long as the northbridge doesn't overheat then you're fine. The true limit is the RDRAM. Again, with the 3X multiplier rather than 4, I'd say the FSB limit with good Samsung RDRAM to be around ~180MHz.


However, if you look at, either way, the Northwood As are the overclocking champions, not the Northwood Bs.

Higher FSB translates into higher IPC. So a ~2.6GHz P4 (overclocked from say 1.6A) might in fact be faster than a 3GHz P4 (overclocked from 2.53GHz).

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
June 2, 2002 7:42:14 PM

Quote:
Actually, Matisaro, in this case, you're wrong. The FSB is almost never the limit in motherboards that lock the PCI/AGP bus.


Thats what, one, two motherboards?

How come fugger cant get past 177fsb, and remember, with pc800rdram your already at 3/4 divider with the ram, you can only go so far when you start at 133.


Quote:
The true limit is the RDRAM. Again, with the 3X multiplier rather than 4, I'd say the FSB limit with good Samsung RDRAM to be around ~180MHz.


Fuggers stuck at 172 iirc, and he has hand picked crap. The fsb/memory is ALWAYS the limit on p4 overclocks, rarely its the chip itself, theres always leg room left from what I have read.

Fatburger is topped at 155, his agp/pci is locked, he started at 100fsb, he has a 55% overclock, a person who starts at 133fsb with his same ram/mobo will have all of a what, 8% overclock? And it will cost more, and perform worse!

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 2, 2002 7:46:47 PM

Quote:
Thats what, one, two motherboards?

How come fugger cant get past 177fsb, and remember, with pc800rdram your already at 3/4 divider with the ram, you can only go so far when you start at 133.


Are there only one or two motherboards that lock the PCI/AGP bus? How come almost everyone has one around me?

<b>Did we come here to laugh or to cry? Are we dying or being reborn?</b>
June 2, 2002 8:07:17 PM

Provide us with the mobos that do, for proof, then we will agree.


--
Meow
June 2, 2002 8:11:16 PM

Let us not forget, Fugger is using extreme cooling, so we're not talking average Retail cooling AT ALL. We need proof with retail fan OCing on NWBs.

As for the 2.6GHZ Tbred, I have trouble beleiving it, however, if it is true, I'll also have to go against my will this time, and also say that it was more than likely to be very exotic cooling, and not aircooling. Let us hope at least Retail to average 30$ fan cooling can do so well. If so, indeed Fugger and the rest have been proved wrong on their claims Tbreds will remain crappy even after the new refined samples. Plus imagine IF the XP1800 was used, it would go there too, almost guaranteed, the OC would be a huge one, AND it'd cost what, 90$? As for XP2200 Tbred, it's STILL less than the newly price dropped 2.26GHZ B's price, so there might be a good value here if it is all possible and true/
And yeah, 2.6GHZ equalling PR3400, would almost give us a small overview or expectation of what a predicted 3400 CH would give, even though it isn't the case anymore, and that the PR is being revised, AS WELL as adding some multimedia extentions which seem to be independant of PR.

--
Meow<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 06/02/02 04:15 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
June 2, 2002 8:20:29 PM

My was motherboard is the limiting factor not the CPU, RAM, AGP, or PCI.

Thanks for spreading FUD.

My "crap" is not hand picked. I ordered my CPU from newegg.com.

Im sure I can push Fatburgers 1.6A to 170FSB

And Im sure that the article was meant to say 2600+ PR not 2600Mhz. ROFL at that huge desparity of roughly a PR 3700+ or more chip.

You are limited to what your mind can perceive.
June 2, 2002 8:32:58 PM

Heh, your in denial.

Face it this is a undocumented report of a overclock no one else at the tech tour saw.

Only another week or so untill release, keep your panties on as your ass is not a pretty sight.

You are limited to what your mind can perceive.
June 2, 2002 10:30:54 PM

Quote:
My was motherboard is the limiting factor not the CPU, RAM, AGP, or PCI.

That was my point, thanks for helping me out.

Quote:
Thanks for spreading FUD.

No fud at all, just facts, sometimes your so eager to contradict people you make up stuff, bad form fugg.


Quote:
My "crap" is not hand picked. I ordered my CPU from newegg.com.

How many p4's do you own? If its more than one(and I believe it is but I admit I may be wrong about it) then you are indeed using a hand picked cpu.

Quote:
Im sure I can push Fatburgers 1.6A to 170FSB

Im sure you could, that was my entire point, perhaps you should try and comprehend what someone is saying before bullheadedly contradicting them.


