Official Desktop Penryn Discussion Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

wrong...

and amd has the IMC included into the thermal envelope...
what would happen to intel if they do that :)
85W? 95W?

---

A memory controller dont use that much. Far from it to say it mildly.

Also remember theinq saying P965 would be ultra hot and a powerhog because of higher possible TDP? Yet it uses less than half of the 975X with lower TDP.

And you do know the worst powerhog chipsets is actually nVidias AMD chipsets?

Also if the northbridge used 20W, then we wouldn´t have the passive cooling we got today. The main thing on a northbridge is the PCIe etc I/O. Not the MCH.

My bet is an IMC would add 2-5W. And 5 being very high.

One thing is sure, you aint gonna remove 10 or 20W from a cooler like this on this board:
http://www.asus.com/prog_content/mid...spx?model=1595

So stop the FUD.

With an IMC the C2D would still be way under its current TDP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

then why are people thinking it is going to be a revolution when even Intel says it is just going to be an evolutionary step?

---

I don't believe anyone thinks it is going to be a revolution, unless they've been living in a cave or some other crevice here in computerland. But it should be a respectable performance boost all the same, then again we won't know until next month :fact:.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=142326

same Topic to another news from TG Daily

Qoute of Myself:

Quote:

---

Hey guys I talk to intel on monday
and Martin Strobel (German Press Manager)
say to me that this news will be a fake
and that Intel do not give such infos thg
45nm Penryn CPUs are far away from Sampleing
he says that in Q3 07 the sampling can beging but not in June or July.

---

5.2.2007

nothing to belive in this news ...
only printed to push 45nm hype

People are excited because of the clockspeeds. 4+ Ghz quad on air. :D

Any news which NVIDIA chipset will support Penryn ?

http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=408


*June 3 Bearlake release
*Wolfdale debuts in Q307
*Yorkfield debuts Q407/Q108
*CPU with IGP will be 45nm and debuts after Wolfdale

680i already supports 1333fsb, so its likely that the chipset supports penryn even if current motherboards may or may not due to the VRM.

But NVIDIA doesn't support DDR3. So it seems the only option for Penryn + DDR3 in the near future is Intel Bearlake.

well penryn doesn't need ddr3, so until nvidia release a 780i the choice will be either the 0-10% performance boost from ddr3 or the 10-60% boost from sli. And at the moment for the same capacity of ram you could go sli + ddr2 for the same price as single card + ddr3 - so it would probably be better to let ddr3 mature (and drop in price) and get it on the next upgrade cycle (nehelam or later).

Cool. Just looking at all the options :D

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5928
There is Nvidia Intel chipsets for 2007.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

4GHz in a 65w TDP :rolleyes:
keep on dreaming

---

Does a XS-User really think about TDP? :confused: ;)

cu, BitpowerPM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BitpowerPM

Does a XS-User really think about TDP? :confused: ;)

cu, BitpowerPM

---

one word "Prescott"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

one word "Prescott"

---

Two words, Athlon FX-7x

I think as a market, enthusiasts don't really care about cpu's maintaining a 65w tdp as long as tdp levels remain acceptable.

Even the 130w fx-74 can be kept cool with simple heatsink and fan, the main problem with that is that its competition has twice the number of cores and better performance with the same power consumption due to the dual socket nature of 4x4 (260w for 2 x3.0ghz amd dualcores versus 110w for quadcore QX6800)

The only reason we prefer lower tdp's is to keep a processor within an acceptable tdp when overclocked.

If intel released a 95w 4ghz quadcore, there would still be 'acceptable' headroom for overclocking.

65w tdp's appeal more to system integrators as it means they can cut costs on power supply, cooling, and allows them to make smaller, more attractive computers for the retail market.

If TDP's really bothered people do you think a single HD2900 would get sold?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onewingedangel

I think as a market, enthusiasts don't really care about cpu's maintaining a 65w tdp as long as tdp levels remain acceptable.

Even the 130w fx-74 can be kept cool with simple heatsink and fan, the main problem with that is that its competition has twice the number of cores and better performance with the same power consumption due to the dual socket nature of 4x4 (260w for 2 x3.0ghz amd dualcores versus 110w for quadcore QX6800)

The only reason we prefer lower tdp's is to keep a processor within an acceptable tdp when overclocked.

If intel released a 95w 4ghz quadcore, there would still be 'acceptable' headroom for overclocking.

65w tdp's appeal more to system integrators as it means they can cut costs on power supply, cooling, and allows them to make smaller, more attractive computers for the retail market.

If TDP's really bothered people do you think a single HD2900 would get sold?

---

Well it depends for me the maximum TDP is 77 for CPU and 150 for graphics card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BitpowerPM

Does a XS-User really think about TDP? :confused: ;)

cu, BitpowerPM

---

i dont care about TDP
it's just the TDP that intel uses for their dualcores.
i don't think 4ghz is doable in a 65W TDP,so dont expect 4GHz Wolfdales (on stock that is...)
that was my point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metroid

Well it depends for me the maximum TDP is 77 for CPU and 150 for graphics card.

---

Nice rule, live your life by those numbers. How did you come up with those very specific values anyway? I will go for 77.2, makes a lot more sense.

Manufacturers TDP, who cares when OCing, still havent seen the low TDP of X2 EE make a big difference in OC, and on the oposite end of the TDP scale Prescotts OC'ed well. Just admit it, TDP is something we pretend to care about only in AMD vs Intel discussions :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

i dont care about TDP
it's just the TDP that intel uses for their dualcores.

---

How many times do you want to be proven wrong?

The actual TDP for Intels dualcores is WAY below their official announced TDP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

i dont care about TDP
it's just the TDP that intel uses for their dualcores.
i don't think 4ghz is doable in a 65W TDP,so dont expect 4GHz Wolfdales (on stock that is...)
that was my point

---

Core 2 Extreme X6800 Dual-Core and Xeon 5160 have a TDP of 75/80 watts and not 65. ;)

The target frequency of Penryn core is around 3,6-3,7 GHz - so the way to 4 GHz is not far.

cu, Bitpower

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

i don't think 4ghz is doable in a 65W TDP,so dont expect 4GHz Wolfdales (on stock that is...)
that was my point

---

Just thought more about this and decided to calculate a little. Keep your guns in the holster if i calculated wrong along the way, im unarmed and had half a bottle of wine :D

Using the Xbitlabs numbers on page 2 of this thread i came up with the following:

D820=145w, D915=94w, same clockspeed, ~35% reduction from 90nm to 65nm

D915=94w, EE965=126w, increase in clockspeed is 33%, TDP increase is 34%

E6700 is 2.66GHz and 65w TDP, -35% for process shrink gives TDP of ~42.5w

Now, to go from 42.5w to the desired TDP of 65w, we take 65 and divide by 42.5 and get 1.5294, that means we have to increase 42.5w by ~53% to reach a TDP of 65w.

53% still, and we had a TDP increase of 34% to get a 33% increase in clockspeed. 53 multiplied with 33 divided by 34 gives a clockspeed increase of 51.44%, lets say ~51%.

So we take E6700, 2.66GHZ + 51% and we get? 4.016 Ghz

-------------

Ok, these are numbers based on only one test, for all i know the EE965 used here was xtremely good and the D820 was extremely bad (which i doubt, i had both D830 and D930, very big difference to say it the least)

On the other hand, what i did NOT take into consideration is that 90 to 65nm was a shrink, while 65 to 45nm is a shrink + the addition of High-K. Also, i used the TDP of E6700 here instead of the 59w power consumption meassured by Xbitlabs.

Also the EE965 got hyperthreading which adds to its power consumption.

Its just a bunch of theory anyway, doesnt mean :banana: in reality, the point is that i cant totally exclude the posibility of 4GHz/65w, and because the X6800 got a TDP of 75w theres still some slack.

....And i still dont know if my calculations are any good, thats up to you guys to check :) Im surprised myself here so some numbers could be a bit off.

OMG, thats just great, no comments on my calculations yet. Noone takes me seriously or they still didnt find any flaws after 1 hour?? :D

well the lower the TDP the better.. cuz when u add say 30% more vcore the heat it generate is a lot more than that ....

a 226W TEC barely holds E6600 @ 1.5v ... loadi s like 35C+

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Two words, Athlon FX-7x

---

three words and one number, Intel 840 EE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nooc

three words and one number, Intel 840 EE

---

Agreed. Its just that FX-7x came from the company that was extremely loud about how terrible EE 840 was, then they went ahead and copied it =) I bet many here didnt even know that AMD launched a 3GHz 8-series Opteron just a few weeks ago, a very quiet launch because of the Netburst-level TDP. Easy to swallow camels when the going gets tough, Hector can vouch for that.