Originally posted by: edplayer
Originally posted by: ShinSa
I totally agree with you. Generally speaking people look for unlocked chips in order to lower their multiplier and increase the FSB. Assuming that all mobile chips lie with the CPU manufacturing theory, XP2400+ should reach higher FSB than the rest.
how do you figure a 2400+ can get to a higher FSB than any other Athlon?
Originally posted by: Drizzy
Damn I dont know what my systems problem is. I have all new RAM, PSU, Mobo, and 2400+ and I cant get it steady over 2364 unless I crank the volts. I've tried everything...
Originally posted by: WallyKid
Originally posted by: Drizzy
Damn I dont know what my systems problem is. I have all new RAM, PSU, Mobo, and 2400+ and I cant get it steady over 2364 unless I crank the volts. I've tried everything...
What voltage are you talking about? How much i mean. I thought you are already at the 2.4ghz mark.
Originally posted by: Drizzy
Originally posted by: WallyKid
Originally posted by: Drizzy
Damn I dont know what my systems problem is. I have all new RAM, PSU, Mobo, and 2400+ and I cant get it steady over 2364 unless I crank the volts. I've tried everything...
What voltage are you talking about? How much i mean. I thought you are already at the 2.4ghz mark.
Yeah I can get it even up to 2.5 Ghz if I crank the vcore above 1.85. It will stay stable on Prime95 for like 5-10 hours @ 1.85 vcore 2.4 Ghz. I cant get it to pass my 24 hour test though. Since I dont want to push past 1.85 vcore I'm stuck. Right now I'm running @ 2.74 Ghz 1.80 vcore. Cant get any higher to stay stable.
Originally posted by: ShinSa
Intel and AMD do not manufacture chips knowing what the speed will be before it is finished. For example, they don't say let's make x number of yMhz chips. When cpus come off the assembly line, each manufacturer stress tests them and if they pass the test, they are packaged and sent to the retailers.
Now assuming they came off the same platter, XP2400+ XP2500+, XP2600+ might as well be the same chips but labeled differntly, in order for AMD to cover the high and low end of the market. If they label every chips as XP2600+, AMD will lose market shares in their lower end market. On the other hand, if they label all their chips as XP2400+, they are not maximizing their profits. (Speeds of the chips is arbitrary. They can be 10Ghz and 5Ghz).
Finally, it's been proven over time and time again tweaking parts of the components such as upping the voltage, upgrading the heatsinks and lowering the multiplier can yield higher FSB. Assuming that these XP2400+ were produced in the same batches as the rest of the mobile XPs, they should be able to reach higher FSB since they have a lower multiplier.
I hope this helps. IF you want more information, do a search on google. There are some better information that's beyond this scope.
Originally posted by: edplayer
Originally posted by: ShinSa
Intel and AMD do not manufacture chips knowing what the speed will be before it is finished. For example, they don't say let's make x number of yMhz chips. When cpus come off the assembly line, each manufacturer stress tests them and if they pass the test, they are packaged and sent to the retailers.
Now assuming they came off the same platter, XP2400+ XP2500+, XP2600+ might as well be the same chips but labeled differntly, in order for AMD to cover the high and low end of the market. If they label every chips as XP2600+, AMD will lose market shares in their lower end market. On the other hand, if they label all their chips as XP2400+, they are not maximizing their profits. (Speeds of the chips is arbitrary. They can be 10Ghz and 5Ghz).
Finally, it's been proven over time and time again tweaking parts of the components such as upping the voltage, upgrading the heatsinks and lowering the multiplier can yield higher FSB. Assuming that these XP2400+ were produced in the same batches as the rest of the mobile XPs, they should be able to reach higher FSB since they have a lower multiplier.
I hope this helps. IF you want more information, do a search on google. There are some better information that's beyond this scope.
all of that made sense till you got to the "they should be able to reach higher FSB since they have a lower multiplier" part
These are multiplier unlocked cpus.
Originally posted by: ShinSa
I was simply assuming that the user will leave the multiplier untouched.
If the user buys a higher cpu than the XP2400+, just to lower the multiplier, why didn't he/she just get the XP2400+ in the first place?
Which brings me back to my first post that It doesn't really make sense to dish out more for XP2500+ and XP2600+.
Originally posted by: edplayer
Originally posted by: ShinSa
I was simply assuming that the user will leave the multiplier untouched.
If the user buys a higher cpu than the XP2400+, just to lower the multiplier, why didn't he/she just get the XP2400+ in the first place?
Which brings me back to my first post that It doesn't really make sense to dish out more for XP2500+ and XP2600+.
cause they are hoping it will reach a higher speed
If there is a lot of data on a place such as cpudatabase.com about mobile Bartons, we can get a good idea if the 2500+ and 2600+ oc better than the 2400+. As long as too many of the participants don't lie about it.
Originally posted by: ShinSa
I've already told you that I'm assuming that these chips came off the same line meaning they should all have a simmilar top off point.
"Now again, I must emphasize that we are assuming that the all mobile chips are produced from the same batch meaning they all have the same steppings, they were all made about the same time etc...."
nothing wrong with the $45 swiftech heat sinkIf somepeople [sic] want to go out a [sic] burchase [sic] a $45 Swiftech heatsink [sic] to put on theri [sic] $70 Xp2500+ barton, that's their choice.
Originally posted by: edplayer
Originally posted by: ShinSa
I've already told you that I'm assuming that these chips came off the same line meaning they should all have a simmilar top off point.
"Now again, I must emphasize that we are assuming that the all mobile chips are produced from the same batch meaning they all have the same steppings, they were all made about the same time etc...."
negative sir
chips from the outer edges of the wafer have a higher tendency to be defective and will likely not perform (oc/undervolt whatever you choose) as well as chips from teh center
Originally posted by: ShinSa
Why would any overclokckers dish out $100 just for a 50/50 chance that it will perform better than a $70 chip?
Originally posted by: ShinSa
Generally speaking, the sweet spot of overclocking chips are at the bottom of the group where there's a big headroom to go up.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
nothing wrong with the $45 swiftech heat sinkIf somepeople [sic] want to go out a [sic] burchase [sic] a $45 Swiftech heatsink [sic] to put on theri [sic] $70 Xp2500+ barton, that's their choice.
Originally posted by: ShinSa
edplayer, It seems that although I have made every effort to enlighten you, you are not please with my forthcoming. While you are welcomed to continue to pick away at others commments, your immaturity towards me is a proof of your ignorance. This post which was totally off topic is a proof of this.
I'm beginning to wonder why I even bothered to reply to your post.
Originally posted by: ShinSa
This post which was totally off topic is a proof of this.
Originally posted by: sheemone00
noob question what is "burning in the processor" ???
Can you use a GC68 on this 2400+ (Since it suppose to run cooler)? Cuz that's what I currently have, and if the GC68 isn't good enough, I'm wondering what would be a good cheap hsf to use this.If somepeople want to go out a burchase a $45 Swiftech heatsink to put on theri $70 Xp2500+ barton, that's their choice.
Personally, I've always been a strong advocate of GC68 which costs $5
Originally posted by: John
Originally posted by: sheemone00
noob question what is "burning in the processor" ???
A myth.