Question for AMD 64 Overclockers!

[Le Québécois]

I know you get more Speed by going Higher than 2.4Ghz..but how much and is it really worth it? My idea is taken from the fact that AMD doesn't produce ANY cpu above 2.4Ghz with only 512kb of cache. Every model with a greater speed is 1mb cache. If there's a big difference by going over 2.4Ghz, why don't they produce any. From my understanding of the Winchester core or the Venice core both could ( and can if OverClocked ) reach 2.6ghz or even higher. So why don't produce 4000+ or 4200+ models then?

If I ask all that is in part curiosity and part because I'm asking myself if its really worth Overclocking my 3200+ winchester more than 2.4ghz.

 

[imported_Kensai]

4000+ = San Diego
4200+ X2 Manchester

 

[DrMrLordX]

First off, as Kensai has noted, you need to do some more product research. AMD can, and has released Athlon 64s clocked at speeds higher than 2.4 ghz at stock.

To answer your general question, only you can determine why you would need more performance than that which is available at 2.4 ghz. Some people just do it for bragging rights, while others what optimal performance in apps or games. Higher clock speeds = better performance, almost across the board, unless some other subsystem of your PC is limiting you.

Whether or not you want to surpass 2.4ghz is your call. If you're afraid of damaging something, or if you just don't need the extra power, don't do it. Why bother? If it could help, and if you can do it without raising vcore or messing up memory timings(or raising vdimm excessively), you might want to give it a shot.

Whether or not you can go very far past 2.4ghz with a Winchester is a crapshoot.

 

[Le Québécois]

The 4000+ single core has 1Mb of L2 cache. If you can READ you can see that both my title and my post specify no core higher than 2.4ghz with only 512Kb of cache....

For my product research I used this :
AMD Desktop Processor Quick Reference Guide

And as for Dual core, I think none of them have a frequency going higher than 2.4ghz for now.

Guys, next time...take the time to read before answering.

 

[Leper Messiah]

my guess would be that since the 512KB chips are the "value" chips. High speed L2 is rather expensive to produce. The only chips they have going over 2.4 are the FXes which probably have lower yields. They'll probably come out with some in the future though.

In the end, MHz is more important that cache, depending on what applications you run, of course.

 

[evilharp]

You're right, AMD isn't pushing any CPUs right now that clock higher than 2.4 ghz with 512kb of cache. At the price point that 2.6ghz starts at, the buyer expects big cache for the hefty sum they pay. The cache helps in certain apps, but overall it only improves performance by 0-5% from the benchmarks I've seen.

For overclocking, the 512kb cache chips (or 2x512kb for X2) should overclock better due to a lower transistor count resulting (theoretically) in lower heat output -and- the current stepping of a given core being designed to hit a certain speed range.

AMD hasn't moved on clock speed in quite some time as there is no need to (the 2.4ghz chips are more than a match for the highest clocked P4).