Yeah but Drwho? is an extreme ES tester and he's saying that no one should be running these things over 1.8v.Quote:
Originally Posted by karl_eller
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Printable View
Yeah but Drwho? is an extreme ES tester and he's saying that no one should be running these things over 1.8v.Quote:
Originally Posted by karl_eller
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Coolaler was also adjusting the multis, etc in the process, and I believe that was done to offset the higher voltage to the memory. Not sure how it all works, but there might be some workarounds for the higher voltages...
Ok, let s clarify this for ever ... if you run the voltage of the Dimm highter, you will impact the life span of your processor, it is like every overclocking, it is the non obvious impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuDioFreaK39
Now, if you choose to reduce the life to few weeks by going crazy on the vDIMM, it is your choice, just do not complain about it :rofl:
Now, I did run up to 2.2Volts, being carefull, just be aware that transistors are like light switch, if you take a light switch of 110Volts, and make it commute thousands of time with 220 volts, the switch will burn out ... that's what you get when you OC ... and now look at the amplitude of regular OC.
Most of the people take a CPU that have based Voltage around 1.1 to 1.3 (depending of brand and model) and they overclock it to 1.4, 1.5, the best OC masters do 1.9 to 2.0 Volts... Higher, you got to mod the vreg.
now, people see 1.5Volts, and many are talking about 2.0 to 2.2Volts for the vDimm, this is a higher amplitude than what the masters of OC do on the CPU Voltage, so, the recommandation we are putting out is simple ... 1.65volts is 10% ... if you go higher, don t get to 70% directly, go there slowly, and if you do , you ll see that with 1.8Volts, you ll get between 2000Mhz to 2200Mhz depending of your luck on your dimms.
So, there is not problem of vDimm, we are just warning because it is new, and I don t want a young kid spending all of his saving for his dream CPU to finish into a :slapass: because the guy did not read the :fact:
The force is strong with Core i7, :lsfight: , and I want every body to enjoy it as it is , without silly mistake to spoil the party.:rocker: :rocker: :rocker: :rocker:
I wish i understood this phenomenon better. :shakes:
Is this an issue that has always been present, or is it a result of the move to an integrated memory controller?
I thought that the way around this was separate voltage regulation/phases for the memory, thus making it independent of the CPU voltage and visa-versa. Am i on the right track? :shrug:
I'm gonna put mine on that new Rampage Extreme II. Yep, I'm gonna break down and get it assuming I can get it at or at least close to release. I hope they release that board then.
vDimm? I'll find some low volatge RAM that shows potential. I can always go up, but I can't go down if the thing doesn't POST.
That is fairly easy ... statistically, transistors are suppose the transmit only electrons, this is how you design your semi conductor layers. when you increase the voltage, you increase the change to push an atom in its entire self instead of just a electron ... (Covalent collition) if you loose too many atoms ... say bye bye to the semi conductor layer ... then you just lost one of your transistor ...Quote:
Originally Posted by twwen2
simple, isn't it?
So what I don't understand is why on earth do we currently need 2.1V to get similar performance on a nehalem platform with 1.7V [for example]. Is there some kind of massive inefficiency with the current platform?
every OC master should have a set of DIMM 1033 DDRIII to face the dim voltage manually ... then, shut down, place your other DIMMs and you are done. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
It is part of moore's law ... DDRIII is getting better, and Paul and other Memory experts at Intel went and enable new requirement for memory. We were working on it for the last 3 years. You did not need it for Yorkfield, so, the industry did not do, now, you need it, they are all running to catch up QiMonda :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by MomijiTMO
It is supplies and demands, people need it, it is for sale
Ah yes, i get the fundamentals of electron transfer and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
What i don't understand is this:
We have been running our CPUs at 1.4-1.5v and our RAM at 2.0-2.2v without problems.
Why does Nehalem have a problem running these RAM voltages? Is it because the CPU and RAM share the same voltage?
The memory controler of Nehalem is in 45nm, the mem controler of Yorkfield is in 65nm in the X48 ... When you increase integration, you get a change to decrease the voltage and become more power efficent. Overclockers are the only one looking for voltage increase ... :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by twwen2
The memory guys are ready with better memory. It is all logical, there is not problem.
