With voltage jacked up to 1.425V and NB at 1.25V, I show approx 127W at 3.6GHz on my system. Considering that retail chips will very likely still be at 1.35V, I'd say 3.5 is quite reasonable.
With voltage jacked up to 1.425V and NB at 1.25V, I show approx 127W at 3.6GHz on my system. Considering that retail chips will very likely still be at 1.35V, I'd say 3.5 is quite reasonable.
So, next 12 months are dedicated for 20 % clock increase(3 GHz -> 3.6 GHz)? Their process is still new as they had to rush to get the PhII out. I'd place my bets on 4 GHz @ Q4. 3.8 GHz is a must.
Are you running on the stock cooler? Ambient? Air-flow?Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
Now think of someone in Florida in the summer with no air and stock cooler. :shrug:
Considering the voltage difference, I don't think you can really put forth that supposition.
But AMD put such supposition (read tested thermal operating thresholds) into its TDP rating. Bottom line, IF AMD could release a 4Ghz chip today, I bet you a million bucks, they would. The same goes for Intel, and they (c2Q at least) overclock/tolerate heat better with stock cooler, than PHII. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
Wasn't PII supposed to have a 300c+ thermal operating envelope (-180+ - 125?
Show me a PHII priming at 90c. I can show you my C2Q oc to 4Ghz priming at 90c.
phenom II throttles it self at 72C.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
my temp log volts where ran at 1.700/1.728 volts on load
19:39:17,71°,,,55°,71°,100%,3010.15 MHz,
19:39:27,71°,,,55°,71°,100%,802.71 MHz,
my 9850 would hit 78C before locking up.
Is trottling triggered by the on-board (cpu) sensor or it's triggered in bios? If so, could it be disabled? I can disable trottling in my bios.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
don't knowQuote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
I had my temps on ignore on my bios though.
some other boards might have throttling options in bios (jetway boards do HA07/06) this one don't (asus M3A79-T-deluxe)
Hello dear AMD hater, as you might very well know, temperature does not really play significant role when it comes to stability unless the CPU is unstable already due to too low vCore. That means, if it can't prime @ 90C, bump the vCore and it can. ... ran Orthos for 2 hours w/o fan since cat ate the fan wires, temps +100C, fully stable @ stock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
I am sure you knew this, thus I wonder why did you post it? My theory: "My C2Q is better.". Prove me wrong, if you can. ;)
Very uncalled for, but that's fine. According to your theory, a cpu can run at 200c stable if it is supplied with the right amount of voltage. :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
Of course there is absolute limit, which is dependent on a lot of things, as you very well know. But twisting the discussion to your own favour is nothing new from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
(Is there a thread to report posts which have nothing to do with the thread and which possibly flamebaits? Would become handy.)
Just a friendly reminder, a discussion is one thing but please watch the name-calling, we don't really want yet another thread getting locked :rolleyes:
Where is the absolute limit, according to you, for the PHII?Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
Edit: I don't mean to question your reading comprehension, but how is the argument that thermal dissipation has an impact on AMDs ability to release a 3.5Ghz quad not related to this thread? Sorry man, I used to think you knew you what you were talking about, but after this, I'm a bit suspicious.
what we need is someone with an ammeter, and a PHII at 3.5ghz on the stock vcore/stock NB. Considering a 125W TDP 940 uses ~68-77W, I'd be curious if 3.5ghz approaches the 125W TDP.
Snip!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
I always get the feeling that Intel & AMD at times hold back from releasing stock speed at what they really could to the enthusiast market to give themselves head room to sell higher stock later on when they could of done so from the get go to temped you to buy again other than the mega priced extreme models & to make overclock % look better.
Seeing as 3.5 -3.6 on stock volts is common to what i see on this from at least, then AMD should cut the milking bull & have 3.0 3.2 3.4 binned versions now but would of course lose OC headroom at this present time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
It'd be very nice if AMD can boost up the P2 speeds up to 3.5GHz. That would heat up the competition, so there are going to be more faster products at lower prices.
