SUPER HOT !!!! "xp 2100+" xp1600+ for $51 from newegg. It's crazy !!!!!!!

[cdc2000]

I have a Gigabyte GA-7VRXP motherboard with a AROIA 1600+ from Newegg. I am using a GC68 on it. I have 256mb of crucial PC2100 memory. I am only able to run this board stable at aroung 150FSB. My temps are around 57 degrees. Any thoughts as to what could be wrong? I am not sure if the PCI is way out of spec. Is there a way to change the PCI divider so I can run it at 166? Could it maybe just be that this motherboard is not a good choice for this chip? Any help is appreciated.

 

[BigJ]

And frankly since the majority of overclockers are teenagers, I think I saw a survey about that somewhere, their claims are as believable as their claims about sex. That falls in the same category at that age.

Lol, who told you that the majority of overclockers are teenagers. If you want to see a survey about it, check out that of HardOCP.com, a major hardware enthusiasts website with the mast vajority of readers being overclockers.


http://www.hardocp.com/pastpolls.html?action=results&poll_ident=9

Looks as though the majority are 18-26, definitely doesn't qualify as teenagers in my book. Thats out of over 7,000 people. Looks like you're teenager claim about the majority of overclocking being teenagers, is actually more about 9%. Once again, commenting on the overclocking culture when you really don't seem to know much about.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: cdc2000
I have a Gigabyte GA-7VRXP motherboard with a AROIA 1600+ from Newegg. I am using a GC68 on it. I have 256mb of crucial PC2100 memory. I am only able to run this board stable at aroung 150FSB. My temps are around 57 degrees. Any thoughts as to what could be wrong? I am not sure if the PCI is way out of spec. Is there a way to change the PCI divider so I can run it at 166? Could it maybe just be that this motherboard is not a good choice for this chip? Any help is appreciated.

It very well could be your memory. Remember, you're running PC2100 chips at 150mhz fsb (300mhz DDR), which is 17mhz over their rating, but normally Crucial is good for this. If you have any friends with a stick of PC2700, try that memory out.

 

[stevejst]

The claim has been made in this thread that newer steppings are overclocking better than the older.
I don't know that without statistical evidence but there is a significant factor that should be counted against that claim:
More recently bought CPUs are probably installed in more recently bought systems, meaning better PSU, better cooler, better ... you name it.
Of course that can account for a better overclocking performance as well.

Looks like you're teenager claim about the majority of overclocking being teenagers, is actually more about 9%.

I am 43, thanks. 18-26 is not far out, the middle of that 52.5% still falls at 22 which is the age of adolescence, 19-23 as far as I know psychology. So my guess is not far out.

 

[stevejst]

Here is a smoking gun:
Note this interesting observation about overclocking exaggerations about XP 1500 XP, 1600, XP 1700, XP 1800, XP 1900, XP 2000, XP 2100, all Palomino core, from this overclocking database,

AVERAGE OVERCLOCKING EXAGGERATION:

XP 1500 - 1598 MHz
XP 1600 - 1657 MHz
XP 1700 - 1689 MHz
XP 1800 - 1744 MHz
XP 1900 - 1803 MHz
XP 2000 - 1884 MHz
XP 2100 - 1990 MHz


It looks like the higher you go the more difference you get. There are two, not exclusive, explanations about that:
1. Guys buying 2000+ Palomino probably invest a little more in their hardware.
2. The guys buying more expensive CPU tend to exaggerate more.

You cannot get the truth of course but when you average the exaggerations you see that the difference sits at about the same difference AMD reports as default. Like in the courts - when two witnesses are not telling the whole truth, the best is to compare their testimonies.

If you are truly expecting to get better overclocking by lowering the rating of CPU processor you are buying, you are naive.

