The Official OC (OverClocking) Thread!

Haskins: I hate to say it, but there really is some fanboyism showing through. Right now though it is obvious that ATI are helping keep AMD afloat.

Russ: Wow, going for the word count world record?
The best vs best argument is never going to work. Intel produce far more expensive CPus than AMD which aren't designed to compete with AMD at all. As irrelevant as such comparisons are directly, it still means Intel is in better stead, as if someone wants a fast CPU and can afford one, it has to be Intel, no other option. Only the midrange buyer with a more sensible budget (Granted, more common) can even consider an AMD processor.
As you say, the Phenom II X4 940 is designed to compete with the Q9400. However, in more situations than not (But not necessarily yours) the Q9400 is the superior processor on performance, and above that, it's also cheaper, at least in the UK. Plus, it has the option of an OEM product in some instances to save additional cost. Once again, not as common, but Intel at least provide the option.

I'll ignore everything you post about i7 and price as you claim people being out of work means it's useless. As I proved, it's starting to sell well, and truth is, most people can afford the extra £90 for a vastly better system, with in my mind, more future potential. The new upcoming addition of the i7 975 to the lineup makes this even more obvious.
Simply put, they're not as common because they're very high end, but to say they are getting such poor sales they'll be axed just isn't true. Sales are really picking up.

There are lots of people out of work in the UK as well, but not everybody is. Lots of people still have jobs, and the i7 still sells. If it didn't sell at all it'd already be gone. Developing the new i7 975 shows it has a future. AMD haven't added a more powerful Phenom II to their lineup yet.

On the E5200 vs E6750 front You have to try and see past clock speed and cache. True, it is perhaps this misguided cling-on to raw statistics that keeps your fanaticism with the second-fiddle AMDs alive, but ultimately the E5200 is the better chip at everything except cache-specific video encodes. Once again, being better at all but one thing is being better overall. The fact that the E5200 only uses 50W versus the E6750's 65 and X2 7750's 90 also helps considerably.

Also, who cares about PC chips boards? Nobody in their right mind gets a system with a high end CPU and a board that's made of horse poo. Also, you've compared a low end CPU, the Phenom II 920 to the i7, a completely irrelevant comparison as the vast majority of the Core 2s can beat it, even the Q6700 can. That comparison is frankly clutching at straws, you don't convince me, I doubt you'll convince many others who aren't already blindly following the future being fusion.

Sound familiar? I suggest you take a long hard look at that one yourself.

 

Sam,
I very much agree about the fast CPU. Once you get past the Phenom II in performance, Intel has no competition!

The x4 940 vs the Q9400? Th 940 is competitive, that's all it need to be for the moment. Here' it's $5 cheaper than the Q9400. I wouldn't buy an OEM because of the loss of 2 years of my warranty. To top that off, no warranty from Intel is provided at all. The only warranty is from the seller! http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115131
If you want to be completely fair, it does a bit more than you are willing to give it credit for. I went through all the tests in the Anandtech article Sophocles posted and counted them. I didn't split hairs either, as if it was a couple of points different either way, I called it a tie! sue me! The results were interesting as out of all the tests, the x4 940 garnered 10 wins, 1 competitive, 4 losses and 8 ties. Now what was that you were you saying about in more situations than not that the Q9400 was better?? I don't think so, but I am willing to say that they are very competitive with one another and leave it at that!

I'm glad the Core i7 sells good over there, and I wish it did here as well, because without the US market it can't make it. Here it doesn't sell for beans! Even if it does survive, until the prices come down to be a lot more competitive, I won't buy one anyway!

Don't be doing a Shaff! And don't be putting words in my mouth either. I never said that because people are out of work that i7 was useless, I said that they can't afford to buy it! Maybe in the UK they can afford it, but the average person here in the States cannot!

You'll have to show me where I compared a x4 920 to an i7! I never said any such thing! The lists I got from Newegg, were the lowest prices I could find for CPU, MB and memory, and it's nowhere near what you claimed! Maybe in the UK, but not here! That's the best I could come up with.

