Originally posted by theonejrs:

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Ok Russ, I'll start by apologising for what I said earlier. Retrospectively a lot of what I say seems to come off very rude. I'm walking a fine tightrope with my academic progress at the moment, and it's difficutlt to judge whether I'll be successful in my current uni degree, which is my last chance at further education, or else, standard fare job.
Intel's sales stagnating doesn't surprise me in the slightest, what have they offered recently that's new? Very little, the i7 975 is all I can think of, and it doesn't take much to see they won't be selling many of those. AMD on the other hand have come up with a wealth of new products, and it is only fitting that they take some of the market share back from Intel. They aren't likely to take back all of what they lost, but it'll be a good start at least, with increases in competitiveness, and very little new on the Intel front, though the reason for that is obvious, as none of Intel's products have actually been beaten other than perhaps MIPS/$, there's no reason to bring out anything new. AMD are still a way off from offering a faster quad core than Intel can manage, and a long way off a faster dual core, the E8600 and Q9650 are still happily ahead in almost everything, with the very few zones the Q9650 loses out, there's i7 to fall back on, which to this day is still falling in price.
Something to consider with intel's sales statistics, what do you consider to be a Core 2 Duo? Any 45nm or 65nm dual core? Don't forget a large proportion of, and perhaps the sales majority of Intel's dual cores go under the Pentium Dual core name. That is how my E5200 is branded, as with the E2 and relaunched E6 series, which are all rivals as far as the X2 250, encompassing every xxxx+ series chip and the 7x50 range as rivals.
For AMD, counting Phenoms and 64X2s together, what's actually left? Semprons and Opteron, server grade, and real bottom-end. With dual core CPUs from £40, there's very little reason for people to buy anything else from AMD, so it's no small surprise that these sectors account for 83% of AMD's sales, I'm not really sure what these figures are trying to prove. If it's that simplicity is on AMD's side, that's out. I still don't understand which AM3 CPUs do and don't have DDR2 memory controllers for AM2+ boards.

From a personal standpoint, apologies if this isn't the case here, or if you take offense (none is intended) but it seems to me recently that you're the sort of guy that likes to buck the trend, use something unusual to achieve results as close as possible to everyone else with the mainstream. When X2s were all the rage, you bought a Pentium D. When Core 2 Duo E6 series chips were all the range, (like myself), you bought an E4. When Core 2s with 45nm architectures were steaming ahead, you bought the X2 7750. As someone that usually likes to use brands apart from the obvious, I can sympathise with this, I genuinely can. The difference is, above this I place the priority of getting the most out of something that I need. My needs vary to compared to others, so buying products on feature merits, I for instance chose a Toshiba MP3 player over an ipod. The software is worse, the design is more simplistic, but it's a mark against the 'every man and his dog has one' argument.

---

Sam,
No apology needed as you didn't say anything you need to apologize for.

For sure, I've built some strange ones, but I was in the C2D camp for about 2 1/2 years with the E4300 and the E6750, after the D-940. All the figures show is the percentage of production each type of chip claims. I should have said Intel Dual Cores, and they include all dual cores in their stats. The Intel Dual Cores have dropped just over 15% in the last 6 months, without a corresponding rise in the percentage of others, so I'm assuming that it's business that went elsewhere! I could be wrong!

I can easily look at both our machines and say that we each have what is best for our intended purposes. As far as your Uni Degree goes, I know you are smart, and I'm sure you will get your degree, and wish you the best of luck on that front! I went to school full time my last two years and I worked as well, and had a family, so I know how tough it can be. I also compliment you on your style with this post!

I also agree with you on the AM2+ and AM3 thing. Why it should be that hard to find out what is what is beyond me! If they just told you what it could be used as instead of saying nothing, puzzles me to no end!

Best Regards,
Russ

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

I'd never agree to overclock a 125W chip in those boards, but the original phenoms are the board melters, despite sharing the same TDP, the Phenom IIs aren't as bad for power usage. Still dreadful compared to their Intel counterparts but they're also dirt cheap... It's up-front cost vs. long-term cost really.

---

Originally posted by cincyrob:

---

thanks for the info on my buddies stuff. he has it at 2.42ghz now. he said it isnt 100% stable . i told him he needs to increase his vcor volts a little ata time to get it there.and his temps with this oc, at idle is 32c and under load before it fails the test is 44c so he is in a good range for temps.


now for a real nice OC on a real nice C2D.

---

Quote:

---

The old E2140 could manage about 110% on air, but of course is barely half as fast as that CPU stock...

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

Oh look, the core voltage is missing! :P
Ironically, it's actually not as high as some overclocks Intel's CPUs can pull off with standard fare air cooling, that there is a 93.5% overclock.
The old E2140 could manage about 110% on air, but of course is barely half as fast as that CPU stock...

Russ: Single channel memory is probably the only config he could get to work with a 700mhz FSB on that chip. He could have at least used an E8600 to get a 10x multiplier, make things a little easier.

---

Originally posted by sytyguy:

---

Russ,

Just of curiosity are you running "F2" BIOS on your UD4H?

TIA

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

I'm well aware it's not missing deliberately, but I dread to think what it actually is. I think a sustainable overclock is much more impressive than the highest number you can produce.

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

A little better I suppose... hehe.

---

Originally posted by theonejrs:

---

Originally posted by sammorris:

---

A little better I suppose... hehe.

---

Sam,
At least it proves that XP will boot up with it and run, cause otherwise CPU-Z won't! LOL!!

BTW, there was another at 5940MHz using the x15 multiplier and a 396 FSB!

Russ

---

Originally posted by theonejrs:

---

Yes, it's F2. There's a new F3A out, but I'm reluctant to try it because it runs so good with the F2.

Best Regards,
Russ

---

Originally posted by sytyguy:

---

Originally posted by theonejrs:

---

Yes, it's F2. There's a new F3A out, but I'm reluctant to try it because it runs so good with the F2.

Best Regards,
Russ

---

Thanks. I saw that, IIRC, the F3A is for the Phenom X3 CPU. Not sure if it would benefit us.

---