The absolute limit, free from any built-in security, would depend on motherboard PCB and internal materials. If those are ruled out, it's becoming pure physics as when molecules/electrons would be moving too fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Same as bottom limit, 0K, although Im curious what would happen on ~5K since at ~30K there seems to be no limit:confused:
Anyway, to get on topic again, we've seen certain TDP improvements on B3 already, and since a C2 is already pretty much capable of 3.5Ghz at stock I dont see how certain TDP improvements and say C3 couldnt. In the end 2.8Ghz C2 has 125W IIRC, 2.8Ghz C3 is already 95W, and this is how AMD worked for years. It's more likely they bring out a 6Ghz chip than they wont hit 3.5Ghz within normal TDP.
xx hours of Prime95 != stable, I hope you guys understand that...
who cares about 100% stability, you have more change to encouter a BSOD originating from windows (software error) then a computer crash from a 99% stable computer (hardware error)Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Couldnt be more wrong. Nothing better than people blamign SW from HW errors.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeertDB
Also i´m sure we could all run Core 2 at 4Ghz and Phenoms at 3.5-4Ghz in specialized caretaken environments.
It just doesnt work for the 99.99% of other people.
Who cares? Mate, AMD and Intel both sell stable processors. xx hours of Prime95 is not what AMD or Intel consider stable, by any means. If you feel confortable with your 12h stable Prime it's fine, for AMD is not. Your response is amazing :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by GeertDB
hum? i was talking about a 99% stable system...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
not a system that only can run Superpi 1M stable, don't misinterpret my words... you are an adult with a good pair of brains (i hope) so don't act like child
what is 100%stable to you? 24 hours of prime? 48 hours? OCCT? I consider my system 99% stable if it can run OCCT. The change to have an hardware error with such a system is smaller than to have an software error.
i have plenty of software errors on my laptop/stock clocked family pc...
then don't overclock your cpu...Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
" Rereads title of this forum: XTREME SYSTEMS"
You're not retarded, so don't behave like one please. This thread is about 3,5GHz stock clocked AMD Phenom II's. For AMD to sell these they have to be stable at stock clocks and volts, that means 3,5GHz stable by the standards of AMD. People in this thread is saying nah, that's piece of cake, mine can do 3,6GHz with stock volts... and that means :banana::banana::banana::banana:, here in XS or in Namibia.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeertDB
Ok fellas, drop it. Stability is not very important in this context, let's just say, a program that stresses the cpu for about 8hrs straight; my candidate is prime 95 small ffts. It's not made for Intel systems, but to find prime numbers. They test servers far longer. If I had my wish, prime 95 in-place large ffts would be ideal.
don't forget stock cooler. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
True,Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
But AMD can always up the Vcore a little bit, those overclocks we are seeing aren't stable to AMD/Intel standards, but it shows how much headroom is available. If my memory is good there were different voltages between some Thoroughbred models (i don't mean difference between the T-A and T-B ofc) and X2 models?
3.5ghz seems a little high with the current stockvoltages, but it might be possible
With a bump in voltage to 1.375v or 1.400v, AMD is going to have to ship these 3.5Ghz quads with a TRUEQuote:
Originally Posted by GeertDB
If it's not stable that headroom is useless. C2Q processors have way more headroom that current Phenom II and you know where we are now. Also I'm currently looking for OC results in the AMD section. If you read them carefully you'll see that up to ~3,6GHz almost everyone is "stable" at stock volts. But if you keep pushing the required voltage goes through the roof with TDP and power consumption following it. Does that tell you anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by GeertDB
EDIT: Well, more like ~3,4GHz...
snipQuote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
which averages out at ~3.5Ghz again :D
Did you miss that xx hours of Prime95 != stable for AMD?Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
I was being sarcastic. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
if you noticed the higher the volts the more extreme the cooling you need. it's almost linear.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
yep you are correct, the chip limits at stock voltage are 3400-3500mhz.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
3800-3900 needs a bit more voltage.
i managed to get 3600 stable at stock voltage but that requires pretty cold ambient.
Hmmm, do I notice a certain trend trying to find something else to prove AMD cant release 3.5Ghz or something after it's been pretty much clear that PhII ain't a phailure cascade?
No offence, but Ive had to read for about a year by now Intel could release x.xGhz easily and now we got to discuss the definition of stability:confused:
Anyway, Prime95/OCCT is indeed not a solid stability test (look at idle freezing), however it does give a certain indication. And the longer it runs, the more you can be sure it's stable.
However, it will be only stable at architectural parts where it's being tested. For example, where it takes Prime95 to run 7+h to get an error, Prime95 64-bit might make your system BSOD within an hour.
