Woah: 3GHz on 4800 X2...on air!

[LoneWolf121188]

Check it out. 3GHz (2.8something stable) on an X2 4800 with a DFI board and an XP-90C at 1.6vcore and around 40C. Not bad at all, especially for 2 cores under one HSF!

 

[TekeTorvo]

I am impressed! Good read.

 

[chris64]

yea good stuff, im gonna start saving now, 500 buks is a lot!!!

 

[Sentential]

Honestally. Im sure people can do 3ghz suicide shots right now on air. Unless its actually stable Im really not too impressed

2.8 on air is nothing. People on FX55s have been doing that much since last year

 

[CordialSpam]

Priced at $500? ew I'll prob buy it if it hits 4ghz on air

 

[WingsofGOD]

People on FX55s have been doing that much since last year

Dual core? Then it aint the same thing.

 

[Quailane]

Honestally. Im sure people can do 3ghz suicide shots right now on air. Unless its actually stable Im really not too impressed

2.8 on air is nothing. People on FX55s have been doing that much since last year

Dude, you should be banned from the amd forum.

I think it is really impressive running dual 2.8Ghz athlon 64's. Each one of those processors by themselves is going to beat all but supercooled pentium 4's. When comparing the dual core amd to the dual core pentium, the intel chip is left in the dust because it can't overclock very well. Each of these athlon 64 cores is hitting the max overclock of what a single core can do. This means there is no trade-off performance wise by going with amd dual core. If you get the dual core intel chip, you will be beat at playing games and encoding by the single core processors, but only take the advantage when running multiple power hungry apps.

 

[{PMS}fishy]

Dude, you should be banned from the amd forum.

Dude, you should lose the attitude.

 

[{PMS}fishy]

yea good stuff, im gonna start saving now, 500 buks is a lot!!!

the 4800+ is $1000.

So much for AMD being the cheaper way out.

 

[Spion]

the 4200+ is around $500. the 4800+ is around $1000

 

[The Coolest]

AMD isn't the cheaper way out since the A64s were first released.
You don't have to get the top of the line CPU either, the 4400+ (2.2GHz, 2x1MB L2), is ~$600

 

[{PMS}fishy]

the 4200+ is around $500. the 4800+ is around $1000

Yeah, and you think you are going to hit 3ghz on a 4200+?

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Sentential]

Dual core? Then it aint the same thing.

Same aproximate die size and technique. What would make you think that a core with the same design and die size WOULDNT clock as well as an FX55? Seriously. What makes this so special when dozens of people have done the same thing? Its nothing more than a binned FX-type chip, nothing special.

If it were actually stable at 3, things would be completely different, because it is almost impossible to find an A64 stable on air @ or over 3.

Dude, you should be banned from the amd forum.

I think it is really impressive running dual 2.8Ghz athlon 64's. Each one of those processors by themselves is going to beat all but supercooled pentium 4's. When comparing the dual core amd to the dual core pentium, the intel chip is left in the dust because it can't overclock very well. Each of these athlon 64 cores is hitting the max overclock of what a single core can do. This means there is no trade-off performance wise by going with amd dual core. If you get the dual core intel chip, you will be beat at playing games and encoding by the single core processors, but only take the advantage when running multiple power hungry apps.

Mmmmm k. Explain to me how a CG Clawhammer is different from this? Lets go through the list:

FX55s have been doing this for ages. I remember specifically how Ricky and Pedro had an FX55 several SEVERAL months ago run at 3ghz on air with 1.7v or so. In addition they are on 90nm as well as DSL instead of SSDOI.

Sooo in short:

FX55 = .13
4600+ = .09
= Win

FX55 = SSDOI
4600+ = DSL
= Win

FX55 = 193mm2
4600+ = 199mm2
= Loss

FX55 = 1MB Cache
4600+ = 512kb Per Core
= Win (less cache = higher clocks)

So please explain to me why this wouldnt clock the same? Frankly I'd be suprised if it did not. It has nothing to do with "how many cores". It has EVERYTHING to do with die-size, process and how its strained.

What I gotta laugh about is when you call me "biased". What I am saying is that AMD should be clocking higher, not lower. HOW does that make me biased? LOL. I really dont understand why people see this as a BFD. It would be more of a BFD if it didnt clock to atleast 2.8, thus signifiying serious yeild issues.

 

[waddupmm]

Thats a hand picked cpu, lets wait and see what the average consumer gets 2.7-2.8 is my guess

 

[deception``]

Dude, you should be banned from the amd forum.

I think it is really impressive running dual 2.8Ghz athlon 64's. Each one of those processors by themselves is going to beat all but supercooled pentium 4's. When comparing the dual core amd to the dual core pentium, the intel chip is left in the dust because it can't overclock very well. Each of these athlon 64 cores is hitting the max overclock of what a single core can do. This means there is no trade-off performance wise by going with amd dual core. If you get the dual core intel chip, you will be beat at playing games and encoding by the single core processors, but only take the advantage when running multiple power hungry apps.

I don't really think this sort of behavior is necessary. While I agree that the overclock is nice, the fact of the matter is that there is not enough information on these cores for us to assume that this is a realistic result. Having said this, you should recognize that what Sentential said actuality had a hint of reality in it, as the masses need not be swayed by simply one review.

deception``

 

[Sentential]

I don't really think this sort of behavior is necessary. While I agree that the overclock is nice, the fact of the matter is that there is not enough information on these cores for us to assume that this is a realistic result. Having said this, you should recognize that what Sentential said actuality had a hint of reality in it, as the masses need not be swayed by simply one review.

deception``

Thankyou very much. Here is where I am taking my opinion from. This here is a graph created by AMD that shows power/max frequency. Ie true yeild rates. Take a look.

(I added the blue tags based on info I recall from the past)

Look at the spread the 90nm cores have. Its litererly 2X that of the older 130nm ones. Ie proof that they should be doing alot better. Also proof that yeilds are holding them back

 

[TekeTorvo]

Dude, you should be banned from the amd forum.

I think it is really impressive running dual 2.8Ghz athlon 64's. Each one of those processors by themselves is going to beat all but supercooled pentium 4's. When comparing the dual core amd to the dual core pentium, the intel chip is left in the dust because it can't overclock very well. Each of these athlon 64 cores is hitting the max overclock of what a single core can do. This means there is no trade-off performance wise by going with amd dual core. If you get the dual core intel chip, you will be beat at playing games and encoding by the single core processors, but only take the advantage when running multiple power hungry apps.

Somehow, I doubt very seriously that Quailane was trying to be mean in any way. I think, moreover, people took what he said wrong. I got a snicker out of it, and I am sure that's all he meant.


Also, correct me if I am wrong. AMD has been running below Intel's actual clock speed for how many years? And people say their rating is acurate! For example, my AMD XP 3200+ runs at 2.2, but is rated to stay up with the P4 3.2. No one has ever argued AMD's rating system, so don't start now. That 2x is rated at 4800? And now I hear you people saying 2.8 Ghz x 2 is not good? It may only be running at 2.8, but that is two processors running at 2.8. Where is the P4 that runs at 4.8 to compare it to? Furthermore, where is the 4.4 to compare that x2 to running stock?

 

[WingsofGOD]

I think we've all grown tired of Sent's general pessamistic attitude in the AMD forums. Do you see us going to the Intel forum and Ranting "Intel Sucks" every chance we get?

 

[crimedog]

I think we've all grown tired of Sent's general pessamistic attitude in the AMD forums. Do you see us going to the Intel forum and Ranting "Intel Sucks" every chance we get?

it's because of threads like this. everyone knows that 3ghz screenies aren't impressive, especially with a $1k cpu. threads like this are misleading.

 

[Spion]

Yeah, and you think you are going to hit 3ghz on a 4200+?

Don't hold your breath.

yeah, i agree with you on that. i may like AMD better than intel, but they're not magic workers. getting 3GHz on a 4200+ on air is VERY unlikey. the 4800+ is tested higher so the cores are probly a higher quality than the 4200+. so 3GHz with a 4200+ on air, you would have to be VERY lucky IMO.