Ahh ok so we cant use the current DDRIII sticks but the new ones out will be at similar speeds but operating at a lower voltage.
you can use the previous one if you are tricky enough, but I recommand to move to new DIMM sticks, you platform will be all new gen.Quote:
Originally Posted by MomijiTMO
Drwho?
Do you believe that memory manufacturers will have low voltage "performance" ram ready by i7 launch?
I know for sure that the big players do.Quote:
Originally Posted by CZS
Excellent and thanks again for taking time to answer questions :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
I'm reading you DrWho. :yepp: I'm pretty sure I understand it, but will get the particulars later. I'm definitely not gonna OC that thing until I have a few hours on it, and after I've had a chance to study it...alot. I will need to do testing anyway to get a baseline on what it does at stock settings. No disasters will happen here. :)
I'm definitely gonna run new JEDEC standard RAM to start with. :yepp:
DrWho, Thanks for taking the time to clear this up.
Indeed! Thanks a bunch. DRWho has answered alot of my questions here, and has been a big help. :up:
In the past chipsets were build on a n-1 process generation.As a result , the IMC was older tech than the CPU.It also ran at far lower frequency in a higher voltage environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by twwen2
Moving it on die , means using the latest generation process which is more sensitive to voltage ( the goodies Intel uses at 45nm seems to have exacerbated that ).In other words , for traditional chipsets they could use bulkier , more resistant transistors that run at low frequency.Not the case anymore.
A solution seems to be playing with the independent voltages.Increase NB/IMC voltage so the difference to Vdimm stays the same or is lower.
Thanks Doc, much appreciate your help and the info. Ready to buy the nehalem *waves with his AMEX*
Right, that makes sense. Thanks all for taking the time to explain it all to a noob :rolleyes:.
hehe, X48 is Bearlake on 90nm:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
hi mateQuote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
thanks for the explanation. Is there any way to separate the vdimm voltage from CPU IMC and have there been any discussions in designing it that way to possibly reduce RMA hassles and allow for greater performance
Dino
oupssss , correct, it is 90!Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
TweakTown - We Got Our Hands on a Core i7 "Nehalem" CPU - Pics
1) Is there any particular reason why their ES chip reads "Intel (M) ⓒ '07" and everyone else has chips that read "Intel (M) ⓒ '08"?
2) What does that number mean anyways? :shrug:
mmmm... Its HUGE!
It will make for a better keychain pendant!
:D
trichannel vs dualchannel and SMT vs no-SMT in test here:
http://diy.pconline.com.cn/cpu/revie...0/1438115.htmlhttp://img253.imageshack.us/img253/5...stthumbiz7.jpg
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6...4triplelz1.jpg
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/1...r10tsmtsa2.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/108/cod4smtdl1.jpg
And power in Wats:
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1...halemi7zx0.jpg
Now we just need a SMT enable and disable small program :D
+5 images.
Very interesting indeed. I'm liking what I'm seeing but completely understand why some people will skip this gen.
this thing sucks donkey balls for current games. a stock qx9770 is faster than the i7, and i could make an e8500/e8400 perform better than a qx9770 in games. here's to hoping i7 Oc's easily, and x58 boards get lucid chips.
From what I am seeing on every front, there is no reason to not flock straight to this CPU. It is a boost in everything. The only place it showed low was against a 3.2 QX and that would be erased by a simple OC to 3.2. At 2.93 in HL it still outperforms it. The gains with OC'ing this thing have already been shown. It blows away OC'd QX's in SPi at stock clocks.
I would love to see this thing actually running 3DMark. Even a video of that would be awesome to see. Without the saturated FSB and mem restrictions I bet it's as smooth as silk. I'd love to see Firefly Forest and watch that firefly fly around at warp speeds! :) It's gotta be a beautiful sight.
These benches above are showing gains in all areas. This is a "do it all" CPU. It can game with the best of them. It can do video encoding. It obviously excels in normal applications. It is a benchmarker's dream. The boards for this CPU are totally amazing from what I have seen from Asus. They literally have built a purpose built factory modified hotrod benching board in the Asus Rampage II Extreme. They are showing Special Memory, and many Manufacturers and people involved with them have posted about memory. We've seen amazing OC's on air. On water these things have to be amazing.
