El Thoroughbred, no apto para overclock
-
esto lo acabo de sacar de AMDZone
By almost all accounts the Athlon XP 2200+ is not a good overclocker. The evidence is almost overwhelming.
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1124&page=9We were hopeful that the Athlon XP 2200+ would a good overclocker thanks to the smaller process. Unfortunately we were unable to reach over 2GHz stably. We got into Windows at 2025MHz, at 13.5X150, but any benchmarks would not finish. We had to drop back to 140MHz on the A7V333 for overclocked benchmarks at 1890MHz, but I'm certain if we hadn't had problems in jumper free mode a higher speed could have been reached stably. We we see is overclocking that is similar to the 2100+ Palomino Athlon.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1635&p=14
It seems as if the Thoroughbred core needs some time to mature at this point, let's see how far we took the CPUs at voltages as high as 1.850V. Again, we stuck to stock cooling:
Athlon XP 2200+ (1.80GHz) - The Athlon XP 2200+ wouldn't go any further, 1822.5MHz was its peak.
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/xp_2200/9.shtml
A great deal of anticipation about the Thoroughbreds has gone into the question of whether the die shrink will allow further overclocking of the next generation of XP processors. Unfortunately, at present, it does not appear as if there will be a huge gain over the current Palomino CPUs, the rationales were laid out earlier in this review. The XP2200 running at a phisical speed of 1800 MHz would overclock to 1938 MHz albeit with some stability problems. For those only interested in CPUID scores, we could up it beyond 1950 MHz, however, stable operation was not possible beyond 1900 MHz.
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=45000370
Our first attempt was encouraging, as 1.68V allowed the 0.13µ Athlon XP to reach 1917 MHz (13.5x 143 MHz), a 7% overclock. Unfortunately, this initial feeling of success was replaced with one of dissapointment, as increasing the voltage to 1.78V hardly improved our overclocking experience. The Athlon XP froze completely at 1957 MHz (13.5 x 145 MHz). No problem, probably a heat issue as the core temperature of our Athlon XP was 61°C at this clockrate.
http://www.hardinfo.dk/tests/Processor/artikel.asp?ID=423&Page=19
Vi valgte i testen af Thoroughbred at prøve processorens overclocking potentiale på både Gigabytes GA-7VRXP og Epoxses superoverclocker ”Ep8K3A+”. I vores OC-test af T-bred processoren lykkedes det os at få et godt oc-resultat på lige over de 2GHz som værende stabilt. Her er screenshot af opstart!.
http://tech-report.com/reviews/2002q2/athlonxp-2200/index.x?pg=9
I can't do that because the darned thing wouldn't overclock for us. Not by much, at least—not even by 100MHz. We were using mild bus speed overclocking, and we tried everything: core voltage tweaks, memory voltage tweaks, RAM timings more conservative than Gordon Liddy. Nothing helped enough to really matter.
http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/CCAM/amd_axp_2200(2).shtml
I'm sure all of you overclockers out there will no doubt be familiar with what's visible in the above picture. The Athlon XP 2200+ we tested came with all of the L1 bridges left intact. Like all of the older socketed Athlons, having connected L1 bridges should unlock the processor and allow for altering of the multiplier. Unfortunately, the Gigabyte motherboard we used for testing our CPU would not post if we made any adjustments to the multiplier. We then set out to overclock our processor by raising the FSB, but were only able to hit a maximum of 142MHz at default voltage, which equated to a clock speed of 1917MHz. We tried raising the core voltage and going higher, but our CPU would not go any higher and remain stable. The highest speed we were able to boot into Windows was 1984MHz (13.5x147), but running any program crashed the system. We tried to hit 2GHz, but the system would not POST, sorry folks! Frankly, we were expecting more out of this CPU but suspect that because it was an early sample, and the Taisol cooler we used wasn't exactly a high-performance model, there wasn't much headroom.
But then we come to this result.
Using a processor unlocking kit that was sent to me by the fine folks at HighSpeed PC, I was able to work some magic on the Athlon XP 2200+ processor and push it above its 1.8 GHz clock speed. At first, I had nothing but problems trying to modify the multiplier when using the CPU, but after playing with the L1 bridges, I was able to get it to work well enough to run some testing on the overclocking potential of the CPU with air cooling. I was using the Vantec CCK-6040 copper heatsink and a high speed fan for all the tests I ran.
Using the Epox 8K3A+ motherboard that I just recently reviewed, I was able to push the FSB and lower the multiplier to get a finishing speed of 2160 MHz or 2.16 GHz. This is a very nice 316 MHz overclock on the processor, that ran perfectly stable in all our burn-in tests in Windows XP. Look for more on overclocking the Thoroughbred core in a future article.
