As topis...
i am wondering why there is more AMD overclockers compare to Intel Overclockers?
Do you all have any ideas?
Is the AMD chipset suitable for overclocking? or any other issue?

This post has been edited by hongchiang: Sep 22 2006, 03:32 PM

Intel are too pricy for OC purpose

AMD meant for less budget users to OC for more performance....

Stupid question,Most AMD processor like athlon64 is design for value minded and who that need next generation feature@ good price.So many of them like to overclock,and AMD FSB is higher that intel,so suitable for overclocking.And intel clockspeed is enough high and no need oc.

oh oko..
u mean is too expensive is it..
hmm...
is there any example that without oc, AMD speed/performance is same level with Intel?
I know we cant do direct comparison between the models...but if AMD running core speed 2.0Ghz and Intel too... is that mean that they are performing in the same leve? or AMD Better? Intel Better?

i am a noobs...
just asking only..
because have no idea what is the different...

u wan me to explain by words?
is better u take a look on this link:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

i have no idea what r u looking for?

COOL... Intel Core2 Extream ROCKS!!

one of the reason Intel board cant be OC because the multiplier is usually lock, hence you cant adjust them.

stupid answer

1. Athlon64 is not designed for value minded. AMD created Athlon64 to compete with Intel's Pentium4. If you're talking about value, Sempron is in AMD's value segment, to compete with Celeron..

2. AMD K8 architecture does not have FSB.

3. High FSB does not mean that it's favourable for overclocking. Even if an Intel has a high FSB, but the multi is damn locked low... most likely there will be limitation in overclocking. It then depends on how high can the northbridge (memory controller) help push the speed.

Exactly what I was thinking. AMD is not a budget-CPU brand. Its processors are still on par with similar offerings from Intel. It's not a small company that's sweeping up the lower end of the market.

AMD is more overclockable?

the Semprons were cheap. the A64s weren't cheap, especially the S939 variants.

the thing is we're talking about S64 / A64 only - but prior to that, we have the great T-bred Bs that were highly OCable too. they're cheap (i bought mine for RM 225 or so) and pair it with a nForce2 mobo with OCing features (NF7-S, 8RDA+, A7N8X, DFI LP so on so forth) and wow........ 1466mhz processor running at 2.2ghz++ or more!!

Intels aren't that bad either, take the P4 2.4C on boards like IS7 / IC7 - they're nice to OC too. just that the P4 parts tend to be more pricey, so people opt for the AMDs.

this is good explanation at least for me this noobs
so currently the value chipset for oc is still sempron,T-bred/Barton..
actually i am using barton too... learning the oc stuff...
thanks for the explanation anyways! at least i learn something..
btw, i never think AMD is a small scale company that offer chipset for people that cant afford ..
i think the quadcore will be rocks too!

i am learning oc now.. with my cute barton 2500+...
but have no good mobo...
searching for DFI nf2 / Abit NF7...

i think i have some idea...
on why people pick AMD over INTEL to overclock
1) AMD chipset allow flexibility in changing the FSB and MULTIPLIER
2) Is costly if we use INTEL to clock...

nice link...
thanks..
hmm.. i think next year INTEL Quad Core and AMD quadCore will have a interesting VS again...

I think you are confused btw the proc and chipset.
AMD used to be really great value (i o/c my Barton kau-kau) but since the success of the A64 they've positioned their good chips at a prenium price.
Now it feels like the C2D has better value vs A64 except that the mobos are still expensive.

take it like this, Intel targets consumers that usually buy PC by bulk (office, lab, school) that won't usually overclock their PC. this is why their architecture are not that overclocking friendly, and build to have the most MHz. While AMD too caters to these category, they build the architecture so that it don't need a proc that has a fast speed, but still can be as fast as their intel counterpart.
But that was long ago. Now Intel has changed that you cannot say overclockers prefer just AMD anymore

1. The A64 does not have FSB. Some models are multiplier locked.
2. It depends. The E6300/6400 are great overclockers.

If you are comparing Athlon64 with Intel's P4, some other reasons would be Athlon64 would be a better choice in the long run also. Imagine P4's processor is already considered hot without overclocking so if you are going to overclock it, you will need to improve more on cooling while Athlon64 could do it on stock air cooling too and P4's power consumption is so much higher than Athlon64.

Two answers from me.

1. I am AMD die hard fan even C2D wins in benchmark and beat AMD.
2. For me, AMD is more complicated and challenging to oc comparing with intel which can hit 4GHz easily.