Am i the only one who thinks the above is spot on(also user Fr3ak made excellent points in his last posts).Quote:
Originally Posted by T_M
Printable View
Am i the only one who thinks the above is spot on(also user Fr3ak made excellent points in his last posts).Quote:
Originally Posted by T_M
Fair enough. I won't argue that point at all.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr3ak
Now did I hear something about people complaining about the Intel guy going into the AMD thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Quid pro quo my friend..Quid pro quo..;)
Wow,I post one message, for the first time, in intel thread and you are already on my back.Way to go,"my friend" :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
BTW,both of those guys' posts made perfect sense and you know it.All this Core i7 cherry picking sounds a lot like a nasty knee-jerk reaction.
Actually I was 'on it" as I was posting at the same time you were( check the times)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I was making more of a tongue in cheek comment than blasting you.
As to this cherry picking deal I'll be honest with you. I don't know how to read it. Is it Intel trying to usurp AMD's "time" or is it Intel trying to show what can be done. Hard to tell.
I guess for me the best way to look at it is to enjoy both.
6GHz no matter who does it is impressive and VERY glad to see AMD back in the game.:up:
There you go, that's the spirit ! :):up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Actually, there is few very good reason to fly to fugger:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
1) He has a very stable setting
2) I need a witness that is highly trustable, and fugger is.
3) he is capable of writting the details, no :banana::banana::banana::banana:ting possible on his own watch. :up:
I think i got good points, again, here, i am not trying to do any marketing tricks, I just compete, and try to do it fairly. :up:
What intrigues me is that we don't seem to have complaints of this nature against macci who was responsible for the super clocked Phenom II, and happens to be an AMD emplyoyee...:S
The same Macci who prefered a Wolfdale over a Phenom because it was better overclockable? I don't think Macci will risk the reputation he has as a world-class overclocker just to hype the upcoming Phenom II.
I am looking forward to this...alot. There are many questions that could be answered and we might learn something from this. This is THE place to do this...Xtreme Systems. The owner of Xtreme Systems himself is gonna do this. That speaks volumes to me. I am trying my damndest to Ignore the negative remarks and am going to continue that. I don't wanna fill my head with that trash, because I'm gonna fill my head with positive things like this, and what could be learned from it.
I am extremely grateful that we have you here DrWho. I've learned alot about the inner working of these processors, and why and how things were done the way they were. Nobody knows a product better than the people who actually work on it, and I'm grateful for the info you have shared with us. Just wanted you to know that it is appreciated. :)
So how is what Charles is about to do any worse?Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
Just because Intel is making all the details clear?
Good Point DrWho?,Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
From my point of view as an overclocking newbie , it's just plain nice to see that someone from Intel actually cares about us overclockers :) :)
* Man, I wish Intel representative in Indonesia cares for its own overclockers just 10% as much as you are *
Well, I'll just wait for the result then...
* And by the way, can you tell us how to disable the thermal diode? Just a clue is fine...If somehow disabling it will give us some headroom on i7 overclocking, I bet most of us here are MORE than willing to take the risk *
Bingo.He would loose a lot,and i've never seen him hype anything while he was(and still is) a member of this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
The point was if you don't do it to Macci, don't do it to anybody else either.
Ok guys, lets keep this nice huh?
I have that feeling this is headed downhill so lets get back to topic..;)
As far as I know, Macci IS NOT the person who made this thread, he isn't involved in all this except for the actual overclocking at the press event. Now, these two last words should mean something; it's quite understandible if he has in fact used a handpicked cpu, because ... it's to show what the Deneb can do. Reverse the question: Why wouldn't they choose a good overclocking chip?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gautam
Then there's the thermal diode story, which has only be confirmed by DrWho at the moment. If indeed the thermal diode was disabled in the chip used at that event, end-user WILL know eventually. There's no way that AMD would get away with such a big lie and if people find that they can get nowhere near 5Ghz, that'll be bad news for AMD, very bad news.
