Overclock 64bit 3000XP

BloodBath

no u're wrong (how mature an approach !)

Maybe not mature but it's true.

you can read a few articles on the P3 1.13ghz here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2000.html, from august. Interesting bit of processor history. The chip was removed from sale soon after this. (it only ever shipped a couple thousand, Dell's mostly if I remember correctly). Only when tualatin came out did the p3 go to 1.13 properly (a complete die/process revision).

Has no relevance to this situation at all.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me...whats far more likely is that intel couldnt get economically viable yields for 4+Ghz prescotts - without some manufacturing tweaks - which would require a team better used on the dual core prescott or the dual core pentium M projects.

Exactly.

it would be unreasonable to believe that intel cannot make a 4ghz chip. a number of chips would surely pass all the q.c for 4ghz. just looking at the fact that will ship 3.8ghz chips in number would mean a number would get to 4Ghz. a different question though would be is it feasible for them to release a 4ghz and the answer is obviously no.

And I guarentee you practically every single one of those 3.8ghz chips will do at least 4ghz with no voltage modification, maybe some will need a slight increase and they will be perfectly stable. I'd expect at least 4.2ghz out of them tbh.


BloodBath

StRiKeR

gline wrote:

"I dont feel the needs of overclocking my rig apart " - Do you not want more speed for your money???

I'm not too bother, If I want more speed I buy a faster chip, I can afford it!

astrofool

I guess Intel are too idiotic to release a 4ghz p4 then, seeing as every chip goes to that speed anyway.

Or maybe they want AMD to have all the speed records.

StRiKeR

theres no harm in holding off for a while for whatever reason they may want to do that I guess!

secret_squirrel

Since the fastest A64 is only running at 2.6 or 2.8Ghz I think Intels speed record is safe for a bit.

Its become pretty meaningless at this stage anyway. Especially since the pentium M is argueably a better processor than the p4 anyway.

All the major manufacturers have to move away from pure Ghz ratings since next years dual core processors are likely to run significantly slower (in Ghz) than the processors they replace.

Its just sad that pride on intels part wont go down the 'notional Ghz' route like AMD with their 3800+ etc, but would rather opt for a numbering system that is completely alien and incomprehensible to the majority of users.

BKtje

Since the fastest A64 is only running at 2.6 or 2.8Ghz I think Intels speed record is safe for a bit.

Fx goes a fair bit above that m8.

secret_squirrel

err...no it doesnt - stock speed for the new FX-55 is only 2.6Ghz. Anything thats overclocked doesnt count since its not an official product.

Max overclocks of any chip is a completely different issue to the one I was posting about - namely Intel's 'Ghz is Good' ex-policy.

Azza

However much a fan I am of the AMD 64 processors the naming convention AMD is too confusing for example the AMD 64 3200 there is three of them (2.0Ghz 1MB Cache, 2.2Ghz 512kb Cache both socket 754 and the socket 939 version at 2.0Ghz 512kb Cache).....how about the socket 754 3400 out preforming the 3500 with its extra half a mb of cache despite not using dual channel. Also its hard to tell the difference between them and the FX chips.
All I know about the FX is its mulitplyer is fully unlocked and I think it makes better use of memory....not sure really.

You might say that people can tell by the core name (newcastle or winchester)but the average Joe Soap aint going know the difference.
But then again perhaps AMD buyers are the sort of people who go out of there way to learn about cpu's otherwise they would of got Intel P4's. By that I mean there people looking for an alturnative to Intel hence done there research (not mean't as a jab at Intel). Not a fan of Intels clock speed is everything approach. But maybe its smart marketing most people have the perception clock speed is important the higher the better so if there higher than there rivals people think they must be better.

Finally what the hell is the AMD 64 3300 doing with 256kb cache....thats crazy!

BKtje

despite not using dual channel. Also its hard to tell the difference between them and the FX chips.

Im not convinvced that dual-channel makes much difference on A64 platforms (due to the memory controller being on the cpu perhaps?)
I know CC's dual channel system was outperformed by system similar to mine at same clock speed (used newcastle instead of clawhammer so l2 cache was identical).

Azza

Well the performance of dual channel memory benefit is minimal 5% increase in memory performance tops. Thats why the extra half a mb of cache on the 3400 socket 754 helped it outpreform the dual channel but only 512kb cache of the similar clocked 3500 on socket 939. Fellow midlaner Pyrogenx runs dual channel on Athlon XP rig and claims he has not noticed any performance increase.

Incidently I see these AMD 64 winchester cpu's are outpreforming there newcastle equivelents that have the same clock speed and cache by 5% despite AMD's claim that they have not been tweaked. Seen it verified by several independent sites now. Perhaps its something to do with a higher hpertransport setting.