intel and amd oc'ing

[Anarion]

wow , i see some new entry to history & tech here ,

 

[Wile E]

dont think you're getting the point i made before about the FSB. AMD are already at maximum at stock - intel you arent. a generic stock mobo that does 333/400FSB can cost <$100 on intel, combine that with a 200FSB chip and even with bios locks you can pin mod the chip for the easiest OC you ever did have. i dont think changing a bios setting like the FSB from 266-333 on my board for a 600MHz OC (stock cooling and volts) on a quad is going to be as easy on AMD, unless you get an unlocked multi chip.

Pin mods disqualify a board from being an easy overclock. And my budget AMD board goes to 300fsb with no voltage changes for the board. Maxing most AMD chips is just a matter of raising the fsb until it no longer posts. Intel isn't any easier to reach a max stable oc with.

As an example, with my old 4000+ Brisbane, I got 2.8GHz on stock vcore. All I had to do was raise the fsb to 266 and lower the HT multi to 4.

 

[Mussels]

Pin mods disqualify a board from being an easy overclock. And my budget AMD board goes to 300fsb with no voltage changes for the board. Maxing most AMD chips is just a matter of raising the fsb until it no longer posts. Intel isn't any easier to reach a max stable oc with.

As an example, with my old 4000+ Brisbane, I got 2.8GHz on stock vcore. All I had to do was raise the fsb to 266 and lower the HT multi to 4.

last time i did serious AMD overclocking was on Nforce4... i know a lot of people with budget systems (mostly for media) that cant pass 320 or so. perhaps thats just them.

 

[Wile E]

That was an nForce4 board. DFI UltraII M2. Incredibly easy to OC. 342 was fairly easy to hit. At those speeds, lower cpu multis are needed of course, and we get beyond the realm of simple overclocking, so I guess that doesn't apply here.

 

[Darknova]

That was an nForce4 board. DFI UltraII M2. Incredibly easy to OC. 342 was fairly easy to hit. At those speeds, lower cpu multis are needed of course, and we get beyond the realm of simple overclocking, so I guess that doesn't apply here.

I remember my old Abit AN8 32X did 330Mhz FSB with no voltage changes (no options in the BIOS to do so lol) and as long as you did everything else (CPU multi etc.) it booted fine with every chip.

And Mussels, I DO see your point about 333Mhz boards and 200Mhz chips. I know, because my old E4400 was the same, I could up it to 266Mhz and it would boot at stock volts, lower the multi to 9, and up the FSB to 333Mhz, and it would boot at 3Ghz at stock, so yes, I do get your point.

However, you now see 2 of my experiences, one with each platform. Which is easier? Well, neither IMO.

 

[trog100]

i find it easier to overclock amd than intel.. however when the chip u buy is already near its limit when u buy it as is the current top end amd chips there aint much room left.. a horse can only be made to run so fast..

intel sell their performance chips underclocked amd dont.. they cant.. he he

having said that three years ago the opposite applied.. amd sold underclocked intel couldnt..

my first super easy amd overclock.. turning a 1 gig tbird into a flagship 1.333 tbird.. what did it take.. a f-cking jumper on the mobo moving..

my last amd super overclock.. making my 2.4 gig single core amd 4000+ run at 3.2 gig.. lism is in essence talking amd fanboy bullsh-t.. bless him.. he he he

trog

 

[yogurt_21]

after ocing amd for years I have to say that ocing a q6700 on a chepo gigbyt board was quite easy.

Yes I said easy, those who don't think the intels ocing by 1GHZ is easy simply haven't chieved the same MHZ overclok on an amd to see hwo hard it really is.

I run extreme methods of cooling so I have been able to bring amd's to that clock and every setting counts, if your tras is off on your memory it doesn't post. on an intel Q6700 there was nothing more than setting the memory voltage, cpu voltage and fsb and bang an instant 1GHZ coverclock.

Amd's are more volatile to clock simply because of the memory controller alone. If the memory is a hair off, the system fails to post at a high overclock.

I seriously don't understand why people are claiming that Amd is as easy to overclock as intel when really the conroes clock like butter while the phenoms take a great deal of coaxing to hit even 3GHZ.


theya re different animals entirely, intel has the memory controller on the board, amd on chip, with intel the sam cpu runs on ddr2 and ddr3, amd is tied to ddr2 atm. Intel has a 6GHZ+ speed record. amd has a 4GHZ + (fx57) record.

