JIXHB or NIUHB - which one should I get...

I can get both of these through local stores. The NIUHB was a week 34 I think and the JIXHB was week 29 or so.
JIXHB = was a brown package.
NIUHB = is green package.
Both are retail

Which one do u guyz think has more potential..

I was looking through forums here...seems like both of them have same potential - thats what Im gathering.

But just to double check which one would u go with if u had a choice.

Thanks

NIUHB are doing quite well so go with that..

whats the difference?

Not much, they just seem to be the best o/c for the moment. I have only seen a couple good posts on the NIUB but have seen alot of people woth good JIXHB o/c so I say go with that.

{BC}Helix said:

whats the difference?

Click to expand...

just a bunch of letters that tell you whats a likely oc you'll get out of that chip.

i see, ty

They both seem to overclock really well from what i've read here, i have a niuhb 0334 running at 2325mhz with 1.62v. I'm waiting for my new psu to arrive before i go any further with it.



Check this out..

http://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=234268&highlight=niuhb


Whatever you pick, you won't go wrong either way

They're both fairly new steppings, but they mean practically nothing for overclocking. That's simply a myth. Just buy one of them and hope it overclocks well.

That store online. I wou;d love to pick up a JIXHB

Akira283-IGN said:

They're both fairly new steppings, but they mean practically nothing for overclocking. That's simply a myth. Just buy one of them and hope it overclocks well.

Click to expand...

Tell that to somebody who got an AGOIA palomino. AGOIA's and AROIA's regularly hit 1.8-2.0ghz. Other steppings generally got stuck around 1.6-1.7ghz.
Newer steppings are revisions designed to up the clock speed and yeild as production continues. A newer stepping gives you MUCH better odds of getting a better overclock. It doesn't guarantee it, but it's more like flipping a coin and calling "heads." Going with an earlier stepping is more like rolling dice and calling "snake-eyes!"
The same applies to Intel CPUs.

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 time goes on, manufacturing techniques improve, which is why AMD and Intel are able to increase clock speeds. The engineering improvements from one stepping to a newer one is 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.

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

Ever worked in a factory? Some weeks everything goes perfect. Some weeks, you put out one pile of crap after another. I do agree that getting a certain stepping from a certain week doesn't mean anything for certain, but odds may be for or against you. Check out the CPU database here. It's a pretty random sample. Do some statistical calculations, or just some general reasoning based on what you see. And sometimes, new steppings are meant to improve yeild, not clock speed. Do you think AMD or Intel gives a crap about how many of it's chips do 120% of the maximum clock speed that core sells at? Or do you think they would prefer to get 99% of the cores working, but only just barely at the maximum speed they sell them for?

Stepping and week isn't everything, but to say it's nothing is folly.

Akira283-IGN said:

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 time goes on, manufacturing techniques improve, which is why AMD and Intel are able to increase clock speeds. The engineering improvements from one stepping to a newer one is 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.

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

Click to expand...

Pull the blinders off. There have been excellent weeks when the procedding weeks sucked. Stepping is MUCH more important than week, but given a choice I like to pick the week too. To say stepping is unimportant too is just plain stupid.

Well, here are a few more questions. My descision making just got a bit more complicated.
I can choose from the following processors...
Barton 2500:
AQXEA week 32 or 33 ... reddish color core
AQZEA week 34 .... very red core

Thoroughbred B 1800:
JIXHB week 29 .... reddish core and brown package
NIUHB week 34 .... 3 of them 2 are very red cores and one is nice greenish/blue core all 3 have the green color PCB.


I did get a chance to test all except the JIXHB...
the motherboard I was using must have been crap cuz these all died around 2200mhz at default voltage
Motherboard was crap cuz even at 200FSB at any speed processor wise it would not boot, could have been memory too.
But I downed its ratios so that wasnt an issue.

I am tryin to get our store to order more NF7-S rev2.0 and hopefully can do more with these chips.

Now does the NF7-S rev2.0 support all multipliers for these chips or just 12.5 and below? cuz the board I tested with the multpliers maxed at 12.5 on all the chips.

Thats why I had to force high FSB and not knowing what was really crapping out the processor or board.

So, I hope the NF7-S will get me further...
if not can someone post link on how to get the multpliers above 12.5?

Both my barton and 1800+ were like this on the current boards.

THANKS

Caffinehog said:

Ever worked in a factory? Some weeks everything goes perfect. Some weeks, you put out one pile of crap after another.

Click to expand...

Do you work at AMD? Did they inform you that some weeks are perfect while others are crap? Don't you realize that their fab produces more than one batch a week? If week 30 contains thirty batches (hypothetically), and ten are "crap"as you say while the others are great, they're all still given the same week designation. Thus, telling the good overclockers from the bad ones becomes arbitrary and futile.

I do agree that getting a certain stepping from a certain week doesn't mean anything for certain, but odds may be for or against you. Check out the CPU database here. It's a pretty random sample. Do some statistical calculations, or just some general reasoning based on what you see.

Click to expand...

You're not listening, which makes you look foolish. Out of all CPUs in the world, only 0-10% are overclocked. Out of those, only some are reported to forums or databases. Out of those, only some are overclocked to their full potential. Add the fact that every user has a unique cooling solution, motherboard, power supply and voltage configuration, the results that you value so much are completely insufficient to even estimate overclocking potential.

And sometimes, new steppings are meant to improve yeild, not clock speed. Do you think AMD or Intel gives a crap about how many of it's chips do 120% of the maximum clock speed that core sells at? Or do you think they would prefer to get 99% of the cores working, but only just barely at the maximum speed they sell them for?

Click to expand...

Yet again you claim that you work for both Intel and AMD, because you obviously think you know what their production strategies are.

rommelrommel said:

Pull the blinders off. There have been excellent weeks when the procedding weeks sucked. Stepping is MUCH more important than week, but given a choice I like to pick the week too. To say stepping is unimportant too is just plain stupid.

Click to expand...

Another foolish comment from someone who chooses myth over logic and truth. Read my words more carefully, because you don't sound like you understand.

It looks like the store I purchse from has a bunch of the NIUHB's but my current 1700+ does 2.5ghz and has posted at 2745mhz so I don't see these new chips being a big improvement over my current chip.

Of course I know what their production strategy is: Make as much money as you can!
And of course I don't know which weeks are best... only a large sample can determine that.
What if overclockers are 1% of the market, does that mean that their experience means nothing?
I can tell you for ABSOLUTE CERTAIN that no medication studied by a drug company or the FDA has EVER been tested on more than a tiny fraction of the population. But we can say "This works, this doesn't, and this works better than that, and it causes these side effects." Does that cover all the bases? No. But it sure gives us a good idea of what works and what doesn't. The same applies to processors.


Yes, of course I'm listening. Not all will be as good, and not everyone knows how to do it right. But it doesn't mean that all super-overclockers end up with the same stepping or all unknowledgable people end up with crap. It's a pretty even distribution across the board. And if the best results from superclockers come from one stepping at a particular week, and the best results among the newbieclockers come from the same stepping and week, I know what I'll be going out of the way to find. Buy what you want... but I know what I'm getting.