Anyone OCing a new X3

B

bmaverick

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
231
If so, what are your hardware specs? Is the B3 stepping worth it to OC the X3?

I'm hoping to jump aboard when the X3's go to 45nm. ;)
 
They're not very good compared to Intel though..
 
Well alot of software aren't optimized for 3 cores and use 2 or 4 instead. Perhaps with future updates and developments, they could re-benchmark and show 3 being used.
 
bfellow said:
Well alot of software aren't optimized for 3 cores and use 2 or 4 instead. Perhaps with future updates and developments, they could re-benchmark and show 3 being used.
Click to expand...

W00t!!!! :eek: I though the software is either designed to use single core, OR multi-core CPU's... Not 2, 3, 4, 5 core specific variants...:rolleyes:
 
bfellow said:
Well alot of software aren't optimized for 3 cores and use 2 or 4 instead. Perhaps with future updates and developments, they could re-benchmark and show 3 being used.
Click to expand...

lol I don't think they make software that only take advantage of 1,2 or 4 cores. Maybe amd just made another crappy product?
 
We all know that each processor has it's own strengths and weaknesses, and that you can't judge a processor by a few reviews.

I could *easily* fire up Everest and cherry pick benchmarks and make it look like my opty in the sig whallops an e6600. It can work both ways, and you can't be totally sure about what's up until you've looked at a wide range of benchmarks, and I personally think it helps to look at sites that are both biased towards Intel and AMD.
 
sdlvx said:
We all know that each processor has it's own strengths and weaknesses, and that you can't judge a processor by a few reviews.

I could *easily* fire up Everest and cherry pick benchmarks and make it look like my opty in the sig whallops an e6600. It can work both ways, and you can't be totally sure about what's up until you've looked at a wide range of benchmarks, and I personally think it helps to look at sites that are both biased towards Intel and AMD.
Click to expand...

Multicore was tested in a few apps that do support it.
See the x264 r820 test on the end of this page and tests on the next page.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-x3-8750_7.html

"The situation with media content encoding is determined by the codecs optimization for multi-core architectures. Apple iTunes that is well optimized only for dual-core processors works much faster in Athlon 64 X2 and Core 2 Duo based systems. With DivX codec featuring average optimization for multi-threaded environments, Phenom X3 processors fall just a tiny bit behind dual-core Athlon 64 X2 6400+ with 1.5 times higher clock frequency. However, they are still too far behind the dual-core Intel processors. However, the popular x264 H.264/MPEG-4 video codec that loads the CPUs with multiple cores very nicely, allows to fully reveal the Phenom X3 potential. During our performance tests with this codec, triple-core newcomers not only outperformed Athlon 64 X2, but also caught up with the youngest Wolfdale processors"

The same goes for the next page, the AMDs triple core is outperformed by Intels dual core in multithreaded apps.
A quad core AMD is needed to beat Intels dual core and it doesnt win by much !
Add to that Intels chips overclock much higher % and its not looking good for AMD.
 
i thought this thread was about X3 OCing? I love the FUD regarding s/w written to take advantage of 1,2,4 cores....LOL

X3s are a perfectly great choice for low-mid end computers. They OC just fine. INtel's offereings are very impressive as well.
 
Only a patch allows Vista to fully support X3. Otherwise due to licensing Vista only supports cores in a series of two. Many software titles also revert to a single thread under an odd number of cores. While XP does not have this problem.
 
Deliximus said:
i thought this thread was about X3 OCing? I love the FUD regarding s/w written to take advantage of 1,2,4 cores....LOL

X3s are a perfectly great choice for low-mid end computers. They OC just fine. INtel's offereings are very impressive as well.
Click to expand...

Actually some guys @ AMDZone are the one that brought up SW optimization with the cores such as Windows Media Encoder 9 only using 2 or 4 instead of 3.
 
In regards to this 'triple core controversy', anyone with any inkling of a computer science or engineering background would be able to tell you that:

a) When running 3 tasks simultaneously a 3 processor machine will always be faster than a 2 processor machine if the processors in question are even remotely in the same ballpark in terms of performance (and the software doesn't suck). Despite what anyone will say, the Core 2's and the K10s are within the same ballpark.

b) If a program or operating system is written to only take into account a fixed number of cores (i.e. 2 or 4) then that would indicate a lack of vision and poor or lazy programming practices (or some artificial limitation such as licensing). These types of things are more likely to apply to Microsoft-related software, IMO.