Seriously going from my fx-62 clcoking wise to the q6700 was like going from a mule to a horse when it came to overclocking.

Fx-62 max air 2.96GHZ, fx-62 max water 3.3GHZ, fx-62 max phase 3.45GHZ
Q6700 max air 3.65GHZ, Q6700 max water ???? not tried yet, q6700 max phase 4.2GHZ with crappy memory and a crappy board)

It's not even close.

now if you were to argue Athlon xp
s vs P4's that would seem to be more equal.

 

[vega22]

lol i love arguments like this, is it fanbioism or do we really have a point?


it is really, really simple. if your hardware is shite no matter how much you tweak, fiddle or pray you will still only get a low oc. i found this out the hard way and never again.

my first oc was a couple of years back and i squose 25% out of a sempy. that took me a while to ballence but it ended quite nice, was very fast for 2.5ghz and wasted alot of more expensive systems at that time. it wasnt the chip that held me back but the board and ram. my next sytem did an 100%oc due to me doing a bit of homework on what was clocking well at the time that could afford. now this was an intel system. im not saying i could of gotten 100% out of the semp if i had better stuff to go with it but it would of been alot easier to get a higher oc if i had.


@ the guy who struggled to hit 3.6ghz on a 8400.

wtf dude? my 8200 did that in my old board the first night it was installed and i replaced that board today with this one so i could get more than 450 fsb and its hit 4ghz tonight after less then 10 hours of being in my case.


everybody can see intel is underclocking there chips just so they have less wastage, bigger margins and in turn they are keeping amd in the game with the joe public (read dell user) when will this flip around again? who knows, maybe when nvidia buys via

 

[Mussels]

there are points. there are many views. as argumentatitve as it is, there IS good info in here.

 

[Wile E]

after ocing amd for years I have to say that ocing a q6700 on a chepo gigbyt board was quite easy.

Yes I said easy, those who don't think the intels ocing by 1GHZ is easy simply haven't chieved the same MHZ overclok on an amd to see hwo hard it really is.

I run extreme methods of cooling so I have been able to bring amd's to that clock and every setting counts, if your tras is off on your memory it doesn't post. on an intel Q6700 there was nothing more than setting the memory voltage, cpu voltage and fsb and bang an instant 1GHZ coverclock.

Amd's are more volatile to clock simply because of the memory controller alone. If the memory is a hair off, the system fails to post at a high overclock.

I seriously don't understand why people are claiming that Amd is as easy to overclock as intel when really the conroes clock like butter while the phenoms take a great deal of coaxing to hit even 3GHZ.


theya re different animals entirely, intel has the memory controller on the board, amd on chip, with intel the sam cpu runs on ddr2 and ddr3, amd is tied to ddr2 atm. Intel has a 6GHZ+ speed record. amd has a 4GHZ + (fx57) record.

Seriously going from my fx-62 clcoking wise to the q6700 was like going from a mule to a horse when it came to overclocking.

Fx-62 max air 2.96GHZ, fx-62 max water 3.3GHZ, fx-62 max phase 3.45GHZ
Q6700 max air 3.65GHZ, Q6700 max water ???? not tried yet, q6700 max phase 4.2GHZ with crappy memory and a crappy board)

It's not even close.

now if you were to argue Athlon xp
s vs P4's that would seem to be more equal.

I wasn't talking in terms of percentages or how many MHz higher it goes. For both my AMD system and my Intel systems, hitting a chip's max OC is just as easy on both. It's just that the AMD peaks lower. Getting to the peak was no harder for me tho.

You also mention the mem-controller and how an AMD won't post with mis-set ram. Well, neither will an Intel board. And while I've never seen it where an AMD is more complicated with ram settings, even if it were true, Intels are more complicated with voltage settings. It all evens out.

 

[yogurt_21]

I wasn't talking in terms of percentages or how many MHz higher it goes. For both my AMD system and my Intel systems, hitting a chip's max OC is just as easy on both. It's just that the AMD peaks lower. Getting to the peak was no harder for me tho.