Nobody want to argue about this?
Somebody here was decidedly claiming how 1700 and 1800 cannot be overclocked above some ceiling and this "database" has been offered as a "proof."
It appears to me it can, at least according to the database and with all sorts of Agoias, Aroyas, Agogas, Agkgas, ... you name it.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: stevejst
The claim has been made in this thread that newer steppings are overclocking better than the older.
I don't know that without statistical evidence but there is a significant factor that should be counted against that claim:
More recently bought CPUs are probably installed in more recently bought systems, meaning better PSU, better cooler, better ... you name it.
Of course that can account for a better overclocking performance as well.

Looks like you're teenager claim about the majority of overclocking being teenagers, is actually more about 9%.

I am 43, thanks. 18-26 is not far out, the middle of that 52.5% still falls at 22 which is the age of adolescence, 19-23 as far as I know psychology. So my guess is not far out.

teen·ag·er Pronunciation Key (tnjr)
n.
A person between the ages of 13 and 19; an adolescent

 

[stevejst]

The key is who is mature and who is not, if you missed the point. The people at the age of 20 or so are not by the most part. Sex, overclocking, rock&roll is all about the same culture, the facts and fiction mixture.
That was the point, not 13, 19, or 22. Statistics of overclocking is exact, psychology is not.

As a matter of fact if teenagers would have a steady income like people over 23, by the most part, my bet is the average age of overclocker would drop lower. Because OC is expensive, which is one of the points I was trying to make throughout this thread.

There is nothing wrong with overclocking, of course, many people are doing it for a fun and to learn, myself included.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: stevejst

Here is a smoking gun:
Note this interesting observation about overclocking exaggerations about XP 1500 XP, 1600, XP 1700, XP 1800, XP 1900, XP 2000, XP 2100, all Palomino core, from this overclocking database,

AVERAGE OVERCLOCKING EXAGGERATION:

XP 1500 - 1598 MHz
XP 1600 - 1657 MHz
XP 1700 - 1689 MHz
XP 1800 - 1744 MHz
XP 1900 - 1803 MHz
XP 2000 - 1884 MHz
XP 2100 - 1990 MHz


It looks like the higher you go the more difference you get. There are two, not exclusive, explanations about that:
1. Guys buying 2000+ Palomino probably invest a little more in their hardware.
2. The guys buying more expensive CPU tend to exaggerate more.

You cannot get the truth of course but when you average the exaggerations you see that the difference sits at about the same difference AMD reports as default. Like in the courts - when two witnesses are not telling the whole truth, the best is to compare their testimonies.

If you are truly expecting to get better overclocking by lowering the rating of CPU processor you are buying, you are naive.

Nobody want to argue about this?

Steve, have you ever heard of supply and demand? Normally, for a processor manufacturer, the higher speed processors don't sell as well as the lower, cheaper speeds. Therefore, the higher speed processors are marked down from their rated speeds to lower clock speeds to feed the demand. This is one of the things that happened with the P4 1.6A chips, which are now being phased out. And the comment about some1 paying for an XP2200+ or an XP2000+ investing in better hardware is definitely unfounded. The true hardware enthusiast is the one who will invest more money into their overall system. While they will not invest the extra money into a better graphics card per say (Ti4200 vs. 4600), or a bigger hard drive(60-80gb vs. 120gb), they normally will invest the money into their cooling (watercooling, case ventilation, chipset coolers, video card coolers, windowed cases, etc), their cricital pieces of hardware (motherboard), among other things. Not everyone makes 250,000$ a year where they can get the best computer money can buy without tweaking it.

And your last statement I find quite funny. You honestly have no idea about overclocking. This is the reason why some people went from the P4 1.8A chips to the 1.6A chips, because the 1.6A chips were giving better yields and performing better to an equivalent speed 1.8A overclocked system with a lower fsb that wouldn't overclock as high. Also, dropping 1 rating in an AMD processor is 66mhz. For an extra 150mhz or 125mhz (over the previous CPUs overclock), is it really that bad of a tradeoff. And you get to sell your processor, so the loss you take is at most what, 5$? And also, it has been found that dropping a stepping from say 1700+ to the AGOIA or AROIA 1600+ ARE yielding better overclocks then their 1 rating up brothers. You really need to start reading the thread Steve.