People that actually have hands on have stated they are tweaking them and are gonna deliver a really nice chip. Intel, board manufacturers, and mem manufacturers have worked closely together to really bring out a uber performance package. I can't wait until the day this thing is released. I hope we get it real soon. I am ready to buy this thing right now, and have been for a long time. I hope the wait is over soon. The "Total Package" is there! Bring it on Intel! :yepp::up::)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
Look carefully. That's a QX3.2 and is the only one showing a gain over the i7. Push the i7 to 3.2 and the QX doesn't. Look at the QX at 2.93. It's slower.
I agree with you T Flight - this looks awesome.
I don't game much, but when I do, I don't game at 1024x768 - so I'm not worried about a few less FPS...
I just hope the "lower" models can OC decently and aren't held back too badly by the locked multi. We've seen 4+ Ghz on air, but those had multi unlocked.
The heyday's of FSB overclocking are over I think.
I think the only thing that would prevent any level of adoption is price. No one is expecting the platform to be cheap (it is enthusiast after all), but if we start seeing $400-$500 motherboards, excessive price gouging, etc. then it's going to be slow. There are definite performance advantages, but with the stock market tanking and an increasing lack of credit, even the most enthusiastic of us might give pause...
Quote:
Originally Posted by xVeinx
Yeah, I agree with that completely. I have been putting away hobby money for my new build. I have to have a new computer and my upgrade cycle is pretty long. I don't build alot of new computers. My current system is getting into the 5-6 year old range so this has to be a complete upgrade for me. I know it's expensive.
The market is very bad. I'm glad I'm out of it, but at the same time I had to actually take retirement and lock it up offshore. I couldn't take the risk on loosing everything. I'm glad I did too. The market is not just tanking...it's crashing, and I feel like we are in for the worst depression in history and no president or congress is gonna be able to stop it. I saw it coming two years ago. The Pelosi led congress has literally been breaking federal laws that have been on the books since the great depression to prevent exactly what is happening right now, and they are hell bent on continuing these practices for nothing more than political short term gain, and they are so completely inept they really have no clue on just how bad it's going to get.
I've heard people actually discuss stockpiling ammo in case a war would break out here on our own soil. Seriously! I actually read that and the longer the thread went on, the more people came into it and belived that could be a possibility. People are mad enough right now to take this country back by force. They've done it before. I almost dread the day of Nov 4th. On the 5th if we don't have somebody in there with common sense it's gonna be all of us that pay the price for it, becasue we'll be the ones who will have to rebuild from the ground up again. There will be nothing left of the Country we once had. You can't get any worse than that. There are no Mesiah's or god's that will be able to make magic happen, and the sky is not gonna open up and all of us magically wake up and everything ends up being a Uptopia. It doesn't work that way.
Yes. We have some good and bad things about this new hardware given this review.Quote:
Originally Posted by MomijiTMO
Pros:
50% encoding and decoding which means will reduce time waiting.
05 to 10% gaming, a step ahead for Intel and its future 32nm.
8 Threads meaning you can open many programs at once, listen to music leave 50 firefox windows opened, or play games while listening to music, leave the game running without being playing it, this all + reading books while doing other 100 things.
Programs will start a second if not 0.5 faster (responsiveness) like AMD systems.
Cons:
First the cost does not justify the extra performance 05 to 10% for gamers as it is not required if the game runs +70 FPS, most of games uses 2 cores which means if you have more than 2 cores an internal difference will not be seen however an external will be very much appreciated by the busy people.
Not needed yet, give it 2 or 3 years to fully extend.
Triple channel does not justify its price ratio performance, mediocre I would say. We are better off to buy a 2 x 2GB DDR3 Dual channel than 3 x 1GB DDR3 Triple channel.
Why does the motherboard is so expensive?
Do SLI + Crossfire X + DDR3 Triple channel + Revolutionary Phase Power + 8 layer PCB justify its price?
Not for me, however I will still be an early adopter mainly because I need it to work.
The better price performance ratio still being C2 8400 + DDR2 + P45 + 4850 or 4870 and this will surely continue for another 6 months.