Whether you run Prime95 32 or 64-bit, small or large fft's or blend, it will only give you a stability indication. The best thing to do is use the hardest way to test (64-bit) and test all the options. This still wont make AMD nor Intel say, Yes, good tip Ramm, we'll try and do that, but no one knows what standards they do use so we never can say if forum users are wrong or right when they claim either could easily sell x.xGhz CPU's.
Why do I think that? Look at some :banana::banana::banana::banana: ups both parties made in the past, like AMD's recent B2. If 100% stability had any meaning it should be able to run anything in any setup in any option without errors (leaving eventual software errors out of the story). Since about every CPU has errata's, yeah, what's true stability worth? They just do a more thorough test, but this will just like Prime95 give a certain indication of stability. Maybe they test only for 1h, maybe for 168h:rolleyes: Just like dead pixels on TFT screens basicly, it has to be within a certain margin, because 100% stability, I think there hasnt been one CPU without errata's ever. Then again, I wasnt there from the start so dont quote me on that.
And this is with the stability tools we have. In the AMD lab I doubt it'd pass more than 3,1-3,2GHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by BertM
your guess is as good as mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
there tdp of 125 watt doesnt come close what the phenom takes with occt.
Stock cooler, stock cooler, stock cooler (hint, hint).
My system I can say is stable, because I run it under 100% load for weeks, months even at a time :p:
Part of me is tempted to see how high I can OC my PhII (whenever I get it) on a stock cooler before putting it under the water. Could be interesting to see.
:down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Now what does Intel do to solve this... What could they possibly do to cool both an E8400 and a QX9770.... If only they could have different stock coolers depending on the CPU...
Oh wait, they do. And that's exactly what AMD would do. Bundle a slightly bigger cooler with a slightly bigger fan to handle slightly bigger heat load.
But you're not interested in logic or optimism, you're into putting people down and rambling incoherently against AMD half the time. So have fun, accomplishing whatever it is you believe you will. All I see is someone who can't stop beating a dead horse.
My opteron 165 came with a quad heatpipe sink with an 80mm fan, it wasn't half bad and did a good job at keeping OC'd chips cool in moderation, and that was back in the 90nm days when a modest speed increase and voltage bump could send the TDP way up. It could probably take care of today's 45nm quads just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
1) Intel has no competition on the dualcore front, so why bump up clockspeeds?Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
2) It is quite logical that when you bump up the voltage from 1.35v to 1.5v you will notice an increase in power consumption, but a moderate bump to 1.4V will not result in exhuberant higher power consumption
3) current quadcores doent use 125W in any situation, so there is some headroom regarding with power consumption
Exactly. :D :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
There's definitely a solution. It just depends on whether or not AMD wants to. Or if they want to just let Intel sleep a little bit.
1) To compete with AMD's tricores? To compete with its own quad cores? I don't know what Intel is thinking, but the E8600 and the possible E8700 are there for a reason not only for us to OC the hell out of them ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by GeertDB
2) Have you tested it? You would be amazed about how much a little bump in voltage can raise power consumption and temps under load. But please test it if you can so everyone here can make conclusions.
3) Except the original Phenoms every actual CPU out there consumes way less power than its TDP in usual desktop applications (that includes Prime and the like). There is headroom for a reason, and you want to keep it, even after your bump in voltage.
WTF!? You just said the same thing I said, and you think you're criticizing me? Refer to my comment about the TRUE. This is the problem when people lose all sense of objectivity. So far, ALL the people who have made reference to 3.4-3.6Ghz with stock volts are using the TRUE or equivalent hsf. Forget the fact that their ambients are way better (we're in winter after all) than a user in Namibia (Javier, I had to borrow that one, :rofl:) ), so technically speaking, for AMD to release a PHII at 3.5Ghz even IF they manage to keep the stock vcc pegged to 1.35v, they'll have to test in about 35c ambient with whatever cooler they bundle the processor with. God forbid this piece of news comes from someone other than a perceived AMD fanboy. This is getting ridiculous; in my book you lose all credibility if you can't argue without attacking your opponent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
I did post a ss of my Q9650 overclocked to 4.5Ghz with ONLY 1.360v. It does 4Ghz stable with 1.240v (way below Intel recommended max voltage of 1.3625v) YET NO ONE HAS SAID INTEL CAN RELEASE A 4GHZ PROCESSOR RIGHT NOW. :shakes: Because, I realise that this same processor would perform different and need higher voltages with the stock cooler in Namibia.
