• 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.

Final Word on A64 939/754, 3200/3000 Overclocking Debate!

govtcheez75

Platinum Member
Ok. I think I see a new thread every few days about which is better, a 939 or 754, and 3200+, or 3000+ for overclocking. I think there is only one way to settle it. I will start the thread, and list all the A64 processors that I've had, and list the successful stable overclocks, and everyone can ADD to the thread (*read below)

I had one of the very first generation Clawhammer 754 3200+ (bought them when they first came out). The Default speed was 2.0ghz, with 1mb cache. This would run stable at 2.2ghz, or a 10% overclock.

I then "upgraded" to a Newcastle 3200+ which defaulted at 2.2ghz. This ran stable at 2475mhz, or a 12.5% overclock.

I then "upgraded" again, to a 939 Winchester 3200+ which defaults at 2.0ghz. This runs stable at 2.4ghz, or a 20% overclock.


So I have:

__________________________________________________________________________
Socket 754
Clawhamer:
3200+ 10% OC

NewCastle:
3200+ 12.5% OC


Socket 939
Winchester:
3200+ 20% OC

__________________________________________________________________________

gathering from the current information in this thread, it would seem that the 939 Winchester (even though at a slower total speed than the Newcastle) is the best OC'er so far.


*so here is everyone's part. Copy and paste the items between the lines, and add your own experiences, and then do some simple math to determine the "Average" overclock for that category. For example, if you have a Winchester 3000+, or a 3500+, you would add a new category. If you have another Clawhammer 3200+ that did 2.5ghz, you would add the .25% OC to my 10%, and then divide it by 2 to get the "average" of 17.5% OC. Then the third person to have that same chip would add their overclock to the previous 2, and divide it by 3 to get the average overclock.


This way, we SHOULD be able to look at the last post in the thread, and see what the average overclock for each A64 chip is.


*Disclaimer- I do realize that this is a very "simpleton" way of determining the average overclocks of each chip, and does not take into account very important factors like MoBo, Ram, PSU, etc... but it just MIGHT prevent 4-5 new threads every week with people asking the SAME QUESTION over and over again...."Which processor should I buy?" 😉
 
To me, it's not so much the 3200/3000 debate, but the budget/performance crowd.

Whenever someone asks for advice about which CPU to buy, you'll get one crowd that recommends the slowest CPU, and then OC it to a level that just reaches the best chip currently on the market.

The other crowd is performance, who will pay anything to get the fastest chip. These people will pay the extra money to start off at the top, and then OC even more.

Asking how high a chip OCs is subjective. There will always be a handful of people who can OC the heck out of their chip while others hit a roadblock, like me. Therefore, it would be hard to find a winner of the 3000/3200 debate.
 
Winchesters on average clock higher..but AX newcastles no slouth


Me?

winch@2.65
AXNC@2.65
 
3000+ (winchester) 2.61ghz (9x290)
3200+ (winchester) 2.7ghz (10*270)
vcore for both was 1.55 on coolance exos water cooling with asus a8v mobo

3200+ only runs 100% stable for me at 2.6 with 1.48 vcore
 
There have been several reports that show the 3000+/3200+/3500+ Winchesters all top out at around the same speed (2.7Ghz). This may show that AMD uses the same process for all 3 chips and just puts them in differant bins according to their internal QA testing results.
 
Youll find that the Winchesters seem to OC the best due to the 90nm maufacturing process. They produce less heat, allowing you to push them further.
 
Originally posted by: SalientKing
Youll find that the Winchesters seem to OC the best due to the 90nm maufacturing process. They produce less heat, allowing you to push them further.

Some O/C well, while others (like mine) are barely stable at 2200. Like everything about o/cing CPUs, it's all about the luck of the draw.

Edit: I have a 3200+ 90nm
 
Originally posted by: richardrds
There have been several reports that show the 3000+/3200+/3500+ Winchesters all top out at around the same speed (2.7Ghz). This may show that AMD uses the same process for all 3 chips and just puts them in differant bins according to their internal QA testing results.

It's always been that way.

Celeron 300, 350, 400 to 550
athlon 1.2, 1.33 to 1.4
P4 2.4, 2.6, 2.8 to 3.2
winch 3000+/3200+/3500+ to 2.5ish
ad nausium


This is why I always buy the lowest rated chip in iteration and hope for best. :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: richardrds
There have been several reports that show the 3000+/3200+/3500+ Winchesters all top out at around the same speed (2.7Ghz). This may show that AMD uses the same process for all 3 chips and just puts them in differant bins according to their internal QA testing results.

It's always been that way.

Celeron 300, 350, 400 to 550
athlon 1.2, 1.33 to 1.4
P4 2.4, 2.6, 2.8 to 3.2
winch 3000+/3200+/3500+ to 2.5ish
ad nausium


This is why I always buy the lowest rated chip in iteration and hope for best. :thumbsup:


Ditto....

I bought the 1.6a, 2.4b, 2.4c, and now 3000+ A64....I have always done better then the highest stock produced chip available...
 
2x Athlon64 3200+ (754) 2.2 @ 2319 5%
1x Athlon64 3200+ (939) 2.0 @ 2.2 10%
1x Athlon64 3000+ 939 1.8 @ 2.322 30%

So 939 winchester wins.but at 20%, not 40-50% like many say .

OK, granted, I only have one good OC motherboard, but I have some of the best OC memory around OCZ PC 4000 gold rev2. I still say, its a crap shoot, you get what you pay for many times.....
 
3200 winchester

2.5 from 2.0 = 25%

goes higher but i don't like the heat 🙁

Edit: update: 2.6ghz = 30%

4c higher at load though 🙁
 
Copy Paste. I prefer the clawhammer, socket 939's dual channal only offers a ~1 fps boast according to anandtech, I never understood why AMD bothered to change sockets.

CPU -|- A64 3400+ [Fx-51] @ 2.7 ghz [1 MB L2 Cache]
Motherboard -|- DFI NF3
Ram -|- 1024 PDP Patriot XBL TCCD @ 245 FSB
PSU -|- Thermaltake 480 watt [12.02]
Hard drive -|- 2x 40 Gb WD [Raid 0]
Hard drive 2 -|- 1x Seagate 160 GB
Hard drive 3 -|- External 120 GB
DVD-Rom -|- Sony DDU1613
DVD-RW -|- NEC 3250A
Video Card -|- Nvidia 6800 @ 450/850 16/6
Soundcard -|- Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS
Speakers -|- Klipsch Promedia 5.1 ULTRA
 
I have not fooled with any socket 939 cpu's yet, but have tried a few socket 754's.

3000+ CO (nuetered clawhammer) @ 2.5ghz (250x10: 1:1) 1.78v
3200+ NC @ 2.6ghz (260x10 1:1) 1.72v
2800+ NC @ 2.34ghz (260x9) 1.60v
3000+ DTR @ 2.75ghz (305x9) @ 1.69v (not totally stable yet, just got the cpu so I am still fooling)
 
Back
Top