X2 3800+ Overclocking Poll

[chinkgai]

send the chip to me and i'll find out for u.

or u can try urself....

 

[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.

 

[Hacp]

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.

ummm sure. whatever you say.

 

[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?

 

[Hacp]

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?

If you have a budget, get the 4400, if cost is no object- get the 4800.

 

[bmercury]

My manchester does 2300 @ 1.45v. 2400 may be stable @ 1.55 but it requires further testing.

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[Leper Messiah]

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

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.

 

[chinkgai]

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.

most definitely. ESP on a big typhoon. unless ur case is an oven.

usually a bios flash fixes this if its an issue thats been noted by the mfg. i remember the original dfi nf3 250gb mobo had a temp reading that was 10c off that a bios flash "fixed"

 

[Link]

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

I ran it for like 3~4 hours. That was until I turned the P95 off after finding out the temperature it was running at.

 

[tvdang7]

what cooling solution should i need to push 1.5 volts into a 3800 x2.....the reason i ask is because this guy has his at 2.6 @ 1.52 volts and i want to buy it from him. my cooler is a zalman 7000b alcu

 

[Markfw]

You need an XP90 or better. Those zaLMANNS ARE QUIET, BUT DON'T COOL THAT WELL. (damn caps lock)

 

[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

 

[tvdang7]

what temps can i expect with my 7000b

 

[Leper Messiah]

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

Explain exactly to me, how my 3800+ is any less future proof than a 4400+ They have the same exact technology. The only difference is the cache. Thats like saying a T-bred is less future proof than a barton...that simply defies logic. By the time the extra cache makes that much of a difference, both procs are going to be so slow that it doesn't matter anyways. Cache is over rated.

And with a poll, eventually, the results must be taken for true, with a large enough data set. Unless you think that most of AT is a bunch of liars...you want screenies of my 2.5 at stock volts. I don't bother with prime 95, Folding at home stresses the CPU just as much, and it helps a cause. No dropped WU's= Stable proc.

 

[cronic]

just got a 3800x2 manchester from newegg today
ADA3800DAA5BV
So far runnin at 2700 (300x9) 900HT at 1.5 volts
I will run Prime tonight for 12 hours(ran 2 instances immediatly after install for a hour with no errors), but so far i have run the following without any issues and the max core temp of 50 c with an xp-120

3dmark05
pcmark05
doom3 demo 1
flat out
fear sp demo
I will report back with more info. SO FAR IT LOOKS GREAT

 

[tvdang7]

wow.......thats nice man.... so can u say that more ppl get good overclocks over ppl that get like 200 mhz?

 

[cronic]

not sure but from what i have read 2400 is fairly common. above that is a bonus in my opinion. as always results will vary and there are no guarenttes with overclocking. This is my third x2 and by far the most headrooom of any of them, and the other 2 are/were 4400 x2. it appears that the 1mb cache compared to the 512 does make a subtle difference in the responsiveness of the os, but i would think that is to be expected. If you don't mind overclocking the 3800x2 is an incredible value.

 

[lopri]

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.

 

[tvdang7]

hmm....i cant afford the 1 meg ill jsut stick to the 512

 

[cronic]

3800x2 300x9 2700 ddr600 @ 1.52v cooled by XP-120 panaflo M1A. Prime Stable 13 HOURS. I will be switching this unit to a water chiller setup in the following days. I would like to see 3000Mhz x2. I will keep you updated. Heres a screenshot so I don't get kicked in the shins. What do you think?
http://tinypic.com/f04t4w.jpg

 

[dopefish21]

Another great overclocker here.

3800+ reached 2.65 GHz @ 1.5V @ 60C (2 X Prime 95, 12H) on stock cooling.

 

[Leper Messiah]

going to try for 10x260 right now, I've got it stable at 2.5 with stock volts, I'm thinking I could do 2700 with 1.4.

 

[rchiu]

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.

I still don't get why you think 4400 is better than 3800. Is it because of the extra cache, is it because it runs higher at stock, is it because it has higher rate of success at 2.5 and higher OC, or is it because it can achieve absolute highest OC among the x2's?

I mean maybe if you define your criteria of a "better" cpu, we might be able to have a better debate.

For now, I am enjoying my x2 3800+ at 2.52 prime stable for 72+ hours, at 1.44v, 38C idle in my quiet P180 case. I don't see what $150 extra for a x2 4400 buys me. I don't see that $150 is justified for the extra cache, every benchmark out there says the cache improve the performance maybe by 1~3% if at all. I don't care if it runs higher at stock since I overclock. If you know how Intel or AMD slaps rating on cpu, I know because my bro used to work at Intel, you would know that the CPU rating may or may not mean a lot when it comes to overclocking. Sometimes due to market demand, chip company may simply mark higher speed cpu at a lower speed rating to meet the market demand. But in the case of 4400 vs 3800 OC capability, there is no way to tell unless someone do a lot of testing and tell us if one have higher success rate reaching 2.5 or above, or can achieve the absolute maximum speed. For now, you are as lucky as the CPU you get. Or you can always buy, sell, buy sell until you find the cpu of your dream. Until then, no one can say with certainty if that $150 buys you better OC. In fact, there are report that the extra cache may reduce the OC you maybe able to reach, then again, I think it is all up to luck, and a little skill of course .

So what I am trying to say is, I am not convinced that $150 buys you alot in the case of 4400 vs 3800, and I disagree that 4400 is better bang for the buck