• 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.

Looks like AMD got smart

S

sangyup81

Golden Member
Am I the only one noticing the 3500 getting much better OCs than the 3000s or 3200s?

I'm seeing the 3500s and 3800s break 2.8ghz easily while the 3000s and 3200s are struggling with 2.6ghz.

For those that read other forums, what have you been seeing?
 
Nah, its just early enough in the manufacturing process that they aren't hitting a high % of chips that exceed 2.8Ghz or so. What usually happens later on is that they can produce more chips that hit high speeds than than they could sell at the price point they want. On top of it they are fab constrained and they are able to sell everything they produce, which means that they don't have to sell at lower price points(I.E. stimulate demand by offering lower price points and binning more of those models that would otherwise be sold at higher price points)
 
Originally posted by: aka1nas
Nah, its just early enough in the manufacturing process that they aren't hitting a high % of chips that exceed 2.8Ghz or so. What usually happens later on is that they can produce more chips that hit high speeds than than they could sell at the price point they want. On top of it they are fab constrained and they are able to sell everything they produce, which means that they don't have to sell at lower price points(I.E. stimulate demand by offering lower price points and binning more of those models that would otherwise be sold at higher price points)
Click to expand...

God theory, but why, then, did the Winchesters suddenly go downhill towards the end of their production cycle.

If my 3000+ hits 2.6, I'll be happy. That's an 800Mhz overclock....almost 1Ghz.
 
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: aka1nas
Nah, its just early enough in the manufacturing process that they aren't hitting a high % of chips that exceed 2.8Ghz or so. What usually happens later on is that they can produce more chips that hit high speeds than than they could sell at the price point they want. On top of it they are fab constrained and they are able to sell everything they produce, which means that they don't have to sell at lower price points(I.E. stimulate demand by offering lower price points and binning more of those models that would otherwise be sold at higher price points)
Click to expand...

God theory, but why, then, did the Winchesters suddenly go downhill towards the end of their production cycle.

If my 3000+ hits 2.6, I'll be happy. That's an 800Mhz overclock....almost 1Ghz.
Click to expand...

I would guess that either they had a "bad" batch or two and that we haven't sold through them yet or that supply has become tighter with respect to demand and that they are finding they can sell a lot more 3500+ and 3800+ etc chips than they thought they could before and this binning them more aggressively. They aren't binning more aggressively just to piss us off. The enthusiast and OC market is probably too small to even make it worth their while to adjust their binning techniques to "force" us to buy more expensive chips. It's much more likely that OEMs want more 3500+ and up chips so they are binning more of them at that model so they can sell them for more money.
 
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: aka1nas
Nah, its just early enough in the manufacturing process that they aren't hitting a high % of chips that exceed 2.8Ghz or so. What usually happens later on is that they can produce more chips that hit high speeds than than they could sell at the price point they want. On top of it they are fab constrained and they are able to sell everything they produce, which means that they don't have to sell at lower price points(I.E. stimulate demand by offering lower price points and binning more of those models that would otherwise be sold at higher price points)
Click to expand...

God theory, but why, then, did the Winchesters suddenly go downhill towards the end of their production cycle.

If my 3000+ hits 2.6, I'll be happy. That's an 800Mhz overclock....almost 1Ghz.
Click to expand...

Better than throwing away chips. 😛
 
a more expensive processor getting a higher OC? OMG...is this really a suprise?

3000 and 3200 winnies (1.8 and 2.0 ghz) "struggling" @ 2.6

3500 and 2800 (2.2 and 2.4) "comfortable" at 2.8

dosnt that sound about the same for an OC? 600-800 mhz? we will need to see a 3800 reach 3.2 for it to equal a lot of 3000 OC's...
 
id say go with a winnie or venice for 3200 speeds....but id definitely recommend a 3700 san diego over a 3800 venice...the extra cache and it still has the same OC limit (from what iv seen)....so, really up to you...i guess if i was buolding a new system, the venice sounds nice, improved mem controller, ect...sounds nice to me, but the winnie is a prven winner already! 🙂

 
So being that I have a P4 2.8 right now which AMD should I be looking at ? I was guessing either a 3200 or 3500 Venice but you guys have me thinking.
 