 

[stevejst]

the higher speed processors don't sell as well as the lower, cheaper speeds. Therefore, the higher speed processors are marked down from their rated speeds to lower clock speeds to feed the demand.

This is of course a completely bogus argument, though I know it makes some sense not to believe in marketing tactics
Just ask yourself:
Why would AMD sell them at different prices then?
Why not just lower the prices of higher speed CPUs and sell them for the better gain?

This database I am pointing out is telling you, if you believe it, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME and AMD correctly labels their difference.

 

[BigJ]

Because then AMD is going to take a loss on the processors that they are selling at the given price. And if they lower the prices of the higher processors and everyone starts buying them, then the lower priced slower processors wont sell as well, and then they loose even more money.

Try asking around Steve, belive it or not, AMD and Intel do mark down their processors.

 

[stevejst]

I respect your argument, you have a point about marketing tactics buy I tend to disagree.
I would still buy XP 1800 or XP 1900 which is the best deal for my wallet at this point. Rather than XP 1600.

I think newegg and svc marketing of Agoga, Agoia, etc is more fake than AMD. But who can blaim them, they are trying to follow the fad.

I am going to stop here, don't want to clog AT bandwidth.

 

[RobsTV]

Originally posted by: stevejst
I respect your argument, you have a point about marketing tactics buy I tend to disagree.
I would still buy XP 1800 or XP 1900 which is the best deal for my wallet at this point. Rather than XP 1600.

I think newegg and svc marketing of Agoga, Agoia, etc is more fake than AMD. But who can blaim them, they are trying to follow the fad.

I am going to stop here, don't want to clog AT bandwidth.

edited out post, as it seems stevejst's purpose is to instigate, which would lead to a lock of
this thread, which is what stevejst has been shooting for all along. Don't want this deal thread
locked, so removed harsh words.

To see what the deal is here, just read all posts by everyone except stevejst.

 

[HKS]

Most of what you're saying is true... I agree everything except of the chip temperature being lower than system. Because you're violating a low of thermodynamics... you're saying that the heat would be flowing from the system TO the chip then! Since the chip obviously produces more heat than the system, it stands to reason that it would radiate TO the system, instead of the other way around. 2nd law of thermodynamics... If this were the case, file a patent real quick.... you've just done what no one else has been able to do. If your chip reports lower temperature than the system, then your thermocouple is inaccurate.

Edit to original post...

You say with "proper stuff". If proper stuff includes liquid cooling then I take back everything I said. Previous remarks refer to a strictly air-cooled system.

Originally posted by: RobsTV

Originally posted by: stevejst
I respect your argument, you have a point about marketing tactics buy I tend to disagree.
I would still buy XP 1800 or XP 1900 which is the best deal for my wallet at this point. Rather than XP 1600.

I think newegg and svc marketing of Agoga, Agoia, etc is more fake than AMD. But who can blaim them, they are trying to follow the fad.

I am going to stop here, don't want to clog AT bandwidth.

You have got to be frickin kidding!
After seeing all the proof from the buyers here that the XP1600+ in question overclocks to higher
speeds than their XP1700+ or XP1800+, you still don't get it????? The proof is in the results here,
not at some other website. EVERY overclockers website KNOWS all 100% pure FACT about the
steppings.



You have no clue.
Unlocking the AthlonXP 2100+ by turning it into XP1600+
Seems like the SVG/Newegg conspiracy continues.
And to make matters worse, then don't use modern motherboards. Cheap Old 8kha+ is board of choice.

You have no clue.
Your temperature statements are also way out there.
Overclocking from XP1600+ to XP2100+ can and does only add a few degrees for many.
It's funny how you say how bad a $6 HSF is, then comment on how good your $7 HSF is.
Also, CPU temp of only a couple degrees more than system temp is easily possible.
In fact, your CPU temp can actually be "LESS THAN" system temp with proper stuff.

