brisbane dual core 65nm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

AS WAS I.

---

I am not AMD so I don't make the clams sur. :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtle 1

Well I won't argue that point with you. I hope you are correct as it will benefit all of us if true.

---

I don't believe for a second that you're hoping that. But I hope I'm wrong as it will benefit all of us if true. :)

No I do hope its true Poodle. It will keep Intel pushing things forward. We all have are reasons for wanting something. Mine are differant than yours!

Serge, this might help:
http://taiwan.cnet.com/sharedmedia/C...d/c2emb_30.jpg
G965 chipset + HDMI out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doompc

Serge, this might help:
http://taiwan.cnet.com/sharedmedia/C...d/c2emb_30.jpg
G965 chipset + HDMI out.

---

Intel is now my future. :toast:

lol, some people just keep having problem to distinguish between AMD and intel.

If one did not switch to conroe as it launched and he will not do it now. SO save your bloody hell effort and stop posting intel in AMD forums!!

BTW, this is all about brisbane dual core 65nm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

cool but what intel has to do with brisbane?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtle 1

But this is XS and most here are more interested in performance per ghz .

---

INTEL'S netburst begs to differ :slap:

IF any of you didn't notice jet:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=126558

So far 3.1GHz @1.4-1.5V and 2.6GHz(stock) @1.1-1.2V :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowmage

INTEL'S netburst begs to differ :slap:

---

The way i understood it, i think Turtle means clock for clock performance....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lightman

IF any of you didn't notice jet:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=126558

So far 3.1GHz @1.4-1.5V and 2.6GHz(stock) @1.1-1.2V :)

---

Ya I been following that story. 3.1ghz is way better than before. If they hit 3.6ghz . Its a good shrink.. As for the voltage. Idon't Know if its being reported correctly. The temps aren't even worthy of mention as there way off.

To above poster . Yes a Was referring to clock for clock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtle 1

Ya I been following that story. 3.1ghz is way better than before. If they hit 3.6ghz . Its a good shrink.. As for the voltage. Idon't Know if its being reported correctly. The temps aren't even worthy of mention as there way off.

To above poster . Yes a Was referring to clock for clock

---

Hehehe! Then they need 3.6GHz to catch the C2D overclock at what, 3GHz LOL!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingcarcas

The way i understood it, i think Turtle means clock for clock performance....

---

I wouldn't say so considering his Prescott days. I'm assuming he is just making a comment to make Intel sound superior again :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtle 1

Ya I been following that story. 3.1ghz is way better than before. If they hit 3.6ghz . Its a good shrink.. As for the voltage. Idon't Know if its being reported correctly. The temps aren't even worthy of mention as there way off.

To above poster . Yes a Was referring to clock for clock

---

I believe 3.1 is already good for this shrink, in the first showing. No way in hell i would expect 3.6 to be possible, it would be an miracle in this arch. I would love to see accurate temps and volts report aswell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

I wouldn't say so considering his Prescott days. I'm assuming he is just making a comment to make Intel sound superior again :rolleyes:

---

I never ever Owned a prescot nor did I ever sell one. You assumed incorrectly. We were discussing the review a guy did comparing a E6300 against 65nm AMD @ 2.3 when the compare would have been more apples to apples if a E6400 would have been used.

Your good at this sort of thing nn and we all know it.

Great news from AMD

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/tic...&Symbol=US:AMD

Anand review of 65nm was Ok. Overclocking was good . No increase in performance. Power usage was lower. Temps were lower.

The thing I didn't like about Anand's review was he kept saying that It was more of a power consuption review than anything . Yet when it came time to O/C They never reported power consumption or temps at O/C.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2889

too high hypertransport
i feel OC lamers -)
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/1808/ocqp7.png

Mas what is the most that the Ht link can be O/C.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtle 1

Mas what is the most that the Ht link can be O/C.

---

Depends on the chipset. Some Via Chips will not allow the HTT Link to Surpass 1Ghz and be 100% stable. So there is a chance that they left the HTT multi high (which has virtually NO benefit) which effected the OC

So whats like the normal O/C of the HT with this M/B ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe

This is what Anand said in the comments section of the preview:

"Sorry I should have addressed this in the review - HTT speed had no impact on my overclocking results with this particular chip; even with a HT multiplier of 4X the chip won't get into Windows at 2.99GHz. Memory wasn't a factor as it was set to the lowest speed possible in order to see how far we could push the CPU.

I have a feeling that with better air cooling close to 3GHz may be possible, but I wanted to look at the worst case scenario overclocking potential of just using a stock heatsink/fan similar to what we did in our Core 2 overclocking article upon its release.

I'm working on the Brisbane 4800+ now and will find out soon if it overclocks any better.

Take care,
Anand"

This is going to be a wicked fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leon2ky

This is going to be a wicked fast.

---

Ya I know got a warm fussy feeling all over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

^^^ well, guess Anand does know what he is doing. We just can't read (or didn't want to).

---

He most certainly does. I did notice however the use of differant chipset between the Amd -Intel systems. I looked on his site couldn't find the review of the Intel processor with that chipset.

