Which amd x2 for overclocking?

danoliver1 · 20 Jul 2006 at 00:43

Gonna buy an x2 and overclock it to replace my sig cpu, so what cheap x2 is best with an fsb of 250mhz (1:1 with ram)

Zefan · 20 Jul 2006 at 00:49

It depends entirely on budget. I mean, a 3800X2 is likely to be less overclockable than a 4800x2 but IMO it'd be a waste of money.

TBH with the 3800x2 being £99 at the moment I'd just go for that, they seem to be pretty hot clockers.

easyrider · 20 Jul 2006 at 00:51

Zefan said:
It depends entirely on budget. I mean, a 3800X2 is likely to be less overclockable than a 4800x2 but IMO it'd be a waste of money.

.

not true,

a x2 3800 will clock ,

a 4800 will not clock further just because of its stock higher speed

Zefan · 20 Jul 2006 at 00:52

easyrider said:
not true,

a x2 3800 will clock ,

a 4800 will not clock further just because of its stock higher speed

the key word there being LIKELY.

danoliver1 · 20 Jul 2006 at 00:52

I was thinkin of either 3800, 4200 or 4600 needs to get to 2.5ghz at least so which is the better overclocker. :rolleyes:

What are people getting to with the 3800s latest batch?

Zefan · 20 Jul 2006 at 00:54

The 3800x2 has a x10 multiplier so go for that, the rest would be a waste of money.

danoliver1 · 20 Jul 2006 at 00:56

Probably go with the 3800 will order it after conroe gets released maybe it will be even cheaper

easyrider · 20 Jul 2006 at 00:56

Zefan said:
the key word there being LIKELY.

again a 4800 will not clock higher its about the multi.

The question is the cache....

spend the extra on the 1mb or go for the cheapest 512kb 3800.

a 4200/4600 is a waste of money as they will clock the same.Only thing is the multi

Zefan · 20 Jul 2006 at 00:58

easyrider said:
a 4200/4600 is a waste of money as they will clock the same.Only thing is the multi

So they're exactly the same chips passing exactly the same tests? AFAIknew they all go through testing and they are sorted into which are most stable at certain clock speeds.

easyrider · 20 Jul 2006 at 01:01

danoliver1 said:
Probably go with the 3800 will order it after conroe gets released maybe it will be even cheaper

no it wont...the cheapest conroe at 123 quid blows it out the water.

AMD are desperate for sales as the slowest conroe takes on the fx 62 lol but if still with s939 go with the x 2 3800.

and when asking for advise dont roll eyes lol

just a tip

easyrider · 20 Jul 2006 at 01:02

Zefan said:
So they're exactly the same chips passing exactly the same tests? AFAIknew they all go through testing and they are sorted into which are most stable at certain clock speeds.

just diffent multi's

2.0ghz and 2.4ghz is nothing for these chips

Zefan · 20 Jul 2006 at 01:12

easyrider said:
just diffent multi's

2.0ghz and 2.4ghz is nothing for these chips

Yes but what factors are taken into account when assigning a chip a certain multi? I mean it'd be stupid just to randomly stick labels on them without testing which ones are actually better at their job.

Cyber-Mav · 20 Jul 2006 at 03:16

thats why they use speed binning.

aardvark · 20 Jul 2006 at 09:36

whats speed binning?

i'll also be getting an 939 x2 very soon at these prices - are the chips sorted by their quality? a 4600+ looks really tempting and is not much more than a 3800+ - on the balance of probability am i going to have a better chance of overclocking the 4600 vs the 3800?

Neo4 · 20 Jul 2006 at 09:52

I'm buying 2 of the x2 3800s for my kids pcs.That price is a very cheap upgrade

slap ed · 20 Jul 2006 at 16:14

tough choice but i have just ordered the 4600 dont know why over the 3800

trojan698 · 20 Jul 2006 at 16:17

It's not about the multis or the higher stock speed, fools. its the manchester vs the toledo core.

22BUK · 20 Jul 2006 at 16:29

Manchester and Toledos - 512KB and 1024KB cores tend to clock to around the same levels. Some people say the extra 512KB of cache is worth it, but in all likelyhood the diifference would be small, even when benching. At £126 (incl VAT and delivery @ £8.30 :eek:

) the 3800 X2 is the one to go for unless you have money to waste. Spending twice as much on a 4400/4600 is unlikely to gain more than 5-10% in real-world performance once they have been overclocked.

easyrider · 20 Jul 2006 at 17:13

trojan698 said:
It's not about the multis or the higher stock speed, fools. its the manchester vs the toledo core.

Having had both the toldeo and manchester cores it made no difference to the overclock.

If going for a 512kb model then the only one to get is the x 2 3800 all the others are redundant in my book,waste of money and clock no higher.

If going for a 1mb model then the only one to get is the x 2 4400 again all the others are redundant in my book,waste of money and clock no higher.

A x 3800 can be either a toledo core with half the cache disbabled or a manchester core a 512kb core designed from the ground up.

My old x 2 3800 was a toledo core and this made no real world difference.

Just a tip calling people fools in forums that offer information to others is not big and clever and makes you look like one yourself tbh

xirokx · 20 Jul 2006 at 17:31

and when asking for advise dont roll eyes lol

Just a tip calling people fools in forums that offer information to others is not big and clever and makes you look like one yourself tbh

Now now ladies put ya handbags away and get on with the facts....

I hope your questions have been answered Dan