Tom's Can't Overclock An Athlon FX!

[turpit]

Yeah, it's a shame.
You have to wonder why THG is known to be an intel paid site by many IT journalists and hardware sites. Now you know where all the bias comes from.

ROFLMAO

9 inch, my god, do bother to engage your brain prior to exhaling through your mouth?

You have to wonder why THG is known to be an intel paid site

It was the reviews and benchmarks posted by THGs and some other sites as well as the INTELLIGENT people on the THG boards who prompted my descision to try an AMD T bird years ago. It was THG again, that guided my descision to upgrade to an Athlon XP 1900. THG, its forum and a few other sites also guided me to the XP 3200. People like you put me off AMD

If Intel is paying THG, they dam well better put a stop payment on the check, because THG has cost Intel a lot of business over the past 5 years, at least. Probably more if I think about it.

You are delusional. For your own sake, wake up and smell the coffee. Your behaviour is indicative of a socially isolated personality suffering from dementia.

 

[nobly]

NEO3,

Yes, THG could have done better. Everyone could always do better. They probably could have overclocked the X6800 better too.
The point is that the title of this thread is:
1) A lie - they did overclock it, but not to its "maximum" that you seem to think.
2) Its offensive to the authors of the article because its a lie.
3) You have provided little evidence that the FX-62 could be pushed farther - so far we have 3.15Ghz. Again, 50-100Mhz won't have any difference on the conclusion of the article.

In addition, they stated that it is as far as they could go:

We couldn't achieve stable operation at more than 9 percent faster than stock speed, whether we used air or water cooling.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/02/thg_tuning_test/page3.html
However, this does not mean it can't be pushed farther.

If you would like to prove everyone wrong, then go get a FX-62 and overclock it to whatever you think is the maximum and share the results with us here.

 

[m25]

I admit the approach is totally agressive but the boy is not all wrong; While saying "The sample we used for our tests OC pretty bad" is no issue writing down things like:
"Let's be perfectly clear for the benefit of the hard-core overclockers among our readers: there is nothing more you can do at this point to squeeze any more speed out of this CPU."... they put a cover on it; the FX-62 (not only their sample buut ALL FX-62s) can't go beyond 3.05GHz. "Don'y buy FX-62s" they say "because they don't OC". I'd not think twice to call it missinformation.
or
"The step up to 3.2 GHz is simply too big, because of the 90 nm fabrication process used to build this processor", "forgetting" that 3.8GHz prescotts were also 90nm

All this is simply ridiculous! 😳

 

[NEO3]

Yes, THG could have done better.

And they should.

You have provided little evidence that the FX-62 could be pushed farther - so far we have 3.15Ghz. Again, 50-100Mhz won't have any difference on the conclusion of the article.

But It can, ergo, It could.

If you would like to prove everyone wrong, then go get a FX-62 and overclock it to whatever you think is the maximum and share the results with us here.

I agree. Please, send me and FX-60 and all the components used in this review.

:lol:

 

[NEO3]

take mpjesse's advice,and take strange strangers advice.

I only take good advice's. Not rude/ignorant/crap comments as those.

This topic would have been better named...

Dont be so afraid of oppening a topic! Go for it, You can do it! :lol:
(Btw...I dont have an AM2 system - see my sig.)

and hopefully jack barnes or someone will lock this idiocy.

And hopefully my "Reports" will teach to some people manner's.

 

[NEO3]

I admit the approach is totally agressive but the boy is not all wrong; While saying "The sample we used for our tests OC pretty bad" is no issue writing down things like:
"Let's be perfectly clear for the benefit of the hard-core overclockers among our readers: there is nothing more you can do at this point to squeeze any more speed out of this CPU."... they put a cover on it; the FX-62 (not only their sample buut ALL FX-62s) can't go beyond 3.05GHz. "Don'y buy FX-62s" they say "because they don't OC". I'd not think twice to call it missinformation.
or
"The step up to 3.2 GHz is simply too big, because of the 90 nm fabrication process used to build this processor", "forgetting" that 3.8GHz prescotts were also 90nm

All this is simply ridiculous! 😳

Very well said! Perfect comment.