The bus speed looks good, I assume they left the multi at stock to show how high the reference could go.
3.6 GHz on $300 i7 920? Yes please!
I think I will build a Nehalem box around the beginning of next year, should be a rendering beast!
Printable View
The bus speed looks good, I assume they left the multi at stock to show how high the reference could go.
3.6 GHz on $300 i7 920? Yes please!
I think I will build a Nehalem box around the beginning of next year, should be a rendering beast!
when is this available ? and how much is it guna cost around ? looking forward to the upgrade i will probably do it next year saving now :)
I would guess that C will be launch and D will be some minor change that we will see come out later.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Quote:
Core i7 965 XE Unboxed, Stock Cooler and Processor Exposed
Intel would be rolling out an elite fleet of desktop processors based on the new Nehalem architecture soon. The first derivative, the Bloomfield core, is supposed to be the architecture's flagship for the desktop PC market. And for it, Core i7 Extreme 965 is supposed to be the leading processor. Priced at US $999, the processor is clocked at 3.20 GHz and features four cores and eight logical processors thanks to HyperThreading Technology (encore). Details of it are covered here.
Mobile101, unboxed the i7 965 before launch. The contents show a massive stock cooler and the processor itself. The stock cooler is composed of the same fins projecting radially, just that they are much thinner, and more in number (to boost surface area of dissipation). The cooler uses 50% of fins made of copper and the rest 50% made of aluminum. The large CPU contact base is made of copper and pre-applied TIM. The box pictured is the "white-box" part, expect the retail box to be of that exact size.
http://www.techpowerup.com/img/08-09-23/73a_thm.jpg http://www.techpowerup.com/img/08-09-23/73b_thm.jpg http://www.techpowerup.com/img/08-09-23/73c_thm.jpg http://www.techpowerup.com/img/08-09-23/73d_thm.jpg http://www.techpowerup.com/img/08-09-23/73e_thm.jpg http://www.techpowerup.com/img/08-09-23/73f_thm.jpg
http://www.techpowerup.com/72047/Cor...r_Exposed.html
:up:
When can we expect an NDA lift on the date that the release date will be announced? (which is NDA) :p:
The "lift" on the first Penryn (QX9650) was around October 28, 2007 while the release date was November 12, 2007. Does that mean we can expect info on Nehalem's release to be in mid-October?
The NDA lift date is under NDA!Quote:
Originally Posted by AuDioFreaK39
:rofl::rofl::rofl: comics of repetition :rofl::rofl::rofl:
This may be the case .... having tracked this for many many years, typical launch steppings are in the B or C arena with occasional D steppings.... considering the radical departure of the architecture (i.e. IMC, QPI), it would not surprise me if Intel made a few extra spins to debug and we see D ... who knows, we will know when we know or when the NDA lifts, which is according to Dr. Who? still under NDA :) :) :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
Around the 3rd of november ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
:eek: *hopes* :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by metro.cl
reason behind November 3rd is...?
I think we will find out after November 3rd :p:
Halloween surprise!LOL! Wouldn't be the first time.
Ooh, OOh, late birthday present for meee?!!
yay! finally some leaked specs!
http://diy.pconline.com.cn/cpu/revie...426985_10.html
http://img3.pconline.com.cn/pconline...0046_thumb.jpg
http://img3.pconline.com.cn/pconline...5_snap0038.jpg
confirmed: 133MHz QPI bus speed and 22x multi for Core i7 940?
http://img3.pconline.com.cn/pconline...5_snap0039.jpg
http://img3.pconline.com.cn/pconline...5_snap0041.jpg
http://img3.pconline.com.cn/pconline...5_snap0045.jpg
I don't work for Intel, so no one can take me away in a black van for this. :)
Looks like they pulled the graphics ... you didn't happen to save a copy to repost .. did ya?Quote:
Originally Posted by AuDioFreaK39
HOLY :banana::banana::banana::banana:
Look at those BW numbers. At those latencies. The FAST cache. A mem controller able to do DDR3-2100.
