AMD: T-Bred 1700+ or any 2100+

April 21st, 2003, 15:36

Ive heard so much about the OC options of the 1700+ tbreds .. with me being tight on budget , would it be worth to get a 1700+ plus a heatsink and some fans insted of a much more expensive 2200+ ? im getting an nForce2 motherboard anyhow , so it supports all sorts of OC options ..

felinusz · April 21st, 2003, 16:06

I personally would prefer to purchase a 2200+ t-bred than a 1700+ t-bred and a 'whole slew of fans'.
Why? Becasue you can clock the h3ll out of a 2200+ also. Thats why.

With the money you're saving on a 1700+ you could however buy a SLK 900 heatsink + fan, and some silver+ thermal paste (or whatever it's called), also having some major change to spare. I just don't personally see the point in buying an older processor just so you can clock it when you could buy a (also nicely clockable from what I've heard) newer processor now, the fans later, and clock it also. If you are buying a new rig you want it to have a long (year + months change) lifespan, buying that newer, faster stock processor will ensure that for you.

james.miller · April 21st, 2003, 16:27

2200? nah, i dont argree

the current 1700+ dlt3c "jiuhb" are the undisputed overclocking kings. in a recent poll over at overclockers.com,out of 122 votes, exactly 50% of them reached 2.3ghz and over. 27% reached over 2.4ghz.

would YOU rather pick a 2100+ or 2200+ over one of these superchips? i wouldnt, especially when the 2100+s can only just about keep up at best.

get the 1700+, an slk800 or 900 and a smartfanII or a tornado or delta. you will NOT be disappointed

__________________
Lives for the chase.

felinusz · April 21st, 2003, 17:00

I think that it makes more sense to grab the faster stock chip. You might not get as much of a % increase when compared to the 1700 + clocking, but the end result would be more stable and possibly faster. Also, that particular stepping requires some cooperaive idiots (computer salesman) who will let you 'sample' products before buying or a unpreferrable online purchasing to find and obtain.

Did overclockers.com mention the expected lifespan of these 1700+'s that have been upped from1463 Mhz to 2520 Mhz? I doubt that it is very long, or stable at that high of an increase.

james.miller, I'm not saying that the 1700+ isn't a good chip (look at my system specs), I'm saying that a nice stocked or slightly O/Ced 2200+ is preferable to a supra-clocked 1700+ (especialy if the person owning it isn't comfortable with clocking yet, not saying that this is the case here ChaosBlade).

james.miller · April 21st, 2003, 17:34

it wouldnt at all be any more stable. how did you work that out?

the 1700+ dlt3c's are the NEWEST cores that amd have produced, they dont even come in a 2100+ flavour yet. They are the most stable, which is why they clock higher. What you fail to realise, is that the actual core of a 2100 and a 1700 are IDENTIAL. the only difference are the bridged that control the stock multiplier, and stock voltage They do not, in any way, affect stability OR performance.

__________________
Lives for the chase.

April 21st, 2003, 17:39

Ill just remind im on a tight budget . thats why i wanna get the 1700+ with air cooling and OC it to something like 2.1ghz / 2.2ghz stable .

**DarkAurora** · April 21st, 2003, 17:43

Get the 2200 because an overclocked processor will not last as long as a non-overclocked processor. I'm not saying the 1700+ isn't a good overclocker, I'm just saying it won't last as long as a non-overclocked processor.

james.miller · April 21st, 2003, 17:46

let me put this a different way for you.

lets say we have two chips. a 1700+ jiuhb 0305, and a 2100+ jiuhb 0305.

1) both cores are totally identical - even down to what week they were made in.
2) the 1700 has a stock multi of 11, the 2100 has a stock multi of 13. since the multis are unlocked from the factory - that makes no difference.
3) stock voltage on the 1700 is 1.6v. Stock voltage on the 2100 is 1.65. since the voltage is selectable from the motherboard bios, that too doesnt count.
4) apart from the last L5 bridge (which dictate wether you have <13 or >13 multiplier available, there are no other differences whatsoever.

now what i didnt mention is that the new 1700 jiuhbs actually have a defult voltage of 1.5v, not 1.6 like the older 1700's. they are the newest, and greatest cores.

back to the 1700 and 2100 jiuhb's. inmage that we also had a 2400,2600 and 2800. guess what? they are all identical too. what does that tell you? that the 1700's are really underclocked version of their bigger brothers, thats what.