If he wasn't going to use the same chipset I think maybe the 975 chipset should have been used rather than that very ineficient power robbing 680i chipset.

Not to nit pick or anything but the chipset uses a lot of power.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...=expert&pid=21

On anands RD600 test . The differance between the Badaxe2 and the 680i idle power was 64 watts that changes things abit I would say.

Under load it was 40 watts.

Well AMD is just now getting high end chips to 3ghz with ~1.4V in the FX74's on 90nm. I would not anticipate 65nm cores going beyong 3.4ghz "from AMD." Yes parts will clock higher with more volts and cooling but they all do. and yes C2D is clocking higher, but for many reasons. There are not many at all C2D's hitting 4ghz on air, most are around 3600-3700 at most. So take the 3.1ghz for a first sample and say wow nice results ;-) With cooling like H20 and such and a slight rev. f these we surely will be seeing 3.3-3.4ghz out of them by summer which will put up a good fight to a C2D for sure. No reason why one in that range couldnt run or beat the 2.93 conroe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rickster_64

Well AMD is just now getting high end chips to 3ghz with ~1.4V in the FX74's on 90nm. I would not anticipate 65nm cores going beyong 3.4ghz "from AMD." Yes parts will clock higher with more volts and cooling but they all do. and yes C2D is clocking higher, but for many reasons. There are not many at all C2D's hitting 4ghz on air, most are around 3600-3700 at most. So take the 3.1ghz for a first sample and say wow nice results ;-) With cooling like H20 and such and a slight rev. f these we surely will be seeing 3.3-3.4ghz out of them by summer which will put up a good fight to a C2D for sure. No reason why one in that range couldnt run or beat the 2.93 conroe.

---

From the looks of it they ruined K8's, should have stuck with everything on 939. We will never see 4.2ghz from AM2 ever. Or AM2 breaking records agenst the 939 days. AMD will never beat a X6800 conroe with current tech when these things go as high as 5.7ghz. AMD lost by a small bit in the stock world and much more in the OCing world. What they need for K8L is a lot of stages to beable to clock like conroe in a OC if they want to win the crown back. Otherwise its over until 2008 when K10/11 comes.

Serge stages are useful in MODERATION.
Look at Northwood, wonderful design 20 stages
Prescott, hot and slow 31 stages.
Conroe 14
K8 12
K7 10

Are they extending the number of stages on K8L? Probably been discussed 10,000 times but......

well that entirely depends, on if AMD wants to add more clock speed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rickster_64

Are they extending the number of stages on K8L?

---

onlly AMD khows
i think no, at least for intreger blocks
maybe for fpu they will extend a little

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

Serge stages are useful in MODERATION.
Look at Northwood, wonderful design 20 stages
Prescott, hot and slow 31 stages.
Conroe 14
K8 12
K7 10

---

Netburst had 31 stages and could OC like hell to clock to almost 8ghz. It was slow because of its cycles per clock where low. K8 only used 2 64-bit cycles, Conore uses 2 128bit cycles. K8L will do the same. It only depends how many stages K8L has. K8L is not K8 so it is unknown to me how many stages K8L has, I hear 14 to 16 stages. The max on 12 stages was 4.2ghz for K8's on the 939. Lets hope AM2 will get the same atleast once again with K8L.

The FPU has doubled in size btw.

Serge perhaps the next logical step isn't more integer speed, rather a duality.
Since the main design targets for both AMD and Intel are Latency vs throughput.
What if, and this is entirely hypothetical: That there are two cores at different speeds, in the same processor.
One specialized for low latency, be 7-10 stages, and clock to say 2.5Ghz
Another specialized for Throughput, have lots of stages and say a 5Ghz clock speed.
Now the easiest of the two to program for is the lowest latency one.
And the Throughput one would have the highest performance.
Now by doing this idea you get a few special benefits:
1) your Throughput processor no longer needs to be superscalar. Meaning you are going to lose about 70% of the logic.(think 30mm^2 on 90nm)
2) Your Latency processor no longer needs to focus on throughput. Meaning IPC improvements are the highest goal. (Once again shedding alot of die space)
3) you can add different numbers of both to make a proper mix of performance for any enviroment.
Now with DX10, the low Latency version would be best for games.
And with the long pipeline and huge throughput that processor would also be killer for graphics and encoding.
In theory the most perfect hybrid processor. But this is complete speculation and may or may not have anything to do with K8L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

In theory the most perfect hybrid processor. But this is complete speculation and may or may not have anything to do with K8L

---

From the recent quotes out of AMD central, they may have something similar.

It's almost as tho the K8L will be the superscaler CPU, while through HT links "newer" co-processors will be slotted in.

maybe high Ghz Integer based ones, rather than the old ALU type.

It makes perfect sense if you think about it. Buy 1 CPU and add on packages for the rest (Pys, High Throughput)

If you get my drift

Considering the last 2 post. Here's something from the Intel side. Very speculative, as were the last 2 post.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12...arrabee_gpgpu/

Be interesting to see how nvidia responds to that news ( Left in the cold)

Ouch!

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2893&p=8

65nm is slower than 90nm. Due to L2 cache changed from 12cycles på 20cycles. Quake 4 and HL2 is the worst perhaps with 5% lower FPS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Ouch!

