Two cores generate more heat, and draw more power, thus putting more stress on the mobo. And like LIKMARK said, a dual CPU is limited by the worst core. A singlecore CPU is easier to overclock.Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzimark
Printable View
Two cores generate more heat, and draw more power, thus putting more stress on the mobo. And like LIKMARK said, a dual CPU is limited by the worst core. A singlecore CPU is easier to overclock.Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzimark
Yay! My new CPU is quite a bit better :cool:
X2 5200+ EE
CCB8F 0719 XPMW
TR XP-90
3.35 GHz, 1.42v (stable)
I think it's safe to call it stable, because I used higher voltage on my 5600+. One hour isn't quite enough, but I did some more CPU-intensive testing, with no errors.
1.40v 3.3G
orthos large 9 level 1 hour pass...
:D
http://elderahans.googlepages.com/330X10.JPG
Who, in the US, is shipping these CCB8F processors right now...it doesn't seem to matter if it is a 3800 or a 6000...they sure seem to be the cream of the crop!
@ LIKMARK
May I suggest that you change the list such that it distincts between "screenshot stable" and *stable* ?
So long as there are no criteria for stability, the list could make two very different steppings look more or less the same. I think it would be better if the list would somehow reveal each entry's degree of stability. That way one wouldn't have to study several screenshots before deciding which stepping to go with ;)
Yeah I'm working on it, the list aint telling us much at the moment. Anyone got any ideas on what should be called stable? Hardcore 24 hours Orthos stable or something not that timeconsuming? My system for once don't need server grade stability, so I'm happy with two hours Orthos at priority 8. Any thougths anyone?
Edit: There it's updated with the stable clocks I've found in this thread.
Just put an extra section in the table for stability level.
1hour+ (i.e no fail) is fine with me, if it's 1hour stable, it's close to 24hr stable, which is fine if it's stated as such.
I'm not arsing around testing for 24hrs on every chip :) take 50mhz off a 1hr stable result to get an idea of the 24/7 stability of the overclock.
obviously if people are testing for their final overclock and want to post 24hr that's great, i'll do the same occasionally
a while back I had orthos fail on me after 4 hrs with priority 9, that was when I thought, with such high priority, 1 hour would suffice. That's why I think you can lable a system "completely stable" after ~6 hours of orthos blend test.
Adding to the table a list of how each overclock was tested for stability (or not at all) would definitely make it more valueble.
AMD Athlon64 X2 6000+ @ 3300MHz / 1.425v(bios)
DFI Infinity NF570 SLI-M2/G
2 x 1024MB A-Data PC2-8500 Extreme Edition
http://img129.imagevenue.com/loc414/..._122_414lo.JPG
CCB8F 0721UPMW
Max so far ~ 3400mhz with Arctic Cooling Freezer64 PRO
Superpi 1M: 24.688sec
http://img102.imagevenue.com/loc1155...122_1155lo.JPG
CCB6F 0713 TPMW 3285 1.525 Air pslee stable. No matter what I do, I cant get it to 3.300ghz.
...but on the bright side, that's very good for a CCB6F ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by pslee
mine does 3300 with 1.52 too
Guys, do you think these new F3's 5600's can do 3.0GHZ on stock vcore. My current Dell E521 has a Brisbane 4400 that can do 2.7GHZ stable on stock vcore. I really want a 5600 due to the 1meg cache and the potential to have a 3GHZ chip in my cheap ass dell should give it a nice boost.
If you're lucky you'll get a CCB8F and it'll do beyond 3.0 GHz :)Quote:
Originally Posted by vengance_01
Do you have your stepping?Quote:
Originally Posted by ea6gka
You have to be unlucky if you don't get a X2 5600+ up to 3000Mhz ++:)Quote:
Originally Posted by vengance_01
Hi Guys,
The problem is not hitting the 3Gig mark but the temp that comes with it, when the cpu is running at full load. Basically one should get a mobo that will be able to manage the stress. Well i run my rig at 2.8mhz AMD 64 X2 4600 E6 2400mhz@2800mhz. Meanwhile with Vista prefomance test shows no increase in system prefomance from 2.8gig bis 3.0gig, but there is a hell lot of temp. difference between the two marks.
but on stock vcore?Quote:
Originally Posted by LIKMARK
Not sure there, but I think you can oc at least a bit on stock vcoreQuote:
Originally Posted by vengance_01
CCB6F 0713 TPMWQuote:
Originally Posted by LIKMARK
i am currently 24/7 rock stable at 3100 1.42V. 3200 needs 1.47-1.48 but i live in greece and summer temps are high so...
Deleted post.
I could get mine over 3.300 ghz, but it is not stable (temperature issues) to run 3dmark06. I get blue screen of death in the second cpu test section. Otherwise it runs fine but I do care about my cpu's life expectancy. I run my cpu stock at 3 ghz but I oc whenever I do benchmarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by ea6gka
i am sure you will get rid of your cpu before the standard 3 year warranty expires :D
quads ftw :D
yea. i am waiting for phenom x4. I read the article that is on the amd website about phenom and I am just blazed. they told exactly what I wanted to hear. Intel is just putting two dual cores in one chip due to the fact they have an advantage over amd that they have 65 nanometers earlier. They said it is not a true quad core, but double dual core!Quote:
Originally Posted by ea6gka
:D HA01Quote:
Originally Posted by eldera
I've been testing two 6000+ CCB8Fs for a friend. I'll probably end up buying one of them.
After a few hours of testing, I've found that none of them match my 5200+ EE (same stepping) at 1.4v. But the 6000s are superior at low voltage, which was mildly surprising to me.
X2 6000+
CCB8F 0717 UPMW
3.3 GHz @ 1.42v (stable)
X2 6000+
CCB8F 0718 XPMW
3.3 GHz @ 1.38v (stable)
I might update the results should further testing reveal any noteworthy gains. As you can see, I didn't try to max them out, but I prefer to settle at +/- 1.4v. Didn't bother to take any screenshots so far, but I hope you'll take my word on it. These results aren't even close to spectacular, so why would I lie about this? :p: