Pf.Farnsworth said:
Why would you compare an overcloed cpu to a stock one? Looks like AMD FX's still hold the top, we'll see what conroe has to offer soon, looks like it will take the top. Then in Q1/Q2 2007 amd K8L will be out to rock intels world.
I figured with a good regassed mach II gt, or regassed vapo LS, the chip should theoretically be able to hit 4.6ghz, possibly 4.8ghz beyond that the chip would be producing a ridiculous heat load, as well as straining the limits of a kicka$$ PSU, now I was
hoping that at this speed, and the speed of a highly overclocked FX 60, would be near comparable, the D805 possibly losing by 15-20% in realtime utilization. Now thats all theoretical speculation, but if in fact that was close to the truth, I would compare it for the simple reason of Intel D805= $88 bucks (reseller) vs AMD fx 60 = $750, or the dual core at $1150.
I don't "side" with either AMD or intel, I just want the fastest (in this case for gaming). I do have to say Im not fond of the intel BGA style CPU placement, since Ive always been a strong advocate on proper insulation with non conductive silicone on the pins and pins sockets, Id just feel safer being able to insulate actual pins, not smear some goo on balls, (no analogy intended there). Ive had two of my current rigs , one a mach II gt regassed/ Baker block, running a Prescott 3.4 @ 4.6 for over 2 years now, never had a glitch or a problem, and my other a vapochill LS, regassed, chillcontrol modded, PC Ice tuned, running a 3.2 NW, @ 4.4ghz for 2 1/2 years, I seriously have to say its the insulation job thats kept it running this long, and this stable, since Ive had bad experiences with my mach I, and improper insulation many years ago.