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2893&p=8

65nm is slower than 90nm. Due to L2 cache changed from 12cycles på 20cycles. Quake 4 and HL2 is the worst perhaps with 5% lower FPS.

---

Ahh so that explains it.

Three SS that shook the world

http://www.overclockers.ru/images/ne...2/21/x2_01.gif

http://www.overclockers.ru/images/ne...2/21/x2_02.gif

http://www.overclockers.ru/images/ne...2/21/x2_03.jpg


lamers here, lamers there, lamers everythere
testers did try to reach HT 3.0 frequency but in vain

well first batch isn't exciting, lets see what is going to come

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MAS

Three SS that shook the world
lamers here, lamers there, lamers everythere
testers did try to reach HT 3.0 frequency but in vain

---

Do your home work right, and you would see they tried a lower HT aswell. Same result. :fact:

So the lamer is you, not them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

they tried a lower HT aswell

---

SS pls

Here http://www.techreport.com/reviews/20...m/index.x?pg=4 and here http://www.techreport.com/reviews/20...m/index.x?pg=4 i only see suspicious and probably wrong K8 OC without driver DirectHands.sys installed

doctor is waiting

Reviewers can never OC worth crap anyways. No AMD is that CPU FSB limited. Mine can reach fing 380. Lets see some of that and not crappy 230FSB marks. I mean come on juice up the cpus with 1.6v 1.7v 1.8v and lets see what happens to the extreme.

They didn't try a low enough multiplier and suck at OCing to begin with. Its more of a challange to get 350FSB then it is 230FSB is too ameture easy. And I dou't its the cpus/mobos fault. They prob only messed with it for 5 mins to get that speed. My cpu can do 2.7ghz without even changing a bloody thing upto 275FSB it starts to need changing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MAS

SS pls

---

Why dont you read what Anand wrote in the comments. I know you have a really hard time accepting it, and the 5% lower performance due to L2 is another kick.

Quote:

---

Anand Lal Shimpi on: Dec 15, 2006 8:01 AMRating: 2
Sorry I should have addressed this in the review - HTT speed had no impact on my overclocking results with this particular chip; even with a HT multiplier of 4X the chip won't get into Windows at 2.99GHz. Memory wasn't a factor as it was set to the lowest speed possible in order to see how far we could push the CPU.

I have a feeling that with better air cooling close to 3GHz may be possible, but I wanted to look at the worst case scenario overclocking potential of just using a stock heatsink/fan similar to what we did in our Core 2 overclocking article upon its release.

I'm working on the Brisbane 4800+ now and will find out soon if it overclocks any better.

Take care,
Anand

---

http://www.anandtech.com/talkarticle...889&frmWhere=2

Maybe you should try show us your superiour skills!

Im not so botherd with Brisbane, 4x4 and all the rest.

Got myself a great deal on a 5200+ X2 and @ 3Ghz 24/7, it will last me till K8L easily.

Tbh, and this goes for Kentsfield.

AMD & Intel need to stop :banana::banana::banana:et-assing about on who can get ou the first product and just release the CPUs that matter.

Clovertown - True Quad Core.

K8L - What ever it will be - but something different instead of die shrinks or CPU coupling which has been around for years.

I think AMD are great.

A small firm in comparison to Intel keeping and for what was quite some time beating Intel in the market - I think they have more than enough to make a BIG come back.

Yeah, Conroe is a breakthrough - a breakthrough for Intel, but not a real technological breakthrough as after all - it only works out to be around 25-50% over AMD's current 3-4 year old K8 arcitecture.

Like I said, I think Clovertown is gunna be something else and along side it K8L.

Once more this is only the beggining - just look @ the talk of Fusion CPUs.

Great Stuff. :D

stop being an asswad mas, your fake ss before is enough, dont make yourself look worse by arguing a moot point... i run my ht upwards of 1200, it makes no difference in stability, maybe some of the first nforce 4 boards had issues, but were past that already.

Seems even Anandtech was friendly with the highres benchmarks. 65nm K8s looks like a complete disaster in gaming.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...view/page5.asp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Seems even Anandtech was friendly with the highres benchmarks. 65nm K8s looks like a complete disaster in gaming.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...view/page5.asp

---

Geez, don't rub it in anymore, it's torture already for AMD fans. :slapass:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Seems even Anandtech was friendly with the highres benchmarks. 65nm K8s looks like a complete disaster in gaming.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...view/page5.asp

---

what the duce, that page will not be displayed until after you accept half a dozen tracking cookies

I really can't get to grips with why AMD have started to use these half multipliers....

I suspect they are responsible for most of the performance loss reported by both Anand and Firingsquad with those 4800+ chips:
As far as I understand, they cause a lower RAM speed, and a corresponding ~4% loss in theoretical bandwidth.

Interestingly, the difference in clockspeed between 4600+ and new 4800+ chips is also 4%...
- Maybe we're just seeing differences between MHz and bandwidth sensitive apps and games...?

Seems this would explain how the 4600+ is able to beat the 4800+ in some of the Firingsquad tests?

a 65nm 4800 is 2.5ghz with 512kb cache, so not its not the same as the 90nm part. from the firing squad review, the memory divider is probably why the 4800 is slower than the 4600 at times, as the 4600 uses a normal multi.

