X2 4800+ at 2.9Ghrtz on air at AMDZONE.com

n7

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2004
21,303
4
81
Of course it's cherry picked :p

That doesn't mean we won't be able to get close though :D

I'm sure that as the X2s mature, getting to 3 GHz will be a reality eventually :)
 

imported_michaelpatrick33

Platinum Member
Jun 19, 2004
2,364
0
0
Originally posted by: n7
Of course it's cherry picked :p

That doesn't mean we won't be able to get close though :D

I'm sure that as the X2s mature, getting to 3 GHz will be a reality eventually :)


LOL

What is your guess on watercooling for my future 4400+. (Please humor me with glory stories of 2.8, LOL) I would be ecstatic if I hit 2.7 and up on watercooling with my 4400+
 

xrest

Member
Jun 9, 2005
38
0
0
about x2 processors.those new dual core will be good enough for gaming?i dont think that amds dual core processors will do the job.fx57 for sure...
 

Shimmishim

Elite Member
Feb 19, 2001
7,504
0
76
i agree xrest....

but you won't be able to multitask as well with the fx-57...

once games start taking advantage of both cores... then we'll start to see the x2 and pentium d's REALLY shine!
 

ProviaFan

Lifer
Mar 17, 2001
14,993
1
0
Originally posted by: xrest
about x2 processors.those new dual core will be good enough for gaming?i dont think that amds dual core processors will do the job.fx57 for sure...
Do what job? It's not like the X2s are snails...
 

Continuity27

Senior member
May 26, 2005
516
0
0
Originally posted by: xrest
about x2 processors.those new dual core will be good enough for gaming?i dont think that amds dual core processors will do the job.fx57 for sure...

If you had a game that didn't take advantage of multiple threads then the AMD 64 X2 4800+ would perform just as well or slightly better than the AMD 64 4000+ at stock speeds... that's VERY fast for games, with the CPU being only considered. What's faster? FX 55, FX 57, etc.. but not much else.

Think of the 4800+ as two 4000+. I forget what the others are comparable to.
 

imported_michaelpatrick33

Platinum Member
Jun 19, 2004
2,364
0
0
The FX-53 is the same as the 4000+ at 2.4ghrtz. I am getting the 4400+ at 2200 with 1024L2 cache. (I am using Autocad, Photoshop, and gaming. Since I am watercooling, I am hoping to reach anywhere from 2600 (FX-55) to the dream 2800 (FX-57). Of course you can overclock the FX-55 and FX-57 but you will still only have one. LOL

Edit: I never said anything about gaming for my needs as a lone priority. AMDZONE claimed to get to FX-58 speeds on air on a dualcore. Not to shabby if it is an average overclock.
 

Continuity27

Senior member
May 26, 2005
516
0
0
Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
The FX-53 is the same as the 4000+ at 2.4ghrtz. I am getting the 4400+ at 2200 with 1024L2 cache. (I am using Autocad, Photoshop, and gaming. Since I am watercooling, I am hoping to reach anywhere from 2600 (FX-55) to the dream 2800 (FX-57). Of course you can overclock the FX-55 and FX-57 but you will still only have one. LOL

Edit: I never said anything about gaming for my needs as a lone priority. AMDZONE claimed to get to FX-58 speeds on air on a dualcore. Not to shabby if it is an average overclock.

Not a bad plan, don't worry about it.
 

bjc112

Lifer
Dec 23, 2000
11,460
0
76
Considering the 4400+ and 4800+ are San Diego cores, I really don't think 2.7-2.8ghz isn't possible..

Most San Diego's hit near or around 2.7 or 2.8


Hopefully the yields continue to get better..
 

clarkey01

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2004
3,419
1
0
Originally posted by: bjc112
Considering the 4400+ and 4800+ are San Diego cores, I really don't think 2.7-2.8ghz isn't possible..

Most San Diego's hit near or around 2.7 or 2.8


Hopefully the yields continue to get better..

Well you got the FX 57 hitting 3 Ghz easy, makes you think if AMD have somehow capped current chips.
 

RichUK

Lifer
Feb 14, 2005
10,320
672
126
Originally posted by: clarkey01
Originally posted by: bjc112
Considering the 4400+ and 4800+ are San Diego cores, I really don't think 2.7-2.8ghz isn't possible..

Most San Diego's hit near or around 2.7 or 2.8


Hopefully the yields continue to get better..

Well you got the FX 57 hitting 3 Ghz easy, makes you think if AMD have somehow capped current chips.

ive always thought on how they could do this .. do you think that some how AMD have limited the amount voltage to the chips, so that it impedes the OC possibile on the current voltage, i mean if we raise it in the BIOS they can still limit the voltage absorbed .. hmmm just thinking dont really know how they could do this :confused:

 

clarkey01

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2004
3,419
1
0
Originally posted by: RichUK
Originally posted by: clarkey01
Originally posted by: bjc112
Considering the 4400+ and 4800+ are San Diego cores, I really don't think 2.7-2.8ghz isn't possible..

