I'm wondering which CPU (I'm assuming the 35watt AXPs are better OC'ers than the 45 watt counterparts) the 2400+ or the 2200+ will overclock better on average. Are the 35 watt parts showing better overclocks than the 45 watt? Based on what I've read mobile parts (45 or 35 watt) are better than desktop parts. Are the mobile CPUs locked? Also how much juice will these 1.35v cpus take (watercooled) before dying, or before diminishing returns on an OC?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
which 35watt AXP?
- Thread starter mikelz85
- Start date
Ballz2TheWallz
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,352
mobile bartons overclock the best, and for the power now feture built in they have unlocked multiplyers for energy saing on labtops. they will oc upwards to 2.5ghz depending which quality core you get, 2400 2500 or 2600 the faster the better silicon in the chip and better the overclock chances
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2003
- Messages
- 7,534
1. Mobile cpu's are unlocked.
2. The 2400+ 45 watt I had hit 2.4 ghz no sweat, so the 35 watt will probably be better.
3. I'd go for the 2400+ 35 watt if I was you.
4. I pumped nearly 2V through my mobile on air with only a baseline Thermalright cooler and 80 mm fan and another 80 mm fan on the side of the case blowing in. Around 49C load temps iirc. You'll be fine. They can take alot of juice.
2. The 2400+ 45 watt I had hit 2.4 ghz no sweat, so the 35 watt will probably be better.
3. I'd go for the 2400+ 35 watt if I was you.
4. I pumped nearly 2V through my mobile on air with only a baseline Thermalright cooler and 80 mm fan and another 80 mm fan on the side of the case blowing in. Around 49C load temps iirc. You'll be fine. They can take alot of juice.
category_five
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2004
- Messages
- 193
This is the exact opposite of what I have heard about processors in general. For example, a company produces a new line of processors. The processors are tested and some are able to run at high speeds, some are not able to. The high speed ones get sold as higher MHz chips, the lower speed possessors are marked and sold as lower speed chips.
As a chip is produced over a longer period of time a chip, production of the chip gets more efficient. The quality of the processors gets better as well. Towards the end of a product line almost all of the processors are able to operate at higher speeds. However the demand still remains for the lower priced, slower clocked versions. What a manufacturer will do to meet this demand is lock the clock multiplier in chips destined for the lower priced market using circuitry on the processor but outside the die. The internal chip remains the same. If I am correct then what this means is that your chances for a higher percentage overclock are better with the chips rated for lower speeds that are towards the end of their production lifecycle.
The 2600 Mobile is the best choice of the group. The 35 W ones do not benefit greatly from the lower wattage. These chips are mature enough now that extensive OCing results have bourne this out.
The 2600s have 2 different steppings. The earlier I stepping and later A stepping. The I stepping is preferable ( the part number on the core will begin with either the I or A) but harder to find as it is older. The diff between the 2 is small but if you have a choice... I have an A stepping 2600 M that runs at 2.737 (219 X 12.5) rock solid stable on a Abit NF7-S 2.0 board with a merlin BIOS and watercooling.
P.S. Core voltage is at 2.0 . been running about 7 months now.
The 2600s have 2 different steppings. The earlier I stepping and later A stepping. The I stepping is preferable ( the part number on the core will begin with either the I or A) but harder to find as it is older. The diff between the 2 is small but if you have a choice... I have an A stepping 2600 M that runs at 2.737 (219 X 12.5) rock solid stable on a Abit NF7-S 2.0 board with a merlin BIOS and watercooling.
P.S. Core voltage is at 2.0 . been running about 7 months now.
category_five said:
This is almost FUD.
These are mobile XP's. They must be multi unlocked to function as they were designed.
I remember reading the AXP line is EOL'd as of last month, so these may be the last. I may be wrong on the EOL. AMD may be continuing on with mobile XP's though. I don't know.
Better overclocks will come from the 35W mobile 2400's, nearly guaranteed. These chips can do 2.0GHz on 1.35V. As any decent overclocker knows, the difference of .1V can be staggering.
mwarps said:
1.35V voltage at 2.0G is not relevant when he is going for watercooled top end and will prob be pushing 2.0V. Lots of processors will run OCed to a degree at stock voltage and still be crap for higher end OCing.The many results posted around the web do not bear out the assumption that the 35W will give the OC results that make it a better choice than the 2600. People just ASSUME it will. How many 2400s can hit 2.7G stable? a few but with the 2600 its a gimme.
category_five
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2004
- Messages
- 193
You state my post is disinformation and then agree with my conclusion when I state it would seem that the 2400 may be the better candidate for overclocking.
Nowhere in my post did I state nor imply that mobile XP's had locked clock multipliers.
Honestly, when you accuse someone of disinformation I would hope that you somehow address even a single point in the post. All I see here is one giant non-sequitur.
chisaipete
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 527
The first boot on my Athlon XP 35W Mobile 2400+ I hit 12x200 stable at 1.725 running OK air cooling...not the best, but Prime ran forever and it was rock solid..
(Still have to tweak the OC a bit though... )
My Vote's for the 2400
-Connor
(Still have to tweak the OC a bit though...
)My Vote's for the 2400
-Connor
Ballz2TheWallz
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,352
the higher the rated speed the better the overclock CHANCE no WAY he majority 2400s will have better silicon then 2600's its just stupid
category_five said:You state my post is disinformation and then agree with my conclusion when I state it would seem that the 2400 may be the better candidate for overclocking.
Nowhere in my post did I state nor imply that mobile XP's had locked clock multipliers.
Honestly, when you accuse someone of disinformation I would hope that you somehow address even a single point in the post. All I see here is one giant non-sequitur.
Re-read. You were actually in complete agreement with me, but you replied in such a way to the statement " the faster the better silicon in the chip and better the overclock chances" that on first and second read I thought you were in disagreement. MY bad there. Ballz's bad for not being able to use proper grammar. at. all.
Ballz2TheWallz said:
What you say would be true at the same voltage, but as you should know, but obviously don't, they're not the same voltage. The same thing happened with the DUT3C and DLT3C 1700+ AXPs, but no one seems to remember that. The DLT3C chips were getting outrageous overclocks, head and shoulders above their DUT3C cousins of all speed ratings.. Why? Better Si, lower voltage, lower power. End of story #1.
Do you understand how semiconductors work? [Same for you, MikeP]
The 35W chips run at 1.8 Ghz at 1.35V. Most, if not all, will run at 2 GHz, the rated speed of the 2600, at that 1.35V, 0.1V lower than a 2600. They are speedbinned to 2600+ because they can't run at the lower power reliably. The 2400's and 2600's are pulled from the same wafers. Lower Power, lower voltage same frequency means better silicon. End of story #2. If you don't understand that, there is a fundamental lacking in your knowledge of the way semiconductors work.
Not true, any of it.MikeP said:
"A" was the first stepping. "I" was the second. "A" was the third. I'm probably the one who kickstarted the stepping hypothesis and it was basically nonsense. The chips got better as AMD refined their processes, so the later "A" steppings did as well as, if not better than the earlier "I". ...and in any case, there are "P" steppings now so where the hell are those supposed to fit in?
I've seen 35w do just as well and personally had one @ 2.5GHz with just over 1.75VC (Prime stable) on med cooling. But the biggest factor among the mobiles on how good of a chip you get depends almost entirely on luck. 2.7GHz is never a gimme.