• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

3700+ @ 2.64 , matches / beats fx-55 @ 2.6 (stock)

F

Fadey

Senior member
Uh i own a 3700+ amd san sigeo core and i overclocked it to 2.64ghz with the stock cooling and i still get 25-30c idle with 38-40 in bf2 / fear. In sandra it shows that my 3700+ overclocked beats the fx-55... there has to be something more to this? it bet it in both cpu tests. I know their the same core but shouldnt the fx-55 be better in some way since the huge price leap?
 
Originally posted by: Fadey
Uh i own a 3700+ amd san sigeo core and i overclocked it to 2.64ghz with the stock cooling and i still get 25-30c idle with 38-40 in bf2 / fear. In sandra it shows that my 3700+ overclocked beats the fx-55... there has to be something more to this? it bet it in both cpu tests. I know their the same core but shouldnt the fx-55 be better in some way since the huge price leap?
Click to expand...

No. If your San Diego is runing at the same speed, it will perform as well as an FX . . . the only reason why the FX is an FX is due to the unlocked multiplier . . . besides that its the same . . .
 
So amd charge like x3 more to go from a amd 3700+ to fx-55 and all u gain is 400mhz that u can easily get with their stock cooling?
 
Originally posted by: Fadey
So amd charge like x3 more to go from a amd 3700+ to fx-55 and all u gain is 400mhz that u can easily get with their stock cooling?
Click to expand...

Well the FX-55 has more versatility in overclocking due to that unlocked multilplier but yeah that's essentially the case. Seriously, a even a 3000+ Venice @ 2.7 Ghz would outperform an FX-55 . . . this is not to say they are ripoffs, (I would def. get one if I could afford it) but just that they are only suited for a certain market (i.e. enthusiasts)
 
Buying cheaper cpu's and overclocking is one reason i'm sure AMD and Intel will do something in the future to make it much harder since people do not buy their higher profit chips. So, things like this will probably eventually make it to where you will have no choice but to buy the higher cost cpu for the higher speeds since you wonder why they have higher priced cpu's that performs similar to cheaper overclocked cpu's. That my opinion on the matter anyways 🙂



Jason
 
I;m guessing your talking to me. Thanks but i've been in the world of ocing for 7x yrs. So, your alittle late welcoming me. I was simply letting the guy know not to get upset over a cheap overclocked cpu getting the same performance of a higher cost cpu and being upset about it. Thats how they make their money. They don't like people buying low profit cpu's over the higher profit cpu's and being able to oc to get the same performance.

BTW, I have a 2ghz X2 3800+ @ 2.6ghz. So, I do the ocing thing still 🙂



Jason
 
Originally posted by: formulav8
I;m guessing your talking to me. Thanks but i've been in the world of ocing for 7x yrs. So, your alittle late welcoming me. I was simply letting the guy know not to get upset over a cheap overclocked cpu getting the same performance of a higher cost cpu and being upset about it. Thats how they make their money. They don't like people buying low profit cpu's over the higher profit cpu's and being able to oc to get the same performance.

BTW, I have a 2ghz X2 3800+ @ 2.6ghz. So, I do the ocing thing still 🙂



Jason
Click to expand...


lol .. i was talking to the OP 😉
 
Originally posted by: formulav8
Buying cheaper cpu's and overclocking is one reason i'm sure AMD and Intel will do something in the future to make it much harder since people do not buy their higher profit chips. So, things like this will probably eventually make it to where you will have no choice but to buy the higher cost cpu for the higher speeds since you wonder why they have higher priced cpu's that performs similar to cheaper overclocked cpu's. That my opinion on the matter anyways 🙂

Jason
Click to expand...

I am not so sure about this. Many years have past without controlled neutering, and now Opteron. There has to be some logic that AMD is following, but I don't understand it. Why would anyone buy a $270, 3700 San Diego that may get to 2.8, when you can buy a 144 Opy for $150 that will get you to 3 GHz on air? Unless the Opy gets neutered or price gouging occurs (I am sure it won't 😉) the single chip pricing is going to get interesting...

m 🙂

 
Originally posted by: Mucker
I am not so sure about this. Many years have past without controlled neutering, and now Opteron. There has to be some logic that AMD is following, but I don't understand it. Why would anyone buy a $270, 3700 San Diego that may get to 2.8, when you can buy a 144 Opy for $150 that will get you to 3 GHz on air? Unless the Opy gets neutered or price gouging occurs (I am sure it won't 😉) the single chip pricing is going to get interesting...

m 🙂
Click to expand...

