• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

I thought this was known for a while now?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
wannaoc said:


Not sure about that, maybe some but it seems this guy is jumping to conclusions a little.
Maybe a select few that:
a) Were looking to upgrade anyway.
b) Had the budget for an expensive P4.
c) Upgraded so their online 8===D would grow longer.
d) Were taken by benchmarks.
 
Yeah, I saw some post around the forums a couple months ago, at least about the new packaging. I can't remember if anyone figured out a way around it.

Mark Larson:
If you don't know already, XPs can be modded to work like MPs and are a whole heck of a lot cheaper. You can even mod bartons to work in a dual setup, and get better performance than you would with 2 MP 2600+ for a lower cost.
 
Jeez this guy has basically rehashed an old story about the new packaging! Then to compound it Ed has gone and covered the story on the front page! Bad journalism all round.
 
that guy was a fucing idiot....sorry for language but i successfully moded my 1700s with the exact same packaging as shown in that article by just putting conductive paint in the pit. A few others were succesful with conductive grease. Its no big deal just pin mod everything else and its all good. Friggen idiots.
 
"Somewhat disappointed I RMA’ed the working 2600 to my supplier for a replacement with two XP2500s"

That's what really gets me, he screws up a bridge mod and then RMA's the chip. Real good there buddy, I guess I will be seeing him in hell, what's next from him? How to rob an old lady with nothing more than a barreta .45?
 
He didn't RMA the chip he ruined. He had bought 2 and returned the one he didn't mod. Re-read the line you quoted, that's what he said. He returned one expensive 2600 and get 2 cheaper 2500's in return.
 
Yeah, you're a crackbaby if you can't mod one of these chips. There, I said it. I've seen these suckers and it isn't so hard. Ever heard of a razor? Hell, even a solder scraper would work.

Anyone else notice the front page desperately trying to make intels look good and amd's look bad. For a little while I shrugged it off and figured it just was due to amd's slow season... but when they are quoting spec scores, then you know it's gotten out of hand. Was it here that an article was touting how useless spec was back when apple was parading around in the the lead? Oh, and I wonder whose compiler amd was running on. In two days there have been two articles, saying "You know the two best things about amd's? Bend over." Neither has grounds as of yet. There is also an article saying, "Hey, Itanium is looking better. Look at these spec scores." This is an oversimplification, as the article isn't saying "Go out and beat up nuns to get an Itanium right now." But one day this, the next *gasp* Tom's Hardware. Hopefully, it was a lapse of reason. (Ok, two lapses, the headline that Opt's are too pricey can be understood... despite the irony that three lines down, a GOOD thing about the intel chip is that it's 'only' 500$ more than the top end Opteron).
 
Last edited:
Gnufsh said:
Mark Larson:
If you don't know already, XPs can be modded to work like MPs and are a whole heck of a lot cheaper. You can even mod bartons to work in a dual setup, and get better performance than you would with 2 MP 2600+ for a lower cost.
The guy is *******g about modding a CPU (invalidating its warranty and running it out of spec) and you talk about it like its legit? Please. He can bloody well buy 2600MPs if he wants SMP. And he RMAs the chip on top of that :rolleyes:
 
Back