So What?
For I7 to be successful it needs an automatic configured program which determines if the opened application will be better with SMT on or off. Who is up for the program PM me. It could make a nice development project given the specs.
Metroid.
My specs show what I have but it doesn't show home much I parse Pics, Encode and Decode Video & Music. I've laughed at gamers who bought X6800 for 1K+ or Athlon FX-55 @ its long time price of $850 for more than what i7, 4GB of DDR3 and a X58:shrug: Sorry, I don't think many XtremeSystems folks are wasting that much money on strictly Gaming rigs. Most power users (most folks here) do much more than simply Game=PQuote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
I've :rofl::ROTF: at owners of Black Ops, Maximus and other overpriced & hype ladened products. But also will say whatever floats there boat.
All I can say is next week I will know not think what Nehalem will do and I guarantee you it won't be at the stock 3200mhz..:D
And we´re wainting for results....:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
That will be a problem as I gave my word on this that I would follow the following rules on this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nocturno
1) I could say I had it.
2) I could not post pictures or numbers until the NDA was lifted.
I have to respect that commitment but there was nothing said about me posting a "general" impression so if you see a comment of :
"OMG My heart just stopped and I've solved the mysteries of the Universe and proved Stephen Hawkings correct" you'll know it's probably a decent machine!:rofl:
Looking at the Dual/Tripple comparisons, I dare say this will be Socket428/478/ Rambus skulduggery all over again! :rolleyes:
My ES 940 has (07) too ... revision B1Quote:
Originally Posted by AuDioFreaK39
AMD systems are not more responsive than Intel systems and if they are it's not due to the IMC. The difference between AMD and Intel (core 2 duo) systems in memory latency is maybe 50ns vs 100ns, the difference is ~100ns at best. 100ns = 0,0001 (edit: add 3 more zeros then it should be correct) seconds! Intel systems are similar or faster in any other regard so it is impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
Neither do programmes start 0.5-1s faster with AMD systems, if this was the case hundreds of reviews all over the net would have pointed it out. Loading times are a function of hard disk speed, I don't believe they are in any way capped by current hardware - at least as long as you're not using SSD-RAIDS.
Ask JJ if you don't believe me. I'm pretty sure of that though...
Personally I'm wondering what is going on with TMPGEnc 4.5, SMT results in 28% lower performance! How is this possible?
Yes you are right,Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
However,
I had an AMD system Atlhon XP +2000 for about 3 years and then moved to Intel in 2004 with a Pentium 4 560 and 2006 with an E6600 the difference between these 3 systems was the program response, a game, application or whatever was always delayed by a fraction of time in Intel systems, not sure why but I have done some tests to confirm it, I'm not sure if is the IMC or anything else, but particularly this AMD system that I had, had always been more responsive than any of my Intel systems so far. I did also share some knowledge with old AMD users who moved to Intel in 2006 and most of them told me they feel that way too.
I can not really explain the reason because I do not work for AMD, however I always thought that it could be the CPU (Athlon +2000 XP, maybe designed especially for Windows XP though the marketing XP gimmick ), IMC or the chipset had to do with something. I may be wrong anyway. I will soon test Nehalem and then show my findings.
Double edged sword :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
It should not be lower, what about conflicts between them or not yet fully supported by the program must be considered.
Metroid.
Metroid,Athlon XP didn't have Integrated memory controller ... They were based on K7 core.K8 bring the IMC and HyperTransport,among other uarch. improvement.
There must have been something else which made you(and others) feel that your AMD AthlonXP system was "smoother" (TM) or more responsive.
Um, Athlon XP didn't have an IMC. This is what I call your "imagination." This talk about AMD CPUs feel "smoother" started after Core 2 Duo's launch. These people based it on the fact that Athlon 64s and X2s had an IMC while Intel used FSB. Of course it's all bullcrud. I had an FX-55/X2 4400+ before and doesn't feel any more smoother than my PD940, E6600, Q6700.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
Source: NordicHardwareQuote:
Well I'm back at the Intel office. It's been a year since my last visit, but I still find my ways around the office, not to mention the lab. We've been set up with some truly exquisite hardware and we've of course decided to hit it with the heaviest kind of cooling available, liquid nitrogen. As usual I can't tell you what we're overclocking or any numbers from the event. All I can say is that every piece of FUD you may have read about this particular hardware, that it is going to be hard to overclock, have memory issues or what is just that, FUD.
