[Overclocker550]

I have been an AMD fan. But.........AMD cpus dont overclock for worth. maybe 10% I did overclock my celerons, one of them would only do from 400 to 450 which is 12.5% but celerons dont make much heat and they are dirt cheap. I could get an athlon XP1800+ and try a 200MHz OC LOL but it would get mad hot and I could fry it. Yes the Athlons are cheaper and faster MHz for MHz, but the new C1 steppings overclock like mad, at least most of them. what speed will they be avail. at? I heard 1.8GHz and higher. I think the best is a 1.8GHz at 3GHz if I get 166fsb. 2GHz may only do 3GHz at 150fsb and higher fsb rocks!

[laja]

Well you should try to test one or more C1s before you buy. Not all C1s o/c well. My brand new OEM 2 Ghz C1 (and 10 others tested by a friend) are not stable in Prime 95 at 3 Ghz. And the guy who uses a 1.8 Ghz CPU at 3.6 Ghz is very lucky, and using sophisticated Prometeia cooling.

[Overclocker550]

I havent the money to buy ten. If the odds are like 50% of a 50% overclock then ill bite. I could always pay double for one already guaranteed to 3GHz or buy one off one of the guys who say got an OC but not good enough and he can sell it for break even

[Overclocker456]

Not all C1 hit 3GHz, I tried around 4-5 C1 chips and NONE of them hit 3GHz 100% stable.. There was even a case when a 2.4GHz C1 only did 2.5GHz 100% stable!!.. Some overclock.. I feel into the C1 hype and it ended up being a just that a hype.. yeah sure you've seen C1 hit 3GHz+ don't be fooled, these are a small number of chips only, just like the B0's. Just so you know all but one C1 chips I tested posted past 3GHz and booted to windows XP.. but that's all they did.. they were not 100% stable at all...

[JoT]

Originally posted by Overclocker550
I have been an AMD fan. But.........AMD cpus dont overclock for worth. maybe 10% I did overclock my celerons, one of them would only do from 400 to 450 which is 12.5% but celerons dont make much heat and they are dirt cheap. I could get an athlon XP1800+ and try a 200MHz OC LOL but it would get mad hot and I could fry it. Yes the Athlons are cheaper and faster MHz for MHz, but the new C1 steppings overclock like mad, at least most of them. what speed will they be avail. at? I heard 1.8GHz and higher. I think the best is a 1.8GHz at 3GHz if I get 166fsb. 2GHz may only do 3GHz at 150fsb and higher fsb rocks!

tell me though, why go for the intel cpu if you get more worthless power for more effort? (I'm not trying to start a war, I just would like to know)

[ol' man]

Originally posted by JoT


tell me though, why go for the intel cpu if you get more worthless power for more effort? (I'm not trying to start a war, I just would like to know)

I suppose at some point that extra worthless power will be worth while, while AMD cpu’s will still be worthless?

Nothing has changed. You can read.

[PhobMX]

Originally posted by ol' man


I suppose at some point that extra worthless power will be worth while, while AMD cpu’s will still be worthless?

Nothing has changed. You can read.

both of you are wrong, amd give lower oc ratio but still they get the same performance as a high overclock ratio p4 (this ones easier and safer) at a higher price of course...

[JoT]

Originally posted by PhobMX


both of you are wrong, amd give lower oc ratio but still they get the same performance as a high overclock ratio p4 (this ones easier and safer) at a higher price of course...

I can live with that answer

[Burning Phoenix]

I haven't had a chance to overclock an AMD except for my wifes computer which i just recently told her that is overclocked but only a little. Anyways which is easier for those guys who had both cpus.

Take a 1.8 Northwood and a AMD 1800XP. Which would overclock easier to 2.4 and 2400XP respectively to te above mentioned. I'm guessing from what i've seen in the forums the 1.8 Northwood would be easier.

[Buzzdog]

I would say that 90% of all 1.8a's either b0 or c1 will give you 150mhz fsb with a good mother board and good ram. I have mine running smooth at 2.7ghz all day long and it is an older northwood on stock hsf.

Buzzdog
'

[Overclocker550]

2.7GHz is not bad. Thats as fast as an athlon XP2500+ and should cost much less

[arklab]

The key (IMHO) is the same as always - the multiplier + the stepping of the CPU.

This doesen't seem to have changed a bit since the days of the Celeron 300A - locked multiplier, but stuff darn near any of them in a Abit BX6 motherboard (with the stock heatsink/fan), adjust the FSB from 66 to 100, and whosh - instant 50% overclock!
Some could get a bit more, but it took a LOT more effort and equipment.
The AMD chips let you unlock the multiplier, so a "faster" newer (higher inital speed) chip can be effectivly dropped back to a "slower" multiplier, but with a better (later) yeld. Even so, they only OC a little better than their older cousins.