Now, suddenly an Intel representative needs to show that he can cut certain elements out of a retail chip and make it the best overclocking i7 we have seen so far (if I recall correctly, he did aim for 6, maybe 7GHz), by miles. Apparently, the technique for disabling the thermal diode is this dangerous that he doesn't want to share with the most extreme hardware enthousiasts who are willing to go through dozens of chips to find thé one. It's either indeed to difficult for people to cut the diode and thus means the 6GHz nothing, because it's simply impossible for other people to match that. Or it is not so difficult ... but then I can't see why it's not shared.
Concerning Charles, we all know he has good relations with Intel, no need to bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: about that. We also know that he tried many Phenom chips at CES and said none of them were able to boot at subzero temperatures, making it look like :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty cpu's, whereas many others including myself have already been able to go subzero with the cpus.
If you claim Macci is not impartial, then you have to do the same for any other person who works close with manufacturers. When the results appear, I will draw my own conclusions and I truely hope all others will do the same. In addition, I will test out the new Phenoms as soon as possible to check whether they are indeed overclocking that well. Afterwards, I will be able to compare both PII and I7 platform in terms of overclocking and performance and will then decide which one is the best in what situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
Well said, lets keep this on topic, and not a flamefest. We can gain some valuable knowledge about things here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
I dont think its nasty at all. Im no intel/amd fanboy, im only a fanboy of performance. AMD's new cpu will stand or fall (for me at least) in terms of how it performs and OC's. When I see the retail chips doing high OC's like that I will be very excited indeed!Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
The truth is, no one is really impartial these days.
Overclocking is unfair. Manufacturers have been involved (far too much IMHO) for years now.
That's just life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
The article in which Amd had said they done so is quoted in the thread about deneb?
Maybe the article changed, but what he quoted allot of other people read as well including me.
That is soooooo sweet ! Man I need to build an Xtreem system my self !
Please do! You're in the right place! Aw, and :welcome:! :)
Link me to the article in which is said that AMD disabled the thermal control in that particular cpu to get it to run near -190°C, please :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin_The_Martian
Already looking back but you know as well as anyone most of the original articeles have been changed ;)
Yes, they changed "6GHz+" into "well over 5GHz"
Mhm I think you might be right.. Though the source linked to Theo Vallich so it's not something I call reliable.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...4&postcount=66
Francois then quoted a short line, in which they saidNow, that can apply to all the deneb's or just the one at the demo idk? I do know that's the line Francois quoted but I can't say what Theo ment to say. And again, I never trust anything coming from him.Quote:
On-die sensors are tweaked up and they will not lock the part at -100 or -20C, and you can use dry ice or LN2 to crank it up to the max
They had to change it due to the NDA that everybody at the event had to sign. Whatever, that does not belong to this thread. I am sorry for running the thread off the original topic, so please focus on anything that has to do with Nehalem overclocking here at XS. I just wanted to mention in what direction overclocking is turning and that this turn is harmful for the whole thing as a sport. Whether AMD used cherry picked CPUs or not will be shown when Phenom II goes retail and people here try it under cold. Whether Francois' motivation was the AMD demo ir something else, who knows. I never intended to start a flamewar or something similar being neither a Intel nor a AMD fanboy. Whatever is fast, is something I like. And competition is good for all of us in the end, as long as everybody is on the same playground. Manipulated CPUs for a couple of people is a no-go in my eyes.
Now show us some big numbers! =)
true maybe Phenom II, will force Intel to halve the price of their Core i7s :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Fr3ak
I dont mind seeing some big numbers either!!!
Lets see what AMD and Intel cherrys can do!
this thread has taken a bazaar turn
i would have to agree with T_M here as his views are closest to mine
but would add that if Intel want a $1000 for an extreme chip why is it that its still a crap shot getting one that will live up to the name extreme
some of the retail chips are duds
I haven't seen a dud yet. Nobody has reported that any of these CPU's won't run at their rated specs. If your referring to OC'ing, there are no guarantees with that and YMMV at anything over advertised specs. The Extreme CPU's are expensive because they go though a more rigorous selection process, and have the 6.4 GT/s QPI, and the Multi is unlocked. It's a premium CPU with a premium price. On the i7's they've been reduced 500 dolalrs from what they used to be. They are not cheap, but it's a welcomed price reduction.