__________________
Lives for the chase.

Hanamichi · April 21st, 2003, 17:47

Heheh. You just reminded me the basics james.miller. So long as two cores reach the same speed at same voltages and same temperatures they're virtually the same, whatever speed they got stamped at, eh?

edit: Are you guys posting gods or what? 3 new posts in which one is a reply to another which is a reply to the first appeared after I finished typing that. Geez.

james.miller · April 21st, 2003, 17:48

exactly. though it must be said that thats not always the case. but, 85-90% of the time, it is.

__________________
Lives for the chase.

April 21st, 2003, 17:49

yup , throughbred core . all of them .

thats why i want to get the 1700+ jiuhb . ive seen 0251 , 0302 and 0308 here so far .

Aurora : lifespan ? so it would shorten it from 10 years to 8 , or even 5-6 . but who uses teh same CPU for more then 2-3 years ?

james.miller · April 21st, 2003, 17:51

thats exactly why people are buying the 1700's. and as far as i know, as long as you keep them below 1.85v - they will last for years

__________________
Lives for the chase.

Hanamichi · April 21st, 2003, 17:53

Nah, you could get a not-so-good 2400+ and it'd probably have a shorter lifespan than an overclocked 1700+.
james.miller: I said virtually.

james.miller · April 21st, 2003, 17:56

yeah i know lol. thats what i ment

__________________
Lives for the chase.

D.D. · April 21st, 2003, 18:57

Man, if AMD is still here after 4-5 years and their still offering chips of this caliber, I vow that I must buy an AMD based system...

__________________

1. Small, Cheap, Powerful - you can have only two
2. Everytime you engineer something foolproof, the world comes up with a better idiot.
3. 「学問とは虚栄である。」

The PS3 Cell Processor Explained Page, IBM Research's Introduction to Cell Multiprocessor and Cell Processor Programming Guide

D.D. · April 21st, 2003, 20:45

Hey, I just found this great overclocking database for Athlon Xps, so you might wanna check it out (its just been updated for the jiuhb chips):

http://www.vr-zone.com/guides/AMD/TBred/

__________________

1. Small, Cheap, Powerful - you can have only two
2. Everytime you engineer something foolproof, the world comes up with a better idiot.
3. 「学問とは虚栄である。」

The PS3 Cell Processor Explained Page, IBM Research's Introduction to Cell Multiprocessor and Cell Processor Programming Guide

April 21st, 2003, 21:07

It seems like ill go a 1700+ OC after all .. the 2100 / 2200 ones are just too pricey here .

Aleksei (St) · April 22nd, 2003, 01:04

1700 tbred are the best overclocking chips ever made

__________________

felinusz · April 22nd, 2003, 01:34

Quote:

Originally posted by james.miller
let me put this a different way for you.

lets say we have two chips. a 1700+ jiuhb 0305, and a 2100+ jiuhb 0305.

1) both cores are totally identical - even down to what week they were made in.
2) the 1700 has a stock multi of 11, the 2100 has a stock multi of 13. since the multis are unlocked from the factory - that makes no difference.
3) stock voltage on the 1700 is 1.6v. Stock voltage on the 2100 is 1.65. since the voltage is selectable from the motherboard bios, that too doesnt count.
4) apart from the last L5 bridge (which dictate wether you have <13 or >13 multiplier available, there are no other differences whatsoever.

now what i didnt mention is that the new 1700 jiuhbs actually have a defult voltage of 1.5v, not 1.6 like the older 1700's. they are the newest, and greatest cores.

back to the 1700 and 2100 jiuhb's. inmage that we also had a 2400,2600 and 2800. guess what? they are all identical too. what does that tell you? that the 1700's are really underclocked version of their bigger brothers, thats what.

I undertand now.... Your point makes a whole lot more sense than mine now that you have fully explained it... Definetely go for the 1700+!!!

(/ME was wrong

, I have to admit that)

Thanks for clearing that up james.miller.

