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.

that mean A64 is not for overclockers...
is a high performance proc is it?

All Athlon64 are multiplier unlocked downwards, while the FX series are fully unlocked.

Only Sempron with 8x multi or less are locked.

i'm using A64 2800+ at 2.5ghz.

OC an AMD K8 and K9 is more challenging than OC an Intel, u got to set the right divider, FSB, HTT link

and because AMD has much greater performance rating than Intel except C2D, so pushing it further can easily pawn Pentium 4, and prescott pentiums are notoriously known as press hott, so ppl re less OC it

so far i found all amd athlon64 and above series are good for overclocking, well, lets juz c wud the c2d can do.......looking forward for it....
btw p4 is an obsolete though, same wif pentium d.....
i wonder y ppl still likes it.....

Great , my So-called RM1k processor is dead by now. If you compare with Athlon64 at least it rocks...Man , so much soo for Intel. They just dump like that..When Core 3 Duo comes out or Core 4 Duo comes out , they would dump Core 2 Duo like that...*grrr*

Yeah.... I agree that, some more in future..... dunno what kinda CPU (Intel & AMD) maker try to introduce it??

Well technology moves forward, and netburst was a failure. So it's expected.

I have a P4 2.8GHz. Not that I like it. It's just that I don't have enough money to upgrade it...

I heard that C2D also has good OCability, is that so?

This post has been edited by Aquanox28: Sep 23 2006, 11:10 PM

c2d have great oc potentials

but i'd say amd64 if more challenging to oC
try playing around with the advance ram timing n u know what i mean

Hey dud, the main difference is the clock cycle between AMD and Intel. U want to know more? just find in the internet about clock cycle for CPU and u will know the difference...

any pentiumD ocer here?starting to feel regret to take intel instead of AMD after reading all the reviews

Actually if the AMD do just some little o/cing you will see the boost on performance compare with the Intel one(excluding the C2D series).That's why a lot of ppl going for AMD.Secondly,AMD chipsets are more flexible on changing their parameters.

I'm planning to get an AMD 64. Is it a waste if i don't OC them?

No it is not.

well..OC an AMD depends on the mobo also...beware on setting the FSN and HTT link, if screwd up might end in getting system cant boot at all

last time Intel didnt cater for OC market, and AMD take advantage of that to gain market share... but now Intel had pay attention to this . As such the C2D is set as more value , better performance and yet more OC able compare to AMD. The reason? For Intel to beat AMD kao kao and not give face.

Is there?

Well probably they haven't upgraded yet kwa...

Let's put it this way...the past couple years.. AMD's been the performance king so all the folks who's in the know buys them...they use AMD in their setup.

Let's look at XS... couple months ago, the AMD forum happening like hell and Intel tarak visitor...everyday swat flies only. Now pulak the situation reversed.

I'm sure another year down the road...someone will post why there is more Intel overclockers compared to AMD.

Let's face it... ppl don't really buy a cpu just to overclock.

Dun understand this thing, why do we have to play with the ram timings?
Is it that important?

Noob about ram timing here...

Help me...

the RAMs with tighter timings will transfer data faster....
lets say we have 2 ddr 400 which have timings like this
modul A 2-2-2-5 and
modul B 3-3-3-8

obviously the modul A will win because although both run at 400mhz,
but modul A CAS is 5, which means the data will be transfered after 5 complete clock cycle compared to modul B which needed 8 clock cycle b4 it can transfer data

p/s: correct me if there's any mistake.......blur2 abit already
Chow.

Ok, a little history on AMD & intel..comparing processors from similar generations

AMD K6-III vs Pentium III
-for the first time, AMD's chips outperformed intel at similar clock speeds (mostly in floating point operations)
-budget version of P3, Celeron comes to overclocking fame as most of the lower speed models can be easily overclocked by about 50%, effectively getting the performance of a P3 at half the cost
-Intel starts multiplier locking chips due to unscrupulous vendors remarking lower speed chips as higher speed ones.
-AMD chips remained unlocked, overclockers start favouring AMD over Intel (except for the unusually overclockable P3-based Celerons)
-widespread use of AMD chips in overclocking reveal a fatal flaw-poorly installed cooling will result in burned processors (go watch the videos at toms hardware) because AMD chips did not have safety auto shut off when processor overheats.

