AMD Athlon64 X2 4600+ Dual Core Fresh Test

Printable View

06-10-2005, 09:59 AM
windwithme

AMD Athlon64 X2 4600+ Dual Core Fresh Test

Last time, the FX I got was not so great, cannot OC and have bug in 0 degree C...

Finally, I got the overnight deal.
Even though I cannot test the X2 4800+ I touched early May, but this X2 4600+ looks good in early testing stage. It’s probably better than Coolaler’s.

Test Environment
AMD Athlon64 X2 4600+
DFI LP Ultra-d
GSkill 1GBFF
Mixed Water Cooling

Default is 2.4G 512K
Reach 2.7G in 1.36V
The temperature of dual core is really low. When running 3000+ in 2.8G, this engineer sample board is 49 degree C.
http://www.madshrimps.be/upload/windwithme/X2/2700.jpg

Using SiSoftware Sandra Lite 2005 which support dual core CPU
http://www.madshrimps.be/upload/windwithme/X2/01.jpg

We can find some clues from this – dual core is good at OC and low temperature.
But you must beware that dual core CPU is the same as dual CPU system, you need supported software to unleash the performance.
Nowadays, most software cannot support it.
We are looking forward to seeing more and more software in near future.

Another tests coming soon...
06-10-2005, 12:21 PM
xgman

Lets see how high it will go with more voltage on your water setup.
06-10-2005, 02:01 PM
Cooper

2700 MHz on stock voltage :eek:
Wow!!! you just must give it some volts - you got lucky - you have the lowest voltage possible. This proc should be the blast. Good luck. Looking-forwars to see new results. :thumbsup:
06-10-2005, 02:10 PM
bxa121

wow! almost three threads on the new x2's!
this is the only one doing water cooling!

excellent stuff!
06-10-2005, 02:13 PM
Ref

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooper

2700 MHz on stock voltage :eek:
Wow!!! you just must give it some volts - you got lucky - you have the lowest voltage possible. This proc should be the blast. Good luck. Looking-forwars to see new results. :thumbsup:

Stock voltage is 1.3 V, 1.36 is more than stock ... however still impressive :toast:
06-10-2005, 02:17 PM
krampak

Well, AMD datasheets says 1'35-1'4V as stock voltage.
06-10-2005, 02:43 PM
Vincentvega18

Yeah, it was only s7e9h3n and opb that have the 1.3v ones, b/c there from the amd lab.
06-10-2005, 03:55 PM
dinos22

hmmmmm

they are super cherry picked chips then.......not really a fair comparison to off the shelf stuff joe bloe will be buying

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincentvega18

b/c there from the amd lab
06-10-2005, 04:54 PM
windwithme

1.36V 3G Prime95 :p:

http://www.madshrimps.be/upload/windwithme/X2/30001.JPG
06-10-2005, 04:59 PM
Cooper

What`s happened to SmartGuardian ? It shows enormous temps.
06-10-2005, 05:20 PM
dinos22

1.36V 3G Prime95 ..............that is one hell of a chip....that's even better than OPB's one if i'm not mistaken
06-10-2005, 06:23 PM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooper

What`s happened to SmartGuardian ? It shows enormous temps.

That's cuz he's now using phase change (and pretty good phase at that). His core temp is ~-16 LOADED while running Prime - which BTW, has only been running for around 30minutes it looks like.....
06-10-2005, 07:05 PM
Gitsum

You know what, I've had 6 Athlon64 processors and none of them have overclocked worth a :banana::banana::banana::banana:. Even my FX-55 sucks. I think these guys here are getting cherry picked cpu's from AMD so they can overclock them and get everybody here to cream their pants and run out and buy one.
06-10-2005, 07:34 PM
EMC2

Actually it's about batches, equipment...

Example - two 3200+ Winnies - my sweet one I tweaked so it ran 2850 on air for days on end with zero problems, anything I could throw at it... the RMA replacement on initial look-see won't boot at 2650. Exact same equip on my test bench top to bottom other than the CPU. The difference - one was a sweet CBBHD 0450 Winnie-That-Would... the other a 0504 Winnie-That-Likely-Won't (although I'm still trying to coax her) . Both retail, whichever box was grabbed at the warehouse, CPUs.

