Soon possible in the AMD 4G club

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-08-2005, 03:04 AM
overcrash86

Quote:

Originally Posted by skirms_fr

killing the core , and bye bye fx :eek:

yes
then that dissipate the cold temp on all CPU, in watercooling you can remove it, but not under -5 -10°C, if you do it, the bloc can broken the core, and is not better contact on all over the CPU...
08-08-2005, 05:08 AM
Waus-mod

now cmon ;) 4.1 :banana:
08-08-2005, 05:35 AM
-Acid-

great results being shown here well done all
08-08-2005, 06:07 AM
damsxx

Cpull spa un PayDay :D

GOod job for your new WR ;)
08-08-2005, 06:49 AM
cpulloverclock

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRTeamJapan

Congratulations on a new AMD WR :toast: :clap: :clap:

We all had a hunch that you would make it -- from Team Japan :D :D :toast:

PS
Please clear some of your old pm in your inbox.

thx :)

done ;)
08-08-2005, 10:36 AM
peterpz

Do you can do more MHz? ;)
08-08-2005, 10:51 AM
Jort

nice Job there cpull, you can pull some more i can feel it ^^
Go for it again ;)

greetz,
Jort
08-08-2005, 10:54 AM
LivingL@rGe81

Yeah Baby, we wanna see the 4.1Ghz :toast:

Why do you only use 1.76V???? Do more volts cause instability? :confused:
08-08-2005, 11:29 AM
cpulloverclock

I have an official 1M WR with the superpi mod 1.4 version at 3814MHz and 14 multiplier
at 3825MHz = cold bug
08-08-2005, 11:30 AM
skirms_fr

cpull discover a new cold named cascade :p
08-08-2005, 12:28 PM
s7e9h3n

Great Job CPULL! :toast:
I'm just waiting to see 20's from you.... ;)
08-08-2005, 12:50 PM
skirms_fr

20's will be very very very hard i think
08-08-2005, 01:20 PM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by skirms_fr

20's will be very very very hard i think

Heh, I know....just wanted to challenge they guy a bit ;)
08-08-2005, 01:23 PM
skirms_fr

he s a crazy bencher :p
08-08-2005, 01:25 PM
cpulloverclock

impossible I think for the moment

the time dont advance

http://membres.lycos.fr/cpulloverclo...que/21.891.gif

I can do this bench around 3740MHz without error

http://membres.lycos.fr/cpulloverclo...ique/32.67.gif
08-08-2005, 01:28 PM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpulloverclock

impossible I think for the moment

the time dont advance

What do you mean? You're able to get the same 1m time @ lower speeds?
08-08-2005, 01:41 PM
skirms_fr

higher i think
08-08-2005, 01:41 PM
cpulloverclock

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

What do you mean? You're able to get the same 1m time @ lower speeds?

I mean I have 24.9 at 3258
21.9 around 3795

3s for 537MHz!!!!

normally I should have 5.2s for 537MHz

at this speed I see 20.9 at 4GHz

1MB L2 is not enough
08-08-2005, 01:45 PM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpulloverclock

I mean I have 24.9 at 3258
21.9 around 3795

3s for 537MHz!!!!

normally I should have 5.2s for 537MHz

at this speed I see 20.9 at 4GHz

1MB L2 is not enough

You of all people should know that the results won't scale linearly..... ;)
08-08-2005, 01:53 PM
cpulloverclock

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

You of all people should know that the results won't scale linearly..... ;)

it was linear until 3260
after, I dont know
08-08-2005, 01:58 PM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpulloverclock

it was linear until 3260
after, I dont know

Were you using the same multiplier up to 3260? Then after that, I assume you experimented with diff mult @ the higher speeds? What were the settings on the two different 1m runs you were ciomparing?
08-08-2005, 02:42 PM
cpulloverclock

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

Were you using the same multiplier up to 3260? Then after that, I assume you experimented with diff mult @ the higher speeds? What were the settings on the two different 1m runs you were ciomparing?