... :slobber:
Awesome performance on memory benchmark indeed
You guys are yet to see "real" numbers. :cool:
Yes,like you can see test results on Benchmark forum!!
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=202139
JP.
i just wanna know good the i920 non ES will oc, otherwise its a q9550 for me
Pretty much that's how I'm leaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by ap4lifetn
You guys are yet to see the "final" tuning. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGGER
:rofl::ROTF:
"
nehalems overclocks automatically, even to 3.4 ghz or more, so the inflated benchmarks corresponds to overclocked processors and that explains the 130 tdp, even for the 2.6ghz processor.
i think this is not good for (dirty) intel. using overclocking to improve results."
source; vr-zone from (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Tur...ntel,6193.html , http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...9455&Itemid=35 )
I`d like to ask for whole mounting socket dimension.. same guys are talking about 80x80mm but few other are talking abou 113x113... which is the true, jejeeje no body want to answer me..
wow wow wow!Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeywoman
If you don't mind, The architect of the processor designed it to take advantage of the thermal "room" we have on the socket. it is not cheating or anything like you are saying, it is being smarter about thermal. Today's processors are very stupid in that sense, an opteron or a Yorkfield does not increase the frequency, even if it could, because it has room when not using 4 threads ... on single threaded program, 3 cores are in C6 states. Why giving penalty to the single threaded performance, because the Max power of 4 cores. PCU + Turbo fix this.
If you have a program using 4 threads, but not using a lot of thermals, because using a tight loop in the L1 (not using a lot of transistors), why not raising the frequency of 1 or 2 steps if your process technology allow you to do so and PAST EVERY QUALITY TEST !!!!
Using the thermal envellope in a better way is very smart, all other x86 makers are stock at their thermals because of the 4 cores max power.
On the top of this, Nehalem has Power gating for each Core, we can reduce the power usage to a neglisable quantity, it would have be foolish to implement this without the PCU (Power Controle Unit)
The Architect of Nehalem invested a lot of time in the PCU, it has more transistor than the original i80486 ... just to give you the scale.
the PCU and its reward will give nehalem an edge on all small form factor PC, it will allow you to overclock, it will make sure you minimize your carbon foot print.
nothing related to cheating, it is a new features that will save millions of tonnes of carbon, for Fudo ... it is Fudo ... what do you expect from "FUD"zilla ... some FUD , no?
and for Tomshardware ... well, this is a long serie of innacurate articles due to the fact the dresden fab is not doing the same ...:ROTF:
PS: This is my personal opinion for the conclusion ... :clap:
http://www.speedtest.net/result/330920499.png
JC (JCornell) already posted pics of the hole spacing with a ruler next to it, ots somewhere in the guts of this tread.Quote:
Originally Posted by BND|MOD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
I agree with you totally on that + 1
I soo can't wait to make a nehalem system about july next year :D:clap:
it is 8cmx8cm for Core i7 instead of 7cmx7cm for Yorkfield 775Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Francois
I agree. Until now, CPU's have not been able to do this. Nehalem is just a superior technology, and I'm glad the designer had the forward thinking to pull that off. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
I'm certainly glad I chose watercooling for this new CPU. I've been waiting a long time on this CPU. I need this CPU now. Actually I needed it a year ago. I'm really hoping that the release it no later than November. I absolutely must have a system before years end. The winter season is when I do some design work, and my computer is just hardly able to cope with the modelling programs I'm using now. I need multicore...not want, but *need*.
Dude, this is XS, no one will complain because his CPU automatically overclocks :D as long as traditional OC is up to the expectations ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeywoman
"nehalems overclocks automatically, even to 3.4 ghz or more, so the inflated benchmarks corresponds to overclocked processors and that explains the 130 tdp, even for the 2.6ghz processor.
i think this is not good for (dirty) intel. using overclocking to improve results."
What the hell is going on? "Dirty" Intel? Intel is as "dirty" as they used to be.
It's stupid *not* to use the overclocking potential if possible.
However, I believe none of the benchmarks used turbo mode, Nehalem seems to be only 5-10% faster in single-threaded apps. If they need turbo mode to achieve those gains, then nehalem would be slower clock for clock than penryn. A step backwards by the new Intel? Very unlikely, yet possible.
"Leaked information also indicates that production CPUs will self overclock by up to two speed bins" as per tomshardwere
EDIT:
The overclocks look lackluster as compared to mature core 2 quads, but are you sure we can compare them, I mean Nehalem features completely different circuits. Maybe the design with static CMOS reacts different to voltage and is more robust? Anyone with some knowledge care to comment? JJ?
depends on what your definition of traditional ocing isQuote:
Originally Posted by LowRun
pushing 500+fsb, or gettin a couple of mhz out of the HTT
It also depends on IPC, IMC gains and etc...... Prescott overclocked like mad and seemed to be spinning its wheels. If at 3.4GHz, it could hang with the overclocked Yorkies at 3.7 to 4+GHz, who in the hell will care?Quote:
Originally Posted by Newblar
But as someone else said, please wait until the NDA's are over with for good and bad results to be supported. Too much hype for Nehalem is just as bad as too much FUD;)
What would I have liked to have seen? A straight Core 2 Duo or Quad with an IMC and NO L3 at all. No change to the cache setup as well. This would be to show just how much IMC is overrated on a Single Socket Desktop system.
I dont know about the new socket but LGA755 mounting is 80x80 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BND|MOD
Let's see, you don't have a lot of folks complaining about Processors throttling down but cranking up is a problem, WOW! I think we've come full circle!Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeywoman
"
nehalems overclocks automatically, even to 3.4 ghz or more, so the inflated benchmarks corresponds to overclocked processors and that explains the 130 tdp, even for the 2.6ghz processor.
i think this is not good for (dirty) intel. using overclocking to improve results."
source; vr-zone from (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Tur...ntel,6193.html , http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...9455&Itemid=35 )
Please note that features can be turned off or disabled:up:
calm down people, all i'm saying that the initial "stock" benchmarks might seem high because during the run; the cpu will clock up instead of staying at the "stock" speeds i.e. 2.66Ghz-->during bench run to 3.2Ghz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
i know they will be fast but if they are to be tested; it should be with this feature turned off.
I'm sure many sites will turn off Turbo mode and test Core i7 at its rated speed.It would be interesting to compare those results to the ones we have up until now.
If this stuff is gonna be enabled by default for everyone and behaving identically i can't see why it should be turned off for benchs :shrug:
If speculations are right then if u clock nehalem to 4ghz then with turbo mode on it will go up to 5!:rolleyes:
Nah....
Then it would propably crash and u would need to keep turbo mode off, in order to be always at 4...;)
Let's be clear, when you overclock an XE Core i7, you 'll be using the Turbo max ratio as the max ratio ... YOU WILL NOT GET TURBO KICK IN WHEN YOU ARE OVERCLOCKING. Turbo IS the way you ll over clock, then, you ll be using the stock clock (133MHz) and you will increase it...
I recommand that you do not max out the Turbo ratio, and do a trade between Turbo ratio and clock increase via the base clock. This gives the best frequency results.
I would think the smarter way to play this would be to leave turbo mode on, and consider the multi as always n+2 when calculating what the final clock will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by leoy
This allows you to still make use of the intelligent clock scaling up and down in periods of loading and not loading for power efficiency.
As far as reviews go. I believe that any reviewer that is looking at the platform for stock ability comparisons should leave the features to default to show consumers the out of the box performance of the platform.
And exactly, unlike the FSB, the speed of the reference clock has no direct impact on overall performance of the platform. With FSB overclocking, quite often, a lower CPU multi and higher FSB speed can hit the same CPU clock, but speed up data transfer across the bus (providing you aren't switching to a looser strap or Trd as it's called nowadays).Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Here, there are no performance gains for moving the reference clock other then fine tuning CPU/Mem/QPI speeds between multipliers that fall on either side of a stability zone.
That's indeed true for common users.But XS and other enthusiast communities are not "common user" groups and we'd like to see a real clock/clock comparison being made :).That said,auto OC is really a good feature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
You will get more frequency on the extreme edition if you do not push too hard the frequency multipliers inside the dice. it is why you want to increase the stock clock as part of the mix. I am going into much details, but it is about clock distribution over the dice area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
I read thru this thread and some of what you people know amazes me.