Originally posted by: BUNGL3
So being that I have a P4 2.8 right now which AMD should I be looking at ? I was guessing either a 3200 or 3500 Venice but you guys have me thinking.
Click to expand...

I went from a 2.6c oc'd to 3.0ghz..to a 3500+. Huge difference in gaming. Very happy with my first AMD purchase.
 
AMd's smoke Intel in games and things; only thing that matters to most of us. A 2.8 amd will stomp a 3.8 intel.
 
They are doing something. Me and Duvie hit 2.6 or so on default vcore with old winchs..many hit 2.7 on default core (superKdogg) and could hit 2.9 with volts on old SPAW winnys...then they crippled them somehow after week 49, unable to hit 2600 most of them. Same deal here. Go look how well SD's are doing..all over 2800 Mhz air (they arnt crippling them same way.) But Vinny is weak.

I refuse to beleive manufacturing process got worse as time went on.

WA- AMD@ 2800 = Intel @4300 so ya🙂
 
Originally posted by: ExarKun333
a more expensive processor getting a higher OC? OMG...is this really a suprise?

3000 and 3200 winnies (1.8 and 2.0 ghz) "struggling" @ 2.6

3500 and 2800 (2.2 and 2.4) "comfortable" at 2.8

dosnt that sound about the same for an OC? 600-800 mhz? we will need to see a 3800 reach 3.2 for it to equal a lot of 3000 OC's...
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree... wtf?
 
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: aka1nas
Nah, its just early enough in the manufacturing process that they aren't hitting a high % of chips that exceed 2.8Ghz or so. What usually happens later on is that they can produce more chips that hit high speeds than than they could sell at the price point they want. On top of it they are fab constrained and they are able to sell everything they produce, which means that they don't have to sell at lower price points(I.E. stimulate demand by offering lower price points and binning more of those models that would otherwise be sold at higher price points)
Click to expand...

God theory, but why, then, did the Winchesters suddenly go downhill towards the end of their production cycle.

If my 3000+ hits 2.6, I'll be happy. That's an 800Mhz overclock....almost 1Ghz.
Click to expand...

That seems to be pretty clear - not only did they start speed binning once production quality went up, they got good at it and didn't release 3000+s they could have sold as 3500+s
 
I think its not just that they got better at it. If all their chips could bin as 3500+s they would still want 3000+ and 3200+ chips as they would want to cover those price points. I think that part of it is that the prices have dropped enough that the 3500+ isn't a bad deal for a CPU where before it may have been above the pricepoint many were willing to spend. 6 months or more ago, everyone was going for 3000+ chips still as they were not only the best value, but the 2800+ and 3000+ were the only "cheap" Athlon64s available. I know I won't spend more than $200 on a CPU and I start to get iffy at much over $100.
 
I actually completely agree with your buying principles - my 3200 winnie at $190 was the most expensive CPU I've bought in 10 years.

But none-the-less, I think that there are still better than 3000 yielding 3000s out there, but I think there fewer than there were when the CPU yield first met maturity.

I suppose it is also true that some other factor in the Winchester production resulting in a slightly lower yield in the later Winchesters, netting lower O/Cing potential.
 
Actually, another point of interest - I've been scanning the forums for a good while and I've noticed that many of the people who achieve higher overclocks have many more posts than those who get lower. There might be a relationship between forum activity, overclocking knowledge, and net usable overclockability.

I think that many of our CPUs could accomplish higher overclocks if we had the necessary knowledge to tweak them further. Just a thought...

Btw.. I'm not saying there is a direct relationship between number of posts/knowledge and overclocking potential, but I am saying that it might be a factor.
 
I still don't get what the other guy said ... are the PURPOSELY limiting the overclockability of their 3000+'s so that people don't just by those and overclock to 3500+ speeds instead?
 
aka1nas was saying that no matter how the yield of CPUs gets, you still need CPUs of all the speed ratings you offer. Even if every CPU is capable of being sold as a 3500, you still need 3000s and 3200s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top