45nm Phenom Overclocked, Super Pied

Printable View

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

07-13-2008, 09:49 AM
cdawall

this is on a MSI K9A2 platinum if anyone was wondering and with :banana::banana::banana::banana: ram

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/08-07-11/g.jpg
07-13-2008, 10:06 AM
nachthymnen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oc-Ghost

finally phenom has broken 20s Pie
http://www.itocp.com/attachments/mon....jpg.thumb.jpg

Not that it matters that´ much, also nice seeing it done at around 266 bus ;)

Nice, finally:D
Want see a Cinebench R10, I think can be very good:up:
07-13-2008, 01:02 PM
hokiealumnus

Quote:

Originally Posted by DPeter

Hi, hokiealumnus Well I'm quite bussy with folding and I can tell you that the multi core client for folding, isn't doing much intercore communication.
It's not like the ps3 client that does do a litle bit of work on each spu.
the folding multicoreclient behaves like a client that can work on a grid of computers, so it doens't need the big intercore bandwith (it's not like the intel intercore communication is as slow as ethernet ;)) That's why folding smp needs the MPI service for multicore! So phenom will only outperform Core 2 if folding would implement somthing like the ps3 core, but that doens't make much sens for a normal x86 cpu.

greetz

This makes complete sense, thanks for that.

I should point out that the F@H results I was quoting were from Windows XP 32-bit. I have been having issues with Ubuntu (64-bit) and this rig, but when it actually folds right, it gets significantly higher ppd. It's been a while since I tried (trying again and typing from Ubuntu now), but IIRC project 1753 got ~2,200ppd, which beats the C2D by just over 300 on that project. I guess it just needs the right application to take advantage.

I guess the conclusion one can draw from this is that the C2D/C2Q platform isn't necessarily better (when ignoring the overclock potential of course), it's just different. Were more applications tailored specifically to AMD's architecture and not to Intel, we may see the reverse happen and Phenom beat Core2.

So, this has helped me learn some about why my Phenom isn't as bad as I thought. Thanks for everyone's input. I feel slightly better now. :up:

Now, let's all continue to cheer on and support AMD. They'll get over the hill and beat Intel again; they have before. 3.4GHz (even if at insane Vcore for a 45nm chip) is a definite step in the right direction. Go AMD! :clap:
07-13-2008, 01:29 PM
Jimmer411

Very nice to see that oc on a SB600 system. One can only speculate how well these chips will oc on a SB750 system if everything that has been shown is accurate.

Who cares about SPi? Personally I could give a rats ass about pretty much every benchmark out there and benchmarking in general. The only time I run them is when Im first setting up my overclock to test for stability and some additional minor tweaking as needed and maybe the occasional reference of scores to my own systems in the past to see how things have come along (first system I had scored 5300 on 3DM01) on systems that Ive built.

Now fast forward 6 months later on a fragmented hard drive and see how windows is performing doing every day things, file transfers and program opening etc. Thats all I really care about.
07-13-2008, 03:17 PM
demonkevy666

don't folding clients vary???

anyways... I know I seen a few where phenom was higher then core 2 quads like two of three of them but when there 7-8 lost no one took time to see why it won the others.
07-13-2008, 05:45 PM
skidpl8

Quote:

Originally Posted by massman

It's a C0, the C1 revision is supposed to clock much higher :)

Link?
07-13-2008, 06:00 PM
i found nemo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliverda

The SuperPI shows very unrealistic difference between Intel and AMD. It's the most stupid benchmark which I know. It's almost the same when you try to compare Intel vs. AMD in Everest CPU AES test.

how so? pi is all about low latency & bandwidth from cache & system memory. example 1mb l2 has about 200 mhz advantage vs 512kb cache, assuming ram timings & speeds are exact( on amd ). how's it unrealistic? wasn't so bad years ago when amd was spanking intel in that app. ( unless you had a pentium m, wich was on par, if not exceeding amd in more than just pi ) you need to talk to the super pi god, aka one page book ( opb ).

super pi may seem inaccurate because all the sudden we have hardware that has implimented micro ops fusion & can do calculations in a sinch. it's called, progress. so is 3d mark '01 useless? every bench has it's place, even synthetic.
07-13-2008, 06:48 PM
Titan7171

Why is it taking 1.56v to hit 3.4ghz on 45nm when we can do it at about 1.4-1.5v on 65nm?
07-13-2008, 06:54 PM
Sparky

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titan7171

Why is it taking 1.56v to hit 3.4ghz on 45nm when we can do it at about 1.4-1.5v on 65nm?

