1.4 tbird or 1.2 MP?

[Insane3D]

Yes, mostly due to the 10% larger surface area...

 

[LXi]

Uh... go with 1.4GHz MP, problem solved. Its a bit more expensive but you said money isnt an issue, and youget what you pay for. The MPs are generally faster than Tbirds, 10-15% seems about right to me.

 

[Quickfingerz]

voltage can be locked but there would be no point as motherboards would have modifications that would allow for higher voltages.

 

[MadRat]

<<Sometimes I wonder if the voltage isn't locked like the FSB is locked.>>

What I mean is that sometimes I wonder if AMD doesn't artificially limit the voltage that the cpu can use. I've seen Durons with the same stepping but different speed grades give off measurable temperature differences at the same overall speed. Sometimes they varied by as much as 5º on the same motherboard with the same heatsink at 900mHz. The difference was that some were 600MHz rated and the others 650MHz rated.

The quality of the silicon that they were picked from probably explains the differences, but what if it didn't? What if AMD makes one chip unable to turn off certain voltage settings in order to make them run hotter? (i.e. Say you want to run 1.6v on the Duron but it articially won't drop an extra .1v because of some lock mechanism. If the motherboard reads it as 1.6v, but the chip is locked at +.1v for an effective 1.7v, then you'd never really ever know it wasn't dropping that .1v!) Radical and improbable, I know.

 

[Degenerate]

1.4 is cheap and fast.

 

[maxhdwdotcom]

Well, I've only been here one day, but clearly MadRats insane

 

[Insane3D]

&quot;What I mean is that sometimes I wonder if AMD doesn't artificially limit the voltage that the cpu can use. I've seen Durons with the same stepping but different speed grades give off measurable temperature differences at the same overall speed. Sometimes they varied by as much as 5º on the same motherboard with the same heatsink at 900mHz. The difference was that some were 600MHz rated and the others 650MHz rated&quot;

Were you relying on the motherboard's in-socket thermistor? They are very inaccurate, and they can be off by as much a 5c - 10c from the actual core surface temp.

 

[MadRat]

But the same motherboard should be consistent.

 

[Insane3D]

&quot;But the same motherboard should be consistent.&quot;

Classic argument, but not really accurate. The in socket thermistor is trying to read the CPU core temp through quite a few layers of ceramic. Different CPU's may vary slightly in how they fit in the socket, making them closer or farther away from the actual sensor. Another problem is that the socket is affected by airflow in the case. For example, I use a Compunurse to read the temp at the core's surface on my 1.2ghz @ 1.4ghz (Tbird). My motherboards sensor (Iwill KK266-R) consistently was around 5C lower than the reading on the core's surface. At the time, I had a side mounted 120mm (68CFM) fan blowing on the mobo, right below the socket. I recently switched to the 130CFM YS Tech 120mm, and now my temps are almost 10c lower from the motherboard sensor. Also, HSF's that blow down on the CPU can have the same affect. The Athlon ORBS are a classic example of this. They would always perform very well in tests, but this was mostly due to the way they flowed air directly into the CPU socket and cooled the thermistor. I have had endless conversations with Mikewarrior about this. There are just too many variables to take into account. The only real way to test accurately is with an internal thermal diode, which the Athlon's now have in the Palomino cores...

 

[Pabster]

Also, I've found that you need to adjust the thermistor, and add a small drop of AS2 to the tip. Most of them are just a bit too low and won't be touching the backside of the core. This is especially true on ABIT boards, but both of my KK266-Rs needed a slight adjustment as well. And, remember, even then the thermistor is somewhat inaccurate. You can add a few degrees C to each figure to be safe, as it is reading through the ceramic.