• 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.

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

Of course it's cherry picked 😛

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

I'm sure that as the X2s mature, getting to 3 GHz will be a reality eventually 🙂
 
Originally posted by: n7
Of course it's cherry picked 😛

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

I'm sure that as the X2s mature, getting to 3 GHz will be a reality eventually 🙂
Click to expand...


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+
 
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...
 
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!
 
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...
Click to expand...
Do what job? It's not like the X2s are snails...
 
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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 😕

 
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..
Click to expand...

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

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 😕
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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

 
i just like the idea of RAW pWnage from the FX57, when OCed to over 3.2 😛

just a quicky, what is the average water OC for the 130nm FX55 .. just out of interest
 
Originally posted by: RichUK
i just like the idea of RAW pWnage from the FX57, when OCed to over 3.2 😛

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

what about the fx-55 sd (90nm)?
 
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 😛

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

what about the fx-55 sd (90nm)?
Click to expand...

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 ...

 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
Click to expand...

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..
 
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.

 
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....
 
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....
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top