Green Barton 2500+ Better?

Are the green 2500+ Bartons better at OC than the older brown ones? I'm thinking of switching, and I want to know if they can overclock better. I think the newer stepping is AQXEA; mine is AQXDA.

actually with the newest ones they've gone back to a brown colour. at least mine is. different from original brown but certainly not green.

the colors depend on the location of where teh chip was packaged.. they still alterante between green and brown and really dont tell you how well they OC..

Ah. The picture at Newegg has changed since I got my 2500+, so I thought there was a difference. Do you think if I order an OEM proc from Newegg I'll get a good stepping for overclocking?

newegg has very recent retail steppings too.. out of the 2 i would go for the retail.. its only a few bucks more if anything the heatsink is good as a paperweight ;d

Yeah, I always buy retail, if you get lucky you can find guaranteed steppings in retail cartons.

Hm, I bought my last CPU (2500) retail and it only clocks up to 2.25 GHz at 1.8V (highest my motherboard will go). Then again, I didn't buy it from Newegg.

most places dont sell as many cpus as newegg.. so thast why they carry very recent steppings.. when a cpu is a popular as say a 2500+ then alot of it get sold and the more they sell the newer their steppings tend to be =)

Packaging colors and steppings mean practically nothing for overclocking, so just buy any 2500+ you want and overclock it.

Akira283-IGN said:

Packaging colors and steppings mean practically nothing for overclocking, so just buy any 2500+ you want and overclock it.

Click to expand...

Steppings mean nothing? How do you justify this against everything else on this forum?

I went ahead and bought the retail package from Newegg. It was a bit cheaper than I expected because the sales tax is lower here than where I used to live (okay, only 50 cents). I'll let you all know how my overclock turns out.

he probably meant that the so called "good" 2500+ plus steppings dont really mean much with the inconsistent results people ahve been getting.

Restorer said:

Steppings mean nothing? How do you justify this against everything else on this forum?

Click to expand...

It's quite simple. Weeks, sSpecs and steppings are practically useless. This is because not every CPU from every stepping and week is overclocked, so it's impossible to know the best overall. People only know which ones seem to overclock the best. Overclocking is unpredictable because a CPU from a popular stepping/sSpec/week might overclock poorly, and likewise a CPU from an unpopular stepping/sSpec/week might do very well. Less than 5% of CPUs are actually overclocked, so no one can argue that one type overclocks more than another.

Another factor is user error. A certain CPU might be capable of 3.3GHz on air-cooling, but if the user isn't a very knowledgeable overclocker, or one or more of his components are sub-standard, he may only reach 3GHz. This user then decides to go on some forum and write about his "crappy stepping that only reaches 3GHz," when the fact is that the CPU is capable of more. This is why no stepping will guarantee a good overclock, or indicate the speed you will get. Every CPU is different, so the only way to find out how far you can overclock is to try it and see.

As a general rule, the newer the CPU, the more overclocking potential it has.

Akira283-IGN

OK, one quick example of how wrong you are...

Take a T-Bred A core compared to a T-Bred B core. They look the same and are advertised as the same CPU. But one can overclock 200mhz faster and the other 600, 700, or even 1000mhz faster. The way to tell them apart is the code on the CPU label. Is this 'practically useless' information? I think not.

Also, there are definitive trends that have been shown to be true nearly all of the time. If you don't want to take advantage of such information, don't. But why do you feel personally obligated to paste the same EXACT paragraph over and over again while never contributing useful experiences or help? This has got to be the 10th time in 2-3 days that you have posted this in hopes of crushing someone's excitement. What's the deal? Not only is it a bit rude, but it's unfounded.

OK, my rant is over.

Akira283-IGN said:

It's quite simple. Weeks, sSpecs and steppings are practically useless. This is because not every CPU from every stepping and week is overclocked, so it's impossible to know the best overall. People only know which ones seem to overclock the best. Overclocking is unpredictable because a CPU from a popular stepping/sSpec/week might overclock poorly, and likewise a CPU from an unpopular stepping/sSpec/week might do very well. Less than 5% of CPUs are actually overclocked, so no one can argue that one type overclocks more than another.

Another factor is user error. A certain CPU might be capable of 3.3GHz on air-cooling, but if the user isn't a very knowledgeable overclocker, or one or more of his components are sub-standard, he may only reach 3GHz. This user then decides to go on some forum and write about his "crappy stepping that only reaches 3GHz," when the fact is that the CPU is capable of more. This is why no stepping will guarantee a good overclock, or indicate the speed you will get. Every CPU is different, so the only way to find out how far you can overclock is to try it and see.

As a general rule, the newer the CPU, the more overclocking potential it has.

Click to expand...

Would you cut+paste this same redundant information to say, a user that just bought an AMD XP1800+ JIUHB 0312 DLT3C? A simple yes or no.

brennan77 said:

Take a T-Bred A core compared to a T-Bred B core. They look the same and are advertised as the same CPU. But one can overclock 200mhz faster and the other 600, 700, or even 1000mhz faster. The way to tell them apart is the code on the CPU label. Is this 'practically useless' information? I think not.

Click to expand...

You're not listening, which I find sad. As time goes on, manufacturing techniques improve, which is why AMD and Intel are able to increase clock speeds. The engineering improvements from A to B were the reason for the increase in overclocking potential. Some overclockers believe that steppings have some hidden meaning for overclocking, but that is just a myth.