Maybe because like 1% of us overclock and the other 99% are average Joe's who just take the biggest number they can find?
 
Originally posted by: the splat in the hat
think l d still preffer my fx 55 to your cpu...
Click to expand...

And I prefer my savings of ~$500 that I could use to buy a 7800GTX or something 😉

Oh, and @Mucker: People bought the 3700+ because the Opteron 144 wasn't released yet, and the 3700+ was the cheapest SD core you could get.
 
Originally posted by: formulav8
Buying cheaper cpu's and overclocking is one reason i'm sure AMD and Intel will do something in the future to make it much harder since people do not buy their higher profit chips. So, things like this will probably eventually make it to where you will have no choice but to buy the higher cost cpu for the higher speeds since you wonder why they have higher priced cpu's that performs similar to cheaper overclocked cpu's. That my opinion on the matter anyways 🙂
Jason
Click to expand...

Well, this has been going on for years. Since back in the 486 days at least, but most notably beginning with the Celeron 300A @ 450 (taking a cheap, "value" chip and getting top-shelf performance).

For sure, the overclocking game is changing (witness the various stops Intel has tried to put into their chips), but I don't see overclocking as a hobby being circumvented altogether.

It would certainly piss off the motherboard vendors to no end, not to mention manufacturers of every other component in the PC (overclocker's RAM, etc).
 
Originally posted by: Fadey
Uh i own a 3700+ amd san sigeo core and i overclocked it to 2.64ghz with the stock cooling and i still get 25-30c idle with 38-40 in bf2 / fear. In sandra it shows that my 3700+ overclocked beats the fx-55... there has to be something more to this? it bet it in both cpu tests. I know their the same core but shouldnt the fx-55 be better in some way since the huge price leap?
Click to expand...
But wouldn't the FX-55 (or 57) be an even better overclockers because of the unlocked multipliers??? This is comparing an overclocked - aka, pushed to its limits, to a stock cpu - aka, room for growth.
 
I don't think AMD'd try to stamp down on OCing at all. Mainly because one of the reasons they're selling so many of their chips is because they OC better than God. They make a good product- People buy it. Why change a winning formula? They'd also risk really annoying their customers. So long as they're making money I don't see why they'd want to change it.
 
Originally posted by: formulav8
Buying cheaper cpu's and overclocking is one reason i'm sure AMD and Intel will do something in the future to make it much harder since people do not buy their higher profit chips. So, things like this will probably eventually make it to where you will have no choice but to buy the higher cost cpu for the higher speeds since you wonder why they have higher priced cpu's that performs similar to cheaper overclocked cpu's. That my opinion on the matter anyways 🙂



Jason
Click to expand...

Hmm... Athlon XP was multiplier locked... Athlon 64 has unlocked lower multipliers, and Athlon FX is completely unlocked... seems to me like the opposite is happening!

Originally posted by: Pabster

Maybe because like 1% of us overclock and the other 99% are average Joe's who just take the biggest number they can find?
Click to expand...

Right on! And of that 1% that does overclock, we probably wouldn't buy their higher end anyways... So, it's better for them that we are buying their cheap chips and OC'ing them than us not buying ANY of their chips. And they know that not everyone will get lucky and get a good OC'er.
 
With today's options what cpu would you buy? I was about to pick up a Athlon 4000+ San Diego core, when reading the forums has me second guessing my selection. Any input is welcomed.
 
Originally posted by: segdmd
With today's options what cpu would you buy? I was about to pick up a Athlon 4000+ San Diego core, when reading the forums has me second guessing my selection. Any input is welcomed.
Click to expand...

If you don't mind overclocking and your other components support overclocking then the 3700+ or perhaps an s939 opteron would be a better choice. The 4000+ is a fine choice if not overclocking.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top