Athlon/Duron (Thunderbird) vs Pentium 4/Celeron (Willamette)
-AMD extends performance lead over Intel chips, suceed in reaching 1GHz first but with increased heat production (first water cooling systems appears due to this).
-P4's long 20 stage pipeline allows it to clock at high speeds, but does very little work per clock cycle, requiring P4's to clock very high to match Athlon's performance.
-Willamette fails to clock high enough (to outperform Athlon) due to limitations of 180nm technology, remaining P3s hit limits of processor architecture.
-AMD's chips remain overclockable, overclockers desert Intel by droves.
-AMD's chips have upper multipliers locked, but are easily unlockable (pencil trick)

AthlonXP (Palomino) vs Pentium 4 (Northwood A)
-change to 130nm technology allows P4 to clock beyond 2GHz, Intel regains a small performance lead.
-Palomino brings improvements in instruction sets, introduces prefetch, heat production reduced slightly, however are now complicated to unlock higher multipliers
-both AthlonXP & P4s overclock with similar gains in performance, competition here is neck to neck, P4 occationally pulling a small lead.

AthlonXP (T-bred/Barton) vs Pentium 4 (Northwood C)
-AMD switches to 130nm technology, heat production reduces slightly, however overclockability is increased.
-Intel introduces higher fsb & dual channel DDR, P4s pull ahead of AMD for higher speeds near & above 3GHz.
-P4s start to hit limits of architecture, overclocking beyond 3.5GHz requires effort.

Athlon64 (Hammer) vs Pentium 4 (Prescott E)
-Pentium 4 switches to 90nm technolgy, however struggles with severe power consumption & heat issues
-P4's pipeline increased to 31 stage to allow higher clocks, but backfires due to heat & power issues limiting clock speed
-Athlon 64 has a huge reduction in heat production & a notable increase in performance, Athlon64s pull ahead of P4s.
-Athlon 64s can no longer be unlocked, however lower multipliers are still available.
-Overclockers are divided, Athlon 64 has more overclock options (lower multipliers, better RAM controls), while Pentium 4 can clock higher but with heat & power issues.

Beyond this point I'm no longer sure of the developments as I don't have the budget to get the stuff. Pointless to read up in detail when I can't play around with the stuff. Generally, AMD has catered better for overclockers with Intel producing only a few overclocking gems (the classic Celeron, lower speed Pentium 4 Northwood), so most overclockers tend to be pro-AMD. From what I've heard, the higher end processors starting from dual-core onwards don't overclock that well compared to older processors.

This post has been edited by lohwenli: Oct 3 2006, 12:37 AM

wow.. u have a very good explanation and description on their history...
thanks for everyone who post the reply..
i slightly get what is the OC trend now...
So far AMD processors is cater for the ocers, and intel is not..
but since the c2d is coming out with high ocer capabilities, i think they will have a very hardcore VS next year after the AMD new proc come out...

Not really, just that people go with the higher clocking and performing processors which is available. When Intel has better chips overclockers go with Intel and when AMD has good chips, they go with AMD. Now overclockers are moving to Intel coz their chips are just superb!

Just have to wait and see la, how the overclocking scene will change. Overclockers going for Core 2 Duo to max out their performance, but who knows, maybe AMD's 65nm chips coming end of this year may be even better overclockers. Since Pentium 3, Intel multiplier lock its chips, can't set higher or lower, whereas AMD's chips till today can still set multiplier lower (good for fsb overclocking). Only times when Intel chips were overclocking gems were the classic celeron and Pentium 4 Northwood-buy the low speed chips..damn easy to overclock to get the high speed chips performance & save big money..rosak also can still afford another. Prescott & its relatives were also good overclockers but need damn good fancy cooling & power, puts off some people. Core 2 Duo still to expensive for most overclockers to have accidents (usually when voltmodding). But if AMD's next chip is an overclocking failure, then I guess people will start moving back to Intel.

hello im also a noob here i have one question to ask

the amd phenom and the core 2 quad...highest of both ! and if i were to oc both of them....which will produce :

Highest Speed : ?
Lowest TEmperature : ?

Definitely Core 2 Quad..
WHY DID YOU BUMP 2 YEARS OLD THREAD?

Wow...2 years old thread...

In my opinion... Intel is more simple to OC... AMD is tougher....

THis is based on reading... not trial

I see more intel ocer here.

closing a really old thread