Then we get to the 5200/6750 and you have to get nasty? Why?

You don't like AMD! Get over it! There's no need to be insulting! Gee, that last line looks like another contradiction to me! Before you were saying that the E5200 would do better by 20%. I do a lot of encoding. It's the primary reason I bought this chip! That makes it pretty ideal to me!

If you want to talk about fanaticism, go talk to haskins69, and take a good look at yourself while you're at it. I went to an AMD from a fast C2D. Since I don't want the C2D back, I guess that means I'm happy with what I have. I'm not claiming that the Kuma is better, but I am claiming that it's as least as good, for the work I do with it, as the C2D was, and in some instances like encoding, it's better! That's more than enough for me!

Russ

 

I'll just say this because your rich friends are not buying i7's means nothing the rich are ******** who put their money above all else
and to claim the i7 is going to be slowly scaled back or what ever is kindly put silly
that's like saying anti-gravity cost to much right now so people won't use it .....come on guy's be sinceable about this , if some one came up with anti-gravity right now they would be rich and it would be applied to all it could be
the same with the i7 you think we are the bread and butter of intel or AMD?
hell no Gov. is and they pay $300.00 for a toilet seat so I'd hate to see what they pay for their special chips they get
and to claim AMD decieded not to compete with the i7 if true is stupid the AM2+ and AM3 barely compete with the socket 775's and on top end fail to compete at all and you call it good buisness
and top that with the i7 which AMD has no answer to and I see AMD already 2 step's behind there
and the 8+ core cpu's are coming and quicker than you say and the intigrated GPU's are coming also
and simply put if AMD doesn't get it togheter they'll be 4 step's behind there of course you'll claim I'm stubborn and the AMD want's it that way or made a decision to be in secound place..........get real no company want's to be secound best just like you don't want to be secound and I don't
so claiming their right where they want to be is a out and out lie!!
they wish they made the i7 and they wish they could compete with Intel , but at this point and time they can't and if they don't fix it soon [before the next great improvement] they will fail as a company...it's that simple

and the fact that you don't even allow the core i7 on the same level as your beloved AMD shows how desperate you are to make your own rules the simple statement I made was best against best you don't feel that's fair
so I said 2.66Ghz i7 against your 3.0Ghz AMD you claim it's not fair because the i7 is so much better [ which is my whole point] even though it's clock speed is slower
so I sugjest qx9770 and you throw a cow about it's cost and it being .2Ghz faster and you claim it's not a fair race either
so I said q9650 3.0Ghz against your 3.0Ghz AMD and while you couldn't bitch much about price you still claimed it wasn't a fair race
well let me guess you want to set your own rules that are skewed towards AMD then you'll call it fair right??

here's a fair one q9550s 2.83 Ghz against your 3.0Ghz AMD , both quad's both in basicly the same price range [ don't bitch about $100 one way or another to most that won't matter]and I even used a slower Intel so your retarded AMD can keep up since it can't seem to compete on a level field with other 3.0Ghz cpu's
now I never check stat's on this mix but I bet Intel wins again with a slower cpu
so I admit this AMD make a good Cpu
to some like you one of the best
but the truth is intel is smoking them in every way possible now and to claim the i7 is to good and cost to much so their gonna shelve it is wish full thinking
In my 47 years I've seen technology be hiden from us by Gov. if to good , but I've never seen a product be shelved because it's to good , no instead when this has happened in the past the better[ intel] moved forward and the worst[ AMD] failed and went out of buisness
you know how it goes records went bye , bye because of cassettes and cassettes went bye , bye because of cd's ect....
and yes if AMD doesn't get on the ball and compete with intel it to will go bye bye that's buisness and how it's worked since before you or I were born and it's not gonna change any time soon
the newer better technology will alway's be the one used and it will always be the one to make money and the will be the ones still in busness in 10 yr's and since AMD's top cpu is OH....about number 7 from the top of the list of cpu's I'd say they got work to do


OH and the cost of a i7 my nephew just bought a i7 920 rig a couple weeks ago and he's a stock boy at county market grociery store , and no he doesn't live with mommy he lives no his own so I wouldn't call it over priced I just think those with money are being wise and making sure the all bugs are worked out before they buy one

 

Every product sold in the UK carries a one year retailer's warranty except stuff with a legally accepted fixed life expectancy of less than a year.
Pray tell, what is doing a Shaff in this context? Hotly disagreeing with you about something?

