Originally posted by: chinkgai
ElTorrente is just mad that my 4400+ will smoke his
and that all you 3800+'s are gettin so close!
Originally posted by: ElTorrente
Originally posted by: chinkgai
ElTorrente is just mad that my 4400+ will smoke his
and that all you 3800+'s are gettin so close!
:laugh:
No - not really.. you're the only system that is faster than mine around here that I've seen so far. If you had a 4800 instead of your 4400, with your same cooling and RAM and everything- you would be even faster than you are now.
If I was looking for the best bang for the buck- it would be a 4400 - no doubt about it - NOT a 3800. I just bought whatever I wanted, and I ended up with a screaming fast system. It was expensive- but so what? I just don't care about how much or how little it cost, it's about overall performance. I ended up with one of the ten fastest computers ever to run PCMark05 - so I'd say it's pretty darn fast.
My only issue about this thread was seeing some valid proof of high overclocks - and it was like pulling teeth.. jeez . People looking for a new CPU might be swayed into believing that a 3800 is the best overall performing CPU just by looking at claims and poll results.
If you have a budget, get the 4400, if cost is no object- get the 4800.
Originally posted by: Hacp
ummm sure. whatever you say.
Originally posted by: ElTorrente
Originally posted by: Hacp
ummm sure. whatever you say.
I hath spoken.
What do you disagree with, since you know me so well?
Do you think chinkgai wouldn't be faster with a 4800?
Do you think I was looking for a budget, or bang-for-the-buck system, based on my current rig!?!?
Do you think everyone is forth-coming about the super-high OCs in the poll?
Do you think 3800s are the fastest CPUs around?
What did I write that you disagree with?
Originally posted by: Link
My Toledo is doing 2600mhz on 1.39V actual at 38C idle and 53C under dual P95.
It does go higher (and stable) than 2.6Ghz but temperature shoots up to near 65C under dual P95. I need an H2O solution.
Originally posted by: chinkgai
Originally posted by: Link
My Toledo is doing 2600mhz on 1.39V actual at 38C idle and 53C under dual P95.
It does go higher (and stable) than 2.6Ghz but temperature shoots up to near 65C under dual P95. I need an H2O solution.
wow, how long was it stable at 65c? whenever mine hit near that temp it'd bsod
Originally posted by: Leper Messiah
Cool. You've pretty much confirmed that my temp sensors are borked. I've seen mine as high as 69C and it was rock solid stable still.
EDIT: BTW 2.5 on stock volts. E4 manchester.
Originally posted by: chinkgai
Originally posted by: Link
My Toledo is doing 2600mhz on 1.39V actual at 38C idle and 53C under dual P95.
It does go higher (and stable) than 2.6Ghz but temperature shoots up to near 65C under dual P95. I need an H2O solution.
wow, how long was it stable at 65c? whenever mine hit near that temp it'd bsod
Originally posted by: ElTorrente
Originally posted by: chinkgai
ElTorrente is just mad that my 4400+ will smoke his
and that all you 3800+'s are gettin so close!
:laugh:
No - not really.. you're the only system that is faster than mine around here that I've seen so far. If you had a 4800 instead of your 4400, with your same cooling and RAM and everything- you would be even faster than you are now.
If I was looking for the best bang for the buck- it would be a 4400 - no doubt about it - NOT a 3800. I just bought whatever I wanted, and I ended up with a screaming fast system. It was expensive- but so what? I just don't care about how much or how little it cost, it's about overall performance. I ended up with one of the ten fastest computers ever to run PCMark05 - so I'd say it's pretty darn fast.
My only issue about this thread was seeing some valid proof of high overclocks - and it was like pulling teeth.. jeez . People looking for a new CPU might be swayed into believing that a 3800 is the best overall performing CPU just by looking at claims and poll results.
If you have a budget, get the 4400, if cost is no object- get the 4800.
Originally posted by: lopri
Originally posted by: ElTorrente
Originally posted by: chinkgai
ElTorrente is just mad that my 4400+ will smoke his
and that all you 3800+'s are gettin so close!
:laugh:
No - not really.. you're the only system that is faster than mine around here that I've seen so far. If you had a 4800 instead of your 4400, with your same cooling and RAM and everything- you would be even faster than you are now.
If I was looking for the best bang for the buck- it would be a 4400 - no doubt about it - NOT a 3800. I just bought whatever I wanted, and I ended up with a screaming fast system. It was expensive- but so what? I just don't care about how much or how little it cost, it's about overall performance. I ended up with one of the ten fastest computers ever to run PCMark05 - so I'd say it's pretty darn fast.
My only issue about this thread was seeing some valid proof of high overclocks - and it was like pulling teeth.. jeez . People looking for a new CPU might be swayed into believing that a 3800 is the best overall performing CPU just by looking at claims and poll results.
If you have a budget, get the 4400, if cost is no object- get the 4800.
I agree with ElTorrente here. Just look at the poll result. Over 60% of the people are claiming 2500MHz and more, and over 30% of the people say they achieved 2600MHz and more. While I'm a noob myself when it comes to A64 overclocking, these numbers are hardly believable. These also don't match the results that I've read from the various reviews on the web. I believe these are,
1. Sure, some are genuine.
2. Some are not quite - that is, different standard on "stable" system.
3. Plain exaggeration.
I think most erratic ones might belong to category 2. Even Prim95 can, and will, give you different results on same MHz, depending on how you configure the test set up. Small, larger, blend, and custom - oh and don't forget you can set millions of different custome settings - memory size matters, too.
However I have no doubt the 3800+ will in general have a bigger headroom than the 4800+ when it comes to OC'ing. Not only because it's rated at lower speed, but also it has smaller cache, meaning less voltage/heat.
I somewhat agree that 4400+ is more desirable than 3800+, if you're not tight on money and want more future proof. 3800+ will never have 1MB cache per core, you know.
But then again, if someone wants to have fun with OC'ing, it's definitely a 3800+
lop
Originally posted by: cronic
it appears that the 1mb cache compared to the 512 does make a subtle difference in the responsiveness of the os, q]
Can't say about comparison (I've never had a x2 3800+), but the smoothness on OS I can agree 100%. It feels like when I double-click, even before I finish the second click, everything pops up as if it reads my mind... err.. fingers. It was such a pleasant surprise.
Originally posted by: ElTorrente
If I was looking for the best bang for the buck- it would be a 4400 - no doubt about it - NOT a 3800. I just bought whatever I wanted, and I ended up with a screaming fast system. It was expensive- but so what? I just don't care about how much or how little it cost, it's about overall performance. I ended up with one of the ten fastest computers ever to run PCMark05 - so I'd say it's pretty darn fast.
My only issue about this thread was seeing some valid proof of high overclocks - and it was like pulling teeth.. jeez . People looking for a new CPU might be swayed into believing that a 3800 is the best overall performing CPU just by looking at claims and poll results.
If you have a budget, get the 4400, if cost is no object- get the 4800.