I always thought I was pretty good with hardware but with some of the people here I feel like a toddler in Kindergarten..:rofl:
I have a question for you Dr. Who;
Will the Gainstown systems also have the ability with the 3200EE's to OC or will they be locked?
I am not allow to speak for Gainstown ... it is my Buddy Larry who is in charge of this server/workstation, I can't speak for his plan ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
sorry :(
(You always ask question I can t answer ... lol :rofl: )
That's ok, You answer honestly and thats all that matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
So,ahh, what's Larry's telephone number?:D
Now I want you to understand that there's this 56 year Old guy sitting in New Hampshire that is dreaming of an 8 core gainstown running 16 WU at a time on WCG at hopefully a speed of 4000mhz so that explains my constant questions..:D
I stopped reading after calm down:rofl::ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeywoman
Most important part here. Out of the box performance in more important than turning of stuff for theory and what ifs. It is far easier to work with something than to work against it. In this case it'd seem maxing out turbo tweaking it to the edge (over the edge = until its not stable anymore) would make all the sense in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
Go back to August 2006 (on this forum) and look at all of the features turned off or disabled to get better overclocks on the first C2D's? SO its not like folks aren't use to killing features to get better overclocks. IMHO, that's kind of counter productive;)
No matter how nicely said, some will always look for chinks and blemishes in the something shiny and new:rolleyes:
Something about signals between CPU/MEM/QPI being out of phase at higher multipliers? Or simply overworking the clock distribution circuits?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Less try to formulate it in simple words ... The statement below is true since the 486DX2, up to Core i7:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
The frequency multipliers have their own limits, signal gets less clean when you get to very high ratio, this is physica laws... then, when the clock become "less square signal" , its propagation become less effective, detection of 1 or 0 become less accurate on the other side of the dice.
Over the years, Intel invented many many ways to avoid the side effects, the high frequencies of Pentium 4 generation pushed the limits. I am not allow to discuss those details here, but just understand that pushing the frequency of the base clock and increasing the Turbo ratio will give much better result than just increasing the Turbo ratio (plus TDP limit).
We got to keep the secret sauce of our processor secret ... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Good explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
The question then becomes to what point will the turbo mode still allow increases assuming we cool the hell out of the cpu and I am still talking air and water.Let's face it, your cpu's are excellent but the stock HS leave something to be desired and I am not bashing you or intel, just stating a fact.
Lets assume for the sake of arguement that I can keep that cpu under 50C at full load. At that temp do you think or know if a sustained 4000mhz is possible?
I know, another tough question but the easy questions we already know the answers to!:D
DrWho? Can you say anything about cold bugging with Nehalems? Hopefully the guys from the overclocker mag asked you that hehe.. If you can't say anything, fair enough. Your posts in this thread have already revealed much. Thanks for stopping by :up:
answer is OC mag coming ... :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Booj
The chips WILL run cold, very cold..:wasntme:Quote:
Originally Posted by Booj
it uses the same process technolgy as Penryn,plus some improvements ... :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
so, i let you guess :ROTF:
[EDIT]
We did make sure that the PCU does not get in the way of Extreme OC
[/EDIT]
DrWho?, I understand that you are a busy guy at this time, so thanks for providing as much as information you are allowed to. Over at vr-zone is a preview of the Asus P6T Deluxe motherboard, which gives a strong warning not to raise the memory voltage higher than 1,65V, otherwise the CPU will be damaged permanently. Simple question: true or old information or can't you comment on this? (since the imc is in 45nm, it might be true, but i hope not).
Turbo mode is only for extreme editions, right?
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by pajaa
Well..will should be maybe. And the same applies everytime you OC, increase vcore etc etc. Anything not running at stock=chance of CPU, memory, Board whatever to be permanently damaged.Quote:
Originally Posted by pajaa
And where is the strong warning in the link? I skimmed it over and I didnt see any warnings or anything about 1.65V.