You don't like the truth it seems, either. The Q9400 and Phenom II 940 is neither here nor there as while I still think the Q9400 is the superior CPU, there isn't enough in it to de facto state outright that the Intels are anything but similar.

That would be this bit then.

You can't say you're not comparing them, that's a lie and you know it. They're next to each other with total prices for a reason. You've gone for the cheapest i7 setup and the cheapest Phenom II setup. Thing is, i7 is a premium-grade platform, and as such, they don't make dire motherboards for it like the one you chose, so already you're comparing a quality system to the bare basic one from reliability issueville.
What I did was compare how cheaply I could build an i7 system for how cheaply I could build a Phenom II system TO THE SAME STANDARD, the only difference being the i7 would be faster (I tried to close the gap by at least using the 940) and have more RAM. Even with 6GB versus 4GB the i7 is only 25% more expensive, with 3GB it'd be even closer.

It sounds nasty, but in reality, it's the truth. I do not have any bad feelings for you Russ, but I'm trying to be a deliberate pain in the backside to try and gleam from you what exactly your stance is on this, and if it's how I think it is (That AMD are the best thing that sliced bread, and don't deserve any criticism at all) then I'm aiming to change it.
My main argument here has nothing to do with the 7750. More, you seem so confident that the 7750 is king of the hill, that because it beats the E6750 (which it does, no argument here), it must also beat the E5200, since you think that's a worse chip than the 6750. The reverse is true, and in fact the E5200 is actually the better product than the 7750. I'm trying to make you aware that the 6750 sits at the bottom of the pile.

Am I an Anti-AMD crusader? No. Do I hate AMD? No, if AMD wouldn't exist, neither would ATI, whom I think are doing very well at the moment. What I do think though, is AMD still have to pull their socks up to be competitive. Right now, they are being over-glorified in this forum primarily by yourself. Some people prefer AMD systems as you do, and that's fine. But frankly, if people just want the best for their money, I direct them to an Intel. I don't force them, I can't, all I can say is they'd be better off with an Intel, and more often than not they would.


This is all very reminiscent of Intel vs AMD.


Haskins: As hot as this debate is, you're going to have to watch the language, this argument will barely be tolerated by mods, let alone that language.

 

I don't know what their problem would be ...let's see I said stupid , hell , bitch , damn and silly all words you can see on tv and hear daily in life I didn't call anyone names other than Amd and that claiming a certain Idea was stupid which is not a attack on a person but their way of thinking
what's worst being blunt but truthfull , or twisting the truth so that it fit's your Idea of how thing's are/should be
if mods have trouble with that then I'd guess their AMD people and just trying to shut me up
but me I'd give the twister hell for twisting fact's [lying to me ] and not the truth teller for being blunt if I was a mod after all this is supposed to be a info forum not a I'll make it up because I feel this way and you have to accept it forum , the truth is the truth , whether I'm blunt about it or not and these folks won't accept the facts they would rather twist fact and make the rules up as they go to make AMD sound great
Me I'd rather be cussed than Lied to any day
at least a cussing is truthfull and honest
some people only understand blunt in this messed up world

 

No, it's more obvious than that, an 8-letter word beginning with d in the first line of your last post.

 

OK sammy missed that one but fixed it now but again I never called anyone here that just the rich in general and that's a subject that I could go on about for day's in it's self but this is not the forum for that
also some one said that the i7 was for enthuisiste not nomal computer people
to me enthuisiest are overclockers and isn't this the overclocking thread ?
if not then I'm in the wrong spot , sorry

but since this is overclocking thread then I'm right on target

 

Not the point, still swearing, and still inappropriate for younger users to see, and against forum rules.
Any tech can be discussed in the Overclocking thread. It's still valid to criticise a technology for being out of reach of most people though, even if it's overclock-friendly. However, I agree, there's no real need for the slamming of either side. I just like to correct false facts, which a lot of Russ' info, atleast on the i7 if not anything else is, mostly pertaining to poor sales and future prospects.

 

Talking of overclocking, Shaff has just linked me this.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-280-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1272

As if the i7 920 wasn't already overclockable enough, reaching 4 gig on the EX58-Extreme.

 

removed the word in question so no trouble [in my opionion ] and that's my whole point if they are gonna list AMD as being as good as intel then put a 3.0 Ghz against a 3.0 Ghz and then call the race not a 2.66Ghz against a 3.0Ghz and claim your 3.0Ghz is better because that's a no brainer
how would they feel if I ran a 3.0 Ghz intel against a 2.66 Ghz AMD and I then called the intel better they would crawl up my *** over the un-even test
and that's all I'm doing to them
if fair is fair then they should live by it also
and they should just accept that AMD's best still run's in about 7th place compared to the top 7 intel chip's

no arguement , no lying and not rigging the test to get the out come you want

just basic truth and fact's

 

Forget clock speed. It's all about performance for price. Right now AMD still don't win that, but they aren't very far behind at all, it's hadly that Intel smash AMD. The big thing is that Intel do actually offer something to those who can spend more than £190. Almost every system I've built has budgeted £250 for the CPU, and the same goes for a lot of others. The Q9550 and i7 920 fit that (just) and that's a big leap over Intel.

 

I got a 3.0Ghz c2d [e6850] and I wish I had the money for a i7 but don't at this time
but if I was gonna build a new rig I would save up and buy a i7 [motherboard and ram included of course] because that's the way thing's are headed and if I'm going to invest in a new rig I'd want the out put to be justified by the ablity to up grade later if I got more money later
and well while qx977o is a good cpu why buy it at it's cost when you could buy a i7 for less [even the 965] and why buy a AMD at all since it's basicly obsolete [ and so is the 775 socket intels] as far as upgrades go simply if AMD creates a better chip it to will most likely also require a new motherboard and ram since to do what the i7 does you need faster ram and better designed motherboards

actualy I'm suprized the qx9770 is still so high priced [ $1499.00 ]since the i7-965 beat's it hands down and is cheaper [$999.99 ] , but still if I was gonna run it I would have a DDR-3 board for it also
and to upgrade from there to a i7 would only require the cpu and motherboard then at first [ of course you'd upgrade to faster and matched DDR-3 later]
but even then these people miss lead you into thinking it would cost so much to upgrade the ASUS P6T is only $239.00 and you can get a EVGA for $254.00 now of course you can spend more the EVGA classified is $458.00 and I would buy it if I had the money but why if you can't afford it and there are so many good boards between $200.00-$300.00 price range
My striker II formula was $400.00 when it first came out I didn't see any one complain about it being to good[ it isn't matter of fact I wish I'd of got a EVGA ] and costing to much those who could afford it bought it those that couldn't didn't but price didn't shelve it.........LOL

and mark my words the socket 775's and all AMD's are going to go the way of the single core cpu's it's just a matter of time technology alway's goes forwards not backwards

 

The E6850 is an older CPU, but it's still surprisingly capable. It beats every Dual core AMD currently has to offer, and it even beats The Phenom X3 8205,8400,8450,8600 and 8650 at pretty much anything arithmetic, taking on the 8750 in certain things. It can only outpace the 9100 and 9150 X4s, but can occasionally give the 9350 a run for its money. Of course, on a per-core basis it's faster than any AMD CPU regardless, that's perhaps what it is you were trying to say earlir.
Agreed on the i7, If I were to build a new rig nowadays it'd be an i7, and a friend of mine (who before I'm asked is not rich, but wants a decent new PC) asked for a build and I spec'ed him an i7.