How about the Black Edition 6400+ where they didnt bundle a cooler at all because it needed more than they could provide. They could always to this agian as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
im occt benching now at 3500mhz 1.35 volt with only one 30cfm blower on the pa120.3
cpu is 54.5 degree. pa120.3 is realy warm. ambient here is approx 25.
i measured/calculated the cpu power usage and its about 125 watt now full load 3500mhz.
Funny how the rage about stability/stock cooler continues after my post, also not even to mention that there ain't a standard stock cooler. I mean, who is limiting AMD/Intel to even include a TRUE with their CPU?
Read my post regarding stability (issues?), also just keep in mind a stock cooler ain't limited by anything. Since AMD has a constant process improvement a 3.5Ghz CPU, even it was with their current stock coolers, ain't anything questionable. As said, 2.8Ghz C2 has 125W TDP, 2.8Ghz C3 already has 95W TDP. And that's apart from the constant process improvements which can be applied in any revision (B3 9950BE for example).
As Ive said as well, Ive been reading for about a year that Intel could easily launch C2 @ 4Ghz, there wasnt a big deal around that, now it would be for AMD? AMD would have a bigger chance to do something like that than Intel anytime with their tick tock system:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
There's no way AMD could have a new stepping. :rolleyes:
And the core point is great too. It's impossible because you see people online with TRUE's. That makes a lot of sense.
I'm sure AMD is just far too terrible to come up with any possible solutions.
You don't want to see AMD release a more worthwhile CPU than what they have. That's fine, but don't drag us all through your cynical mud.
Boring posts stating the same thing over and over don't do it for me, sorry.
And I just have to say. If you call
"But you're not interested in logic or optimism, you're into putting people down and rambling incoherently against AMD half the time. So have fun, accomplishing whatever it is you believe you will. All I see is someone who can't stop beating a dead horse."
"Attacking your 'opponent'"... You must have been raised in a very Catholic family. And I do therefore apologize profusely for any offense. The truth isn't an attack, it's a statement. :)
Size :D , and probably it will cost more than the manufacturing cost of the CPU excluding R&D (don't quote me on this :p:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
HA! I QUOTED YOU! :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by kemo
If it was under 125W for 3.5GHz then you wouldn't need a TRUE to keep it cool enough. Like I stated earlier, the opteron 165 came with a nice quad heatpipe 80mm fan cooler, and that would be enough for 125W easily.
Actually you're right; I'm Catholic (at least I consider myself one since I haven't been to church in years). So let's see, you post to affirm what I've already said and proceed to attack me at the same time; hmm, what does that make you? Let me take a wild guess: a protestant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
OK please stop it right there. :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
There is absolutely no reason to bring religion into this. It is totally IRRELEVANT and AGAINST THE RULES.
Goes for both of you.
occt says 3500mhz 1.35 volt is stable after 1 hour testing.
cpu reached 58 degree which would be below 50 degree if i used blowers on full force.
they only need a small improvement but then we would have no oc headroom.
even if its fud, its possible. the 940 already has max 125 watt now on crap cooling on 3500mhz.
Seriously! I've been just sitting back watching this in disbelief up to that point but that was WAY outta control. Just for the record I am neither one of those religions, but I wouldn't go atatcking them. I'm no saint either, but that was way outta control.Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
I think you are wasting your time with Zucker.The dude can't miss a chance in AMD thread to troll. It's like a safe bet with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
As for the cooling needed for the "hypothetical" 3.5Ghz Phenom II,it should be something better than the current ones bundled with BE.But we must not forget AMD's CTI program and constant process node improvements.So by the time second half of 2009 arrives,AMD could probably easily milk another 13% clock over the forthcoming 3.1Ghz 950 model and get to 3.5Ghz ,while staying withing the rated 125W.If need be,they can even rate that chip as 140W and we know from the case of 9950BE 140W model that even if rated at 140W the chip never draw anywhere near that(Was closer to ~100W under full load using 4x stress prime).
Yes, my general! :rofl::rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
Last time I say it: OCCT or Prime95 mean NOTHING for AMD/Intel.
