The Official OC (OverClocking) Thread!

Sophocles,
The only reason I linked to the guru3d.com, was it had a much more comprehensive coverage of different games, which to my eyes at least, gives a better picture of the overall gaming performance. I only linked to the conclusion page because it sums it all up, but the whole article can easily be read, with a fair number of games tested!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

http://techreport.com/r.x/phenom-ii/warhead.gif
http://techreport.com/r.x/phenom-ii/wb-overall.gif
http://techreport.com/r.x/phenom-ii/wb-winzip.gif
http://techreport.com/r.x/phenom-ii/wb-nero.gif
http://techreport.com/r.x/phenom-ii/wb-photoshop.gif
http://techreport.com/r.x/phenom-ii/pfactory-total.gif


There are a few tests in which the Phenom IIs do perform well, but overall, the majority of the results lead me to think the Phenom II is either matching, or slightly behind the Q9400, which is what I said.

 

Sam,
since I have no idea when those tests were conducted, or what components, especially what motherboard and chipsets were being used, because even at stock speeds, it still makes a big difference. All I can say is Anandtech, Tom's Hardware and Guru3d.com, as well as others, don't seem to agree! There are also a number of links posted in the AMD thread, that show the same results. At the time they were posted, it was very clear that while there were a number of 790GX motherboards available, apparently only a few of them were ready for the Phenom II. GigaByte and Biostar had the best, followed at a distance by Asus and MSI. Both Asus and MSI could get them to overclock pretty well, but the voltage it took to do it was very high. Asus has since worked that problem out, but the last I heard, MSI was still scratching their heads! DFI has come up with a MB that's as good as the BioStar and the gigaByte's are, as well! Asus even managed to make an nVidia Chipset MB that performed well with a Phenom II in it, at reasonable voltages, 1.522v! That's what AMD's engineers told MSI, was the limit!

I would very much appreciate it if you could come up with the article link for those pics, please.

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Dang it Sammy.... I'm tired of all this fabrication of numbers and such... find something that the Phenom does better at than something that Intel has put out in the last 6 months.

....gm

add: it's a joke and adding some fun to YOUR ridiculous back and forth BS about AMD and Intel... who GIVES A SH!T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

add2: Sorry but aimed at 2 fellas in here.... NOT just ONE.

 

http://techreport.com/articles.x/16147

Just let it die, the AMD doesn't win all the time, or even most of the time. Yes, there are situations where it's faster than the Q9400, but only certain tests.

 

Russ I am really surprised that you could make the claim that the Guru3D review is more balanced than the Anandtech review. The X 4 940 overclocked to 3.8 GHz is being compared to other processors running at their stock speeds. Even an i7 at 2.66 GHz is going to lose some challenges when pitted against a highly over clocked 940, but if it was compared to even a moderately overclocked i7 920 (which still beats it in many benchmarks at stock) the i7 would beat the X4 940 in everything. Even a stock Q9400 at 2.66 GHz will beat the X4 940 at stock speeds.

On top of that the games used by Anadtech are just as balanced as those used by Guru3D only fewer of them, but let’s look at what they both had in common, Crysis which is the standard for game benchmarking. Notice that in the Anandtech image the X4 940 and all other processors are at stock speeds. For overclockers that along with a processor’s potential overclock is always the starting point. I understand that Guru3D wanted show the X4 940’s potential but it’s unfair to take a processor overclocked to 800 MHz faster than its stock speed and then declare it as fast as all the others at stock speed.

 

I can't say I've looked at the Guru test, but that would make sense. A Phenom II beating an i7 in any test is nonsensical. No doubt I'll get slammed because the motherboards cost a bit more (not even a lot more nowadays) but the £191 Phenom II 940 barely competes bang for buck against the £239 i7 920.

 

The i7 motherboards do cost more but that shouldn't have any bearings on whether a test is balanced or not. If the discussion had been about building a budget performer and then part of that demonstration was to show that an overclocked X4 940 can reach comparable speeds to other more expensive stock Intel's then I'm all for it. But to take an X4 940 overclocked 800 MHz over its stock speed and then compare it to others that are left at stock speed is an unfair comparison. My guess is that Russ missed this little line under each benchmark.