You also mention the mem-controller and how an AMD won't post with mis-set ram. Well, neither will an Intel board. And while I've never seen it where an AMD is more complicated with ram settings, even if it were true, Intels are more complicated with voltage settings. It all evens out.

ah but therin lies the problem, finding the chip's "max" if you haven run on ln2, you havent found the chip's "max." I dont doubt that on either chip i hadn't found it's max, as without a clean room, gobs of ln2, and the intel/amd dev team, I never will. but at 4.2GHZ on the intel, I can set the tras off by one number and it will post, bench, and prime95 for 4 hours, on the amd at 3.45GHZ I can do the same and get a bsod upon benching. The intel simply clocks easier or maybe I should put it this way, intel overclocking right now is less sensitive to settings than amd.

and i really dont' get the voltage comment, there are less voltages on my intel rig than on my amd one.

 

[Wile E]

ah but therin lies the problem, finding the chip's "max" if you haven run on ln2, you havent found the chip's "max." I dont doubt that on either chip i hadn't found it's max, as without a clean room, gobs of ln2, and the intel/amd dev team, I never will. but at 4.2GHZ on the intel, I can set the tras off by one number and it will post, bench, and prime95 for 4 hours, on the amd at 3.45GHZ I can do the same and get a bsod upon benching. The intel simply clocks easier or maybe I should put it this way, intel overclocking right now is less sensitive to settings than amd.

and i really dont' get the voltage comment, there are less voltages on my intel rig than on my amd one.

Not on mine. CPU pll voltage, VTT voltage, GTL reference, 2-3 voltages for just the NB. My Intels have way more to worry about voltage wise. And my AMDs don't suffer from the ram sensitivity to that point.

And I meant max OC for normal cooling methods, and even up to water. Both are just as easy. I'm trying to keep this at a level that at least seems equal to the OP's. Extreme cooling and clocking is an entirely different beast.

 

[Darknova]

@ the guy who struggled to hit 3.6ghz on a 8400.

wtf dude? my 8200 did that in my old board the first night it was installed and i replaced that board today with this one so i could get more than 450 fsb and its hit 4ghz tonight after less then 10 hours of being in my case.

I'm assuming you never actually read my post, just skimmed and saw "couldn't reach 3.6Ghz" and decided to comment *sigh*

I would also like to point out, that yoghurt_21 made a very interesting point about tRAS on an AMD system that gives an issues very similar to the issue I had with getting 3.6Ghz.

Every single option on my board is set MANUALLY, no Auto shit anywhere (that's why I bought this board), so if something's set wrong that's it, it won't post, and in this case, it was tRD. This is a setting which controls the timing between the northbridge and the RAM. I had it set too tight, so it wouldn't POST. As soon as I loosened it, bam, posted without an issues.

Sounds like the same sort of thing with your tRAS setting.

I've always always, set everything manually, I don't believe in leaving settings up to the board itself, it may be "safer" but I'm after the best out of my stuff. So in both cases, I've needed to know exactly what every setting does, how it affects the board, performance, and ultimately, overclocking capability.

In this way, neither is any easier to overclock, like Wile E said, AMD peaks a lot lower, doesn't make it more difficult to overclock, doesn't make Intel easier to overclock because they peak much higher.

And why are we still stuck on EASIER, when I point out that the OP asked which is BETTER?!

 

[yogurt_21]

Not on mine. CPU pll voltage, VTT voltage, GTL reference, 2-3 voltages for just the NB. My Intels have way more to worry about voltage wise. And my AMDs don't suffer from the ram sensitivity to that point.

And I meant max OC for normal cooling methods, and even up to water. Both are just as easy. I'm trying to keep this at a level that at least seems equal to the OP's. Extreme cooling and clocking is an entirely different beast.

hmm may be it's an asus thing, my amd rig is an asus setup, but I have 7 voltage options on that with only 5 on my gigbyte intel.

which is also an interesting point. I think I've been arguing the wrong thing. it's easier to clock on almost any other kind of board that it is on an asus lol.

 

[Nitro-Max]

theres only few things to consider really.

stock speed
multiplyer
vcore
heat output.

and cost if you're on a budget.

 

[lism]

Pll-voltage does'nt really make a difference except for extreme high FSB's / HTT's where the PLL-generator is a problem-factor

 

[Wile E]

Pll-voltage does'nt really make a difference except for extreme high FSB's / HTT's where the PLL-generator is a problem-factor

That's a real issue with the current crop of 45nm Core2's. There are members of this forum running 550fsb or more on low multi chips.