First run silicon. Also, this is a quad, and they are more complex than a dual core K8 so the clocks don't come as easily. This is also assuming CPU-Z is reading the volts properly as well.
07-13-2008, 07:03 PM
Titan7171

Quote:

Originally Posted by SparkyJJO

First run silicon. Also, this is a quad, and they are more complex than a dual core K8 so the clocks don't come as easily. This is also assuming CPU-Z is reading the volts properly as well.

I have a 9950 this took 1.48v.....cpuz shows that +.025.

http://img.techpowerup.org/080712/3.48ghz.jpg

I would think theyd be doing that at 1.45v or something?
07-13-2008, 07:11 PM
Sparky

Well again it is first run silicon, which does tend to need more "oomph" to run, so to speak. Nice overclock on that 9950, is that 100% stable or just a quickie run?
07-13-2008, 07:31 PM
Titan7171

Quote:

Originally Posted by SparkyJJO

Well again it is first run silicon, which does tend to need more "oomph" to run, so to speak. Nice overclock on that 9950, is that 100% stable or just a quickie run?

Definitely not 100% stable I set a goal of not going over the 1.48v setting in the bios and thats how high it went. it completed super pi but it wouldnt finish 3dm06. the highest I got that let me play games run 3dm06 and super pi was 3.34ghz.

heres the thread with my overclocking results results start on post 100

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=194058
07-13-2008, 10:38 PM
SocketMan

Folding on the GPU allows for 4 PCIe cards on the 790fx boards
4 cpu cores for 4 vga cards
07-14-2008, 01:19 AM
Final8ty

I see some people running 240 bus speed.
I cant do more than stock 200 with my 9850,9850,9950 but did 275 with my
6400BE
So that is a mobo issue i guess when it comes to the Quads ?
07-14-2008, 02:55 AM
Tony

if you have low winrar scores remove everything USB from your platform, This means any memory sticks, mouse, keyboard etc and try again...all my issues with this bench were usb related.
07-14-2008, 02:56 AM
Newblar

Quote:

Originally Posted by SocketMan

Folding on the GPU allows for 4 PCIe cards on the 790fx boards
4 cpu cores for 4 vga cards

sigh... if only these intel boards were as nice as the amd ones :(
i think the only reason to build an amd system is because of the 790FX, more specifically that DFI LP MR2s & 5000+be
07-14-2008, 03:03 AM
hokiealumnus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Final8ty

I see some people running 240 bus speed.
I cant do more than stock 200 with my 9850,9850,9950 but did 275 with my
6400BE
So that is a mobo issue i guess when it comes to the Quads ?

Not sure what it's called on other boards, but FWIW, I have to raise my CPU NB Ref Voltage +.10. Running 240x10 right now.
07-14-2008, 06:38 AM
Particle

Quote:

Originally Posted by i found nemo

how so? pi is all about low latency & bandwidth from cache & system memory. example 1mb l2 has about 200 mhz advantage vs 512kb cache, assuming ram timings & speeds are exact( on amd ). how's it unrealistic? wasn't so bad years ago when amd was spanking intel in that app. ( unless you had a pentium m, wich was on par, if not exceeding amd in more than just pi ) you need to talk to the super pi god, aka one page book ( opb ).

super pi may seem inaccurate because all the sudden we have hardware that has implimented micro ops fusion & can do calculations in a sinch. it's called, progress. so is 3d mark '01 useless? every bench has it's place, even synthetic.