Thankyou very much Mr Presley, though I'm not entirely sure how your comments relate to my post......?
- I'm aware of Anand's cache latency findings, but don't believe they are soley responsible for the diifferences that are being reported here.

I'm astounded that AMD haven't tried to explain this to the reviewers they are sending samples to; They can't expect a performance decrease to go unnoticed, surely?
To be fair though, these sites should really be comparing like for like: Interesting as those Firingsquad benches are, they should have dropped the multi on their 4800+ for a direct comparison with the 90nm 4600+, much as Anand did with the 5000+ in their part 2...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zimon

I really can't get to grips with why AMD have started to use these half multipliers....

I suspect they are responsible for most of the performance loss reported by both Anand and Firingsquad with those 4800+ chips:
As far as I understand, they cause a lower RAM speed, and a corresponding ~4% loss in theoretical bandwidth.

Interestingly, the difference in clockspeed between 4600+ and new 4800+ chips is also 4%...
- Maybe we're just seeing differences between MHz and bandwidth sensitive apps and games...?

Seems this would explain how the 4600+ is able to beat the 4800+ in some of the Firingsquad tests?

---

It fixes memory divider issues is all. We have had half multipliers for years anyways. The only way I can get 354x8.5M is because of the half multiplier. The damn memory controller in mine is limited by the memory dividers and full multipliers and half multipliers break the berrior so its a good thing for some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

what the duce, that page will not be displayed until after you accept half a dozen tracking cookies

---

Run from the subject?

About the half multiplier and the memory controller it would look like this:

GHz - DDR2-800 - DDR2-667 - DDR2-533 - DDR2-400
2.5 - DDR2-714 - DDR2-625 - DDR2-500 - DDR2-400
2.4 - DDR2-800 - DDR2-600 - DDR2-533 - DDR2-400
2.1 - DDR2-700 - DDR2-600 - DDR2-525 - DDR2-400
2.0 - DDR2-800 - DDR2-667 - DDR2-500 - DDR2-400

So worse memory bandwidth, 66% more L2 latency and K8 suddenly drops 10-15% in games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Ghost

and where does it say that it will not work in a am2 socket ?

---

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...226153755.html

Quote:

---

AMD is projected to introduce new family of desktop microprocessors which are code-named after stars and use the new code-named K8L micro-architecture will be introduced in the third quarter of 2007, according to a recent roadmap of the chipmaker. Those chips are made using 65nm process technology and the family is set to include both dual-core and quad-core microprocessors, though, it is uncertain whether K8L lineup includes single-core central processing units (CPUs) too. It is believed that micro-architectural enhancements of the K8L will allow AMD to more successfully compete against Intel Core 2 family of chips.

The new desktop chips will feature AM2+ form-factor and will not be drop-in compatible with existing infrastructure. By the Q4 of 2007AMD’s product mix will include 20% of AM2+ processors, while by the end of Q1 2008 there will be “above 60%” of AM2+ processors among all chips shipped by AMD, a news-story by DigiTimes web-site claims.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...226153755.html

---

whoopy do

and they got their info from here which states none of that

AM2 to account for 95% of AMD shipments in 1Q

Yen Ting Chen, Taipei; Rodney Chan, DigiTimes.com [Tuesday 26 December 2006]

Socket AM2 will account for 95% of AMD's CPU shipments in the first quarter of 2007, but the chip supplier will begin shifting its focus to AM2+ in the third quarter, according to AMD's product roadmap.

Socket 1207 will still be in the market in the first and second quarter, accounting for 5% of AMD's CPU shipments, while socket 939 will be discontinued by the end of 2006, according to the chipmaker's plan.

In the third quarter of 2006, AMD will introduce its Stars family of 65nm quad-core CPUs that use socket AM2+, whose proportion of the chipmaker's shipments will climb to about 20% by the fourth quarter, and above 60% by the end of the first quarter in 2008, according to the roadmap.


and guess what it says nothing like that where they got their info from


try again ????????

i just love it when writers make stuff up and call it news, and because it fits what some one wants , they call it news

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cky2k6

a 65nm 4800 is 2.5ghz with 512kb cache, so not its not the same as the 90nm part. from the firing squad review, the memory divider is probably why the 4800 is slower than the 4600 at times, as the 4600 uses a normal multi.

---

I agree 100% with you.The divider issue is the reason why 65nm is SLIGHTLY slower than 4600+.AMD actually made some changes to the L2 while maintaining the performance within the ~3 or 4 % of the revF which is very good thing.Also we should note that the 65nm part was faster in variaty of tests than 4600+,altough having 20 cycles L2 and sligtly higher clock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

I agree 100% with you.The divider issue is the reason why 65nm is SLIGHTLY slower than 4600+.AMD actually made some changes to the L2 while maintaining the performance within the ~3 or 4 % of the revF which is very good thing.Also we should note that the 65nm part was faster in variaty of tests than 4600+,altough having 20 cycles L2 and sligtly higher clock

---

Slightly? Did you even check the review? We talk 10-15% in games!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

I think he was speaking clock for clock, not model for model.

---

(A few FPS numbers as example)
X2 4600+ 90nm, 2.4Ghz
FPS: 108, 104, 115, 114

X2 4800+ 65nm 2.5Ghz
FPS: 100, 95, 101, 100

:fact:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

(A few FPS numbers as example)
X2 4600+ 90nm, 2.4Ghz
FPS: 108, 104, 115, 114

X2 4800+ 65nm 2.5Ghz
FPS: 100, 95, 101, 100

:fact:

---

You're not doing a correct comparision, because the non integer Multipliers boast an even slower Memory Frequency. You should compare models that have the same specifications on 90nm as in 65nm, for example, the same 90nm A64X2 4600+ against a 65nm A64X2 4600+, not a 4800+ with 100 MHz more but with slower Memory Frequency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zir_blazer

You're not doing a correct comparision, because the non integer Multipliers boast an even slower Memory Frequency. You should compare models that have the same specifications on 90nm as in 65nm, for example, the same 90nm A64X2 4600+ against a 65nm A64X2 4600+, not a 4800+ with 100 MHz more but with slower Memory Frequency.

---

Slower depends on the memory used.
GHz - DDR2-800 - DDR2-667 - DDR2-533 - DDR2-400
2.5 - DDR2-714 - DDR2-625 - DDR2-500 - DDR2-400
2.4 - DDR2-800 - DDR2-600 - DDR2-533 - DDR2-400
2.1 - DDR2-700 - DDR2-600 - DDR2-525 - DDR2-400
2.0 - DDR2-800 - DDR2-667 - DDR2-500 - DDR2-400

But even so, the move from 939 to AM2 showed K8 aint bandwidth limited. The same with the 4x4 losing on all fronts, tho it got more memory bandwidth. Its mainly about the 66% increased cache latency.

http://badhardware.blogspot.com/2006...70453330892136

Well this debate that another mobo is needed is just silly. AMD doesn't have crappy chipset/memory controller issues like intel. According to this AM2 is comattible with K8L at a limited HTL. If it doesn't get through this time then I give up. BTW its not that hard to OC the HTL like to 1500mhz or 1700mhz. I done it.

http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php?ti...me=0&endtime=0

http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?...me=0&endtime=0

This is also confirmed by dalytech btw.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...th+K8L&spell=1

By all means look for the proof here all day and night.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3169

How many links does one have to show to prove a point BH's.

Shintai,the whole point is that memory clock greatly affects the Brisbane's results in some tests.In others,Brisbane's higher clock(2.5Ghz) manages to compensate for lower clock of the memory.
On the other hand,the increased L2 latency is probably compensated(to some degree,remember the latency rosed 66%!!!) by some minor tweaking in the core itself.
So don't try to say that Brisbane is "worse" cpu.It's great value and adds more by giving us sligtly higher multi.People interested in OCing new 65nm RevGs will probably use higher spec. memory modules capable of 1GHz+(ddr) so the problem with "new" stock half multi's will be "eliminated" with OCing the chips to their limits.
Normal folks care about "noise" and power consumption and yes,performance,all of which Brisbane(and Windsors) posses.The fact that they are not any more the best choice for enthusiasts since intel introduced New Core after years of being embarrassed doesn't mean no one would buy AMD's chips any more.In fact,AMD can't sell enough:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Shintai,the whole point is that memory clock greatly affects the Brisbane's results in some tests.In others,Brisbane's higher clock(2.5Ghz) manages to compensate for lower clock of the memory.
On the other hand,the increased L2 latency is probably compensated(to some degree,remember the latency rosed 66%!!!) by some minor tweaking in the core itself.
So don't try to say that Brisbane is "worse" cpu.It's great value and adds more by giving us sligtly higher multi.People interested in OCing new 65nm RevGs will probably use higher spec. memory modules capable of 1GHz+(ddr) so the problem with "new" stock half multi's will be "eliminated" with OCing the chips to their limits.
Normal folks care about "noise" and power consumption and yes,performance,all of which Brisbane(and Windsors) posses.The fact that they are not any more the best choice for enthusiasts since intel introduced New Core after years of being embarrassed doesn't mean no one would buy AMD's chips any more.In fact,AMD can't sell enough:rolleyes:

---

AMD is 2nd best doesn't mean its a bad choice is right. Its still a very good chip 3rd to none. Atleast they got the power consumption way down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

Hey, I'll take an Intel chipset over ANY chipset.

There is simply no parallel to them in terms of both stability and performance. How do you think C2D can do so well without an IMC?

Be careful with the blanket statement b/c some of them are just not true.

---

The best chipsets for C2D in the world are the NF680i and the RD600. Intel isn't even on the list of top 3 chipset maybe the badaxe 2 is good but intel isn't great at everything much less graphics wise (Its laughable). Whats great is C2D however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

:ROTF: Badaxe is a MOTHERBOARD, not a chipset.

The 965 and 975 chipsets are VERY good. the 680i is a JOKE. It generates an insane amount of heat. And the RD600, while being good, is VERY hard to find.

---

It's funny though, that as marvellous as those two chipsets are, they always end up being hosted on :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty motherboards with flaky BIOS:

Quote:

---

PLEASE! HELP ME! I have to set FSB to 397.2753367 to boot in Windows and use a hacked program in Windows itself to raise FSB!!!

---

Quote:

---

PLEASE! HELP ME! I have to clear CMOS to cold boot!!!

---

Quote:

---

PLEASE! HELP ME! I've tried all 36 BIOS and none of them can make my board go above 348 FSB!!!

---

Quote:

---

PLEASE! HELP ME! I need a new strap!

---

Quote:

---

You need a solder iron to make your board boot, noob.

---

Quote:

---

You need liquid nitrogen to cool your chipset, noob.

---

Quote:

---

My ES motherboard owns all of your retail crap, noobs.

---

Quote:

---

My vdroop is 0.2V better than yours, noob.

---

It makes me wonder if every single board maker sucks or if the problem could be elsewhere.

if almost everything around your processor sucks (MBs, memory PSU and so on) - it's a good time to look at the part in the middle. Yes, the one that is hardly compatible to world around :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

I'm voting for "every single board maker sucks".

My DFI-Ultra D was an absolute B!T#H. Hated my Seasonic PSU. Flakiest board I EVER owned.

ASUS A8N-SLI also was a bear. SO PICKY with memory.

I'm of the FIRM belief that board makers only HALF test their products and we get stuck being beta testers for them.

---

Buy a Via Board, it doesn't matter which one.
It isn't an uberclocker or picky about anything.
But it is extremely stable, totally compatible, and a rock stable base.
you don't get the right to :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: about Mobos since you are going for the points not the stable and reliable board. But then again this is Xtreme Systems and most of the people here aren't even stable anyways so what would be the point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

:ROTF: Badaxe is a MOTHERBOARD, not a chipset.

The 965 and 975 chipsets are VERY good. the 680i is a JOKE. It generates an insane amount of heat. And the RD600, while being good, is VERY hard to find.

---

The X975 chipset and everything on it is codenamed badaxe for its desine. :l It IS the mobo The chipset makes the mobo, with out it it would be a useless piece of circuits but the circuits are part of badaxe. Every peice of crap that is part of the mobo is part of the badaxe desine it IS the MFing entire board. Chipset and all doesn't matter, every caps placement, chip placement, chipset desine is badaxe. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

then again this is Xtreme Systems and most of the people here aren't even stable anyways so what would be the point

---

I agree, many people here (*ahem* fanboyz *ahem*) are unstable and need to be put into mental institutions to learn to stop fantasizing over chunks of silicon. :p: :nono:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serge84

The X975 chipset and everything on it is codenamed badaxe for its desine. :l It IS the mobo The chipset makes the mobo, with out it it would be a useless piece of circuits but the circuits are part of badaxe. Every peice of crap that is part of the mobo is part of the badaxe desine it IS the MFing entire board. Chipset and all doesn't matter, every caps placement, chip placement, chipset desine is badaxe. :rolleyes:

---

spelling police!

design

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

My DFI-Ultra D was an absolute B!T#H. Hated my Seasonic PSU. Flakiest board I EVER owned.

---

Mine has been stable for close to a year now and with a Seasonic psu and a Maxtor (more of a nforce4 thing) hd which both allegedly had trouble with the Ultra-D.

How much did I pay for the Ultra-D? 140$ CDN (about 120$ US). Can you find either a 965 or a 975 board around that price that will hold a stable (and significative) overclock day in day out for a year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkunK

Mine has been stable for close to a year now and with a Seasonic psu and a Maxtor (more of a nforce4 thing) hd which both allegedly had trouble with the Ultra-D.

How much did I pay for the Ultra-D? 140$ CDN (about 120$ US). Can you find either a 965 or a 975 board around that price that will hold a stable (and significative) overclock day in day out for a year?

---

Any P965 board can basicly do that, from 100$ and up :D
Even 50$ Via board with DDR1 can do around 20-25% OC. But that pales when you can get over 100% OC on P965.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Any P965 board can basicly do that, from 100$ and up :D
Even 50$ Via board with DDR1 can do around 20-25% OC. But that pales when you can get over 100% OC on P965.

---

I can't of course ask you to show me just one retail 965 board that's been running constantly at any overclock (I'm not talking about 270MHZ FSB here) let alone 100% for one year because those boards have not been out to retail for that long. Show me just ONE that's been doing that for six months.

As for your 50$ Via board. Which one are you talking about? The P5P800 AKA the board that has its NIC broken within two days? :lol:

And finally, 20% 25% overclock is reserved to the Asus crowd. As far as I'm concerned, 40% on single core and 30% on dual core without a mV above stock voltage is what I'm talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

Gigabyte DS3.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128012

50-100% OCs are NOT uncommon for this board and it is ROCK solid (even has solid metal caps).

---

1. That link shows a board on sale at today's price. You wanna compare that to the price (70$, local store) of Ultra-D as of today?
2. Even on sale and today, it's still above 120$ (old prime Ultra-D price)
3. Gigabyte has a reputation up here to blow caps faster than the Moon's orbit around the earth. Many local stores stopped carying Gigabyte motherboards because of that. Personally, I've seen two Gigabyte boards and both of them had blown caps (curiously enough Intel based).
4. 50% overclock not uncommon? Show me just five instances of those with retail (and modified) parts and average joes (like myself) running as long as the board has been out.

ultra-d was just as expensive as the ds3 back when it came out, it certainly wasnt at 120 right away... that, and intel motherboards have a much more complex nb, so naturally theyre gonna cost more, versus an amd board, where the mem controller is on the cpu. judging by your sig, skunk, youve been drinking the hector juice a little too much...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

DS3 thread:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=110460

HUNDREDS of users there with ROCK solid stable OCs (and MANY of them over 50%).

Nuf said.


EDIT - and how UNBIASED of you to compare a 2 year old motherboard's price (Ultra-D) to a 6 month old's (DS3). OF COURSE the Ultra-D is going to be cheaper. It is based on a DISCONTINUED platform!

---

Nuf said with nothing shown? I've looked at the first three pages of that thread and more than half the people with rig specs in their sig have any motherboard but the DS3.

And where are the six month long 50% overclocks in that thread?

If you want to compare retail vs modded, you might also add a technician premium fee to the price of the board too (even if it's homemade, nobody's working for free).

Not more unbiased than yourself, it seems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cky2k6

judging by your sig, skunk, youve been drinking the hector juice a little too much...

---

That could be a language barrier, but I don't get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

If you want to see 6mo+ OCs you should start at the END of the thread. :stick:

The beginning is when the board first came out.

---

I did at first, but many of the latest posts were from people who just got the board and had problems with it.

But since you introduced the fact that I should begin to read from the end of the thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave338

LOL my DS3 died xDDDDD...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FatRakoon

...I got 2 of these boards, E6300 @ 3.3 and a P4 Prescott 660 @ 4.3 and they both crash left right and center on me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xonium

...Then when I'm working: surfing, dreamweaver, photoshop, 3ds max etc it has crashed several times, I get a bluescreen for 1/10 second that I can't possibly read and then it reboots.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hutch

...This boards been frustrating, but it'll have to do!!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MACMAC

...System ran fine for a month, then yesterday I installed a new HSF, ran Orthos for one hour, and shut it off.
Now when I press the power button, the fans & HDD spin, but there's no monitor signal, and no beeping.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeadOn

Mine was working fine as well, I was on stock volts using my Tuniq Tower and was trying to find my max FSB on stock volts of an E6300. I put 450 in bios and went, it got into the Windows loading screen then restarted and never came back on...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 05_03_1992

...ive got problem... my e6300 processor in stress on default clock and box fan is heated to 75*C !!! is that normal ?

---

Very impressive, indeed! :slapass:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkunK

That could be a language barrier, but I don't get it.

---

he means to say that you are an AMD fanboy though I don't see it

you dont see that he involves intel with the fact that asus makes crappy boards for amd... 2t timings is not an issue for intel, and again the fact that asus has crappy vrm, he takes another jab at intel? from his first statement it seems he is taking a jab at intel chipsets and that every new chip needs a new one, except that most people when they upgrade, they buy a new mobo too, cause of new features like new memory, different gpu connector, etc... even if you could still use a 925x chipset with conroe, would you want to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

What is your POINT? :shrug:

Are you going to make (the audacious) claim that AMD systems are MORE stable (stock or OCed) than Intel systems? :ROTF:

If so, then you are biting off more than you can chew. That is an argument you can't possibly win. :slap:


Just look at this thread w/ people having problems with your precious Ultra-D:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=59207 :fact:

---

Here we go again:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KoHaN69

PROBLEM SOLVED:...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by breakfromyou

does 370 sound good for an AD0? im pretty impressed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thigobr

...My board can reach 430MHz(HTT multi 3X).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vtx_

I just gave up on that memory and put my bh-5 in, it runs great 250 2-2-2-5 @ 3.3v

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

I'm fed up with this Ultra-D. I've tried 2 boards and both refuse to work with 4 different Seasonic S12-600 PSUs.
Conroe coming out in 2 months just gave me excuse to get rid of this thing (and keep the Seasonic).

---

The last quote is from a post made by a guy who's probably either working for Intel or is the president of the Intel fanboy club. :rofl:

and Brent gets pwned :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

That's the BEST you got?

---

No. The best I got is in my black case. It's been loyal to me and I bet it will be for a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

You can't prove me wrong so you sling some mud?

---

Not that I had to prove anything but I think I did prove something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

WEAK man. REALLY WEAK.

---

That's what your boss at Intel's headquarters is gonna say to you when you go back there and tell him that you weren't successful in converting anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkunK

I can't of course ask you to show me just one retail 965 board that's been running constantly at any overclock (I'm not talking about 270MHZ FSB here) let alone 100% for one year because those boards have not been out to retail for that long. Show me just ONE that's been doing that for six months.

---

Well, Asus P5B Deluxe and Asus P5B. Made 3 systems, 2 to friends. One P5B, one Deluxe and my own deluxe. We got our C2Ds and boards on july 25 and we run minimum 333FSB all the time. And I sometimes run with 366 if I need some extra juice. So thats 3 out of 3 running stable with 25% or higher OC since the beginning. All are SP2004 24H stable and no BSOD or random reboot at all for anyone in the time.

