| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 44562 | 2004-04-23 02:51:00 | P4 or AMD | dwnz2003 (5250) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 231397 | 2004-04-24 22:45:00 | > Well i had my Athlon 1800+ @ 2.2ghz for about 3months > on a stock cooler, does that count? So you consider that sort of overclock can be achieved on most AMD CPU's using the same run of the mill fan that has come out of the box? Lo. |
Lohsing (219) | ||
| 231398 | 2004-04-24 23:04:00 | > > Well i had my Athlon 1800+ @ 2.2ghz for about > 3months > > on a stock cooler, does that count? > > So you consider that sort of overclock can be > achieved on most AMD CPU's using the same run of the > mill fan that has come out of the box? > > Lo. Just like Intel most AMD cpu's wont overclock like that, it come down to the fact the fastest chips are often reaching their max. But when buying a lower speed chip with the right core (e.g for AMD the T-Bred or Barton cores) and certain chips also develop reputations as solid overclockers (e.g for AMD 1600+(Palmino) 1Ghz(Thunderbird) 1700+(T-Bred) 2500+(Barton). There is no reason why any 2500+ shouldnt overclock to 3200+ speeds. Its barely regarded as a overclock as its soooo easy. |
Pete O'Neil (250) | ||
| 231399 | 2004-04-24 23:25:00 | I understand what you are saying, but my question was specifically in relation to the type of cooling necessary for such an overclock... Does the AMD require a different fan to achieve these overclocks? Lo. |
Lohsing (219) | ||
| 231400 | 2004-04-24 23:27:00 | No not really AMD's retail coolers are getting better all the time. Temps are a lil high compared to what is possiable(not sure what sort of temps P4's get when overclocked on stock cooler? cant be that great?) I was gettin around 45 degrees under load. Its now been replaced with a Thermaltake SLK-900U and temps never go over 40 degrees. | Pete O'Neil (250) | ||
| 231401 | 2004-04-25 02:12:00 | By faster i mean faster at booting and playing games. But also running normal programs. From what i have read the Intel does about 95% of the test's faster than the AMD. | dwnz2003 (5250) | ||
| 231402 | 2004-04-25 02:17:00 | Pete is right, the stock AMD heatsinks have come a long way since the dinky old coolermaster/foxconn paperweights they used to arrive with . There's so much misguided nonsense in this thread . Let's take a quick peek at another ongoing argument that doesnt have enough unbiased-voices-of-reason: windows vs linux both camps make valid points but the argument remains . The baseline truth is this funny little cardinal rule: OS is generally IRRELEVANT . It is all down to the admin and the purpose . Mismatch the purpose and/or the admin and you probably wont have much success . Now let us bring this back to amd vs intel both camps make valid points (and a lot of propoganda rubbish, take a bow intel) but the argument remains . The baseline truth is this funny little cardinal rule that no-one seems to know: CPU is generally IRRELEVANT . What makes or breaks a system is the motherboard, and possibly more importantly, the chipset(s) that it uses . Mismatch a CPU to a motherboard/chipset and you probably wont have much success . If you buy an AMD cpu and pair it with a crap chipset, the cpu will still do its job just as if it had been paired with a good chipset . The system itself will be crippled by the crap chipset, not the CPU . The same holds true for Intel based systems . So guiding any nonsensical rubbish about the cpu itself being unstable, unreliable yadeyadeyada is silly . Get a pricerange, get a list of requirements, find the best motherboards for both camps to suit your needs (dont forget: you get what you pay for) and then with the rest of your budget factor in a CPU and decide . Base your decision on expected performance, featureset (one motherboard may have more features than the other) or in shorter terms bang for the buck rating . A lot of people put the CPU as the first decision and build around that . I would generally put the CPU towards the end - Motherboard and Ram first . If you get a crap motherboard and crap ram, then it will reflect in performance (or lack thereof) and stability (or lack thereof) and it wont matter what CPU you've got, because the CPU doesnt make as much difference as popular opinion would have you believe . In fact right now I would put the decision on which hard drive to use over the decision of which cpu to use . This is because software is WAY behind hardware at the moment, so there's no point getting the fastest cpu when you could be focusing on more elegant ways to improve performance by reducing the storage performance bottleneck . Generally speaking however, if you want a system that is relatively set and forget then you'd be best to go with something intel based . If however you dont mind tweaking here and there to squeeze out some performance or nut out a hardware problem, then an AMD based solution would be the go . There is obviously some overlap between the two . |
whetu (237) | ||
| 231403 | 2004-04-25 02:24:00 | How does that work? because if you buy the motherboard first you may not be using the CPU that you want... You have to choose the CPU first so that you know what type of motherboard you have to buy.... dwnz |
dwnz2003 (5250) | ||
| 231404 | 2004-04-25 02:56:00 | >>How does that work? quite simply really once some grey matter is applied >>because if you buy the motherboard first you may not be using the CPU that you want . . . wants are irrelevant . needs are more important than wants . You may want the fastest cpu there is but do you need to sacrifice stability and performance to get it? Stop thinking about building pc's in a brute force approach, because your money can be better spent on a computer that is far more elegantly balanced and scalable . Such a pc would probably last a lot longer before an upgrade is required, and may perform the same if not better than a "brute force design" >>You have to choose the CPU first so that you know what type of motherboard you have to buy . . . . Who says? I was unaware that this was a written and agreed upon law of all computer architecture planning and implimentation . Look at it this way, worrying about the CPU over everything else is like worrying about the roof of a house you're building and whether or not it will keep you warm and dry . A roof is effectively useless if it is based upon a poor or nonexistent foundation . Foundation first, frilly bits later . Admittedly I should have been a bit more specific, when I said: >Get a pricerange, get a list of requirements, find the best motherboards >for both camps to suit your needs (dont forget: you get what you pay >for) and then with the rest of your budget factor in a CPU and decide . >Base your decision on expected performance, featureset (one >motherboard may have more features than the other) or in shorter >terms bang for the buck rating . I was meaning that on paper build two pc's for either camp within a set list of requirements (pricerange, your needs) and then compare the two against your list of needs in terms of bang for the buck and make your decision . |
whetu (237) | ||
| 231405 | 2004-04-25 03:00:00 | i dno i reckon u need to choose a cpu brand and speed range not the cpu dwnz |
dwnz2003 (5250) | ||
| 231406 | 2004-04-25 06:38:00 | I would disagree with Whetu's theory as well, the cpu defines the system so would be my first decision, irrelevant to what cpu you have purchased if you match it up with a crap motherboard then your simply a dumbass. | metla (154) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | |||||