And the only thing on that page with 65 in it is:
Quote:
vNB-PCIe in 65-step chipset-PCIe bus voltage control
Is keeping it below 1.65v a bad thing?
I think what is getting people into trouble here is they are trying to go by what they've learned about older technology and don't know how this new technology works so they aere filling in the blanks with guesses.
Nobody can assume anything from that voltage level. That may very well be some rediculously high voltage that will never be needed. They probably put that there for the person who likes to come out the gate and just crank stuff up based on what they were "used to".
The only things we know about this CPU are what those that have worked on it, and worked with it have told us.
That's great news.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
Its in this picture here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
There are many DDR3-kits, which need 1,7V oder more to reach the advertised speeds and latencies or in other words: to run stock speeds. And we all want to get the best out of nehalem, or not? ;)
So it's official.It's Asus sticker alright and it lists tech paper from intel that states the 1.65V VDimm mark.Still it's a bit strange to have such a low limit knowing many stick need 1.7+V to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by pajaa
It's time for some low voltage DDR3 kits to arrive on the market.Jedec even approved the LowV DDR3 standard recently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pajaa
I don't think it is accurate. Let's look at the logic behind memory controler...
Before, the memory controler was out of the CPU dice, so, if you burn a X48 ... it is only few 100 $ ... Now, the memory controler in on dice, so, if you burn, it will be expensive ... if using an extreme edition ...
So, electricly speaking, you want to pay attention to the laws of physics ... You got to make sure you align your memory voltage with the memory controler voltage ... I saw already people with illegitimate sample (grrrr) asking why their killed their CPU ... The reason is simple, if you put 1.5Volts on the memory controler, and 1.7 or 1.9V on the memory ... there is an obvious difference of electric potential ... and it will @#$!@#$*!#$
Any "non sunday overclocker" :ROTF: has a little understanding of physics laws, if you connect 2 wires with a different voltage ... you get electric courant.
In the case of Nehalem, you have to pay attention to this, don't connect 2 wires with different voltage together: Make sure your memory controler setting is not too far from the memory voltage.
On X48 , X35 and all the other, it was true too. People just burned chipset and did not really understood what was happening. This time, I come forward, and clarifie the laws of physics with the press, when I did meet them in Europe, USA and asia.
by the way, http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...s-qimonda-ddr3 should be enough for 99% of you guys :) :rofl:
pay attention to physics laws :cord:
[edit]
I forgot to add, you all overclock at your own risk .... :YIPPIE:
[/edit]
The difference in voltages between IMC and memory is a problem,but remember Agena core is also featuring IMC,although a DDR2 ,and voltage difference is a lot higher (1.15V for NB VS 1.8-2.4V for memory).That's 1+V difference right there.
Early B2 Agena cores did have problems with 2.2V+(some reports of dead CPUs) but B3 stepping has no such issues.
I guess with newer DDR3 memories this will become a non-issue on Nehalem platform.
Guys he's right. We're dealing with electricty, and that's what I've always studied the most. Things like loadline, and load balancing, voltage delta's between what is coming IN from the PSU and what is going to the socket (vDroop). I actually used to measure this stuff on my old IC7-G directly via a test point soldered to the board. I did vMods. :shocked: Oh the horror...
Lemme tell 'ya, when i started doing those vMods, nothing will get the adrenaline flowing faster than when you push that power button the first time after doing a mod to your mobo!
I hope the warning he gave we all already are aware of. There are NO guarantees with OC'ing. It's gotten much easier and some take it for granted, but if you do it, you risk your hardware. It used to be said "If you don't have the money to replace your enetuire system don't do it at all." Some people used to go on to say "Do not come back here and blame me if you let the smoke out of your hardware. If you OC, it's YOUR risk. Take any info I post at your own risk."
The "feeling" I'm getting (and I know these guys are under strict NDA's) is that this CPU is something very different than we are used to. I also feel like there are mnay things yet to be revealed about it. They have stated point blank though that OC'ing has been taken into consideration at many levels, so I'm assuming it's gonna be another great CPU.