Quote:
And Im sure that the article was meant to say 2600+ PR not 2600Mhz. ROFL at that huge desparity of roughly a PR 3700+ or more chip.

Sure it was, whos spreading the fud now, hypocrite.



PS: I replied to fuggers post in the interest of truth, I will now resume ignoring him.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 2, 2002 11:51:37 PM

If they release Barton we're talking an additional 15-20% frequency due to SOI. With SOI and process tweeks looks like Athlon will go well over 3GHz, easily competing with the P4. Cool!

What's <A HREF="http://www.vanshardware.com/" target="_new">this</A> all about?
June 3, 2002 1:18:18 AM

I made a statement, if it confirms what you said then so be it. but that does not fall under "bad form" but you need to take thoughtless jabs at me every chance you get.

I have a 2.4B cpu that I ordered online and that does not count as "hand picked". It is a better oerclocker than the 1.6A, 1.8A, and 2.0A I have by far, it uses less voltage and lower temps at higher speeds. That to me means it is a better overclocker.

You are doing a swell job of ignoring me, like in the other section where you want me back on your circle jerk list.

Now like I told Kelledin, keep your panties on untill Tbred is released and tortured some before you rally around any more hallow claims of uber overclocks without benchmarks or supporting facts to back it up.

You are limited to what your mind can perceive.
June 3, 2002 2:18:00 AM

No!!!! Not June 10! That's the date of my first final!

My frog asked me for a straw...dunno what happened he's all over the place :eek: 
June 3, 2002 5:19:51 AM

kinda getting into theoretical semantics arnt we?

what IS a better overclock? something that gets the highest Mhz or the one with the greatest % gain?



<font color=blue>Pants Down! Turn Around! Bend Over! You're about to Experience Telstra broadband! :lol: 
June 3, 2002 11:35:02 AM

Barton wont use SOI.
atleast on current AMD roadmap.


This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
June 3, 2002 11:48:47 AM

Yeah cuz it'd be not just a waste of good silicon, but it would cost them more, even as they are a few months close to Barton. Simple 512K L2 is enough and nice.

Hammer's high IPC demands better clock speed controlling, so the extra 2 stages, along with a Heat Spreader which I hope works better than P4's solution, then 0.13m and SOI, will allow a good ramping upwards.

--
Meow
June 3, 2002 5:39:00 PM

Quote:
<i>Matisaro says:</i>
looks like my prediction has more weight now eh.

Sure does look like it, it'll be interesting to see whether these type of results or the earlier results become the norm farther on.

However, this article doesn't mention whether it was air-cooled or whatnot. I'll drop him an email and ask.

Quote:
<i>FUGGER says:</i>
My brothers friends oldest sons wifes brother also has a Tbred said he says that it will do 2.9Ghz. I read it on the net so it must be true.

Sorry to burst your bubble, FUGGER, but I've met the guy who wrote the article, it's legit.

Quote:
<i>Siddhartha says:</i>
I wonder if the writer meant 2600-2700+ instead of 2.6-2.7 gHz?

Doubt it, he runs an XP system (1800+ on a Soyo Dragon+, I believe), so he's familiar with the clock speed and PR ratings. It's possible, though.

Quote:
<i>kelledin says:</i>
As you noted, better components are necessary--higher binned chipset parts, and possibly better memory as well.

Of course, but if you don't plan it out carefully before buying a system designed for a big OC, you deserve the crappy results. Just my opinion.

Quote:
<i>The_MaguS says:</i>
I guess everyone who plans on buying Tbred will be unlocking to OC? Doesn't seem likely.

No, but that's the major advantage. If the Tbred can OC the same % in clock speed with it's higher IPC, it'll put the P4 in a bit of a squeeze.

Quote:
<i>Matisaro says:</i>
Thats what, one, two motherboards?

All the Abit P4 boards, and I'm sure that option will move to other manufacturers as they see that people want that.

Quote:
<i>Matisaro says:</i>
Fatburger is topped at 155

Yes, but I'm not sure what's limiting me. Could be the clock generators, the processor, heat on some component or another, etc. I'm happy at 155, so I haven't made much of an effor to figure out what it is and/or get higher.

Quote:
<i>Nikko says:</i>
If they release Barton we're talking an additional 15-20% frequency due to SOI.

SOI for Barton has been taken off the roadmap, regrettably. The only change now is 512k of L2. I wouldn't be surprised if Barton was cut out entirely, there's not a huge need for it, and it doesn't have much time to affect the market.

Quote:
<i>Eden says:</i>
Simple 512K L2 is enough and nice.