If I get 4GHz out of mine on water I will be more than happy. I'll do a dance if I get 4.5GHz on water. I think some expect too much. This CPU does more work at lower clock speds than before. It's a beast. We'll find out what mine will do in about a week, becasue this evening I'm gonna boot mine up for the first time. Gonna run it for a bit at stock, and test it to make sure everything is working as it should then I'll try some clocking with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
we have different expectations for sure T_Flight
good luck with you chip
I can buy a far cheaper 920/940 chip if i want a 4GHz stable system....
And thats what the vast majority of the looking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by T_M
4000mhz stable.
The machine makes a hell of a lot of computational power at that speed and statisfies maybe 90% of the people even here on this forum.
I know thats not what you want and I appreciate that fact.
I think where the issues come up is that the guys like yourself that have just had one hell of a run with the E8600's at over 6GHz were expecting the same if not more from i7 and it isn't there.
I can see that this is a letdown to the guys like yourself that strive for the very top speeds but the rest of us are happy campers with what we see.
That's why the two totally different viewpoints are seen in this thread.
Just different wants and expectations.
If I were in your shoes I'd pass on the i7 and keep playing with the E8600's at least for now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Common 4G stable...:up:
and all that thruput :surf:
My other super babies are arriving tomorrow morning, 8AM :)
the one that arrived Saturday is working very nicely into a Rampage II extreme, already reprogrammed ... hehehehe ...
I got to fly to vegas in the next 4 days ... let 's see that we can squeeze out of them, and screw the politic! let s have fun!
Forget who i work for, or what ever! I am going to have fun OCing, the same way I was OCing my Z80 from 1Mhz to 1.5Mhz on my ZX81 ... Gosh, I love my job, and I am not sorry for it :)
all we want is something that actually scales when overvolted and scales more when cooled....i hope intel figures out whatever it is that's holding these i7's back
I keep telling these guys but they don't beleive me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Your just another hardware junky like the rest of us!:rofl:
before this current i7 CPUQuote:
Originally Posted by s e t h
this was Intel through and through
looks like AMD picked up where Intel left off in terms of these aspects :rofl::D
4) We get to OC in FUGGER's favourite strip club :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Actually no, im thinking more w.r.t my more favoured QX series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
4GHz+ on air, 4.2GHz+ on water, 5.5GHz+ on LN2 and 8300points+ in 06 CPU test.
Now we have 965xe which is struggling to even get 5GHz in multi-threaded and the additional processing power netting around 9000points+ CPU test
Would it be possible to note down a few numbers in the process? It would be nice to see scaling figures to compare them to those of our own chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Here is Msi platinum @3.9 with stock heatsink . Man I love these chips im setting at a pretty nice low vcore at 3.7, about 1.28 i think (IF bios is right). I have been running my Qpi volts a little bit under vcore. No software will report my voltages correctly yet , Cpu z reports way low.
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=451166
Francois, while you are at it, it would be nice to have some input on the 222 MHz BCLK wall issue (4 GHz QPI). =)
If you wanna kill some of them, let me know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
I can help :p:
(j/k)
If you want to "cherry-pick" some CPUs way faster and easier than you guys currently do, let me know.
I can drop by your place, pick 950 CPUs out of a 1000 try and there you go! You have 50 golden CPUs to play with :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
....:rofl::up: Now, you are buliding a pretty strong reputation Bill. Next time I'go hw shopping you are coming with me.:yepp:
good point, would be nice to know how bclk can be raised ( show us 250 bclk and you will have one more i7 customer :))Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr3ak
if EliteGroup started taking "World Records" is that overclocking the i7 is really for all newbies
i hope with the Phenom II to find the pleasure of overclocking !!!
http://resources.vr-zone.com/newvr/i...Record_eDM.JPG
http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/ecs-...lock/6229.html
lol no, its not for noobs... it just means the architects of the Ci7 platform did an awesome job. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by boblemagnifique
eh, boards need to catch up. nehalem takes a lot of the stress off the board and it seems most boards perform about the same under like conditions given sufficient vreg circuitry.