We're doing the most extreme kind of overclocking here and even though we can't tell you much about we're doing we can show you some pictures;
http://www.nordichardware.com/image3.php?id=5895
http://www.nordichardware.com/image3.php?id=5894
http://www.nordichardware.com/image3.php?id=5892
To spice things up we have arranged a competition between the nations represented. Well, to be honest, it was the Danes that wanted to have a competition, which is fine by us. We don't mind handing them their asses.
I should add though, that even though we are competing, we're all helping each other to go higher. If someone needs help, you assist. Stay tuned for more.
Just though I'd share, seeing as this is XS, it would seem like something you would like to know ;) :p:
And we have another 400l beyond thew dewars on the pictures.
//Andreas
i also think that my old socket A sys and socket 939 sys feels kinda faster than my intel machine. could it be cause of the higher latency on the dd2 mems? can not think of anything else that could explain it, or maybe it is placebo for expecting to much of the newer hardware?
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pillo-kun
I think it's just your imagination.
this is 70% dependent HDD speed & latency, 20% dependent on how clogged your os is with resources/processes/antivir/hotfixes/updates, and 9.8% dependent on cpu/ram performance. 2 tenths of a percent left over for lcd ghosting/mouse lag/time of day/gravity/etc. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pillo-kun
That's an L3 limit.Looks like the memory BW available is bigger than what the L3 can deliver.You need to OC the L3 in order to fully use DDR3 1333/1600.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kin Hell
Those bottles are so cute :DQuote:
Originally Posted by NH|Delph1
Launch day clock off!
Im in.
Yes it must had been something else that made the system more responsive meaning when you open a program, not smoother.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
See it, feel it, believe it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
Metroid.
Overall the average-latency of DDR2 should be similar or even better than with ddr1, even though some of the latency settings are more "loose". AFAIK latency is calculated from the clock and the different latencies you can tweak in the bios. The latencies we're talking about are in the realm of tens of nanoseconds (one billionth of a second), it's impossible to notice, so in theory it can't be the memory-latency/IMC. If we want to look somewhere we'd need to compare the platforms as a whole...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pillo-kun
The imagination is very powerful and the mind very strange and easily fooled. To eliminate this uncertainty e.g. complicated, double blind, placebo controlled trials were invented I guess. Didn't the project windows mojave try to prove: that people believe what they want to believe?Quote:
can not think of anything else that could explain it, or maybe it is placebo for expecting to much of the newer hardware?
As the difference in smoothness was never proven (i.e. measured; I know that would be quite difficult, but it's possible) nor pointed out by any major review site, I think it's just the mind playing tricks on you folks. :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGGER
I'm also in, if anyone can help me figure out what half the new BIOS settings do. :D
I'll be entering in the "air cooling" division fyi. ;)
DOE...Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGGER
*kickn the can* dont remind of D day. :T
Not fair you've already had time to play!Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGGER
I spy a F1 EE a tek 9 1.0 and 2 tek9 4.0 slims! Woo!Quote:
Originally Posted by NH|Delph1
Almost Halloween:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGGER
Rev.C1 again before launch :p:
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...lem/965_C1.jpg
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...lem/940_C1.jpg
...
C1 is the retail stepping? Or C0?
Maybe you can't answer that question, but still... :p:
Don't know yet, heard there'll be D0 :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
And what different C0 vs C1? :)
The brand string onlyQuote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
stepping changes are for bug fixes. so change in stepping usually means more bug fixes, critical or non-critical.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
FWIW Anandtech has said they'll be releasing some nehalem overclocking guidance on release date -- apparently different boards have the bios options configured somewhat differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuDioFreaK39
That's an Dual SocketF board, AMD gooods :D
http://www.asus.com/products.aspx?l1...84&modelmenu=1
yeh just realised that.
Sounds good, thanks for the info.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aivas47a
Just ordered my Core i7 Extreme 965 and Core i7 920 ;)
http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/5...65orderrz5.png