April 22nd, 2003, 01:40

Ah. now that everyone agrees for the 1700+ im happy

ill try to find one with good stepping here .
the 0251 arent bad , aswell as 0302 .. all Jiuhb / jiucb

April 21st, 2003, 15:36	#1
chaosblade Guest Posts: n/a	AMD: T-Bred 1700+ or any 2100+ Ive heard so much about the OC options of the 1700+ tbreds .. with me being tight on budget , would it be worth to get a 1700+ plus a heatsink and some fans insted of a much more expensive 2200+ ? im getting an nForce2 motherboard anyhow , so it supports all sorts of OC options ..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

April 21st, 2003, 16:06	#2
felinusz overclocking magus Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,372	I personally would prefer to purchase a 2200+ t-bred than a 1700+ t-bred and a 'whole slew of fans'. Why? Becasue you can clock the h3ll out of a 2200+ also. Thats why. With the money you're saving on a 1700+ you could however buy a SLK 900 heatsink + fan, and some silver+ thermal paste (or whatever it's called), also having some major change to spare. I just don't personally see the point in buying an older processor just so you can clock it when you could buy a (also nicely clockable from what I've heard) newer processor now, the fans later, and clock it also. If you are buying a new rig you want it to have a long (year + months change) lifespan, buying that newer, faster stock processor will ensure that for you.

April 21st, 2003, 16:27	#3
james.miller Mr. Stupendous Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Here, There and Everywhere. Posts: 1,138	2200? nah, i dont argree the current 1700+ dlt3c "jiuhb" are the undisputed overclocking kings. in a recent poll over at overclockers.com,out of 122 votes, exactly 50% of them reached 2.3ghz and over. 27% reached over 2.4ghz. would YOU rather pick a 2100+ or 2200+ over one of these superchips? i wouldnt, especially when the 2100+s can only just about keep up at best. get the 1700+, an slk800 or 900 and a smartfanII or a tornado or delta. you will NOT be disappointed __________________ Lives for the chase.

April 21st, 2003, 17:00	#4
felinusz overclocking magus Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,372	I think that it makes more sense to grab the faster stock chip. You might not get as much of a % increase when compared to the 1700 + clocking, but the end result would be more stable and possibly faster. Also, that particular stepping requires some cooperaive idiots (computer salesman) who will let you 'sample' products before buying or a unpreferrable online purchasing to find and obtain. Did overclockers.com mention the expected lifespan of these 1700+'s that have been upped from1463 Mhz to 2520 Mhz? I doubt that it is very long, or stable at that high of an increase. james.miller, I'm not saying that the 1700+ isn't a good chip (look at my system specs), I'm saying that a nice stocked or slightly O/Ced 2200+ is preferable to a supra-clocked 1700+ (especialy if the person owning it isn't comfortable with clocking yet, not saying that this is the case here ChaosBlade).

April 21st, 2003, 17:34	#5
james.miller Mr. Stupendous Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Here, There and Everywhere. Posts: 1,138	it wouldnt at all be any more stable. how did you work that out? the 1700+ dlt3c's are the NEWEST cores that amd have produced, they dont even come in a 2100+ flavour yet. They are the most stable, which is why they clock higher. What you fail to realise, is that the actual core of a 2100 and a 1700 are IDENTIAL. the only difference are the bridged that control the stock multiplier, and stock voltage They do not, in any way, affect stability OR performance. __________________ Lives for the chase.

April 21st, 2003, 17:39	#6
chaosblade Guest Posts: n/a	Ill just remind im on a tight budget . thats why i wanna get the 1700+ with air cooling and OC it to something like 2.1ghz / 2.2ghz stable .

April 21st, 2003, 17:43	#7
DarkAurora Back from the dead Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Seymour, TN Posts: 3,741	Get the 2200 because an overclocked processor will not last as long as a non-overclocked processor. I'm not saying the 1700+ isn't a good overclocker, I'm just saying it won't last as long as a non-overclocked processor.