same settings and same frequency ram
08-08-2005, 03:03 PM
[XC] leviathan18

i think you can achieve lower timming with higher mem speeds at the tighest timmings SPI 1mb runs are quite affected by mem timings and speed

hope to see sub 20 with that baby great OC great cpu congratz from venezuela
08-08-2005, 03:22 PM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpulloverclock

same settings and same frequency ram

So if the ram was runnning the same @ 3258 and @ 3795, then that would mean the only thing you're changing is the multiplier. That's the reason why you're times aren't improving linearly. As you probably already know, as your multiplier increases, so does your memory bandwidth efficiency. If for example you were running 12x271.5 = 3258, then your bandwidth efficiency is prob in the range of 92-93%. If you then bench @ 14x271.5 = 3801, your efficiency should increase to ~94-96%. Any benches using the same mult should scale linearly but when you change the mult, then it's gonna be a different story. Of course this is only my opinnion........ ;)
08-08-2005, 05:36 PM
brandinb

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpulloverclock

I mean I have 24.9 at 3258
21.9 around 3795

3s for 537MHz!!!!

normally I should have 5.2s for 537MHz

at this speed I see 20.9 at 4GHz

1MB L2 is not enough

i think you comment about the 1mb l2 cache is the reason this cpu is stuck.
if you had 2mb l2 like a pentium dothan core then you would scale better.
________
LovelyWendie99
08-08-2005, 05:43 PM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandinb

i think you comment about the 1mb l2 cache is the reason this cpu is stuck.
if you had 2mb l2 like a pentium dothan core then you would scale better.

But also remember: larger l2 cache cpu's don't oc as high as cpu's with a lower l2 cache ;)
08-08-2005, 05:45 PM
agenda2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandinb

i think you comment about the 1mb l2 cache is the reason this cpu is stuck.
if you had 2mb l2 like a pentium dothan core then you would scale better.

Agreed. AMD need to start making the FX a 2MB L2 cache to be a worthwhile gamer CPU. Afterall the X2 now feature 2MB L2 cache in total, so I see no reason why the FX cannot be 2MB.
They also need to work on the L2 cache latency. A64 L2 cache latency sucks compare to Dothan or pentium 4 with their inclusive cache desighn.
08-08-2005, 07:47 PM
Sesto Sento

Quote:

Originally Posted by agenda2005

They also need to work on the L2 cache latency. A64 L2 cache latency sucks compare to Dothan or pentium 4 with their inclusive cache desighn.

compared to the pentium 4 the fx lvl2 cache sucks?? i totally desagree... even the dothan has only a little lower latency than the fx... the pentium 4 has a much higher latency, that's why it goes for so higher mhz...
08-08-2005, 08:45 PM
EMC2

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpulloverclock

I have an official 1M WR with the superpi mod 1.4 version at 3814MHz and 14 multiplier

Quote:

4Ghz club

:oscar: Xcellent work :up:

Major congrats on the accomplishment :toast:
08-08-2005, 10:29 PM
Dumo

Congrats :toast:
Its not easy to bench 57@ 270+ with cascade @ -90C.
Keep it up, 4.1 its almost there :)
08-19-2005, 12:04 PM
ozzimark

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

That's the reason why you're times aren't improving linearly

it shouldn't anyway, as it's an inverse relationship.. unless we're expecting to add another 4ghz and take a negative amount of time :cool:
08-19-2005, 03:14 PM
meke

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sesto Sento

compared to the pentium 4 the fx lvl2 cache sucks?? i totally desagree... even the dothan has only a little lower latency than the fx... the pentium 4 has a much higher latency, that's why it goes for so higher mhz...

you are right.

"döngü" means "cycle"
"gecikme" means "latency" :rolleyes:

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...-desktop/3.jpg

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...-desktop/4.jpg
08-25-2005, 01:03 PM
minirac

NIce job keep working on 4,1Ghz :D
08-25-2005, 01:23 PM
Revv23

Quote:

Originally Posted by agenda2005

They also need to work on the L2 cache latency. A64 L2 cache latency sucks compare to Dothan or pentium 4 with their inclusive cache desighn.

its not much worse then dothan's great cache, and its a bit better then northwood, and its WAY better then prescott.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:23 AM.

XtremeSystems