Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Motley said:Also, the newer chips are not only built "better" in a sense, but the L2 cache is doubled as well. You might not see high OCs from the newer chips, but they definatley perform alot better than the "older" 2500s.
Motley said:OK, ok, ok, ..speed is not everything. The actual MHz does not mean that a 2500+ is going to perform the same as 3200+.
I know they have the same cores, but the 3000s and 3200s have more features built in., ..like the 400fsb, etc, etc. Too many to list, it's on the AMD site.
Why is everyone so focused on speed??? Performance actually means, the way the chip handles the instructio
Motley said:Hmmm, ok that doesn't make sense. I've got a 3000+ 400fsb, my first initial OC with no special cooling... @2420MHz 11.5x210
If I went water-cooled, I could easily get @2600MHz.
Also, the newer chips are not only built "better" in a sense, but the L2 cache is doubled as well. You might not see high OCs from the newer chips, but they definatley perform alot better than the "older" 2500s.
I mean, even the new 64bit Opteron is rated at 2200MHz, that doesn't mean it's performing the same as a 2500+ @2200MHz..
Thoughts?..
OK, my bad, I was mis-informed about the differences of the 2500s and 3000/3200s. I guess when you OC, the stock fsb goes out the window..
Why, exacly, does the newer 3000/3200s not overclock as well as the "refined" 2500s??? Wouldn't the refinement process of the newer chips allow these to have the same OC capabilites?
Also, one more thought, when you OC a 2500 to make it as fast or faster than a 3200, you have to spend more $$ on special cooling right? ..and, what about the effects of the high OC, does to the life of the chip?
I appologize for my ignorance, but I was just trying to be logical