..:: PCSX2 Forums ::..

(11-14-2009, 10:39 AM)decode1984 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't need to add insane amounts of voltage to my cpu to get great results, unlike the AMD counterparts. I am however paying a bit more for the CPU. So I do expect premium results from my cpu.

IT depends on chip you got, i have intel and i have to give him insane amounts of voltage to overclock even a little while some reach that speed on stock voltage.

This is getting a little fanboy heavy now... on both sides...

There are pros and cons to either chip... and the vast majority of people don't have a right to say the plus and minuses of both because they don't own both current top of the line for both systems unless they are in the business of making computers.

Increasing the voltage will kill the CPU's lifespan. If that CPU has 1.4v stock then thats already borderline not safe. My previous build was an AMD Athlon x2 5000+ which had a stock clock of 2.6G. I could barely get only a 400MHZ OC on it. And thats only if I increase voltage on it to 1.4v. Which for that CPU, I felt was unsafe. I'm sure if I played around with my i5-750, I can get at least 3.6-4Ghz. Granted it may require a voltage increase, but I will not OC it to a certain point if it requires crazy voltages to be stable.

I do test all my OC's with Real Temp 3.4 and OCCT 3.0 for at least 3-6 hours before I say it's stable. I at one short point did have an Intel Q6700 setup. I took it to 3.2Ghz with no voltage increase. That was acceptable. Now I have my i5 rig. Elwin is also right in the fact that not every CPU will yield great OC's. I am not saying that AMD's CPU lineup is bad. They are great CPU's and they are cheaper than Intel. But AMD will have to step it up to remain competitive now that Intel has the i5, and the LGA1156 package. The only advantage (Price/Performance Ratio) that AMD has over Intel is slowly fading.

Oh, and I do build computers also. For a long time. There are more factors that affect a stable OC. Like Cooling, Temps, Ram, etc. No CPU can get past those barriers.

I made another post about this subject elsewhere... The best overclockers are the lowest clocked members of the same family...

You use your x2 5000 as an example that it's a poor overclocker because it can only get about 3ghz (something like a 15% increase).... which is the cap pretty much for all x2's... But if you looked at the X2 3600 which starts at 1.8ghz and can reach 3ghz as well (something like a 55% increase).

A bottom line i5 I'd expect to have a higher maximum % overclock to a higher end later generation CPU... Wait another 4-6 months when the 3.5ghz i5's come out... and I guarantee you they'll have a similar overclock cap (maybe 1-300 mhz more, but not much). Overall they'll have a LOWER absolute overclock %... This has nothing to do with chip brands and everything to do with how processor families are made... Your comparison isn't a good one.

Building your OWN computers is NOT the same as building computers professionally for other people... The former constitutes maybe 1 machine a year and thus with non-equal parts... The latter builds several computers a month and can justifyably compare equal parts from different vendors...

*facepalm* My x2 was stock at 2.6Ghz. I may have got it to 3Ghz, but others have gotten it to 3.3-3.4Ghz on air. The lower stock clocked CPU's will have a higher OC % because they are clocked lower not to mention they usually have lower TDP. I wasn't trying to compare my i5 to my old 5000+. In fact, doing some research I found that AMD's x2 6400+ has a stock 3.2Ghz, and only got to 3.4 stable on air. But the 6400+ also had a much higher TDP.

Intel's used to be horrible OC'ers, but now since the C2D series they have gotten a LOT better. Even if you take a lower stock clocked Phenom II and OC it to a certain clock that is similar to Intel's offerings, The Intel CPU will still Outperform it. Clock speed isn't the only deciding factor of a CPU's performance. I upgrade my machine 2x a year and I purchase upgrades that will give me the best bang for my buck. This upgrade happened to be an Intel because the price point of the i5 and the P55 chipset was similar in price then AMD's offerings while offering more performance.

I also DO build computers for friends and family. They mostly are casual gamers and families. You can understand that those kinds of users have various usages. Of course they also worry about cost, so I recommend whichever hardware gives them the best performance for their budget. Be it Intel or AMD.

I finished putting together my new i5 rig last night. This is my first intel build (I've built about 15 Pcs in the past, all AMD) and I'm quite impressed. Except for that stupid socket clamp. That thing required a ton of pressure to lock the CPU into place and had me really scared I might end up damaging the CPU and/or mobo.

I currently have it running at stock voltage, 160 BLK x 20 with Intel Turbo Boost activated . That feature is the coolest thing I've ever seen in a CPU. While the processor is conducting menial tasks (like web browsing) the multiplier automatically drops down to x9 (1.5 ghz) to save power.

When I run prime95 with:
4 threads - the multi goes to x21 (3.36 ghz) Max temp 58C
3 threads - the multi goes to x22 (3.52 ghz) Max temp 58C
2 threads - the multi goes to x23 (3.68 ghz) Max temp 53C
1 thread - the multi goes to x24 (3.84 ghz) Max temp 48C

I haven't tried pushing it any further yet. But to be honest I think I'll just keep these settings as I have not run into anything that interests me that would require more power.

I still can't believe I got this setup for $353 (for MB, CPU, and 4gb 1600mhz RAM)!

and whats the point of 1600mhz razm for i5 whixh supprost max 1333? ANd i am shocked about your results in turbo, i always read it goes for 3,2 on 1 core o.o 3. Or is it i7 860?

Well, either it will clock down to 1333 speeds or he may have special ram. (like XMP compatible ram that OC's to 1600.) I do not think those results are valid for Turbo Boost. He is either OC'ing it (which would invalidate Turbo Boost) or he has an i7 instead of an i5. An i5-750 (the only i5 available) has a stock speed of 2.67Ghz. With 4 cores used Turbo Boost goes up to 2.8Ghz, while using 1 core goes up to 3.2Ghz verified in CPU-Z. For the price he paid, there is no way he could have gotten an i7-860 as they are at least $50-$100 more expensive than the i5-750.

I might add that the stock FSB is 133Mhz. If he increased the FSB, he may be able to yield those speeds. But it is not safe to do so. The CPU will get hot on load and the IMC is on the CPU now. (as well as the PCI-Ex controller.)

You must be right, looking temps he got, OC is quite possible

(11-15-2009, 04:07 PM)decode1984 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, either it will clock down to 1333 speeds or he may have special ram. (like XMP compatible ram that OC's to 1600.) I do not think those results are valid for Turbo Boost. He is either OC'ing it (which would invalidate Turbo Boost)

Overclocking the cpu doesn't invalidate turbo boost. It is advised by a lot of people to just turn it off when overclocking but you can still keep it on.