Try it in Vista64, just for the lulz.Quote:
Originally Posted by BertM
i dont have 64bit windows installed, somebody else can try that :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
occt benching now with 3 stronger blowers at 3500mhz 1.35volt results in 45 degree cpu temp. (simular to very good true setup)
Please do, AMD chips are famous for clocking much higher in 32-bit systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by BertM
to be fair, PhII has not been exhibiting this behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
I find, in general most chips clock better under 32bit settings.
I thought the current Phenom II's were using the same hsf as the old Phenom 9950? I heard they would be developing a new hsf for later revisions :shrug:
Whether or not you believe that AMD can achieve 3.5 doesn't matter. The point is that to drone on and on is pointless. There are solutions that have been brought up. It just gets old never being able to have a decent AMD topic.
I meant no offense with the catholic comment and I would call it a joke in admittadly bad taste. So let's bury the hatchet on the issue and move on.
On this note of moving on, I'll give it a rest as well.
Erm... right I tried to get this logic to be working but somehow I cant:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Yes, we know by now. But since we still dont know what stability really means for AMD/Intel you cant just say it's useless either;) Just use the right version, settings and amount of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Well, could you please tell me the difference cause I couldnt:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Is AMD a good chip to own anymore?
In short, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dower
Sorry if you don't get my sarcasm, it's actually not difficult to grasp for any normal thinking person. And please stop abusing the rolleyes smilie, it gets tiring; if only you used it when it actually counts. You make no sense with your posts and you're always adding attitude to match. :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
The news in th OP was proven to be fake somewhere on page 3.... ...Why is this thread still going?
Is there like a Mod-holiday on the internet or something?
Speaking of adding attitude... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Zucker, what do you ever add to these threads? seriusly all I ever see in these is a few people talking about hardware and then youl basicly post.........no its not, or no it cant, or FUD!!, or It can never happen..........then a few more on topic posts and then you again with the........no it cant, Intel's better, bla bla bla. Its a cycle that hapens in every News thread and you never bring anything to the topic. Why do you do this? I realy dont understand. Dont you relize that you make these threads unpleasent for those who realy do want to discuss the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
It would be greatly appreciated if you would just let people discuss the topics they want to. Even if you dont agree and think they are out of touch with reality because they dont share your personal views.
And yes, I know there are others that do the same the other direction but its 90% of the time only after you provoke them.
Thanks
How did I provoke anybody when the news for the original post was already said to be fake? :shrug: Once again, those of us who expressed skepticism at the news have been proven right..... well until AMD actually releases that product. Don't you think it's a little bit of frustration on the part of those who are basically defending a hoax? I mean how pathetic can it get? I never said Intel could do it; and I highly doubt AMD could and since the news turned out to be fake, wtf is with the hostility? It's clear some are pissed because of this, but please pick on someone else. Go to my first post and see what I typed before I had to defend my very pure and untainted record for recognizing PHII and calling it for what it is? And this from someone who nearly picked one up at the Microcenter the other day, but had to refrain from it since the Q9650 proved too irrestible.Quote:
Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck
nope, the 9950 is a 140w TDP hsf.. quite a bit taller.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frontl1ne
940 HS is the same as 125w 9750-9850s and 6400BE's
Why are people saying that all ph2 can hit 3.5-3.6ghz at stock voltage? Looking at the phenom2 list of overclocks in the AMD section it would seem that they do not on average? Am I missing something?
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=213248
http://www.pcrpg.org/pics/computer/octprime.png
To be on this list only 2 hours of prime is needed to be considered stable
I will word it this way so as not to upset the AMD emokids.
Intel can not launch a 3.5-4.0ghz quad anytime soon, I know that people can overclock them to this level quite easily but due to allowing for the worst case seniero with thermals i.e hot climates, 5 years worth of dust build up, bad case cooling etc. it is not as easy on a commercial scale.
Then there is the whole stability problem, They can not be on the edge so will have to provide enough v core to make sure that all cpus are stable, They will not be setting up each system individually so will need the vcore higher that what the avg needs to cover the worst.
Always the same thing, AMD say they will launch a 3.1ghz cpu, Fanboys say AMD will launch a 3.5ghz cpu, People interject logic but get labelled fanboys and some people reading start to believe fanboys, AMD launch a 3.1ghz cpu as promised but due to hype some are disappointed. See the pattern
I dont know what your problem is, whether it's sarcasm, a joke or epic phailure, it was a useless post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
And if you try to tell me Im not a normal thinking person, go ahead, but you already told your self you ain't one, so why would I take you serious at all.