You have no clue.
What does age have to do with anything?
Apparently, you old age proves age means nothing as to how knowledgeable you are.
But, I must come to the defense of the other 40 year olds in my age bracket.
Most are not that ignorant, and listen to what is being said. We've learned over time that others may be right.
Well, seem that perhaps some haven't learned this.

Leaving this thread is what you can do to help the community.
We have all banded together to get the most for our money, and as proven by this thread, all think it is a Hot Deal.
Your thread crapping should stop. Your lies should stop. Your guesses should stop.
You don't like what everyone else says, then stop interupting this thread, and crap in others.

You really do have no clue.

(sorry if spelling and grammer is bad, fast typed, as I couldn't listen to his crapping any longer)

 

[stevejst]

Here is a smoking gun:
Note this interesting observation about overclocking exaggerations about XP 1500 XP, 1600, XP 1700, XP 1800, XP 1900, XP 2000, XP 2100, all Palomino core, from this overclocking database,

AVERAGE OVERCLOCKING EXAGGERATION (RobTV's database pointer):

XP 1500 - 1598 MHz
XP 1600 - 1657 MHz
XP 1700 - 1689 MHz
XP 1800 - 1744 MHz
XP 1900 - 1803 MHz
XP 2000 - 1884 MHz
XP 2100 - 1990 MHz


It looks like the higher you go the more difference you get. There are two, not exclusive, explanations about that:
1. Guys buying 2000+ Palomino probably invest a little more in their hardware.
2. The guys buying more expensive CPU tend to exaggerate more.

You cannot get the truth of course but when you average the exaggerations you see that the difference sits at about the same difference AMD reports as default. Like in the courts - when two witnesses are not telling the whole truth, the best is to compare their testimonies.

If you are truly expecting to get better overclocking by lowering the rating of CPU processor you are buying, you are naive.

RobTV, don't be so angry you'll get heart attack overclocking yourself.

 

[garyboz]

I vowed not to respond to the troll anymore as he doesn't address when he's proven wrong. However, I can't help but correct this nonsense.

"Here is a smoking gun:"
Note this interesting observation about overclocking exaggerations about XP 1500 XP, 1600, XP 1700, XP 1800, XP 1900, XP 2000, XP 2100, all Palomino core, from this overclocking database,

"AVERAGE OVERCLOCKING EXAGGERATION:" --- actual MHz --- Actual MHz overclock. --- % of overclocking

XP 1500 - 1598 MHz --- 1333 --- 265 --- 18.9%
XP 1600 - 1657 MHz --- 1400 --- 257 --- 18.3%
XP 1700 - 1689 MHz --- 1467 --- 222 --- 15.1%
XP 1800 - 1744 MHz --- 1533 --- 211 --- 13.7%
XP 1900 - 1803 MHz --- 1600 --- 203 --- 12.6%
XP 2000 - 1884 MHz --- 1667 --- 217 --- 13.0%
XP 2100 - 1990 MHz --- 1733 --- 257 --- 14.8%

As you can see I think you were once again confused by the XP rating system. I know, it's really hard to understand especially when there are charts you could reference if you wanted to. You can clearly see that the lower speed Athlons overclock more than the higher speed Athlons both on an actual MHz basis and on a percentage basis. I'll explain why there is a spike in the XP 2100's below.

Aside from the fact that your entire premise is ridiculous, here's why you're wrong.

"It looks like the higher you go the more difference you get. There are two, not exclusive, explanations about that:
"1. Guys buying 2000+ Palomino probably invest a little more in their hardware."

You show no evidense for this. Also, if the guys buying 1500's and 1600's therefore spend less than guys buying 2000+ (as you state they do) why do they overclock better on both a percentage and an actual basis than the guys who spend all that money on extra hardware?


"2. The guys buying more expensive CPU tend to exaggerate more."

I believe your premise for this arguement is gone.

