The new OVERCLOCK king

WaTaGuMp · Jan 15, 2003

All I can say is WOW look at the fsb these silly kids are getting over at Anandtech with the 1.7m chip. This is just amazing

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=28&threadid=949320

WaTaGuMp · Jan 15, 2003

What da heck no comments?

jdmcnudgent · Jan 15, 2003

i would imagine that any of us could do the same if not better considering that with a moble chip, in a desktop, the multi defaults down to 12x.

and, this has been on the forum for a few days now.

WaTaGuMp · Jan 15, 2003

jdmcnudgent said:
i would imagine that any of us could do the same if not better considering that with a moble chip, in a desktop, the multi defaults down to 12x. and, this has been on the forum for a few days now.

It has? Where

OC Noob · Jan 15, 2003

Its kind of disapointing that a chip at 220 mhz FSB performs the same as a chip the same speed at 170 0r was it 160 FSB. Either way P4s performances isn't nearly as dependant on FSB as AMD chips.

I wonder why?

jdmcnudgent · Jan 15, 2003

OC Noob said:
Its kind of disapointing that a chip at 220 mhz FSB performs the same as a chip the same speed at 170 0r was it 160 FSB. Either way P4s performances isn't nearly as dependant on FSB as AMD chips.

I wonder why?

show me a amd chip that does 220fsb and then lets compare, espically with a 12x multi. then we will see pound for pound which processor is better.

jdmcnudgent · Jan 15, 2003

WaTaGuMp said:
It has? Where

here for one.

OC Noob · Jan 16, 2003

[

jdmcnudgent said:
show me a amd chip that does 220fsb and then lets compare, espically with a 12x multi. then we will see pound for pound which processor is better.

What?

I was comparing 2 P4s at the same speed, just with different FSB and multipliers. The AMD remark was simply stating that P4s performance isn't FSB dependant like an AMD chip is.

Since you brought it up tho, I think an AMD 2400+ @ 220 FSB (if its possible) would blow away his mobile P4 @ 220 FSB. After all, his 2.6 ghz at 220 FSB was on par with his 2.6 @ 153 FSB and AMD chips get pretty darn fast @ 200+ FSB.

jdmcnudgent · Jan 16, 2003

OC Noob said:
[

What?

I was comparing 2 P4s at the same speed, just with different FSB and multipliers. The AMD remark was simply stating that P4s performance isn't FSB dependant like an AMD chip is.

Since you brought it up tho, I think an AMD 2400+ @ 220 FSB (if its possible) would blow away his mobile P4 @ 220 FSB. After all, his 2.6 ghz at 220 FSB was on par with his 2.6 @ 153 FSB and AMD chips get pretty darn fast @ 200+ FSB.

you would NEED to watercool a 2400+ to get it to 220fsb, and have to throw a s**tload of voltage to get it to that. i believe that the peeps that are oc'ing the moble chips are using air.

OC Noob · Jan 16, 2003

That why I prefer intel, the overclock is easier. No worries about unlocking the multiplier, less heat and a monster O/C. Like in my sig

WaTaGuMp · Jan 16, 2003

Now Now lets not get the AMD Intel battle going since we all know Intell is better

As far as I am concerned any chip running at 220 fsb is kick *** if Intel or AMD can do it and be stable thats just good for us cause we see it can be done and in the end us users win.

jdmcnudgent · Jan 16, 2003

OC Noob said:
That why I prefer intel, the overclock is easier. No worries about unlocking the multiplier, less heat and a monster O/C. Like in my sig

nice oc buddie. i am not starting any cpu wars, im just stating facts. nice oc.

OC Noob · Jan 17, 2003

Yup, no wars here. I'm an Intel guy too. I think AMD makes great chips, but I like the raw power and chipsets the P4s offer. Now that nForce2 chipset is pretty sweet, but I was never wild about VIA chipsets.

Anyway, back on topic. 2.6 ghz at 220 FSB is very impressive. It shows just how O/C-able P4s and the chipsets are.

Too bad P4s max out around 3.5 Ghz. I would poop my pants if I could get me hands on a 1.6a that could do 220 FSB

jdmcnudgent · Jan 17, 2003

OC Noob said:
I would poop my pants if I could get me hands on a 1.6a that could do 220 FSB

me too, but it will never happen.

new_novice · Jan 17, 2003

jdmcnudgent said:
show me a amd chip that does 220fsb and then lets compare, espically with a 12x multi. then we will see pound for pound which processor is better.

here my friend, a chip that can do around 220 fsb

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5640962

jdmcnudgent · Jan 17, 2003

new_novice said:
here my friend, a chip that can do around 220 fsb

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5640962

thats a nice oc, but as i stated before, look at all that v core. and the super extreme cooling.

OC Noob · Jan 17, 2003

Yeah, thats proffesional setup and I'm certain its not stable enough to run 2 loops of 3DMark, but it sure is impressive. Would that be a 4Ghz+ PR rating?

Doesn't matter too much anyway, I'm just a little guy O/Cing out of my garage...errr computer room

Deathknight · Jan 17, 2003

jdmcnudgent said:
you would NEED to watercool a 2400+ to get it to 220fsb, and have to throw a s**tload of voltage to get it to that. i believe that the peeps that are oc'ing the moble chips are using air.

FSB on an AMD chip has nothing to do with cooling of the cpu. you can lower the multiplyer and increase FSB as much as your motherboard will allow.

The new OVERCLOCK king

WaTaGuMp

Member

WaTaGuMp

Member

jdmcnudgent

Member

WaTaGuMp

Member

OC Noob

Member

jdmcnudgent

Member

jdmcnudgent

Member

OC Noob

Member

jdmcnudgent

Member

OC Noob

Member

WaTaGuMp

Member

jdmcnudgent

Member

OC Noob

Member

jdmcnudgent

Member

new_novice

Member

jdmcnudgent

Member

OC Noob

Member

Deathknight

Member

Similar threads