I'm glad I waiteds before buying memory now though, and am gonna follow those new JEDEC standards if that's what it takes. I love this design. It has alot of forward thinking to it. It's a completely different kind of running.
@DrWho?
Merci beaucoup.
The only drawback with the qimonda memory is the green pcb. (and I haven't got a window in my computer case, but I know it's there)
T_Flight is right: It is a great CPU and a great platform, too.
And yes: overclocking is risky and have to be done carefully, and no one can blame someone else than himself for mistakes and blowing up his hardware, but it's fun. anyway ;)
So, it does say MAY and not WILL damage?Quote:
Originally Posted by pajaa
And How is Intels policy on OC? Overvolt? Precisely the same. This is just an extention of what we always got the last 10 years or so...
And also remember, I believe the on die memory controller is also on a separate power plane and can be adjusted separately from the cores and QPI controller. This allows you to tune your MC voltage to match your memory voltage.
This also has a unique end result for the good of the environment. With this platform, if you are forced with a choice between 2 sets of DDR3 operating at similar speeds, the more overclocking friendly memory will be the one that works at lower voltages as this allows the memory controller to relax the voltages. This will be a strong driving force in the enthusiast grade memory manufacturers to provide sticks that work at competitively lower power requirements.
i never saw a chipset burned by high mem voltages, even beyond 2.3V i never heard of a dead X48/P45, fried memsticks on the other hean are far more common then dead chipsets. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Time to shake that life a little dude :DQuote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
All right, it's Q4 '08 now, where is Bloomfield!!!
Q4 lasts till 31.Dez. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthogonal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
So you're saying the best way to overclock Nehalems would be to max out turbo and "tweak it to the edge" (while maintaining good clock distribution over the dice area as Drwho? stated)? Makes sense. :cool:
Lol are you sure you are in the right forum buddy?Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
Ever blow an A64 mem controller? Was pretty easy back in the BH-5 days, i know i smoked two cpu's before i learned my lesson. I assume it's like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
We usually don't blow our intel chipsets because we pile the volts on to those as we ramp up the memory usually as it helps the FSB go up... but it also protects the chipset from crazy differences between voltages...
I always make it a rule when im overclocking to clock everything at once. When i was learning overclocking I alway found the max of each component individually.. like i found my cpu max then my ram max then my fsb max etc.... Now adays I put everything to my max comfortable voltages and raise each component a few mhz between each testing cycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revv23
Absolutely certain. I'm not one of those "Well I'm gonna wait a year before switching to Bloomfield" types. Your talking to a first adopter here who is gonna watercool a 3000 dollar+ system, and take it to max 24/7 clocks. I'd say I'm in the right forums, yes. I'd also say I'm in the right thread on top of that. :up:
NO, I'm saying not being able to reach 4GHz wouldn't stop me from getting a Nehalem. Out of the box performance will be its biggest selling point, not what our tiny part of the market thinks. But at least 4 testers have said 4GHz isn't a problem and I trust them, they broke no NDA;)Quote:
Originally Posted by AuDioFreaK39
But wouldn't a Triple Channel controller that's running faster with lower Voltage RAM have different requirement than Dual Channel one with Higher Voltage RAM? What some seem to be saying is that; Shouldn't my 45nm Penryn have the same rating as my 65nm Conroe? Doesn't DDR3 have a lower voltage the DDR2 at or near the same speed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Lets not have any "early adopter" crap again with "wait for the bugs to be ironed out". I got an E6600 on release day and a P965 board. Still works superb and always flawless :)
what has that to do with ocing and giving higher voltage. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
dr who was referring to the different voltages on mem controller and dimms itself. Personally i have run my x38 with 2,1V dimm and 1,35MCH voltage for some months (which is a difference of 0,75V and my board is still kicking and running at stock settings with out any problem).
