Last message on previous page:
The 955 overclocks very well, I have read an article at legitreviews up to 4760MHz on air.
Xbit got it stable on air at 4.26GHz,,,

tbreak benches a stock and overclocked 955 at 4.25GHz with a FX-60... I think this is the thread to see.
http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/printpage.php?id=432

So it is clear that the top performer, and this early in the year has taken the uber overclock performance crown from the FX-60 (which is an extremely poor overclocker luck to make 200MHz) is Intel with 65nm today. Imagine in 8 months from now.

what about the opty 180? cant it overclock as well?

WHAT?! you show us some hard evidence mister. i've even heard some hardcore AMD nuts admit that intel's 65nm line OC well.
The evidence is in the thread, read and you will find it. And I didn't take OC in count. Without OC there are three AMD CPUs that beats the EE955, those CPUs are AMD 64 X2 4800+, AMD FX-57, AMD FX-60.

If we take OC in count the AMD FX-60 still beats the EE 955 (which is also bescribed in the THGs article that I linked to earlier in the thread).

Actually there is only 1 that is on par (the FX-60 that is)...

Not according to this bechmark review.

This shows the 955 beating the FX-60 in some benchmarks stock...
Also shows the the 955 overclocked to 4.25GHz and it beats the FX-60 in every benchmark... That is a 800MHz clock increase on air from stock...
The FX-60 is a very poor overclocker, lucky to gain 200MHz
http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/printpage.php?id=432

Although the FX60 continues to reign supreme in most benchmarks at stock speed, the 955 provides much better competition that the 840 EE did. Where the 955 EE stands out is its overclocking potential where it provides some excellent competition. In fact, that’s something we really liked about the new EE CPU from Intel. Comparing the highest-end CPUs, the FX60 proved to be a pretty bad overclocker- we barely got 200MHz over the FX60’s stock speed whereas the 955 EE very easily oveclocked 800MHz with stock cooling and voltage. We’re sure that a little more tweaking should easily make it run 1000MHz higher than its stock speed. This also provides some very good overclocking expectations from other CPUs based on the 9xx series from Intel- we'll definitely be waiting for them.

Now, its obvious that Intels clock better than AMD, end of story. The fact remains is why can't the AMD camp admit that Intel has a better performing chip out right now. That's what I wanna know.

Sure the EE chip is expensive but so is the FX60. To be able to OC the EE and beat the 60 in all categories, that's impressive to say the least. Is Intel getting any credit for it? Of course not. Its still an AMD world.

Face the facts, I for one would never buy an FX60. Not when I can buy an EE with better technology, clock it alot higher and have a better performing chip. I'm not harping on AMD here, all I'm saying is, Intel has something for them now and if Conroe is gonna be that much better, (we still don't know yet) then AMD is gonna have their hands full.

High end enthusiasts pick would be the 955.
I would never buy a FX-60 for $1050 which if you are luck will get a 7% overclock only to 2.8GHz.

But the 955 will get 800MHz overclock stable on air and beat the competition, overclocked or not. But it still sells for around the same price as teh FX-60

Which pricewise, puts the Intel right on track with AMD. If I had a choice and because i'm an avid OC'er, I would most definately go with the Intel chip.

I can tell ya why. Its their stubborn pride... Its the same with all AMD fanboys... while Intel users like Intel, AMD users WORSHIP AMD (which doesnt make me wonder, all kiddies do that). I know what Im talking about cause I was just like that myself when I owned an AMD chip (an Athlon 1200). Yoar, that was some nice proc, I could get everything done with it and I had A LOT of fun with that rig (dang, it lasted like 4 years without actually being old in terms of lagging even when its switched off, in fact it didnt lag at all). But then I decided to go for Intel (for obvious reasons) and now Im here with a P4 530. Dawg, I never thought that me + Intel = possible before. I was also attacking Intel for everything even when I broke my arm it was Intels fault (no exageration here, TRUE STORY!) and at first I didnt wanna tell my friends (I hate to say, but most of em are crapped AMD fanboys) that I bought a Dell and therefore an Intel but when I had my first own LAN party, I cranked up my rig and owned them so much, it wasnt even funny (even in gaming benchmarks even though I have a X300 SE) and guess what? They still think AMD is better. 1 week ago 1 of my friends (AMD fanboy to death and thinks hes got THE computer knowledge that, in fact, hes far away from having) bought a laptop (a fujitsu-siemens, I told ya hes got no idea) with a Turion (I already told ya) because Turion is better for gaming (how clueless can one be?) and supports 64-bit (I bet he doesnt even know what 64-bit means or what happens in 64-bit mode) (he doesnt have a single piece of 64-bit stuff). Well, lets see... my next rig will be a Merom Inspiron XPS AS SOON AS IT COMES OUT and the AMD ownage will start over again... but hey, I already told ya, he will still think AMD is better, just like all AMD fanboys would do.

What a great sense of humor. I would just say that you're such a good joker.

So, the 955EE needs 4.25GHz OC to beat an FX 60 clocked at stock speed, that's really embarrassing.
I've been in forums where people achieved a 3.0GHz OC with their FX-60 using their stock HSF. The 955EE would need a 4.5GHz OC to beat that.
Sorry Intel fanboys, keep crying out lod. 8)

Some have taken it past 5GHz

Ok gdi...

Stop bashing Mariah Carey! You know you wouldn't kick her out of bed....don't denigh it. Just put her on mute and grab the Klenex box. =P

OC'ing is pure skill, luck and having a good chip that will clock high. Obviously, Intels clock high and are very stable at high clocks. Intel makes the EE for enthusiasts that like to clock high. The FX60 is not what I consider an enthusiast chip because its too unstable if you clock it. Instead, its considered a ramped up version of the X2-4800. If you've got 1 grand to spend on a chip like the EE or the FX60, they better be able to clock high because that's alot of cash to throw away for a chip. Pretty sad when you can't OC an FX 60 but yet, an Intel chip for the same price can double its speed, kick the FX60s ass and still remain rock solid stable.

AMD has proven time and time again that they become unstable when trying to OC them. I've done it and i've seen many different people try to OC an AMD chip and couldn't get any real results like I can with Intel. Yes, they can be OC'd but nothing like Intel.

If you want to argue the fact that AMDs FX60 is the cream of the crop, then go for it. But I will say this much, most people I've ever been around, talked to or worked with over the last 13 years building computers, have their machines OC'd much like I do. That's exactly why Intel makes a quality, rock solid chip for OC'ing and they know it. AMD obviously needs to make a more stable chip. AMD is stock speed candy while Intel is an overclockers dream.

Oh and btw, the EE doesn't need to be clocked to 4.25Ghz to beat the FX60. At stock speeds, it does very well in keeping pace with the FX60. Once again, looking at those benchmarks which i'll reiterate, I don't care for, the EE keeps pace and even bests the FX60 in a few areas. Take another look.

So if AMD is launching 65nm, is that mean Intel would counter attack with the quad core or 45nm? The competition is getting hotter buy summer next year my new cpu would be old school.