So maybe you should try make some research before making such claims. All you quoted sofar are massive OCs and usually with another faulty component or flash issues. Not to talk about the normal 2-3% RMA of all products. So when your crowd is big enough you get alot of people complaining. But for some reason you forgot to quote all those where it just works. Hell, I could make a bible sized book alone just with nForce boards not working. But thats manipulating since I would forget to put it in perspective with the users where it does work. So seriously, stop the FUD making and get back to the real life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

OOOOO veiled threats.

For the record, I'm a med fellow. I save lives for a living. Computers are just a hobby.

What do you do?
(Besides threaten people and show your complete dearth of computer knowledge and bow down to KING HECTOR, of course.)

---

Threat? Did you forget to take your medecine today or did you take too much?

What do I do? Well, unlike you, I make an Ultra-D work with a Seasonic psu. :owned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

So maybe you should try make some research before making such claims.

---

Did I claim anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

But for some reason you forgot to quote all those where it just works.

---

I bet you would go as low as showing Coolaler results as tangible proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

So seriously, stop the FUD making and get back to the real life.

---

Why? Am I bothering you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkunK

Did I claim anything?



I bet you would go as low as showing Coolaler results as tangible proof.



Why? Am I bothering you?

---

I guess thats how you react when it aint going your way. Caught with the pants down while trying to flame? Ouch...better luck next time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

Sorry, most of us are not going to bow down to KING HECTOR with you.

---

The bowing down seems to be your thing. Not mine. I don't wake up at night to think about what cpu/chipset I'll use the following morning. I just use it. You seem to be obsessed with Intel and proving that AMD will fail at anything. What's the point? Are you that much of a frustrated person? Most of your posts are in the AMD section. Why is that? Nothing to write about in the Intel section? Futile propaganda?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

If he makes a faster chip, I'll but it. But I buy WHATEVER is fastest, so that's not news.

---

Well buy anything if it helps calming you down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

I guess thats how you react when it aint going your way. Caught with the pants down while trying to flame? Ouch...better luck next time.

---

What's wrong with my reaction? Compared to yours, mine seems pretty normal considering that you have nothing to show for yourself.

lol, i dont think there is a point to this argument, it just evolved into another intel vs. amd e-penis contest...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkunK

Did I claim anything?



I bet you would go as low as showing Coolaler results as tangible proof.



Why? Am I bothering you?

---

Skunk . You did well . But your arguement was based on your debating skills and not the tech at hand. Anyone can go threw the forum threads and find support for and against almost any arguement. After all thats what the forums are for.

You did well at debating . Now hows about some cold hard facts. Without the ducking and weaving. Mohammed ALI? Great boxing Champion or coward?
He refused to go to nam because of reigious beliefs,yet he would get in a ring and beat a man to death for $$$. AMDvs.Intel right now Intel is the boss. Who knows what will rein supreme in 6 months. But for RIGHT now Intel is Boss. Your chipset arguement is really very amusing. You should look into it a little deeper.

well the chipset issue is kind of a nonissue, since overclocker boards are all about performance and because of such they aren't always the best stable reliable boards. There are other boards (such as those based on Via or midgrade intel/nVidia or AMD) that give up some overclocking and are extremely reliable and work wonderfully. though I have found Chipset issues are a little less likely for AMD chipsets simply because they don't have to deal with Memory controller design and thus are lower logic and less things can go wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

SKUNK, we are still WAITING to hear your point.

WHAT is your claim? That AMD systems are more stable than Intel?

I'm not going to sling any mud at you. I just want the bottom line. WHAT are you claiming?

Let's get to the ROOT of it shall we?

---

OK. Here's a claim for you. My system has been running 18/7 (I shut it down when I sleep and I don't sleep a lot) for 11 months with a 40% oc on an Opteron 146 (for 10 months) and a 30% oc on an Opteron 170 (for 1 month). It's all retail, unmodded and with stock voltage. No retail and unmodded C2D system has and none will considering that you people change your parts more often than your underwear. Now prove me wrong on that!

And I don't care if you want to "sling" mud at me. Except that you seem to over exaggerate the sentiments of what's written in here. For instance, you felt threaten by something I wrote and you called my quoting you (without altering your text) mud slinging. Now consider this mud slinging if you want but by what you write here in this section day after day it looks more like you're into meds than in the med field.

lol, so skunk's argument is that c2d cant run unmodded on stock voltage and maintain a good oc... thats a new one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

EDIT - and ZERO mods on the system. Heck, I bet I'm running LESS voltage than you are (1.4V). :owned:

---

Opteron 170 stock voltage is 1.35v. And, at that voltage with the "small" xp-90, it's dual priming (something similar to what you trendy people call Orthos) without ever going above 41C (C2D average idle temp from what I'm reading in the other section - 65nm runs cooler than 90nm? :lol:).

Enough is enough.

ENOUGH Fanboy-ism.
ENOUGH AMD vs. Intel
ENOUGH Flaming
ENOUGH Bull!

THREAD LOCKED