Maybe the IMC will be more sensitive to the voltage different, but when we know this we can easily avoid that. ;)
For the memory controler topic, it will give you much more than and Phenom or Yorkfield, at 1066 ... :rofl: you will notice very quickly that you can go far above 30GB/s without anyproblem as soon as you increase the Mhz of the memory. Using the Qimonda awesome DIMMs, you can get over 40, at 1.55 (lol x 100000) ... Now, the real question is simple ... Do you know an application today what will need this? Of course, I am working with the developpers and H264 profiles with 32 frames motion estimation will using this, but it will take 6 months, as usual to see real use of so much bandwidth. Remember, we are talking about double the best OC phenom ... something that a high end Quad processors does today ... and all of this in a small single processor PC overclocked :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
You guys need to concidere Intel SSD raid if you want to chalenge 10% of this mem bandwidth ... :rofl:
You ll see some pretty scary boost on SETI, Rosetta, Folding at home, even the astro pulse workload will be more "human"
Stay tune, we are almost there.
Omg this bandwidth will be mind blowing!
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
WTF has Intel done to that memory controller :shocked:
What Matter is to be the 1st to do it right ... not to be the 1st having it :) :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Buy button ready for Qimonda. Already have velociraptor 150. Also ready to buy mobo, and CPU when available. Already have PSU, already have some watercooling stuff, and the rest is on stby at a dealer. Buy button is also ready on the GTX280 FTW.
I'm also ready to set folding records with both GPU2 and CPU clients. Once I get a baseline on air and make sure everything is working right for awhile, we'll put the water cooling stuff on, and then slowly start bringing up the clocks, testing it, and benching it. YeeeeHawwwww! :clap:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Well they did do it first too with 386SL ;)
What bugs? Intel doesn't do bugs. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
NO WAI. :shock:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
@3,5ghz my yorkie still needs ~30h for one god dam ap unit. :p:
Still dont get it there aren't much ddr3 ram modules out that run on less then 1.65V lol.
Lol I don't think you get my point... This is xtremesystems. Vmods don't scare most people here. This is the last place you need to give a lecture on the dangers of overclocking.Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
Anyways; not trying to be rude, just poking fun. I hope I haven't offended you. :toast:
Dewd, you're forgetting, I'm calling IMC on the Desktop is more of a gimmick than a necessity:rofl: Bandwidth isn't a bottleneck in most cases anyway. Even FSB shortcommings can be "hid". Look at the guy complaining about Games:ROTF: If systems were memory bandwidth bottlenecked, old X2 would have been kicking the crap out of the First Conroes that has less bandwidth availible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
What does that have to do with what I asked the other guy? 2.1v for what, DDR2? Now doesn't DDR3 support lower Voltages? What I meant why wouldn't that lower voltage have a lower warning threshold?Quote:
Originally Posted by hornett133
The other guy was right when he said too many are comparing old ideas to new technology. Yes, I know Nehalem has different power plains core, controller and linked someone else to that info BTW!
Oh, I thought I didn't need to point out Sarcasum when I say tweak it till it breaks :rofl:!
2,1V for ddr3. ddr2 is old tech for me since one year :p:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
So the Core2 in Nehalem simply gets the necessary bandwidth, that's good. :rolleyes: And there's no need for hiding any latencies through the mighty prefetcher, simply a wide memory interface AND an almighty prefetcher, makes sense :up:
Francois, you sure have a deal with Randy, don't you?
You will be able to run it higher than 1.65V ... at your own risk :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Astratuner
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
How much higher? :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
I ll let you try :up:
:ROTF: I knew that was coming.
I think I'll try Qimonda at 1.55! :D That's assuming this memory still has the best specs by release. I need free CPU's and I'll try higher...carefully. With no v Differentials. I'm listening to the people who are working with them. ;)
give me the ... :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
Guess who's gonna be the first fearless fool to run a Nehalem system with the RAM @ 2.27V 24/7 F@H to see the results of high Vddr on the new CPUs ? :D
NO ! You're not BURNING anythign down again, The Silicium Heaven will be overpooped with your dying components. Cold Silicium Killer *points at him*
I haven't killed any of those E8500's and E8600's that I'm running debunking the High Vtt / Vpll / Vcore Wolfdale/Yorkfield ( 45nm ) myth, I haven't killed any DDR3 ram in ages... I plan keeping it like that, and I'm quite sure Nehalem agrees with me :p: