- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
Ok ppl we always read about the ppl that got nice OC's I want to see how manny ppl got a really bad chip . So post it up if you got a chip that is very bad @ Overclocking
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
give it more voltsGTengineer said:I am certain mine isn't the worst but it is not that great either. My 4300 can "only" reach 3.1GHz (1.25V) on a Zalman 9500. What drives me insane is that there is absolutely no way to get it even half stable past this no matter what vcore.
imposter said:give it more volts
Perhaps your RAM will not take anymore frequency. I know that OCZ is capable of more than 850 MHz thought, just not at those settings. Try loosening up those timings and/or raising the voltage on your RAM (try 2.0V-2.1V)GTengineer said:I have taken it up to 1.5V and it is still unstable. There doesn't seem to be any vcore less than 1.5V that allows me to go from 3.1 to 3.2GHz. I don't want to take it higher than that until I modify my water cooler setup to fit the 775 socket. I use a 64bit multithreaded engineering application so when both cores really get going the temps start reaching 65C according CoreTemp at 3.1GHz.
ancalime said:Perhaps your RAM will not take anymore frequency. I know that OCZ is capable of more than 850 MHz thought, just not at those settings. Try loosening up those timings and/or raising the voltage on your RAM (try 2.0V-2.1V)
Well with even the 'bad' oc'ing C2Ds representing those high 2.Ghz-low 3GHz clockers, I would say rainless' comment is accurate.MadMan007 said:That's not strictly true rainless, at matching pricepoints the x2's are good, it's when you get a 'good' oc'ing C2D that AMD can't currently compete.
Rain this has nothing to do with AMD im trying to get a idea how bad it could be oc wise on some C2D'srainless said:The problem with this premise is that any C2D at stock can blow the doors off the whole line of AMDs current CPUs
(Speaking from the old gaurd E6300, E6400, E6600, E6700, and X6800. I don't know much about the newer chips.)
||Console|| said:Rain this has nothing to do with AMD im trying to get a idea how bad it could be oc wise on some C2D's
rainless said:The problem with this premise is that any C2D at stock can blow the doors off the whole line of AMDs current CPUs
(Speaking from the old gaurd E6300, E6400, E6600, E6700, and X6800. I don't know much about the newer chips.)
funnyperson1 said:Are you comparing these at similar price points or similar clock speeds? Because if we are talking price points, that statement is wholly inaccurate.
When we are talking about running at stock speeds and paying the same price for a CPU, AMD competes very well at the low-midrange. Intel has a significant clock per clock advantage, but AMD has dropped prices to the point where they have a sufficient clock speed advantage to outperform the competition at stock speeds.
Below $115 Intel doesn't even have a legitimate answer to the X2 Brisbane chips. After that every Intel chip is matched with a competitor that has at least a 4-600mhz clock speed advantage, and matches or bests it in general performance. Of course at the high end AMD is suffering because their fastest chip is about as fast as an E6600, but the low-midrange is just fine.
For example look at how the X2 5600+ ($175) consistently beats the E6400 ($194, but still dropping):
http://www.neoseeker.com/resourcelink.html?rid=136851
I don't want to take this thread off course, I just wanted to correct what I felt was an inaccurate statement.
The worst chips I've seen are some of the E4300s that had trouble hitting 2.8ghz with good motherboards, quality ram, and a ton of voltage. That said though, a 1ghz overclock is nothing to sneeze at, its just that its E6XXX brethren had raised the bar so high. At 2.8 those E4300s were still faster than even the best clocking X2s.
rainless said:Umm... I explained what I meant in the post right above yours.
And I did mention in that same post that I didn't know much about newer chips... (The X2 5600+ would certainly fall into that category.)
Last I checked the highest CPU they had was the 5000+, and in that case I was right. Besides, as I pointed out above, the idea was that ANY OC on a C2D would be a good OC in terms of performance. For example, your X2 5600+ is a 2.8ghz chip (which you were comparing to a 2.13ghz chip) whose max OX was only 3.03ghz. That would be sort of a below average OC on the slowest C2D that I know much about, the E6300.
But granted, the part of my statement about any of those four C2Ds being faster than any current AMD CPUs (including new ones I didn't know existed) was out of date, and I retract it.