The QX9770 is a bit of an enigma really, I'm not entirely sure of its purpose. Before the i7s came out it was the no holds barred extreme CPU, but it's now a bit of a dinosaur in that regard.
Why would you buy the EVGA Classified at twice the price? What else does it give you? I can't see any advantages at all.
Please don't tell me you think the Striker II Formula was good!

 

no like all 780i's it's junk high priced junk I should of gone with a intel chip set but at the time intel chips wouldn't do 3x sli and while I still can't afford 3x sli cards and since 2x would be the best [2x- GTX 295] it kinda a moot point
and yes I know it's a good cpu [e6850] but like most dreamers I would like better stronger and faster [kinda like the six million dollar man ] and untill the new 8+core or intigrated GPU -cpu's come out the i7 has it of course being poor I would only be able to get the i7-940 at best since I would have to buy ram and motherboard to upgrade from here unless I hit the lottery a i7-965 would be out

and why the classifed , well if your gonna buy a corrvett motor you don't put it in a MG midget [ well maybe you would but that's a monster of a different color] no I would like a classifed because of all the options it offers hopefully they would help extend the life of my investment though the overclocking and upgradeablity

but to me the mother board is the base of it all if you got a good or great one you can alway's change cpu's for the faster later and you can upgrade the Ram as needed later
and one last note I was able to get my E6850 to 3.82Ghz with little or no trouble or changes other than Mhz so while I have had trouble with the Striker series [5 striker extremes and 4 Striker II formulas in a year and a half] with zero overclocking till the last one [ I figured if it was gonna fail I may as well have fun]
this one run's 20 degree cooler than last not sure if it's the design or the newer bios but it is cooler running and seems more stable so maybe after a year of mess up's they got it closer to right

 

Phew, good to know.
Intel Chips still can't do triple SLI on their own without the GT200 chip I believe, which means you're still open to the nforce related badness. Skulltrail was the only independent triple-SLI system I believe. This said, as you say, a pair of GTX295s do do well, but for the absolute best, a trio of GTX280s or GTX285s would do better, as they have enough RAM to run at higher detail settings. The HD4870X2 Quad crossfire system is a lot more Intel friendly, and performs very well lower down, and the best of all when the going really gets tough due to ATI's better memory management.
So a normal i7 board is an MG Midget? perhaps if there was a P31-ES3G that fit i7s. Ultimately you're talking the same thing. The EVGA board gives you nothing extra a board half the price offers. The best overclocking boards are Asuses, and the much cheaper Biostar isn't far behind. It's all moot for the top end boards as the EX58-Extreme and UD5 can do as well as the best of them for much less. Asus and EVGA just make top end expensive boards to get more money from people who think they'll get something better. The fact is, with i7 at least, it's all a big con.

 

your most likely right , it's all just bragging right's I guess and the EVGA Classifed like my striker II formula even when broke they sure are pretty ...........LMAO ...if it wasn't so sadly true

but to be fair the claims and post I've read claim the "Classifed" is suppose to be good enough to be able to set new records with the 920 , haven't read any yet but that's the claim

 

Well let's see some before I tell people to spend what could upgrade them to an i7 940 shall we?

 

I'll look into it so and see what i can find
but of ourse if anyone could afford the i7-940 then by all means I'd go for it , of course if I could I'd get the i7-965 to but that's just me I would want the bragging right's and the extra power/speed

Oh and about that Striker II formula I'm running I'll say this when /since it's running it does run well very well my only problem after going though 9 ASUS strikers , is for how long??

 

How much of a performance increase does Kentsfield give over Conroe?
I know this topic has been discussed over and over again, I just want to know how today's software uses the 4 cores of the Kentsfield vs. the 2 of the Conroe.
Software such as Vista (with the new SP and everything).
-im1992

 

Sam,
Here's the information I quoted about the sales of the Core i7

http://www.canardpc.com/statscpuz-cpu-en.html

Best Regards,
Russ