krampak - more CFM and pressure!!!! I want 3ghz stable on air dangit! ;)
Printable View
krampak - more CFM and pressure!!!! I want 3ghz stable on air dangit! ;)
I need something to keep this at full load... it goes from 28ºC idle to 48ºC full at 1'5V. :stick:
PD: With a 18ºC room temp.
It comes down to which ones overclock better. How many 754 newcastles and 939 newcastles do you see at 2.8ghz+ on air. Obviously not all Winchesters will do this, but at least with a Winchester there's a chance. You just need one with a Leprechaun inside the box.
http://my.so-net.net.tw/johnnyliu/380mhz.JPG
380Mhz up!! :toast:
I just looked at my results comparing Linpack scores of 90nm to 130nm and must confirm that graph. This indicates L2 cache is faster on 90nm, L1 is the same speed and mem controller is the same speed too. What I do not understand, hovewer, is why CPU-Z's cache latency subprogram didn't catch it - it's results are nearly identical for both chips, 90nm is maybe 1 to 2 percent faster on large blocks (eg. in memory operation). But cache latency haven't changed (?).
johnny, ive gotten my htt up to 260 but i had the multi up to hight and the htt was at like 1100 and it crashed when i pused it higher... my mobo has literaly no ceiling, but my core blows.. wont even do 200fsb at 2.8ghz..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallowed
Thats what ive been trying to tell everyone. In fact s939 winchester is at least 10% and 15% in many cases vs. s754 newcastle but for some reason alot of people argue and they think its 3-5% faster, lol what noobs *shakes head* I think they are trying to justify their s754 purchase when they coulda gone s939 for the same price(3000+ winchester is cheap now) and the mobos are just a few $ more but its worth it. I even did so much to prove that my winchester at 2GHz is crushing my newcastle(s754) at 2.2GHz in 3dmark, a cpu intensive benchy and I get excuses, one guy says cause I ran 250fsb it doesnt count, I told him I ran the ram at 200MHz, fsb doesnt matter, its ram MHz that do :rolleyes:
@gf4Quote:
I hate to put a crimp in the GF4 bash session, but its fairly well known that Winchesters are ~5% faster than Newcastle 939's per clock due to faster L2 cache
IF you read what hes saying hes not talking about 754 vrs 939 hes talking about a 939 newcastle vrs 939 winchester so all your bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: hype about 754 vrs 939 is already a well known fact......
perc,
what im saying is many people think s754 newcastle is 5% slower than s939 winchester but the thing is s939 winchester is more like 15% faster, s939 newcasle vs. s939 winchester has about 5% difference but for s754 its alot more
yes i understand this man but what hallowed was defending you about was winchester vrs newcastle 939 chips, he never mentioned 754 chips. im not jumping onto the bash GF4 bandwagon man. im just pointing this out...
peace perc,
understood and I thank him for that too. I too have been telling people this, but most deny it. when I made the upgrade, dual channel was one factor, another one was the winchester is newer, cooler and faster. also s939 is the future, s754 is a dead end, I bet all those s754 users who chose that over s939 will regret it when amd lauches their venice
No way a Winchester is 15% faster than a 754... 5% is the max...
"when I made the upgrade, dual channel was one factor, another one was the winchester is newer, cooler and faster. also s939 is the future, s754 is a dead end, I bet all those s754 users who chose that over s939 will regret it when amd lauches their venice"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
i, too, agree the 939 is better, but until a real good motherboard comes out, the sidelines i will sit with my weak ash runnin' 754.
i have seen nothing from your corner yet that makes me want to run out and get a 939 setup, and you have have been on the 939 platform for awhile. not everyone is as bleeding edge as you are (tongue in cheek :D ).
the way you talk sometimes, downplaying the 754 platform as a total loss, just because you are now runnin' with a 939. there are a lot of people out there that would kill for a good runnin' 754/DFI setup. 754 will be around for awile, it won't be dead in six months, just like PCI-E, the whole world is not going to change overnight.
baldy :D
Its almost tempting to see if a sempron near 3ghz would beat on a newcastle or winchester just for fun heh.
Oh so its 15% now is it? OK well if thats the case we are still waiting for you to post up a 21K 3DM01 on your Winchester using your 9500 at the same frequency as before when you ran your Newcastle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geforce4ti4200
If its a 15% difference then we shall expect you to hit 21K at 2.25Ghz (as you hit 21K on your Newcastle at slightly under 2.6Ghz). Time to put up or shut up I think. Almost laughable that you call people noobs when you yourself didnt even know how to run dual channel - bit like the pot calling the kettle black.........
As for 939's comparison Anadtech (a site you used as a reference for your 5% claim) showed it to be 1 - 2% at 2.2GHz levels.
You can ignore all the facts posted elsewhere if you wish but should you pull your head out of the sand you will see a litany of sites and forums putting up similar figures. i.e 939 Newcastle v 939 Winchester = 1-2% difference and 754 Newcastle v 939 Winchester = 5-6% difference.
i have same combo cept with some bh5 shipping and on the way right now. Hope i can get results like that
omfg how bloomin lucky are you :( look like you won the lottery with your chip, all i can get is 2.55 ghz from mine