• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

why in my option fx beats 3.2EE

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Status
Not open for further replies.

jonwessel

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Location
Cincy! Go BENGALS!!
B/C the 3.2EE is an overclocked regular cpu. I mean everything in specs that the 3.2EE beats the FX in is OCable. The actual bit-cpu you cannot change. But the FSB (3.2EE leads FX) you can obviously change b/c OC=Multipler x FSB. Also i should have mentioned this first but the clock cycle is faster on the 3.2EE which is overclockable. 3.2EE leads 3.2 to 2.2!! basically what i'm preaching hear is quality and not quanity. you probably can't OC the 3.2EE as much b/c it's an 3.2 OCed even more. So naturally even though it has 478PINs to spread the heat, in proportion u can't OC the 3.2EE as much as teh FX. Imagine what would happen if AMD made more pins like a Socket 500!! Then they could take their 64-bit cpu and clock it to 3.6 with the FSB1200 and the L4 cache like 5MB!! I once read an post hear explaining how Intel overpowers AMD with just pure muscle and speed, but if AMD were to ever take their well planned well built cpu and make it more muscle and speed, then watch out! The post i was referring to was an anology to sports cars. I think the Intel was an Honda Accord with a 190HP V6 supped up with a turbo charge kit level and the car had lost like 25 percent of it's weight. Were as the AMD was an well built 300 HP V8 with no bells and whistles so to speak. I am looking for a healthy debate like people debate about who's better at WR or QB in the NFL, not about how people debate and scream and agrue with eachother about who's better and smarter! got it? Admins plz back me on this one, or this could get messey.
 

mage_x

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
well, as far as i know, cpu pins dont dissipate heat very well

and i recommend you read this

and by the way, the opteron has 940 pins, so i'd say theyve well exceeded the 500 pins you suggested :D
 

{PMS}fishy

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
jonwessel said:
B/C the 3.2EE is an overclocked regular cpu. I mean everything in specs that the 3.2EE beats the FX in is OCable. The actual bit-cpu you cannot change. But the FSB (3.2EE leads FX) you can obviously change b/c OC=Multipler x FSB. Also i should have mentioned this first but the clock cycle is faster on the 3.2EE which is overclockable. 3.2EE leads 3.2 to 2.2!! basically what i'm preaching hear is quality and not quanity. you probably can't OC the 3.2EE as much b/c it's an 3.2 OCed even more. So naturally even though it has 478PINs to spread the heat, in proportion u can't OC the 3.2EE as much as teh FX. Imagine what would happen if AMD made more pins like a Socket 500!! Then they could take their 64-bit cpu and clock it to 3.6 with the FSB1200 and the L4 cache like 5MB!! I once read an post hear explaining how Intel overpowers AMD with just pure muscle and speed, but if AMD were to ever take their well planned well built cpu and make it more muscle and speed, then watch out! The post i was referring to was an anology to sports cars. I think the Intel was an Honda Accord with a 190HP V6 supped up with a turbo charge kit level and the car had lost like 25 percent of it's weight. Were as the AMD was an well built 300 HP V8 with no bells and whistles so to speak. I am looking for a healthy debate like people debate about who's better at WR or QB in the NFL, not about how people debate and scream and agrue with eachother about who's better and smarter! got it? Admins plz back me on this one, or this could get messey.


Well Its good logic, but I don't think it could be more wrong.

Pins have litttle if nothing to do with heat or O/Cing.

Oh and Hondas aren't that slow.
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2003
How can u say the P4 3.2ghz EE is overclocked? If thats true isnt the XP overclocked too? Stop making statements that has no point. Sounds like a typical AMD fanboy

Pins have nothing to do with ocing or heating. You are wrong sorry.
The FX51 cannot be overclocked by more than 200mhz without prometia. That goes for the EE too.
IMHO this was a pointless topic.
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2003
what? Iam sick of these intel vs amd wars. Yes i was in them when i was 12 years old too. But seriously this is a pointless topic by a typical fanboy
 

Tyberius

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2002
Location
Seattle, WA
jonwessel said:
B/C the 3.2EE is an overclocked regular cpu. I mean everything in specs that the 3.2EE beats the FX in is OCable. The actual bit-cpu you cannot change. But the FSB (3.2EE leads FX) you can obviously change b/c OC=Multipler x FSB. Also i should have mentioned this first but the clock cycle is faster on the 3.2EE which is overclockable. 3.2EE leads 3.2 to 2.2!! basically what i'm preaching hear is quality and not quanity. you probably can't OC the 3.2EE as much b/c it's an 3.2 OCed even more. So naturally even though it has 478PINs to spread the heat, in proportion u can't OC the 3.2EE as much as teh FX. Imagine what would happen if AMD made more pins like a Socket 500!! Then they could take their 64-bit cpu and clock it to 3.6 with the FSB1200 and the L4 cache like 5MB!! I once read an post hear explaining how Intel overpowers AMD with just pure muscle and speed, but if AMD were to ever take their well planned well built cpu and make it more muscle and speed, then watch out! The post i was referring to was an anology to sports cars. I think the Intel was an Honda Accord with a 190HP V6 supped up with a turbo charge kit level and the car had lost like 25 percent of it's weight. Were as the AMD was an well built 300 HP V8 with no bells and whistles so to speak. I am looking for a healthy debate like people debate about who's better at WR or QB in the NFL, not about how people debate and scream and agrue with eachother about who's better and smarter! got it? Admins plz back me on this one, or this could get messey.

Just a few things....one, the FSB of a p4EE and an FX are the same, ithough ive heard the fx has a FSB that is as fast as its core speed, im yet to have seen that implemented. right now both are 800 fsb. The reason the P4 cant OC well has absolutely nothing to do with the pin count, heat dissapation doesnt correlate to pin count whatsoever, its because it has 2 megs of extra cache, which produces alot of heat. The EE may be at the top of its speed ceiling, but its more like a repackaged xeon than a OC'D P4 with more cache. The FX has 940 pins, but the only reason it is cooler, is that it has less cache. And yes, with a prommy you can get an FX up to 2.8ghz or so. They only OC'd by multiplier adjustment so the FSB was still 800, but it cruched absolutely everything and anything. AMD has pontentially created a VERY powerful core that if isnt hindered too greatly by the socket change(940 to 939), could put intel in a world of hurt. The site reviewing the unit estimated it would take a p4 EE at 4.8ghz to match it, because of how well the FX scales, and thats without monkeying with the FSB. And from the heat and weakness Ive heard about the prescott, intel may go the way of nvidia, being caught off guard and knocked off their throne. Intel is by no means down and out though, as they have incredible resources and market shares. Do not underestimate their ability to come back and bite AMD in the arse with the quickness. I think this latest chapter of the Processor wars should prove interesting.
 

emericanchaos

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2002
Location
Williamsport, PA
unix and linux said:
what? Iam sick of these intel vs amd wars. Yes i was in them when i was 12 years old too. But seriously this is a pointless topic by a typical fanboy

unix and linux said:
When the transition from 16 bit to 32 bit happened, it took atleast 8 years but thoose were the old times. The Generation has advanced with new companies investing and new technologies. Therefore 64 BIT APPS and OSES should be Mainstream by 2004. The Transition will be blazing fast especially after Microsoft releases 64 bit OS.


unix and linux said:
nForce2 will never be stable as the sprindale/canterwood chipsets

fanboy what?
 
Joined
Nov 29, 2003
Isnt the FX51 just a rebadged Opteron too? YES

And yes intel was pretty dumb to release EE instead they should have released the Prescot which is suppose to pummel the fx 1 on 1.
 

invisible hand

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2003
Location
Vancouver B.C.
Someone should develop a dual cpu mobo that supports the use of an Intel chip and an Amd chip together.....then there will be a world of cpu harmony.
 

mage_x

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
so i guess you think cpu pins have anything to do with dissipating heat then?
 

TC

Senior Seti Addict
Joined
Jan 15, 2001
Location
Denver, CO
If I was a sophmore in high school I would so be into this cool thread...
 

Silent Buddha

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Location
Bellevue, WA
unix and linux said:
And yes intel was pretty dumb to release EE instead they should have released the Prescot which is suppose to pummel the fx 1 on 1.
How about you wait until it comes out before passing judgement?

TC, I am a Sophmore in High School, so I am into this thread :p
 
Last edited:

Tyberius

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2002
Location
Seattle, WA
unix and linux said:
Isnt the FX51 just a rebadged Opteron too? YES

And yes intel was pretty dumb to release EE instead they should have released the Prescot which is suppose to pummel the fx 1 on 1.

Yes the FX is an 148 opteron, but that will change when the socket 939 comes out.

Pummel an FX? Where have you been reading? From the Intel website? :D From what I've heard intel might be in trouble with this chip, as from what has been seen, it performs at its best somewhat like an EE.
 

racpuc

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
unix and linux said:
Isnt the FX51 just a rebadged Opteron too? YES

And yes intel was pretty dumb to release EE instead they should have released the Prescot which is suppose to pummel the fx 1 on 1.

actually the prescotts perform almost the same as a p4c. With sse3 and better ht the prescotts are just enhanced northwood cores that run really hot. tejas on the other hand are totally different cores that support 64 bit
 
Status
Not open for further replies.