That being said, for parallel computing tasks, it would make a heck of a lot more sense to buy an X3 than a dual core Core 2, esp. if the prices are similar. So, for myself, running Linux or a UNIX-like OS, it would make more sense to go with an X3. For people running Windows, people interested only in silly benchmarks that have nothing to do with real world work, or people interested in gaming only, it might make more sense to go with a dual core Core 2.

Myself, I'm more interested in the original intent of this thread, which was overclocking an X3, and not a comparison with another processor of which no one was interested in talking about when the thread was first started.
 
atari030 said:
For people running Windows, people interested only in silly benchmarks favoring huge caches, or people interested in gaming only, it might make more sense to go with a dual core Core 2.
Click to expand...

Hmm, it seems that everyday use of a PC with Windows on it is silly by your description.

How about this view:
For a common sense approach to getting more from your Windows PC, it is a credit to you if you buy a C2D.

It doesnt matter how many different ways you want to cut it, a triple core is only useful for a few things.
A slow triple core is useful for even less things.
 
Back on topic: OCing a X3 should reach 3.0Ghz with no problem since its just like a X4.
 
Nenu said:
Hmm, it seems that everyday use of a PC with Windows on it is silly by your description.
Click to expand...

Yes, pretty much. If you count everyday use of a PC as using e-mail, surfing the web, working with MS Office type documents, burning CDs, watching DVDs, and playing solitaire...then yes, using Windows on a PC is silly when there are other operating systems that cost nothing, aren't subject to viruses, use less resources, and can run on smaller footprint machines.

How about this view:
For a common sense approach to getting more from your Windows PC, it is a credit to you if you buy a C2D.
Click to expand...

If you play games, rip DVDs, or run benchmarks geared towards the Core 2 architecture under Windows, sure.

It doesnt matter how many different ways you want to cut it, a triple core is only useful for a few things.
A slow triple core is useful for even less things.
Click to expand...

The same could be said for a dual or quad core for that matter (and is even more limited when using Windows) so I don't really see the argument as valid. 'Less things' in your definition must include games, DVD ripping, or the benchmarks since you label the X3 that way. I don't count that in my own definition as I don't do any of that.

It makes no sense to even mention an Intel processor in an AMD forum that specifically asks about a technical detail regarding an AMD processor. So how does it start, why is it allowed, and when will it end??

Ok, back on point. I'm done with my arguing. Sorry for the distraction.
 
yeah right, I'll let your delusions sit with you while enjoy using my PC :)
 
Seriously stop trolling yerself, I was making a valid comparison.
I'm not an intel fanboy, I buy whatever is quickest and best value and I'm pissed at AMD for not giving stiffer competition as I would likely have bought an AMD chip again.
 
yeah right, I'll let your delusions sit with you while enjoy using my PC
Click to expand...

So this isn't trolling?

Because AMD users can't enjoy using their PC? Intel just offers mind-blowing performance while Phenom users crawl at 5-10 FPS during gaming right? Get over yourself, you're not the first to feel the need to post "OMG INTEL IS BETTER THAN AMD" in a completely irrelevant thread.

On-topic: Most reviewers have been able to get it to 3.0GHz stable. Here's another one:

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/amd_phenom_8750/12.html
 
I didnt say that.
I didnt make any mention of AMD chips not being able to run Windows well so not sure where you got that from.

atari030 was extolling the virtues of a non Windows OS with AMDs chips
I expressed that he was deluded to think I would be happy with his system.
I am more than happy with Windows and an Intel chip, mainly because I play many new games, a bit difficult on other OS's :)
I also really like Windows.


To put this straight, I have only bought one Intel chip for myself in the last 5 years or so and it is the one I now have.
Prior to this I bought 5 AMD chips in a row, 3 were Athlon 64's, 2 were Athlon XP's.
I would have bought another AMD chip if they had anything that was decent competition for Intel.

What swung me to Intel was higher clocks, lower power use, less heat, faster at everything I need it for, way more overclockable and a very good price !
Yet despite this CPU and OS combination obviously being the best choice, I am being told that its better to use another OS that might be able to make better use of a 3 core chip if I were to use it for certain applications.
I'm not supposed to comment?

What I dont get is why any comparison of AMD vs Intel gets "trolling" comments.
Its quite a valid comparison given that they are the 2 main chip makers.
I had a big hope that AMD could have done something good with Phenom and I'm sad to see the current situation and a little pissed that AMD dropped the ball.

Edit:
also sorry for helping derail the thread, I'd like to know if anyone gets a decent overclock on the new X3 chips as well :)
 
A none Windows OS is not always a blessing...I am only speaking from experince here...the lack of drivers can drive you nuts...for starters...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top