Yep, my old FX55 had 0055 batch number and it did'nt even do 3GHz SP8M stable at any Vcore with VapoChill LS and 3 different mobo's :fact:Quote:
Originally Posted by ReelMonza
So that's it with the low batch nro :fact:
Printable View
Yep, my old FX55 had 0055 batch number and it did'nt even do 3GHz SP8M stable at any Vcore with VapoChill LS and 3 different mobo's :fact:Quote:
Originally Posted by ReelMonza
So that's it with the low batch nro :fact:
First off, if you would care to read what I wrote, you would know that I said that a low batch number doesn't always translate into a better oc'er it also depends on how good the wafer the cpu was cut from. And second of all, I never told anybody to "go get lower batch ones" as you say :rolleyes: Just because it wasn't the case with your 2 cpu's, it doesn't mean that applies for all other cpu's produced. Also, what's it to you if people end up looking for a lower batch number cpu when they decide to buy? Hey, if it can *maybe* increase the chance that the cpu was build on some solid silicon, then why not? Sure as hell, it wouldn't hurt.......BTW, are you sure that your cpu's are from the same wafer? i.e. They share the exact same serial number besides the last 4?Quote:
Originally Posted by ReelMonza
didn't the early winnie batches OC a lot better than the later ones? Of course you'd always find one that'd still OC like mad, but when compared in the masses didn't their OC's become a little worse?
In the cases of venice there was such a high demand for them especially in the beginning it seems they were just dumbing down otherwise superior chips, but this is just my speculation
@s7e9h3n, I asked you some official AMD information on what those numbers really mean and you didn't provide me, without such info it's just speculation for me and it'll still be no matter what ppl say so I don't care about those numbers mean anyway.
What you're referring to is the manuf. date and stepping. The batch code is in the serial number of the cpu.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nubius
Just a note: People, don't pay soooo much attention to that batch number. (Don't get me wrong, if I had a choice between a lower numbered cpu and a higher numbered one, personally I'd chose the lower just because.) If you're gonna buy a cpu based on the numbers on the IHS, then look first at the cpu's stepping and then go from there. Even with lowered numbered cpu's, as with every other cpu in existence, it's overclockability isn't guaranteed. Some will be studs, and some will be duds. Here's my example of a high-batch numbered stud: My Venice 3200+ LBBLE APAW batch code in the 5xx......
http://img215.echo.cx/img215/6171/cp...erified0qy.jpg
My 0515APAW is batch code 0340 and my max stable is 2760, 10 Mhz above my 24/7 speed; i hit an instant wall there.
The explanation offered earlier in a thread was that the lower batch number signified a core closer to the center of the wafer, so being closer to the center means it's better
awesome results overcrash! I should call you OC for short, it would be fitting ;)
EPAW seems much better than EPEW*
There are some things AMD doesn't document "officially" in there public records. If don't believe anything that isn't "officially documented" by AMD, then I'm sure you don't think that the .13 FX55 is built on strained silicon either.....Quote:
Originally Posted by ReelMonza
@s7e9h3n, I didn't said "I don't believe anything that isn't "officially documented" by AMD", I just don't believe that the "lower batch number" theory is actually true cause it has been proved many times that the "higher batch" ones can clock higher than lower ones.
You know, I think everybody may be misinterpreting what I was trying to say. The idea that a lower number batch code guarantees you a better OC'n cpu is not what I wanted everyone to take from my statement. It doesn't necessarily hold true for all instances, but in my experiences, it has many times. OK, think about it this way......If a wafer is a circle, and the cpu#0001 is stamped from the center, then how do you think they'll arrive at the numbers 2-????. My guess is that they'll stamp in a spiral pattern of some sorts so if a certain area of the wafer contains better silicon than another, the batch numbers from the resulting cpu's will vary. I just tend to lean towards the lowest batch numbers since, chances are, the silicon is better towards the center of the wafer. I'll try to get OPB over here....he had an awesome FX53 with an 0002 batch number......Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute_0
Just Google it and you'll find out what the numbers mean......Quote:
Originally Posted by ReelMonza
It sounds like a good theory to me, and it's certainly better than no theory. Of course i recognize that a lower batch number won't always OC better than a higher batch, but if it seems to be a general trend, then it supports the theory. Seems like lower is better to me...
I just found SPECULATION about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
So can you please point me to the document that states that the .13 FX55 contains strained silicon? Or if I google it, will I only find speculation? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ReelMonza
Or maybe there's a document or two about the A64 3400+ 939 pin cpu...or is that also just a myth?
Say what you say, I'm saying it's a myth and that's what it is, again it has been PROVED many times that so called "lower batch" ones won't clock better than "higher batch" ones, it's so hard to you to admit ?Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
Hey, I have no problem admitting that there are higher batch numbered cpu's which OC better than lower numbered ones, all I'm saying is that the majority of higher clocking cpu's, in my experiences, tend to be from lower batch numbers.....Quote:
Originally Posted by ReelMonza
Please guys, there is no need to take this in the thread, start a new discussion thread about it and it will be very on topic ;) I believe s7e9h3n's theory because it sounds logic.
Alright, if you have kept that to yourself we wouldn't have to go through this , someone else's theory would make sense but in reality it doesn't work that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
I must confirm s7e9h3n's theory/speculation since most of my cpu's with a lower batchnumber did better then my higher ones.
But then again I had a few that did the opposit.
But I still think the chance of a higher oc is with lower batchnumber (or just a low one)
Ok, I have no idea what you just said, but if you're speaking from personal experience, let me ask, how many cpu's have you been able to test, say...in the last 3 months? If your answer is your 2 dlt3c's, then you're basing your theory on either your personal experience and/or what others have said. So basically, you're speculating. If I say that I've tested probably at least 10x the number of cpu's you have in the past 3 months and give my PERSONAL experiences, then you tell me - how can you possibly make your statemnet statement and yet have still not offered any evidence to support it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ReelMonza
Hey dude, it's not me, just browse the web, visit the forums or google and you'll find at least a thousand "higher batch" cpu's that perform better than "lower batch" ones. you know that's not true. if you really tested hundreds of cpu's you know that wouldn't always hold true. So how do you explain lower batch ones not being quite as good as higher ones based on someone else's theory ?Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
If you read what I wrote I NEVER said every lower batch number is better than every higher number. All I said was that chances are that the lower numbers will be better since they're closer to the center of the wafer and I did explain my theory on why lower numbered ones may not be as good as some higher numbered ones in a few posts back.....Quote:
Originally Posted by ReelMonza
There is other factors that can limit the OC like with CBBiD and Winchester, then it almost doesn't matter if you got a dream week like 0447SPAW 0001 and then the CBBiD will limit you :D But please link me two three examples where 2 cpus of the same sort are compared, high batch vs low batch so we can try to figure out this.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReelMonza
I'll tell you right off the bat that the x2 4600+ I sent OPB with a batch #0029 is definately better than the current #0053 x2 4600+ that I'm testing now. It's got a stronger memory controller and is more stable with less vcore.....I'll have pics up of my current cpu later.... ;) Just a note: this comparison shouldn't mean too much since the cpu's ARE so close in number.......Quote:
Originally Posted by NiCKE^