Peace :toast:
06-10-2005, 07:39 PM
mouawad

heh that's 1 way to make some friends here :rolleyes:

what do you consider terrible o/c's? you must have had 1 out of those 6 that at least did a avg->good result.

it's usually just false expectations, ppl see an uber clock and think they can reproduce it using an XP-90 and avg components and no experience/knowledge.
06-10-2005, 07:43 PM
matrs

2.7G in 1.36V is totally stable? (prime)
is really good core for overclock, and with more Vcore will reachs.........
06-12-2005, 12:52 AM
bxa121

havnt seen a manchester core screenie yet.. wonders if its any better. (not that this is bad of course ;) )
06-12-2005, 06:00 AM
z24

what about your unknow FX57/25 ah??

well its been proof %^&*.........what ever it is I'm not trusting your result any more Lo
06-13-2005, 01:54 PM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by bxa121

havnt seen a manchester core screenie yet.. wonders if its any better. (not that this is bad of course ;) )

Manchester if what cpuz 1.29 identifies these cores as......
06-13-2005, 04:13 PM
Silver

Yeah, Manchester is the 512 version while I believe Toledo is the 1 meg version.
06-14-2005, 02:41 PM
REDKEN

*Registered to look at more WC tests when they come*
06-17-2005, 03:53 AM
windwithme

Quote:

Originally Posted by z24

what about your unknow FX57/25 ah??

well its been proof %^&*.........what ever it is I'm not trusting your result any more Lo

you can see my new test :)

No.1 in the world -AMD Athlon64 FX57 Show Up !
06-18-2005, 05:11 AM
windwithme

Quote:

Originally Posted by REDKEN

*Registered to look at more WC tests when they come*

I will test 4600+ more...
3.2g already pass :p:
06-18-2005, 05:33 AM
purefun65

I read your posts in some of the other forums and I'm jealous!! :p:
06-20-2005, 07:26 AM
ben805

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gitsum

You know what, I've had 6 Athlon64 processors and none of them have overclocked worth a :banana::banana::banana::banana:. Even my FX-55 sucks. I think these guys here are getting cherry picked cpu's from AMD so they can overclock them and get everybody here to cream their pants and run out and buy one.

that's what some of those so called 'tester' and '(p)reviewers' have been doing for awhile, noticed I said some...not all. I'm still surprise to see a bunch of people still got suckered every single time when there's new core coming out, and most of those users don't seems to learn either, all the testers needed to do is clock as high as they possible could with their cherry-picked cpu prior to the launch date, and show a few superpi 1m and sandra screenie all over the internet forums....everyone would got all hyped up and be like....oooooo.....wooowww.... LOL it kinda remind me of those scratching lotto tickets you get from 7-11, every once awhile you'll see on the news that some joe schmuck hit the jackpot, but how many percentage of the buyer out there actually got lucky? do the math...
I wonder if those Intel guys are pulling the same kind of tricks to sucker people into buying their stuff :D :D
06-20-2005, 11:16 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by ben805

that's what some of those so called 'tester' and '(p)reviewers' have been doing for awhile, noticed I said some...not all. I'm still surprise to see a bunch of people still got suckered every single time when there's new core coming out, and most of those users don't seems to learn either, all the testers needed to do is clock as high as they possible could with their cherry-picked cpu prior to the launch date, and show a few superpi 1m and sandra screenie all over the internet forums....everyone would got all hyped up and be like....oooooo.....wooowww.... LOL it kinda remind me of those scratching lotto tickets you get from 7-11, every once awhile you'll see on the news that some joe schmuck hit the jackpot, but how many percentage of the buyer out there actually got lucky? do the math...
I wonder if those Intel guys are pulling the same kind of tricks to sucker people into buying their stuff :D :D

So would you say that these "people" you're referring to ;) shouldn't even bother to post results of their cpu's? Let me just say this - without these so called "reviewers" or "testers", our community would have no idea the capability of any new cpus unless they bought one for themselves. Eventually there will be a "first preview" of any cpu. Now if that review happens to be favorable, would you say that the reviewer is trying to "sucker people into buying their stuff" :) - even if that cpu is already available? Trust me, companies such as AMD don't need to resort to such tactics in order to make a few quick dollars. The "previewer" is simply trying (or at least his intentions should be) to demonstrate the capabilities of any particular cpu. It is up to the reader to take whatever info they feel is pertinant and apply it to their own situation.
Note: This is meant as a friendly comment/question and, in no way shape or form is it my intention to start a flame war :toast:
06-20-2005, 12:07 PM
kronik