I think they should've added that to Tbred and cut Barton out completely. Oh well, no biggie.

Quote:
<i>Eden says:</i>
along with a Heat Spreader which I hope works better than P4's solution

I can't think of any reason it would, but it would be nice.


EDIT:
Off The Cold Shop's front page:
Quote:
It's come to my attention that a few people have had questions about my AMD Tech Tour article. Specifically Gigabytes claim to have a Thorughbred 2200+ (1.8 GHz) running at 2.6-2.7GHz. This seems quite incredible because it's an overclock of almost a Gigahertz. It's possible that they meant 2600-2700+ but I quite clearly heard them say Gigahertz several times. We'll be attending the next Tech Tour in Vancouver B.C on Tuesday and when we do I plan to ask the Gigabyte represenatives to clarify their statement. I also have some questiosn for AMD, specifically whether the Barton core will use SOI or not and several questions regarding the Hammer and its integrated memory controller.



<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by FatBurger on 06/03/02 10:43 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
June 3, 2002 7:09:47 PM

"It's come to my attention that a few people have had questions about my AMD Tech Tour article. Specifically Gigabytes claim to have a Thorughbred 2200+ (1.8 GHz) running at 2.6-2.7GHz. This seems quite incredible because it's an overclock of almost a Gigahertz. It's possible that they meant 2600-2700+ but I quite clearly heard them say Gigahertz several times. We'll be attending the next Tech Tour in Vancouver B.C on Tuesday and when we do I plan to ask the Gigabyte represenatives to clarify their statement. I also have some questiosn for AMD, specifically whether the Barton core will use SOI or not and several questions regarding the Hammer and its integrated memory controller."

I saw the retraction too, as well as <A HREF="http://www.born2oc.be" target="_new">other forums</A> discussing this article and that it was in fact a mistake.

"looks like my prediction has more weight now eh." grasping at anything is more like it.

"Sorry to burst your bubble, FUGGER, but I've met the guy who wrote the article, it's legit." no bubble busted, its a mistake. grats meeting the guy and stuff.

You are limited to what your mind can perceive.
June 3, 2002 7:55:20 PM

Quote:
no bubble busted, its a mistake. grats meeting the guy and stuff.

Seems quite likely it's <i>not</i> a mistake. Fact is, none of us actually know yet.

<pre>We now <b>return</b>(<font color=blue>-1</font color=blue>) to an irregular program scheduler.</pre><p>
June 3, 2002 9:11:16 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>Svar på:</font><hr><p>(if the nw b's have any improvement at all)<p><hr></blockquote><p>The brand new <b>C0</b> stepping (made from 300mm wafers with 10% reduced die-size) is the one you want if you go the P4 route. The ideal P4 would be a 1.8A C0 stepping (if Intel is ever going to make C0 stepping Northwood A's, which we don't know for sure). Such a thing could reach 3GHz with a 166 MHz FSB. And paired with PC1200 RDRAM (overclocked PC1060) it would be a perfect match, memory bandwidth wise.

Imagine a cheap 1.8A running 3GHz with PC1200 RDRAM (4.8GB/s). Only problem here is the price of PC1060 RDRAM.

I look forward to the introduction of SiS655 (dual-channel DDR333) in 2-3 month time. That would also be a perfect match and likely a better solution having lower latency than RDRAM.

<i>/Copenhagen - Clockspeed will make the difference... in the end</i> :cool:
June 3, 2002 10:00:09 PM

Quote:
I saw the retraction too


Not a retraction, he's simply stating that it is a big deal and wants to make doubly sure that he's correct in what he says. He didn't go into much detail when he said it the first time around, anyway.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 3, 2002 10:03:42 PM

Quote:
Yes, but I'm not sure what's limiting me. Could be the clock generators, the processor, heat on some component or another, etc. I'm happy at 155, so I haven't made much of an effor to figure out what it is and/or get higher.


Exactly, that was my point, but of all the things limiting you I doubt its the cpu itself most of all, which was my entire point.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 3, 2002 11:01:26 PM

I'm not disagreeing, just throwing in my two cents.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 3, 2002 11:29:21 PM

Do you agree, that the fact the B's have a lower multiplier and already start at 133, that the limits of the motherboard/ram etc(which are the limits of most p4 overclocks) will in fact cause them to be worse overclockers than the a's.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 3, 2002 11:37:23 PM

If you get a DDR board like the BD7II, you can get some KILLER DDR400 or the such, and overclock as far as your processor can handle. Seriously, the highest I've heard a P4 1.6A get to was 2.9GHz under air cooling. It was under an Abit TH7-II with a 181Mhz FSB.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
June 3, 2002 11:39:08 PM

Lower percentagewise, yes. Lower top end, no.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 3, 2002 11:54:34 PM

Lower top end?

Remember the b and a comparison are of chips with equal clocks, a 2ghz b versus a 2ghz a for example, the b chip itself may be able to hit 3ghz if all other factors are removed, but since they arent removed to hit 3ghz you need an insanely unachievable fsb of what 200?

Whereas the a@2ghz will be able to hit its max 2.8 at 150 fsb or whatever, a much more dooable overclock, I am surprised no one else has realized kelledins point.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 4, 2002 12:30:34 AM

Quote:
Whereas the a@2ghz will be able to hit its max 2.8 at 150 fsb or whatever, a much more dooable overclock, I am surprised no one else has realized kelledins point.

This point is valid if we consider FSB as the sole limiting factor, because of the multiplier:

Case A
Fatburger tops out his 1.6A at 2480 MHz with an FSB of 155 and he paid ~$130 for the chip. Multiplier = 16.

Case B
Fatchick tops out her 2.26B at 2635 MHz with an FSB of 155 and she paid $220 for the chip. Multiplier = 17.

Well, to me Fatburger got the better deal. So Kelledin's point is made in the above case.

*However*, that does not imply that the 2.26B is a "worse overclocker". To be a worse overclocker means being a worse value for the money overclocking wise, and to some people that means top end needs to be factored in. So if Fatchick can get her 2.26B up to 3.2 GHz without spending gobs of money on cooling, memory, and a mobo that can handle the FSB, then we might say she got as good a deal or better than Fatburger whose CPU might be limited to 2.6 GHz. Not in my book (today's games are GPU limited so who cares about 600 more MHz), but to someone who's doing serious MP3 encoding the P4B may be considered a better overclocker because of the higher top end.

We can't make a blanket statement on which is the better overclocker, because as others have pointed out, the P4Bs apparently have a new core that allows more headroom in overclocking.

Ritesh
June 4, 2002 3:42:11 AM

Quote:
*However*, that does not imply that the 2.26B is a "worse overclocker". To be a worse overclocker means being a worse value for the money overclocking wise, and to some people that means top end needs to be factored in. So if Fatchick can get her 2.26B up to 3.2 GHz without spending gobs of money on cooling, memory, and a mobo that can handle the FSB, then we might say she got as good a deal or better than Fatburger whose CPU might be limited to 2.6 GHz. Not in my book (today's games are GPU limited so who cares about 600 more MHz), but to someone who's doing serious MP3 encoding the P4B may be considered a better overclocker because of the higher top end.

We can't make a blanket statement on which is the better overclocker, because as others have pointed out, the P4Bs apparently have a new core that allows more headroom in overclocking.


::sighs::

Your wrong man, you compared the 1.6a with the 2.23b, how about the 2.2a, if your mobo tops out at 155fsb,and your chips top is 3.3ghz(example) the 2.23b will get to 2.43ghz(or thereabouts) the 2.2ghz will be able to get to the FULL 3.3ghz and have room to spare!

So your cpu will be fully utilized on the A, the fact the B STARTS its ocing @133fsb AND gains less mhz per fsb clock makes it INHERANTLY a worse overclocker than the a. in BOTH % clockspeed gain, AND max topspeed.

Its pure logic, who cares if subtle core revisions on the NWb(which will trickle to the a line soon enough) give it a 100-200mhz topspeed advantage over the a when YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FSB OF 183 TO BRING IT TO 3GHZ!!!!!!

The fact is that most 2.2ghz northwood a's can hit 3ghz, and most 2.23ghz nw b's can hit 3.1ghz(THE CHIPS) but for a nw a the fsb to achieve that overclock is EASILY ACHIEVED, while the fsb for the NW B to hit that overclock IS DIFFICULT TO IMPOSSIBLE. The fsb is the major limiting factor of a rdram mobo overclock, PERIOD. A motherboard with a fsb of 180+ needed to get the 2.23b to 3ghz is EXTREMELY RARE, whereas the 145-150 needed to get the 2.2ghza to 3ghz is common and easy to get.

Does everyone not understand what I am talking about?

(actually its kelledins baby, I am just defending the truth and logic of his claims).

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
June 4, 2002 4:46:22 AM

Very impressive, if this is anywhere near typical, I will once again be able to recommend AMD systems to performance freaks who are willing to overclock.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
!