Damn, that was pretty much an open door:rolleyes:
PS::rolleyes:
Some PhII's can, at least I didnt say all can. However, it's called revisions which might make it very well possible. As said, whether they do it, I dont know. Im just saying it aint impossible at all since some intellectuals (lol) claimed AMD cant do that while some of those have been contributing that C2D/Q could be 4Ghz easy. And yes, that's very unlikely and I dont believe that right away, C2D/Q @ 3.5Ghz, why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
So? Anyone OC'ing knows 24/7 usage wouldnt ever only run for 2hours. In the end 2hours is just as useless as 8hours anyway. It's more to prevent suicide shots.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Go go trollgadget:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
I dont know, think it's slightly different since launching an higher clocked one wouldnt mess up with the entire C2D/Q line, what would the 9650 become worth? Meaning things have to drop slightly which will be felt mainly in the value section. I guess it's more a strategic problem than a physical problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
AMD is basing from 3Ghz, meaning they can go higher and they can go lower to fill a lot of market spots. Im curious what C3 will bring since that already has slightly improved TDP over C2.
Of course, being on the edge is dangerous. With certain improvements however this edge can be moved higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
No, I only see certain people indoctrinating that AMD users are dissapointed. Where the :banana::banana::banana::banana: that's coming from, Ive no idea. We were talking about the possibility that AMD would release a 3.5Ghz CPU after some table showed up with all eventual future names and clocks. Whether that table is any reliable, I doubt it. But from there the discussion more or less came up about 3.5Ghz CPU's. Even if we had to wait for C4, I think it's very well possible. Unless they can get a decent IPC boost in C4 which makes the run for 3.5Ghz less, but yeah, no one knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
More :rolleyes: and nothing of substance; your argument about why Intel won't release a 3.5GHz quad is laughable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
At LOE: You may not be seeing any differences because you may have fine-tuned your system in the 64bit OS, or you're running at stock? You'll definitely hit the limit faster in 64bit than 32bit. Some members have reported up to 200-300 mhz loss going from 32bit to 64bit in the thread gallag posted above.
which is still the majority if buyers. (i think)Quote:
And people who dont OC will be quite attracted by this as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
What part exactly didnt you get? What is your contribution for arguing over someone's use of smiles? What's your contribution for claiming yourself to be a normal thinking person?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Instead I made a pretty good post about stability etc, regarding that, it's like a bit hard to argu over stability if we dont know the definition of it. But instead of discussing over that, you chose to pick on irrelevant stuff. Way to go:down:
Also, if you would actually pay attention, you would have seen there's no 200~300Mhz drop under 64-bit OS's anymore. It's a lot less now, the difference is there, but not as bad as with Ph. Some even dont have any difference (and fine tuning OS's doesnt gain you a clock AFAIK).
It's easy to tell if it is: just look for the ratio of flame threads to non-flame threads. If it's high, then that means that both companies are competitive and the fanboys are out in full force. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dower
Haha, nice one:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
Anyway, to be honest, any modest CPU nowadays is already pretty much good enough.
Ive been running a 9850BE on stock for months because of the ACC issue. And surely there would have been a difference between a 3Ghz and a 2.5Ghz clocked B3, however I didnt (severely) lack in performance in anything I played/used those months.
In the end people are just pointing too much on the numbers, but IMO, numbers ain't saying anything. A GPU can hit 500% more fps than it's competitor, 20fps more on average than its competitor, but what is it worth if it hits for the majority of the time a 10fps low?
I noticed the same thing & that goes for NV & ATI as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
i thought marketers already got laid off, they re still here, hah!
That's actually how my observation was made. ATI flame threads had pretty much died out during the R600 and R670 eras due to a lack of competition at the high end, but then NV fanboys were out in full force once the R700 series was released :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
QFT! They make about 20 posts in EVERY thread like these.Quote:
Originally Posted by sundancerx
180 degrees wrong on that one. Phenom II came out and got stomped by i7 and many of the usual suspects hid:up: Flames? Flames were the only thing some posters had since there weren't any real competition to flame over or about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
closed