I think his point was that the companies that supply the CPU to reviewers should supply them products that are indicative of the average chip, not the stellar one..
06-20-2005, 12:15 PM
Hombre

These X2's are GODLIKE. I want one so badly...
06-20-2005, 01:32 PM
ben805

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

So would you say that these "people" you're referring to ;) shouldn't even bother to post results of their cpu's? Let me just say this - without these so called "reviewers" or "testers", our community would have no idea the capability of any new cpus unless they bought one for themselves. Eventually there will be a "first preview" of any cpu. Now if that review happens to be favorable, would you say that the reviewer is trying to "sucker people into buying their stuff" :) - even if that cpu is already available? Trust me, companies such as AMD don't need to resort to such tactics in order to make a few quick dollars. The "previewer" is simply trying (or at least his intentions should be) to demonstrate the capabilities of any particular cpu. It is up to the reader to take whatever info they feel is pertinant and apply it to their own situation.
Note: This is meant as a friendly comment/question and, in no way shape or form is it my intention to start a flame war :toast:

Stephen, please dont' get me wrong. The tester, previewer or reviewer are doing their job to test whatever they gets their hands on, it's not their fault that AMD, Intel, or whomever shipped them the cherry-picked product, atleast I don't think they'd requested to test ONLY cherry-picked. I'd blame the sales, marketting or strategy team from whichever company whom pull that kind of trick to mislead consumers, well... As a professional (p)reviewers such as yourself and others out there, have you noticed almost 99% of the cpu being preview ALWAYS perform much better than the mass production? coincidence? I know overclocking is hit-or-miss and heavily depends on luck, but in average how many percentage of the final products actually perform anywhere close to those that were being preview? :D
06-20-2005, 01:32 PM
ben805

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronik

I think his point was that the companies that supply the CPU to reviewers should supply them products that are indicative of the average chip, not the stellar one..

yup...that's exactly what I was trying to say :D :D
06-20-2005, 03:33 PM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by ben805

Stephen, please dont' get me wrong. The tester, previewer or reviewer are doing their job to test whatever they gets their hands on, it's not their fault that AMD, Intel, or whomever shipped them the cherry-picked product, atleast I don't think they'd requested to test ONLY cherry-picked. I'd blame the sales, marketting or strategy team from whichever company whom pull that kind of trick to mislead consumers, well... As a professional (p)reviewers such as yourself and others out there, have you noticed almost 99% of the cpu being preview ALWAYS perform much better than the mass production? coincidence? I know overclocking is hit-or-miss and heavily depends on luck, but in average how many percentage of the final products actually perform anywhere close to those that were being preview? :D

Hey Ben,
OK here's the deal with early release cpu's (at least with many I've encountered with AMD): Many of the sample/leaked cpu's are from a pool of cpu's which were meant as test/evaluation for AMD themselves (past ES stage). They created these cpu's from the best silicon they could find atm in order to produce a cpu which can guarantee the settings they code into it. From these test cpu's they are able to tell how much they can effectively mass produce such a cpu @ minimal cost. Sometimes it means that their test cpu's are of "too-high" a quality, and mass production costs can be lowered by using an inferior wafer. Basically, it's these type of cpu's you're referring to. In most instances, cpu's created for OEM's (which are usually available about a month or two before retail) clock quite similar to the cpu's which a normal end-user will see.
BTW, I'm not a pro-reviewer in any sense of the word :p: (But I'll take that as a compliment :toast: ) I'm just llike most members of XS, only difference is that I'm well-connected ;)
06-20-2005, 04:11 PM
RAMMIE

[QUOTE=s7e9h3n]Hey Ben,.........
In most instances, cpu's created for OEM's (which are usually available about a month or two before retail) clock quite similar to the cpu's which a normal end-user will see.......................

[\QUOTE]

So us normal end users get an HP or Compaq quality CPU.
06-20-2005, 04:28 PM
s7e9h3n

[QUOTE=RAMMIE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

Hey Ben,.........
In most instances, cpu's created for OEM's (which are usually available about a month or two before retail) clock quite similar to the cpu's which a normal end-user will see.......................

[\QUOTE]

So us normal end users get an HP or Compaq quality CPU.

Hey,
I know it sounds like crap, but you'd be surprised to see some of the beasts which HP and Compaq hide under their stock HSF ;)