Phenom II X4 940@3.8

 

A 26.7% overclock. It's worth pointing out that that is about as far as overclocking a Phenom II gets before it starts to get a bit more tricky. Maybe 30-35% at best.
A Q9400, the Phenom II's closest rival, when overlocked 26.7% puts it at 3.38Ghz, a very easy speed to achieve. If it's like the Q9450 (and I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise) you can make 3.6 before it gets tricky, which is 35%.
Beyond that, an i7 920 can go as far as 4Ghz as proven by a guide posted by Gigabyte. Scaling back a bit, it would at least manage 3.7, which is a significant 39%.

 

I'm nobody but I been watching this post a couple weeks now and what I see Is die hard AMD people who are not able to accept the fact that AMD can't hold a candle to Intel chips
face it simply put Intels best against AMD's best and the story is told
AMD is simply way behind in this race and untill they make a new chip design will be
I mean come on putting a 2.66 Ghz Intel against a 3.0Ghz AMD and the 3.0Ghz AMD still loses
Not really much to fight about here unless you want to really piss them off and put a i7 - 965 3.2Ghz against the 3.0Ghz AMD
and then laugh at the AMD people
I'm not saying AMD is no good as a matter of fact for the price their damn good
they just are not on the same par as Intel chips right now

 

I don't want to start a fight but that's exactly what I think is happening as well, Haskings.

 

should be no fight the truth is the truth

It's that simple

if anyone complains then they are starting the fight not you or me

I just basicly stated simple fact's which I could back up with graphs and report's but why? it would be stupid to post /or waste my time posting stuff that's widely known by non- AMD people and that can be found just by using google , unless they just don't want to know or believe the truth kinda remindes me of Harley verses any other bike the harley rides will never give in even when the ninja blows there doors off [I'm a harley guy my self but not so close minded to not see the big performance differance , I just perfer the ride my self , the 200 mph with your hair on fire is for the younger than me now day's]

 

Sophocles,
My apologies, I didn't snap to the fact the the Apps tests were all done at both the x4 940@3.8 and the stock 3.0. The print is real tiny, and you were right, I just missed it in the Apps! LOL!! My main interest was the games, and there they gave both stock speed and overclocked results and had them shown separately. I don't think it would be a fair result if they hadn't! I think it would have been better had they had not shown the OC'd results vs stock though, as it's meaningless. I agree that they should have overclocked the others as well, as it unfairly implies things that aren't true!

BTW, you are right, the Anandtech article certainly was thorough enough. Don't know how I missed it!

Sorry for the mistake,
Russ

greensman,

GM,
We are having a "discussion" here, we aren't angry or fighting about it. The x4 940 is competitive with the Q9400, and the x2 920 competes with the Q8200. All 4 are comparable in performance, and all can OC pretty well in the right motherboards. You should have been here in the Intel vs AMD days. Then, the discussions got pretty lively from time to time. LOL!! Just ask Sophocles or Sam!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

It's all relative to purpose and price. The $215 X4 940 is fast as or faster at stock than a Q6600 on games, and it is a better overclocker than the Q6600. When it comes to encoding X264 at stock speeds it's almost as fast or even a little faster than even a Q9650 at stock for $210 less, and both are comparable overclockers with perhaps a little advantage to the Q9650. Many people out there will benefit far more from its encoding abilities than they will from gaming. I would, but then my Q9550 is a slightly better overclocker than the X4 940 but then it's also $155 more. The X4 940 is a really decent product for its price and there is no reason for any conflict regarding Intel and AMD differences because they both fill a market niche.

I know that it looks like I'm playing both sides of the argument, but I'm not. I was just debunking some claims by Russ that were obviosly in error.