Steppings have no affect on overclocking - they simply signify that some type of manufacturing refinement was made. Newer equals better in the overclocking world, but some ignorant overclockers like to argue that older steppings do better than newer ones. They base these theories off of only a few results, and fail to understand that truth that intelligent overclockers already know.

Some people even argue that some older production weeks are better than newer ones for overclocking. False! Newer CPUs based on the same stepping always have more potential than older ones due to the constant rate of improving technology. Weeks themselves do not indicate overclocking potential. I see so many false arguments like "week 31 is better then week 35, but worse than week 24." All you need to do to get the most overclocking potential is to simply buy a new CPU. If you can find a place to get a guaranteed week, great, that way you can simply choose the newest CPU possible. Just don't be fooled by myths that older weeks are better.

Please, read my words more than once before jumping to ignorant conclusions.

Also, there are definitive trends that have been shown to be true nearly all of the time. If you don't want to take advantage of such information, don't. But why do you feel personally obligated to paste the same EXACT paragraph over and over again while never contributing useful experiences or help? This has got to be the 10th time in 2-3 days that you have posted this in hopes of crushing someone's excitement. What's the deal? Not only is it a bit rude, but it's unfounded.

Click to expand...

No, the myths about burning-in, Malay/Costa and stepping/week are unfounded. There is no credible, thorough proof that one can determine overclocking potential simply by reading the code printed on a CPU. All intelligent overclockers understand this, and if I have to paste my message in a thousand threads so that young overclockers aren't fooled by groundless theories, I will do so.

No, the myths about burning-in, Malay/Costa and stepping/week are unfounded. There is no credible, thorough proof that one can determine overclocking potential simply by reading the code printed on a CPU. All intelligent overclockers understand this, and if I have to paste my message in a thousand threads so that young overclockers aren't fooled by groundless theories, I will do so.

Click to expand...

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/index.php?s= and here http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?act=SF&f=5 and here http://forums.overclockers.com.au/index.php?s= and here http://www.aoaforums.com/forum/index.php? and here http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/index.php?s= and here http://www.techdot.com/forums/index.php?s=
im sure these guys need a good laugh too. by the way you mention somthing about groundless theories is that what you call your theories aswell? untill you show me somthing proving them then thats exactly what your selling "groundless theories"...

perc,

Akira283-IGN said:

You're not listening, which I find sad. As time goes on, manufacturing techniques improve, which is why AMD and Intel are able to increase clock speeds. The engineering improvements from A to B were the reason for the increase in overclocking potential. Some overclockers believe that steppings have some hidden meaning for overclocking, but that is just a myth.

Steppings have no affect on overclocking - they simply signify that some type of manufacturing refinement was made. Newer equals better in the overclocking world, but some ignorant overclockers like to argue that older steppings do better than newer ones. They base these theories off of only a few results, and fail to understand that truth that intelligent overclockers already know.

Some people even argue that some older production weeks are better than newer ones for overclocking. False! Newer CPUs based on the same stepping always have more potential than older ones due to the constant rate of improving technology. Weeks themselves do not indicate overclocking potential. I see so many false arguments like "week 31 is better then week 35, but worse than week 24." All you need to do to get the most overclocking potential is to simply buy a new CPU. If you can find a place to get a guaranteed week, great, that way you can simply choose the newest CPU possible. Just don't be fooled by myths that older weeks are better.

Please, read my words more than once before jumping to ignorant conclusions.

Click to expand...

I've read your words several times through. When you put it in that exact context, you start to make a little sense. But you haven't exactly said as much when going on your pasting escapade. In fact you've given the advice to totally disregard the "practically useless" information. Honestly, would you take your own advice if buying a CPU right now? I surely wouldn't. Arguments over the CPU's age aside, I know there are a few things in particular I'd at least look not to get. Whether you have intended to be overly negative or not with your pasted paragraph, at the very least you have not given sound advice.

I don't wish to argue much more over this. The answers are clear and it appears you'd like to hash out the semantics before getting anywhere, which would be fruitless. This isn't important enough for us to keep on going.

Wow. I ordered the CPU from Newegg on Monday night. It shipped Tuesday afternoon. According to the FedEx website, it's on the truck for delivery today (Wednesday). This is the free Express Saver shipping. I'm impressed.

I'll let you all know how my overclock proceeds once I get a chance to try the new processor.

I am sorry but if steppings are unimportant.......then how come people with the DLT3C's are getting so much better overclocks?.....it's cause the steppings tell us what the chip voltage is going to be.....I do agree that the week is unimportant.......but the rest of the stepping...ala JIUHB JIXB etc.....is preaty dang valid.......knowing it's a tbred B and a default 1.5vcore is uber important......just my $.02


****EDIT****
Restorer
sorry to thread jack.....pleas keep us updated I am curious to hear your overclocking eploits

ACK!

When I first started up, I accidentally left it at 11x200, stock Vcore. I turned away to talk to my roommate for a minute, and when I turned back Windows XP was running ScanDisk (I think; I can't remember exactly and I'm too new at Windows functions below the casual user's level). It "corrected" some things, then rebooted. When it came up again I went into BIOS and set the speed back down to stock 11x166, but when I boot XP it gives me a dialog and resets too fast for me to read it. I had to let it continually reboot many times for me to get the whole of the dialog: "When trying to update a password, the return status indicates that the value provided as the current password is not correct."

I'll run the XP Recovery Disk once I can borrow some time on another computer to make a driver floppy for my RAID. :-\