Am I to believe that with no one being able to get the 2200+ to be stable above 2GHz, or even 1.9GHz for that matter that this CPU was stable at 270MHz higher? This CPU, out of the same batch that Damon of AMD sent out at the same time just happened to overclock that much higher? Am I to believe that this CPU was actually unlocked and then aircooled to that speed? I used water cooling and could not get one benchmark to run at 2.025GHz. The bridges of the Thoroughbred differ greatly from the Palomino core, and without the technical documentation of their functions figuring out how to unlock the CPU would be futile. This is not an easy connect the L1 bridges overclock. No pictures of the test system was included, no pictures of the unlocked CPU, no evidence of any kind. I smell a rat, but I hope I'm wrong. If I'm right it's quite sad, but I fear I am. This test data deviates too far from the norm to not deserve explanation.
para los que no sepais ingles, poco mas o menos que muy pocos han tenido suerte en el overclock de este nuevo procesador … a ver que pasa mas adelante ...
-
Pues vaya chasco:( , porque yo pensaba que ese micro seria tan generoso cuando menos como el Palomino:p
Otia Namiga, no sabia yo que supieras hasta aleman;) , en fin, que lo suyo es que si alguno de nosotros se hace con un cacharro de esos loprobara y contara su experiencia, aunque si casi todo el mundo tiene problemas para conseguir algo de oc…..:rolleyes:
Un saludo:D
-
Nop nada… yo me metere la lengua en el culo de cuando dije q los nuevos procesadores AMD tenian q ponerse a la cabeza del OC, por lo visto los amigos de micro devices cada vez quieren q juguemos menos con sus micros y nos dediquemos a usarlos para mover software...
Pues con perdon,pero si no cambian, mas de uno se ira al lado oscuro, aq no sere yo porque no tengo pelas :(:(
Bueno, creo que es hora de...volver a estudiar¡¡¡¡¡
-
Entonces en estos momentos que seria mejor pillarse un 2200+ o un Pentium 4 1600@2165 Mhz ( ya lo tengo probado xD) ???
-
Pues no lo se, pero cuanto mas leo mas me deprimo:( , ya que parece que suben menos incluso que los xp Palomino ¿alguien lo entiende?
En fin, que yo tambien me trago las palabras que he dicho en algun otro post en el que afirmaba que ya veriamos hasta donde llegaria el tbred:rolleyes: , en fin, que me como lo dicho;) .
Y vais a tener razon al final, o esto lo soluciona AMD con algun "milagro" ¿barton? o nos tendremos que pasar al lado oscuro, y mira que me j….....:mad:
Un saludo:D
-
Pues vaya pu***, yo que tenian intencion de pillarme un tbred para pasar de mi viejo k7.
O nos hacen algo o como decir nos tocara pasarnos al lado oscuro, y eso si que me joroba.
-
yo propongo nombrar a NAMIGA
"exelentisimo corresponsal en lenguas extranjeras"juass una broma che.:D
SATAN tal ves sea buena cosa pasarce de un lado para otro cada 3 o 4 años, de esa forma una marca no se acostumbran tanto al exito y eso nos vuelve en beneficio a nosotros
( deja que AMD e INTEL se peelen en precios y prestaciones que nosotros ganamos);)
-
Mokiloyi, ahi esta la cosa, Amd ha estado peleando con intel desde mucho tiempo ya, y cada vez iba a mejor, cogiendole venteha incluso, el problema empezara como las cosas las empiecen a hacer mal de nuevo los de amd, por eso deben espabilarse…
Y no soy un dark jedi...q t enteres;)
-
el problema empezara como las cosas las empiecen a hacer mal de nuevo los de amd, por eso deben espabilarse…
mira yo no tengo acciones en AMD, asi que si hacen mal las cosas o dejan que intel los aventaje es su problema, lo que no podemos perder de vista es que los usuarios mientras nos mantengamos bien informados estamos a salvo, y la fuente de informacion son medios como este foro.
aca creo que todo el mundo al momento de comprar hace un valance entre rendimiento/costo y si en poco tiempo, de repente intel te brinda una opcion mejor que AMD y bueno macho, mala suerte para AMD, que se pongan a trabajar y mejoren la oferta.
yo no he tenido dinero suficiente para actualizar mi equipo, y hoy por hoy me decantaria de ojo cerrado por un XP de AMD, pero no estoy casado con ellos y dentro de un tiempo puede que INTEL me de algo mejor, y bueno
-
Si yo estoy de acuerdo contigo,pero lo que paa es que por muy mal q lo hagan , no creo que nunca lleguen a salir tan caros como un pentium, y ahi esta el problema ….De todas formas, en esta lucha, ya casi nadie se decanta por el precio bajo,porque se estan nivelando las cosas, por el contrario, el que escoje AMD es porque cree q es mejor el rendimiento q con este obtiene...o por lo menos yo lo hice asi.
Saludos
-
Te has currao esa recopilación de reviews, Namiga
-
Yo me iria al lado oscuro, pero un dual XEON es una pasta en INTEL y por eso pense en dos 2500+ con intencion de suvir a 2800+ o 3000+ pero me temo que
bueno esperare y reunire mas pelas pal tema me doy otro mes -
Sforza , muchas gracias , pero esta copiada lietralmente de una web. lo indicaba en el post
Lo saque de AMDZone