So just what am I trying to say?

That those who try to overclock higher multiplier (locked or unlocked) CPU's and are expecting to achieve better results than someone with a lower multiplier CPU (of the same manufactered date) are bound to be disapointed.
IT"S THE SAME CHIP!
But you just paid more for a chip that Intel or AMD has ALREADY "OVERCLOCKED".

In fact, when we hit a batch of chips like the old 300A's or the new 1.8A-C1's its more like "re-clocking" or "right-clocking" than "over-clocking".
No need to apply more voltage.
No need to buy screaming heatsink/fans, much less chilled water blocks.
Just drop the chip in a good motherboard, adjust the BIOS settings and enjoy the ride.

If there were 1.6A-C1's I'm pretty sure they would OC even better than the 1.8A's.

It sure can be fun trying to squeeze the very last MHz from whatever you are running, but don't expect the same kind of percentage increase form a new 3GHz ($700) chip as the guy with the 1.8A-C1 will get for (maybe) $150 when they hit the mainstream.

Of course, getting a $500 PC just to test the chip like I did is a little nuts!
I just had to see if those 1.8A's were able to do it.
They do.

Just my two cents.

[micamica1217]

Originally posted by Overclocker550
2.7GHz is not bad. Thats as fast as an athlon XP2500+ and should cost much less

realy....you think so.

please remember that the 1.8a is OCed to 2.7ghz......so it will be faster then an intel 2.66 or 2.8ghz cpu.

infact, I highly dought that at this speed, an xp2500+ could keep up in real world things. (maybe even OCed)

forget sandra benchies, throw in UT2k3 or comanchie 4 demo and feal the power.

remember it is the system and not just one part that makes the speed you'll notice.

mica

[Burning Phoenix]

You beat me to it MICA.

I actually would of compared the overclocked 2.7 to a 2800XP instead.

[micamica1217]

Originally posted by Burning Phoenix
You beat me to it MICA.

I actually would of compared the overclocked 2.7 to a 2800XP instead.

I agree....yet I have no first hand expereance once you OC the 2800xp.

this may or may not be a good OCer.

and if it is good, then what are the final results once you OCed it.

then there is the price....can we say close to intel pricing???

my sister just got a fine AMD rig, yet the pricing of the newer AMD chips forced her cpu to be only an xp2000+

I'm glad she don't need me to OC it. she would never notice the diffrance anyway.

mica

[PhobMX]

Originally posted by micamica1217
I'm glad she don't need me to OC it. she would never notice the diffrance anyway.

mica

You are right, she wouldnt tell the difference because an athlon xp 2000 has little oc ratio no matter if you unlock it...

And an athlon xp2800 would pown a p4 @ 2.7Ghz anyday, just check the benchies posted in amd section...

[micamica1217]

Originally posted by PhobMX


You are right, she wouldnt tell the difference because an athlon xp 2000 has little oc ratio no matter if you unlock it...

And an athlon xp2800 would pown a p4 @ 2.7Ghz anyday, just check the benchies posted in amd section...

Oh ye of little faith....

I agree that OCing a xp2000+ is not worth it much.....

but untill you OC that xp2800+ I do not see any ownage.
this is no flame...it's just that most peeps compare an OCed AMD cpu to a non OCed intel cpu.

this is like comparing apples to oranges while one is on crack and the other is on dope.
in other words.....worthless dribble.

we here look at benchies from peeps who are willing to compare fairly....OCed vs OCed...or non OCed vs non OCed.

all in fun

mica

[Overclocker550]

wow good read. although did Intel really underclock the 300a celerons? cause I know some people who couldnt get 450 stable or at all. most did but not all. I had a 400 celeron, ppga too that hardly did 500MHz while the 366 ppga did 550 easy! I am using a ppga 300 thats at 504 now, itll load windows at 558 but crash in a few seconds. its not the heat either and voltage doesnt help. Im not spending for watercooling either.

[micamica1217]

Originally posted by Overclocker550
wow good read. although did Intel really underclock the 300a celerons? cause I know some people who couldnt get 450 stable or at all. most did but not all. I had a 400 celeron, ppga too that hardly did 500MHz while the 366 ppga did 550 easy! I am using a ppga 300 thats at 504 now, itll load windows at 558 but crash in a few seconds. its not the heat either and voltage doesnt help. Im not spending for watercooling either.

I don't care what anyone says...it's always luck of the draw.

I know quite a few peeps with 1.8a's that do 150fsb at default voltage...yet the 1.8a that I just sold couldn't hit 150fsb at 1.8v real.

mica

[jdmcnudgent]

lets rememer people, p4 power.