ECS claims world record, while it's not at all a world record! :p
lol, even I hit more than 215 MHz with every board I tested apart from the Smackover and EVGA X58 ^^
Thah advertisment is a laugh :D
:rofl:
Record is 222 I guess, there are some people on this number, didn't see any higher yet.
Fr3ak, how high did bclock go on EVGA? I had high hopes on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr3ak
It's not yet ready, I think :-).
Yes it's the limit it's 222Mhz !!! After it's the bug simply ;)
Because i have make the WR base Clock of i7 since 1 week .... :shakes:
http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/4...k248mhzey6.jpg
I could git 221 MHz 1M stable with the Rampage 2 Extreme, 220 MHz with the MSI Eclipse, 222 MHz with Biostar X58 and 200 with the EVGA X58. Remember, that all boards had some issues and with a new wave of BIOS updates, it could be very different. Why boards are not being tested carefully any longer by the manufacturers is a riddle to me. =/
Currenty trying to convince the Renaissance to post again, which it did exactly once with the 3rd CPU I tried =(
Thanks for sharing :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr3ak
Oh yeah, Benny's 920 @ 4.8GHz ;)
Hell, I couldn't get over 150 with the intel board..:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghigo
Generally, Intel boards clock like :banana::banana::banana::banana:, for the love of god my D865Perl couldn't even o/c my P4 3GHz 24/7 stable @ 3315MHz ... :p: :( At least, they do offer stabillity and the appropriate equipment needed ;) 5 years now, not even a single problem ;) (of course with everything stock :D)Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Intel DX58SO = 180 MHz Prime stable for me, worst board I tried so far =)
absolute tops I could get out of it was using 136x31 for 4226..Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr3ak
Any multi would bluescreen at over 150
Using 133x28(3733) for 24/7 100% load work and that is doing fine.
The Intel board Madshrimp had wasn't any good either ... :(
Just imagine if these things get to 250 bclock after some BIOS tweaks! :D
That's almost scary isn't it?
Indeed it is :yepp:
Do you remember the rumors about only high end CPUs of the Nehalem architecture will be overclockable, that was spread a while ago? Just a wild guess, but I have the feeling the 4 GHz QPI limit is some kind of a purposely put limit. I am having a hard time to believe 4 CPUs on 4 completely different boards fail at about the same BCLK limit. Maybe I am doing something seriously wrong or it is no coincidence (low end OC limit?) =)
With the Biostar X58 I can boot right at 222 MHz BCLK, run 8M (didn't try more, Prime crashed) and using SetFSB anything above 222 MHz is not even stable in idle. The only thing with a similar behaviour were low end C2D chips with really hard FSB walls. Cold helped to push that wall further, which seems not to be the case for Nehalem CPUs.
Just a wild guess, but I would love to hear some scientific explanation for this "issue" that almost everybody seems to face.
Max for me on Air
4400 on air is quite nice , Anyone know what max mhz 3d stable is? Since the release date .
And a Prime run at 4.2
What rams are you using brolloks and on what Voltage ? :)
Using regular old Ballistix DDR3, not the fancy tri-channel stuff...1.76 VDIMM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brolloks
needs higher uncore clock, bet you could easily go sub 9. :yepp:
Mine will Post up to 4.7GHz no problem but anything close to 4600MHz and over it just falls apart once the HDD starts spinning. After 215BCLK it is a no go also.Quote:
Originally Posted by vanovich
Here are some initial runs. Still waiting on a pot to see what it can do under cold. For some reason I think this chip might do OK....
Some quick 3Dmarks and a 32M to show before RE2 went berserk and started feeding my hardware about .3 volts over what was set in BIOS:shakes:
I did not try to max out CPU for 3D or 32M but I doubt it will go much higger than this on air.