 

I'll be honest, the closest it got was when the performance of the initial Core 2 Duos wasn't fully realised. From then onwards, Intel have smashed AMD, and up until then AMD literally obliterated Intel. It's often a bit one-sided... haha

 

wowo my lowly E8400 can kick some azz still.. right in the hunt with all them big boys. AMD or INTEL.... im pleased at that....lol

 

Yeah, the E8400 has some serious grunt, especially when overclocked. It only loses out in fully multi-threaded benchmarks. Left 4 Dead and Crysis Warhead are not, needless to say x264 is.

 

i cant coplain one bit about it. other than mine isnt a EO stepping...lol
3.6ghz with auto settings is hard to beat. not that im gona try any higher once i get my new board back from gigabyte i might just try 3.7ghz for giggles. i know it will do it. i am looking at some of them ENZO coolers that Russ has mentioned so often. might have to find some over at microcenter if they have them. seeing i had the SB issue(which was there from the get go) it wont hurt helping with the temps....

 

Sam,
Make that very one sided, but while you can say haha if you like, but remember the the one really doing the laughing is Intel! I might remind you that their laughter is at our expense! The phenom-II is a work in progress, and with each new one that's been released, the performance has improved. The full bells and whistles AM2+/AM3 Phenom II, coming around mid year should be a significant improvement in terms of power consumption and performance, as we've yet to see the Metal Gate transistors. I know you've voiced your thoughts about that, but the fact remains that AMD was able to get this far with 45nm without them, while Intel could not! Every version of the Phenom II has been an improvement over their previous revisions to the point they are now competitive with some of the Intel's Quads in both price and performance.

Look at the prices im1992 was talking about that he pays for an Intel CPU. I've just found out from a friend that worked for Intel, that employees buy at a fixed Production cost, which is far less than wholesale reseller cost! That tells me the one benefiting the most is Intel! They make the most money on them! That also tells me that the better and more competitive the Phenom II gets, the less it's going to cost all of us for either Intel or AMD CPUs in the future, and that's a very good thing for all of us!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Haskins69,
I'm sorry, but that's not quite right, as the Phenom II x4 940 is very competitive against the Q9400. The x4 920 is competitive with the Q8200. Both are very much on a par with Intel in their own price/performance range. I understand what you mean, but comparing the Phenom II to the Core i7 is ridiculous. The best, to be sure, but simply unaffordable for most people It's an entirely different breed of CPU, and very high end, while the Phenom II was never intended to be competition for i7, so it's a moot point. I mean even a cheepie i7 920 build, with the required hardware, costs more than twice as much.

To some people raw speed is everything, and I used to feel that way myself. Now I don't care that much about speed, but I'm more interested in what the machine can actually do for me! I went from a very fast E6750 to the x2 7750BE, and for the things I do with a computer, the 7750BE is the better chip for me. It's nowhere near as good by the numbers and tests as the E6750 at 3.55GHz, but for what I do, it's better. I do a good bit of Encoding, and I'm happy with it, even though the improvement is somewhat marginal, with only a 3 to 7 minute advantage over the E6750 while encoding, which should improve when the new motherboard get's here, as I'm limited to 3.2GHz at the moment on the bad one. It's already been to 3.6GHz on the DS4H I returned to Newegg, so I'm expecting at least that with the new UD4H! It's been an exercise for me that's taught me a lot and has me looking forward to the next generation Phenom II! Just because AMD has nothing at the moment to challenge i7, means little! Even if they did, it would be the wrong time for it, unless it was really cheap! Many more people are going to buy Phenom IIs than will be buying i7s, because most people don't have the money to afford the $600 or more it costs for the CPU, Motherboard and Memory, and that's going cheap. My whole build didn't cost that much, and could have cost even less. Even after adding $50 to the price for the hard drive I had already, the whole thing still came to less than $600 for brand new everything! I'm also very happy with it's performance. It's also my first AMD build for myself, ever!

I had to save this for last because it is so wrong! In fact, I've yet to meet any AMD fan who felt that way! What it is, is that they like their AMDs, and don't really care about Intel at all, one way or the other. Most of the flack they get is from people telling them how stupid they are, or how they could have gotten a better deal with Intel. They just don't seem to understand that they really don't care. They are just very happy with what they have! It only seems to matter to the people who don't own one!

Best Regards,
Russ