Although the 2200's don't approach the 1500's and 1600's percentage of overclockability they are more overclockable than the 1800's, 1900's, etc. There is a reason that there is a spike in the 2100+ values as opposed to the others. The reason is how processor manufacturers separate their chips. They test them and then rate them accordingly. However Intel and AMD set a ceiling on their testing. If the powers that be decide that the highest speed chips that are going to be sold are 1733 MHz then that's all that's tested for. If a chip passes the test at that speed then it's put in a bin marked 1733MHz. That's it. They don't do further testing on it. Now, that particular chip may have passed the tests at 2000 MHz or even at 100000 MHz. They don't care. They're not concerned with what an individual chip may be capable of they're concerned with producing chips that have a certain minimum performance level. That's the nature of mass production.

If a chip manufacturer produces the following in a certain period of time:
Chip - #Produced - Demand
XP 1500 - 60000 - 100000
XP 1600 - 70000 - 75000
XP 1700 - 20000 - 20000
XP 1800 - 50000 - 29500
XP 1900 - 40000 - 10000
XP 2000 - 20000 - 18500
XP 2100 - 20000 - 5000

Here demand outweighs supply. What is the company supposed to do? They have people lined up to buy the lower end chip and way too many of the higher end chips produced. Should they :

1. Keep producing chips until they have enough for the low end demand, continuing a severe overproduction of higher end chips, keeping all of the extra chips in a costly storage system hoping that they can be sold later? All the while paying huge costs to ramp up production to meet low end (low margin) demand?

or

2. Just take the inventory on hand and mark them according to demand. They've already produced these chip so there is no extra cost involved. These high speed chips didn't even cost any more to produce than the slow chips so they're not losing any money.

"I am going to stop here, don't want to clog AT bandwidth. "
This is the first intellegent thing you've said in the entire thread.

 

[aldamon]

Hey steve, did you ever own a Slot A platform? Well I did. Just so happens in 2000 I bought a 700 MHz Slot A Athlon from a specific production week. The store even marketed it on its web page by its production week (the horror). Guess what was inside? A 900 chip!!! This happened all of the time, especially when AMD switched to an 18-micron process. So, noooo, AMD NEVER, I say NEVER replaces slower chips with faster chips to meet market demand. AMD also NEVER, I say NEVER improves manufacturing techiques to the point where it is no longer profitable or even possible to produce faster and slower chips. At the time of my purchase, the Athlon 900 MHz Slot A was several hundred dollars more expensive than the 700 MHz. So there goes that theory Steve.

Fast forward to modern times. When Socket A came out, AMD no longer had the luxury of a plastic covering, but its practices are clearly the same. How about the infamous 750 MHz "blue core" T-birds that ran consistently at 1.1 GHz? Look at the 1 GHz Athlon 100 FSB AXIA. EVERYONE, I mean everyone could run that chip at 1.33 or 1.4 and higher. The are plenty of examples where you can look at a certain stepping or production week and decipher some kind of performance expectations. I agree that you can probably throw out the top numbers in ANY CPU speed survey, but then again, that would probably throw out all of those good overclocking AGKGAs you are rambling about.....I know MY AGKGA doesn't overclock like that.

 

[stevejst]

Aldamon, I am using your own bragging weapons to shoot you down:

About AGKGA


Check that out about AMD XP 1800 and XP 1700. It is mostly about AGKGA, am I right?

Whom are you guys expect me to believe? Who do you think is naive?
And why are you so angry?
It is not good for your health to get so much overclocked.

I am just trying to cool you down on 38.6C.

 

[aldamon]

The 1600+ is clearly more popular amongst overclockers right now hence the performance reports. There are 234 1800s reported and 412 1600s reported. Overclockers must own a CPU before they can report its speed. The more popular chip, and its dominant stepping, is clear. When I look at the numbers posted, I don't tell myself the AGKGA 1800 is a better chip, I wonder if AROIA 1800s are even in stock in great quantities. It also would be nice to see the DATE people submitted the reports.

Care to adress the rest of my post or is it more convenient to ignore facts?

