Is overclocking a proven concept?

[Bona Fide]

I've seen this quite often, and it's made me wonder.

Right now I'm running my 3700+ SD at 2.8GHz. FX-57 for a third of the cost!!

I got my 3000+ Venice up to 2.4GHz on stock! Skip the 3800+ and just get this!

My X2 4400+ is prime-stable at 2.4GHz on stock cooling. Glad I didn't buy the 4800+

Does an overclocked lower-grade CPU benchmark EXACTLY the same as the stock version of the higher-grade model? In the examples given, the specs are BASICALLY alike.

3700 = 2.8/1mb
FX-57 = 2.8/1mb

3000 = 2.4/512kb
3800 = 2.4/512kb

4400 = 2.4/1mbx2
4800 = 2.4/1mbx2

So will these pairs benchmark just like each other [with a margin of +/-1%]?

 

[CheesePoofs]

Assuming you have the memory running at the same speed, yes. They are all the same core, just some need a bit more juice to reach the higher speeds than others do.

The problem with making a direct comparison is to OC these chips you have to raise the HT, which changes the memory speed. Assuming you bought overclocking ram, you will be running the ram faster than the default 200mhz, so your 3700@fx57 speeds will actually be faster than the fx-57. If you bought cheap ram (like me ) then you will probably be running the ram slower than 200mhz (unless you get really lucky) and so your 3700@fx57 speeds will be slightly slower than the fx-57.

 

[n7]

Yes.

CheesPoofs pretty much summed it up.

Also, as he mentioned, a 3000+ Venice @ 2.4 GHz will usually be slightly faster than a 3800+ Venice (2.4GHz), since a higher HTT & high RAM bandwidth improve performance.

 

[coomar]

yeah at 2.6 due to the ram running at 236 i'm pretty close to matching a fx-55 at stock

but it depends on what speed your memory is running at

though A64's and memory bandwith doesn't matter that much

 

[CheesePoofs]

Originally posted by: coomar
yeah at 2.6 due to the ram running at 236 i'm pretty close to matching a fx-55 at stock

but it depends on what speed your memory is running at

though A64's and memory bandwith doesn't matter that much

But you have a 512kb cache, which is why you need the extra ram speed to match FX-55 speeds, right?

 

[coomar]

yeah and your probably going to have to be in the 2.65 range as well

with 207 ram speed your probably looking at 2.72 so its like the memory gives you that much

 

[Bona Fide]

Alright thanks for clearing that up. I'm planning to get a 4400+ Toledo and Crucial Value. Gonna see what happens

 

[coomar]

2x1gb's?

 

[Bona Fide]

Originally posted by: coomar
2x1gb's?

Me? Yes. I've seen [from Newegg reviews and Zebo's thread awhile back] that they perform like speed-binned Ballistix. I'm hoping to get 240MHz at 3-3-3 or so, with <3.0V. 240x11 will be good enough for me. Maybe the 4400+ might not even be able to go that high.

 

[coomar]

outpost has patriots at 2-3-2@200 for 199

though they don't overclock as well as the ballistix

 

[valkator]

higher end cpus are just ones with more mulitpliers or if it is an fx.. an unlocked multiplier

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I've always disliked ones like this.

Right now I'm running my 3700+ SD at 2.8GHz. FX-57 for a third of the cost!!

Because it isn't an FX-57. Guys with FX chips often pair them with some agressive cooling solutions and pump them past 3GHz. Venice or SanDiego can't consistently do that, because overclocking is NOT a guarnatee, its a gamble. You can claim stock FX-57 performance, but you can't say "I've basically got an FX-57", because you don't.

 

[CheesePoofs]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
I've always disliked ones like this.

Right now I'm running my 3700+ SD at 2.8GHz. FX-57 for a third of the cost!!

Because it isn't an FX-57. Guys with FX chips often pair them with some agressive cooling solutions and pump them past 3GHz. Venice or SanDiego can't consistently do that, because overclocking is NOT a guarnatee, its a gamble. You can claim stock FX-57 performance, but you can't say "I've basically got an FX-57", because you don't.

FX-57 is a sandiego, so clearly sandiegos can go past 3GHz with agressive cooling solutions.

By running a 3700 at 2.8, you have a chip running the same speed as an fx-57. No, it is not an fx-57, but it runs exactly the same as one would at stock speeds.

On the other hand, if you think of a FX-57 as a SanDiego core chip running at 2.8ghz, then a 3700 @ 2.8 is a FX-57.

 

[Furen]

If it makes them happy let them call their 2.8GHz San Diegos fx57s, it's not like it affects you in any way and it is true that they have stock FX57 performance. You are right in saying that the FX57s can overclock better (for the most part) since they are cherry-picked however.