Most San Diego's hit near or around 2.7 or 2.8


Hopefully the yields continue to get better..

Well you got the FX 57 hitting 3 Ghz easy, makes you think if AMD have somehow capped current chips.

ive always thought on how they could do this .. do you think that some how AMD have limited the amount voltage to the chips, so that it impedes the OC possibile on the current voltage, i mean if we raise it in the BIOS they can still limit the voltage absorbed .. hmmm just thinking dont really know how they could do this :confused:

My honest answer is that I dont have a clue. A lot of focus on the athlon hitting 3 Ghz with how well Venice core especially after how well the Winchester core overclocked to. They have said in their roadmaps that Opteron will hit 3 Ghz in Q12006 so they must have a fair idea of how things are panning out. Webber did say they will introduce longer pipelines (12 at the moment, yonah has around 15) for better scaling. So I don?t think there going to stand still on the scaling front.

I wouldn?t be at all surprised if AMD had somehow capped chips, specially since the FX 57 has no problem hitting 3 ghz ( yes I know its less then a 10% overclcok) but the fact it?s stable at 2.8 already is a good sign.
 

xrest

Member
Jun 9, 2005
38
0
0
i see guys.then my question is.invest on a dual core -4400- thiking the future or invest on a fx57 for its raw power?and im a gamer.whats suit better for gamers?
 

RichUK

Lifer
Feb 14, 2005
10,320
672
126
Originally posted by: xrest
i see guys.then my question is.invest on a dual core -4400- thiking the future or invest on a fx57 for its raw power?and im a gamer.whats suit better for gamers?

well

FX57 = RAW MOFOing speed for games but it is a single threaded processor

X2 = twice the processing work load .. so not faster at doing processes just able to do more processes at the same time, therfore being able to multi task without system slow down

 

RichUK

Lifer
Feb 14, 2005
10,320
672
126
i just like the idea of RAW pWnage from the FX57, when OCed to over 3.2 :p

just a quicky, what is the average water OC for the 130nm FX55 .. just out of interest
 

Chode Messiah

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2005
1,634
0
0
Originally posted by: RichUK
i just like the idea of RAW pWnage from the FX57, when OCed to over 3.2 :p

just a quicky, what is the average water OC for the 130nm FX55 .. just out of interest

what about the fx-55 sd (90nm)?
 

RichUK

Lifer
Feb 14, 2005
10,320
672
126
Originally posted by: Chode Messiah
Originally posted by: RichUK
i just like the idea of RAW pWnage from the FX57, when OCed to over 3.2 :p

just a quicky, what is the average water OC for the 130nm FX55 .. just out of interest

what about the fx-55 sd (90nm)?

yeah but its so new i dont think anyone on here has got one, the reason that i had asked was because i was wondering on how the FX55 version of the Clawhammer compared to the normal Clawhammer's .. basicaly wondering on the scalability of the FX series mainly in question the FX57 .. just to find a trend ...

 

Jeff7181

Lifer
Aug 21, 2002
18,368
11
81
Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
More to come

Let's hope this isn't a cherrypicked test! I have my watercooling and budget already set for the 4400+ for late July with a G70. The drool, mmmmm 2.9

It most definately is... both Intel and AMD send out samples for review that are good overclockers cause they know pretty much every techie site will overclock it.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Yeah, the review samples are always hand-picked. The cream of the crop. What else could you expect?
 

bjc112

Lifer
Dec 23, 2000
11,460
0
76

I wouldn?t be at all surprised if AMD had somehow capped chips, specially since the FX 57 has no problem hitting 3 ghz ( yes I know its less then a 10% overclcok) but the fact it?s stable at 2.8 already is a good sign.

The fact that it's stable @ 2.8ghz on 1.375v is just awesome..I wish I had some money to blow, because 3.2 and higher is just ridiculous..
 

irev210

Senior member
Jun 15, 2002
335
0
76
Seems like it is cherry picked.

Our x2 4800+ over here needed over 1.6V to be stable past 2.8.

We are maxed out at about 2.84 with a 355mhz FSB and memory @ DDR 568.


Very happy, but this was a retail boxed unit, not a sample, so I guess reality struck.

 

Duvie

Elite Member
Feb 5, 2001
16,215
0
71
I agree I can get 1.6ghz at 1.52v stable but I bet 2.65ghz would take 1.57v and I wouldn't dare go over 1.5v with air cooling IMHO....
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,547
651
126
Originally posted by: Duvie
I agree I can get 1.6ghz at 1.52v stable but I bet 2.65ghz would take 1.57v and I wouldn't dare go over 1.5v with air cooling IMHO....
Duvie, you mentioned you're getting a XP-90 correct? With my XP-120, I'm able to run 2.7ghz dual-primed @ 1.5125v, temps 48c.

I've played around w/ 2.75ghz @ 1.525v but haven't tried for stability yet. Going up to 1.5375v, I haven't been able to get 2.8ghz yet and not sure I want to go to 1.55v.