Hey Eclipse and Conrad - what BIOS do you guys use? Still 4/15 Betas? I have 10/15 but that doesn't seem to work. I'm not sure what's more recent, as the numbering scheme baffles me. Would be nice if it included a year... ^^
Printable View
Hey Eclipse and Conrad - what BIOS do you guys use? Still 4/15 Betas? I have 10/15 but that doesn't seem to work. I'm not sure what's more recent, as the numbering scheme baffles me. Would be nice if it included a year... ^^
are there gunna be dual core S754 chips? if so when?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korpse
uhm no, the amount of power needed can't be given by 754 pins, it needs 939. And as dual cores 'require' a big memory bandwidth, I think singlechannel just wouldnt do, so a s754 dual core just would be unlogical as it wouldnt perform as it should do (on 939).
correct me if im wrong
5/4 :DQuote:
Originally Posted by iddqd
biohead, s754 won't have a problem powering a dual core cpu, the extra pins are purely for the memory
Has anyone gotten a chance to try 2x 1gig stix on these?
you are right on the no dual core for s754 but wrong as the reasoning. dual cores would run fine on the motherboards and socket. amd just won't implement them because intel hasn't set up a dual core pentium-m mobile chip yet and the market is small for dual core workstation laptops. not because the socket can't support the power and single channel would kill performance.(both of which are not true)
remember the desktop s754 is officially dead but has stayed alive due to the mobile chips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by biohead
Linky plz?
for the bios i would assume? it's the latest official from dfi :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by iddqd
http://www.dfi.com.tw/Support/Downlo...FLAG=A&SITE=NA
Bah, the 4.0 vdimm version.
actually, single channel would kill the performance. There is not nearly enough bandwidth to support the needs of the 2 cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by tristancarton
sabre and/or bio (or even anyone else) any way you can provide a link to backup your statement.(maybe we can start a new thread in amd forum and get someone with a dual core system to post benchmarks in single channel mode?)
i know dual channel with 1 cpu is usually 4-8 percent faster (in most apps) than single channel with 1 cpu. my assumption was that even with a dual core cpu the difference wouldn't increase by that much due to the integrated memory controllers. perhaps it would jump to 8-15 percent but even with those numbers i don't think it is a huge deal and prob not amds reason for not pushing dual core s754 because you will still see a huge difference in going from 1 core to 2 cores.
(this will be my last post on this matter in this thread because i don't want derailment)
btw- anyone else have benchmarks for the 90nm 1mb s754 3400 newark? the 3700 is still too expensive for my liking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabrewolf732
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristancarton
trying to have enough banwidth for 2 cores with only 3GB's of bandwith is crazy. Run your 754 system with the ram at 100MHz.
perhaps however i ran a p3 tualatin dual cpu smp system on pc133 (talk about low bandwidth) for a while and it wasn't too big of a deal.
anyway i posted a thread asking for dual core kids to benchmark between single and dual channel. hope someone will respond. here is the thread. all discussion on this may as well move there.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?p=953638
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabrewolf732
there's a difference.. with single channel at 200mhz, you still have decent latency.. 100mhz kills itQuote:
Originally Posted by sabrewolf732
edit: seems that dangerden doesn't test as well as they should. popped off the waterblock to put on the clawhammer.. it seems i'm lucky there's no damage from what i can tell...
:slapass: :slapass: :slapass:
that newark looks like it almost got taken down! what are you plans for the meantime? keep using a shiesty block, or go back to air for a little bit.
i dunno, i'll see if i can do a temporary fix and try to get a replacement block.. these things are warranteed against leaks, yes?
dam oz ur lucky u caught it in time bro, get that water problems fixed and get her cookin again man, it woulda sucked to have her taken out.
Mines runnin like sheetz as ity is with only one 512 of speed premium cause other one took a dump on me :(
Damn Ozzi! I hope everything still works. I was going to buy that block for my Opterons but now...... FORGET ABOUT IT! :slapass:
got a question for you fellas, how do i know if my mem controller is gone?
2X512's worked b4 at 240X12 with 3.2 and now i cant get em stable at 200 in any dim combo. Either one of them will do 230 alone but together its no good with alot of different timing configs to go also. Im gonna try rmaing my dimms first as i have already rmad one mobo and if dimms dont work im guessing that mem controller is gone, is there a way to test this? Gimme some advice as to what i can try to rule this out
Right now im on one 512 at 230X12 stable as a rock but if i try other dimm in there crapps out on me.
a quick email with DD's tech support has put me back in good spirits, just make sure you do more thorough testing than i did :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vandi423
philo... no clue, did you clear the bios the proper way? not doing so has given me trouble in the past :slapass:
LOL i cant find a newark core for sale anywhere...?
-CaT
It's a good block. Don't send it back, just use some thread seal... the water clearly leaked through the thread on the bolts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vandi423
Been a while since I've posted in this thread, maybe somebody already beat me to the punch. I was digging around on AMD's site and came by this product revision guide.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/cont...docs/25759.pdf
Check out page 8. According to it, there are no Athlon64 mobiles based on the San Diego single core (SH-E4). Instead, the Athlon64 mobiles are based on the SH-E5 silicon of the Turion64. I had confirmed this (although I didn't realize it), as I measured power consumption of my 3700+ mobile and Turion64 at the same speed and voltage, and power consumption was basically identical. At first I interpretted this to mean that Turion64 was the same core as the San Diego (SH-E4). It wasn't until I came by this tech. document that I had even considered that Lancaster and Newark were the same core, but this appears to be the case.
Doesn't really relate to overclocking or anything, but I thought you guys might find it interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frostedflakes
They are identical. All "tweaks" are transistor-level. High wattage Turion models are basically the same thing as regular mobiles. Low wattage Turions are something different, however.
Well yes, I know the architecture is identical, but it also appears that these have the same transistor tweaks to reduce power consumption as the Turion64. The 90nm 62w mobile A64s and Turions are the only processors on that list that carry the SH-E5 CPU ID.
I guess it just kind of surprised me, because me and a few other members here got in on some Turion action early, and they turned out to be very poor overclockers. Then these 90nm mobile A64s came out OC'g like mad, so we all just assumed they were the same dies as those found in the desktop San Diego's.
Guess between week 7 (what my Turion was) and week 15 (around when the first mobile A64 dies seem to have appeared) AMD worked out the bugs in their tweaked transistors to allow for higher clocks. :woot: