Discussion in 'Hardware' started by customh, 16 Jan 2006.
Which one of the X2 series would overclock the best?
Farthest percentage would probably be the 3800+. Fastest ending clock speed is probably down more to luck than anything else (assuming you have a good mobo and RAM), but I'd probably say the 4600+, as it starts the fastest out of the 2x512k cache chips. Supposedly the chips with less cache clock a little bit higher, but I can't say for sure.
I'd also have to agree with firehead, the 3800 is a grreat clockers
would a home user notice the difference when one has 512kb or 1mb of cache (*2) on the cpu?
No, it's in the region of 3-5%, which is below the threshold of human perception.
In answer to the original question, the best overclocker (relative to its original clock speed) is probably the 3800+, but for absolute speed then a 4200 or 4600 would probably be better. The 4400 and 4800 aren't worth the extra since the extra cache makes little difference.
You really should go for a core with 1mb of cache. It does make a difference, and once you are at 2.6ghz, with 1mb cache, youll get similar performance to the new fx60 (you might get slightly better than stock if you have more memory bandwith if you keep to 1:1)
I dont know if this is true for the X2's, but dont the A64's with 1mb cache overclock better (San Diego core) ?
Still, they are more expensive, so personally I'd give 'em a miss. 3800+ seems the best value for sure.
From this comparison, you can see the difference between 512k and 1MB. Unless a Manchester (512k) cored chip is within a few quid of a Toledo (1MB) version, it's really not worth spending the extra, which is significant in the case of the 3800+ vs 4400+ processors.
So if im looking for good speed AND value, what should i go for?
If you're looking for value, the 3800+ would be your best bet. You should see it hit 2.4GHz or more with luck, which is up to 4800+ speeds. Even if it only bottles out at 2.2 (unlikely), you're still at the same speed as a 4400+. You'll need some pretty good RAM if you don't want to run a divider, though.
NB: I say 4800+ and not 4600+ speeds because the small difference caused by the higher HTT makes up for the equally small difference made by the extra cache.
get the 4400+
^^^^ spam right there, back up your claim and learn from hitman who knows much more than you
thanks hitman, 3800 it is for now, at least if they dont come out with a new processor thats good dual corein the next 2 quarters of the year
Yes the 3800 is value but then the 4400+ has the better cache and i kno it can get 2.8 on air. I love the thing plus its a toledo core. Better all around and even beats the FX-60 in some of the tests on bit-tech. You dont see the 3800 mentioned do you.
Ok, now we're talkin, sorry to agitate you if i did, please no hard feelings, and thanks for backing up your claim, i shall take it into consideration. FYI: shorten your sig to 4 lines or a sig nazi will come along and do it for ya-- not me, i dont have the magic powers of RTT or people like that
As far as I can see, the 4400+ is about £120 more than the 3800+ When you consider that it's only 200MHz faster by stock, and you can never garuntee how far any chip will OC, it's a bit of a gamble.
Does anyone know for sure if chips with 1mb cache will OC better than 512kb cache ones? As I'v said, I'm sure this is the case with A64's, but I'm not sure about X2's cos I don't know loads about em.
Even if a 4400+ will overclock a little better than a 3800+, you still have to pay £120 extra for that, so I guess it's down to your budget.
The problem is that there's no guarantee with overclocking... none at all. There's no assurance that customholle will get a 4400+ that does 2.8GHz - some even max out at 2.3! Since he can't select the stepping, going for something that's £120 more expensive for a little bit more speed (both at stock and overclocked) is certainly not good value. The Toledo core does have 1MB of cache, but it makes a fairly small performance difference and also means the already older core will run slightly hotter.
Hazza: In theory, the ones with more cache shouldn't clock quite so well, but this doesn't seem to happen a lot. I think it might just be that the Sandys are built on slightly better silicon to improve yields, and this has the side-effect of meaning they clock as high as the Venice equivalents.
so hitman is still holding that 3800's are best?
If I was to upgrade, I'd get a 3800+.
Overclock well, run cool, fast.
Thanks, for now its settled, 3800, temp dont really phase me since any way you slice it, its gonna have a swiftech storm on it, more OC'n for me!!! Thanks all, been a great help on the topic
Yeh make sure you get a decent cooling system. What would you consider gettin other then that swiftech storm. Have you got a link to the storm?
Separate names with a comma.