 

[ColinS]

Unlocking the AthlonXP 2100+ by turning it into XP1600+
Seems like the SVG/Newegg conspiracy continues.
And to make matters worse, then don't use modern motherboards. Cheap Old 8kha+ is board of choice.

I'm not a regular at this forum obviously... I wrote that article and I just want to defend my decision to use the 8KHA+...

It was the best board out there at the time the article was written, KT333 based boards weren't available then.

As for overclocking CPU's, steppings do count my 2 AGOIA (XP1600+ and XP1700+) both do about 1.85 GHz-1.9 GHz on the 8K3A+ with a voltage of 1.85V on air cooling (SK-6 w/40 CFM YS Tech).

 

[jktam]

Update:
previous temps posted were prelooping of programs. new data.
system temp 40 deg C. cpu temp a whopping 60 deg C! lucky this cpu is only $67.
i looped 3dmark 2001 for over an hour, no crash at 1628 MHz meaning 155 x 10.5.
only problem is heat that i'm worrying about. it's in an old popular enlight 7237 case. has a front case fan but no rear. gonna add a rear now. any suggestions? generic ok? i have a 330W antec truepower, mushkin 256MB high performance RAM (running awesome) and the radeon 8500 (not LE) 64MB.
any suggestions to help me cool this guy down will be greatly appreciated.
anybody know at what temp does it start being bad for cpu. AMD says max die temp is 90 deg C!!!

jt

 

[aldamon]

jktam, I use Sunons in the front and back of my Enlight 7237. I got them from Newegg. I actually cut the grill off the front of the case and sealed off as many extraneous holes as possible to improve the airflow.

If you don't have a fan in back, you are violating AMD's most basic system setup requirements. Buy the most powerful front and rear fans you can stand (noise). My friend at work had no fans and when he installed two his CPU temps dropped like 15 degrees Celsius.

 

[stevejst]

There are 234 1800s reported and 412 1600s reported.

Do you know how many are sold, You know you made a relative comparison that way?
That is called statistics. I say that only because 1600 are longer in the sale, and cheaper.
For there are more reports of Athlon Thunderbird there as well.

 

[stevejst]

edited out post, as it seems stevejst's purpose is to instigate, which would lead to a lock of

RobTV, I have nowhere insulted anybody in this whole thread, check it out.
Couple of people did use insults, I didn't. I think you are closer to that than I am, sorry if you need to manage that anger because of me.
If there are some ironic comments excuse me, but I believe they do belong into a polite debate.
I am just using your "database," I believe you are the one that claimed that XP 1700, XP 1800 meet some type of ceiling so that only XP 1600 Agoia can overclock above that.
I think you need to check that database yourself. It looks like XP 1800 overclocks on average 1744 MHz there, am I right?
Not that I neccessarily believe that but here you go, that is what I read there. You offered that "database" as a "solid proof" for your arguments so why disregard it now?



My claim from the beginning was that you will need KT333 motherboard and expensive hardware (PSU, memory, coolers ...) to do that 300-400 MHZ you guys expect with XP 1600, I can see that is mostly the case with the participants in that database, am I right?

 

[jktam]

aldamon,
what's your cpu temp and internal temps running like with those 2 extra fans? i'm thinking about getting a high performing fan - thermaltake smart fan II (73cfm!!) for the rear. that sucker seems like it can move air like crazy.

thanks,
jt

ps. current looping of 3dmark 2001se with 1650 Mhz. 157 fsb x 10.5. internal temp still around 40 deg C, cpu temp 60C.

 

[natopotato2]

i think garyboz hit the nail right on the head(in the post a few up from this one). excellent post gary.

as for you steve, i'm not quite sure what your problem is or why you want to make weak, malinformed arguements, only to anger more knowledgable people. you seem very ignorant of just how mircoprocessors are mass produced, binned, etc.. you seem to think that stepping is insignificant when compared to stock speed. while that arguement would hold some water if AMD tested each core individually, the fact is that they don't. if you think that the 1800+ or 1900+ are the better values, so be it. however, that doesn't justify your continued bashing of the 1600+.