April 21st, 2003, 17:46	#8
james.miller Mr. Stupendous Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Here, There and Everywhere. Posts: 1,138	let me put this a different way for you. lets say we have two chips. a 1700+ jiuhb 0305, and a 2100+ jiuhb 0305. 1) both cores are totally identical - even down to what week they were made in. 2) the 1700 has a stock multi of 11, the 2100 has a stock multi of 13. since the multis are unlocked from the factory - that makes no difference. 3) stock voltage on the 1700 is 1.6v. Stock voltage on the 2100 is 1.65. since the voltage is selectable from the motherboard bios, that too doesnt count. 4) apart from the last L5 bridge (which dictate wether you have <13 or >13 multiplier available, there are no other differences whatsoever. now what i didnt mention is that the new 1700 jiuhbs actually have a defult voltage of 1.5v, not 1.6 like the older 1700's. they are the newest, and greatest cores. back to the 1700 and 2100 jiuhb's. inmage that we also had a 2400,2600 and 2800. guess what? they are all identical too. what does that tell you? that the 1700's are really underclocked version of their bigger brothers, thats what. __________________ Lives for the chase.

April 21st, 2003, 17:47	#9
Hanamichi Crotally Tazy Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Malaysia Posts: 4,580	Heheh. You just reminded me the basics james.miller. So long as two cores reach the same speed at same voltages and same temperatures they're virtually the same, whatever speed they got stamped at, eh? edit: Are you guys posting gods or what? 3 new posts in which one is a reply to another which is a reply to the first appeared after I finished typing that. Geez.

April 21st, 2003, 17:48	#10
james.miller Mr. Stupendous Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Here, There and Everywhere. Posts: 1,138	exactly. though it must be said that thats not always the case. but, 85-90% of the time, it is. __________________ Lives for the chase.

April 21st, 2003, 17:49	#11
chaosblade Guest Posts: n/a	yup , throughbred core . all of them . thats why i want to get the 1700+ jiuhb . ive seen 0251 , 0302 and 0308 here so far . Aurora : lifespan ? so it would shorten it from 10 years to 8 , or even 5-6 . but who uses teh same CPU for more then 2-3 years ?

April 21st, 2003, 17:51	#12
james.miller Mr. Stupendous Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Here, There and Everywhere. Posts: 1,138	thats exactly why people are buying the 1700's. and as far as i know, as long as you keep them below 1.85v - they will last for years __________________ Lives for the chase.

April 21st, 2003, 17:53	#13
Hanamichi Crotally Tazy Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Malaysia Posts: 4,580	Nah, you could get a not-so-good 2400+ and it'd probably have a shorter lifespan than an overclocked 1700+. james.miller: I said virtually.

April 21st, 2003, 17:56	#14
james.miller Mr. Stupendous Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Here, There and Everywhere. Posts: 1,138	yeah i know lol. thats what i ment __________________ Lives for the chase.

April 21st, 2003, 18:57	#15
D.D. band Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: HERE Posts: 4,912	Man, if AMD is still here after 4-5 years and their still offering chips of this caliber, I vow that I must buy an AMD based system... __________________ 1. Small, Cheap, Powerful - you can have only two 2. Everytime you engineer something foolproof, the world comes up with a better idiot. 3. 「学問とは虚栄である。」 The PS3 Cell Processor Explained Page, IBM Research's Introduction to Cell Multiprocessor and Cell Processor Programming Guide

April 21st, 2003, 20:45	#16
D.D. band Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: HERE Posts: 4,912	Hey, I just found this great overclocking database for Athlon Xps, so you might wanna check it out (its just been updated for the jiuhb chips): http://www.vr-zone.com/guides/AMD/TBred/ __________________ 1. Small, Cheap, Powerful - you can have only two 2. Everytime you engineer something foolproof, the world comes up with a better idiot. 3. 「学問とは虚栄である。」 The PS3 Cell Processor Explained Page, IBM Research's Introduction to Cell Multiprocessor and Cell Processor Programming Guide

April 21st, 2003, 21:07	#17
chaosblade Guest Posts: n/a	It seems like ill go a 1700+ OC after all .. the 2100 / 2200 ones are just too pricey here .

April 22nd, 2003, 01:04	#18
Aleksei (St) In Love! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Ensenada Mexico Posts: 704	1700 tbred are the best overclocking chips ever made __________________

April 22nd, 2003, 01:40	#20
chaosblade Guest Posts: n/a	Ah. now that everyone agrees for the 1700+ im happy ill try to find one with good stepping here . the 0251 arent bad , aswell as 0302 .. all Jiuhb / jiucb