SuperPI isn't useful in the context of a general performance indicator benchmark. The reason for this is that SuperPI uses only x87 instructions to do its workload. This was a good test long ago, but the trend has been for any computationally intensive program to use optimizations--substituting vanilla x87 instructions for MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNow, etc instructions wherever possible. In the context of modern applications (at least for five years now), many if not most or all of the popular compilers and frameworks utilize these special instructions without the programmer even knowing about it. This includes C, C++, CLIs (like C#, J#, and VB.NET), etc. A developer basically has to explicitly decline the use of optimizations or write their code in ASM to develop an application that will stress the same pipeline as SuperPI. Because of this, testing only x87 instructions isn't going to be a good indicator of general processor performance. Relatively few (if any) applications a user is likely to actually run will be using the same pipeline so heavily. Since performance of a processor is different when using SSE, MMX, etc and x87 instructions, a valid transposition between the results we see is impossible. However, if you just want to see how fast a handful of x87 instructions are between processors, by all means use SuperPI. It would be a valid indicator of that. That's just not the context we user SuperPI in, which is why it isn't a good choice or indicator.

For similar reasons, this is why 3DMark06 isn't a good benchmark to run anymore. 3DMark06 is more processor intensive than most modern games. The ratio between CPU and GPU power yielding increased framerates in these modern games is much different. You could call 3DM06 CPU-colored, as its score will increase unrealistically with increased CPU power. You will not experience quite so drastic of framerate increases in real (modern) games as it would seem to indicate.
07-14-2008, 07:39 AM
perkam

I've never really understood the 3d06 criticism. When the latest version came out, no one said anything, but when Intel releases faster GPUs it becomes a more CPU-intensive benchmark...that doesn't make any sense to me. Games scale like 3d06...it all depends on how you test CPU scaling in games. Not to mention, every game scales differently, how on earth can you just say ''games'' like they all scale the same with higher CPU frequency :shrugs:

Perkam
07-14-2008, 07:59 AM
cdawall

Quote:

Originally Posted by Final8ty

I see some people running 240 bus speed.
I cant do more than stock 200 with my 9850,9850,9950 but did 275 with my
6400BE
So that is a mobo issue i guess when it comes to the Quads ?

its not hard to push over 240 this is on my K9A2 platinum

http://img.techpowerup.org/080714/Ca...2-20080714.png

thats my 24/7 speed

maybe its just a DFI issue :shrug:
07-14-2008, 08:02 AM
Brother Esau

Maybe its just the Issue of Phenom not interacting well with High HT when will you folks come to terms with this?
07-14-2008, 08:04 AM
cdawall

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

Maybe its just the Issue of Phenom not interacting well with High HT when will you folks come to terms with this?

mine is running a high HT 2.3ghz HT 2.3ghz NB
07-14-2008, 10:06 AM
Particle

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

I've never really understood the 3d06 criticism. When the latest version came out, no one said anything, but when Intel releases faster GPUs it becomes a more CPU-intensive benchmark...that doesn't make any sense to me. Games scale like 3d06...it all depends on how you test CPU scaling in games. Not to mention, every game scales differently, how on earth can you just say ''games'' like they all scale the same with higher CPU frequency :shrugs:

Perkam

Every game's ratio is unique, but it doesn't take a genious to see a general shift of trends (in games that people give a crap about at least, I won't pretend to be familiar with ALL games ever made).

I will elaborate a bit on some of the possible reasons for this. Modern games using modern features tend to do more work on the GPU instead of the CPU. Newer games also tend to try and delegate work to threads instead of just running entirely on one. These kinds of trends decrease the importance of how fast a single, given core is. 3DMark06 pre-dates the level of threading and offloading that modern A, AA, and AAA titles have.
07-14-2008, 11:29 AM
Titan7171

Quote:

Originally Posted by Final8ty

I see some people running 240 bus speed.
I cant do more than stock 200 with my 9850,9850,9950 but did 275 with my
6400BE
So that is a mobo issue i guess when it comes to the Quads ?

some people or me?? :D

Do me a favor, set your HT ratio and your FSB/memory Ratio to auto then start raising your fsb as usual and let me know what happens.
07-14-2008, 09:58 PM
RhoXeD

the k9a2 tops around 2400 NB/HTT if on a 9850BE that means 240 for the HT for a 9500/9550 that means into the 250's - 260's HT to reach 2400 NB/HTT overall because the multi starts at 1,800 instead of 2,000 on 9850BE

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