3D03-122K
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/9...122kil1.th.jpg
3D05
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/2...6584tw7.th.jpg
I didn't even take screenshots of 06 but here is the link for info. purposes.
3D06-26502-4.2GHz(IIRC)
I will have to redo Vantage as I never got it validated but it was also around 4.2GHz....22.5k IIRC.
32M 8m31sec@4290MHz Ram@1.9v
http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/2...00caye4.th.jpg
It will be very interesting to see what results come from this but I am more interested in what Fr3ak talked about in regards to the "BCLK wall".:yepp:
could be the 1st rev of boards limiting ? remember Q6600 and early 965P boards having issues above 350-400FSB ? Then came new revs and then P35/X38/X48/P45 now handling Q6600 up to 500+ FSB ? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr3ak
Or maybe, that happened because first batches of Q6600 (like B3 stepping) had issues ? :shrug: What I imply with that, is that maybe it's happening because of the CPUs just like Fr3ak said ...Quote:
Originally Posted by eva2000
BTW, nice chip Brian y. ;)
My bet is on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by eva2000
Keep in mind that these are the very first samples of the X58 motherboards; it's very normal that they don't clock as high as everyone wants ... remember the 975X chipset? :)
my Q6600 B3 ES and Q6600 G0 retail both did 500FSB on P35 but on 965P/975x limited to around 400-420FSB (965P) and 375-400FSB (975X)Quote:
Originally Posted by George_o/c
On the DX58SO with 920ES under Ultra 120 Extreme:Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
http://www.jmax-hardware.com/images/...ehalem/920.jpg
http://www.jmax-hardware.com/images/...alem/920-2.jpg
Not clocking as high as everyone wants and having a wall at exactly 222 MHz on several boards from different manufacturers being reported from a lot of people is different I would say. Probably that limit was not put there by intention, maybe it is just a coincidence.
In the past there was a range, where the FSB was maxed out, just like eva said, but having a wall at exactly 222 MHz implies that something has to go terribly wrong after that ^_^
i've asked gigabyte engineers
hopefully they can shed some light WTF is going on with BCLK limit :shrug:
Probably they don't even know. When it came to strap settings, they didn't know either, because it wasn't documented, from what I know. Probably only Intel can shed some light =/
Omg and everyone was saying they would not oc close to 5.5ghz
Yes same problem with engineers a orhers marks ..Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Maybe we hope the better BCLK with the low QPI (same : 3.2 or 4GT/s or others) but the performance maybe less good (if it's possible) :shrug:
This is exactly the reason I didnt jump on board at launch. Figured I would wait for new cpu stepping, or new mobo revisions before buying... always a few kinks to work out.
Hey guys !
Why didn't you create a topic dedicated to our results, which will gather informations in a large database about ocing i7 ? I think it will be better ;)
I think you're looking at that :shrug:
idk, not participating, just watching you guys :sofa:
Here's what i get on water...
http://malibukoko.free.fr/Photos-Scr...5QPIwPrime.JPG
BCLK is connected to QPI link speed and lowest divider is 36x, so if you use 220BCLK your QPI speed is 7920GT/s. Around there is the limit at the moment. We need lower dividers, cause QPI link is not limiting performance if it will stay around 6500-7500GT/s. QPI divider 28x or 32x would be cool.
If we would have divider 28x we could hit ~280BCLK. Of course there might be other limiting factors, but maybe X68/ P55 chipset will bring us more overclocking potential. X58 can't handle more QPI link speed at the moment.
I'm afraid that we will have to wait until 2009, when LGA 1160/1156 will be released. (Mainstream, Lynnfield etc.)
Is this the answer you wanted to hear :D
Yep, agreed. All the boards can reach 222, so it appears that this limit is due to the QPI rather than to the chipset.
Possessors of 965 don't worried about that because QPI is not important, no influence on performance it seems. But 920/940's owners will be much more deceived...
gigabyte have a slow mode which runs QPI at 100MHzQuote:
Originally Posted by SF3D
it doesnt help BCLK
Not just Gigabyte. Biostar, EVGA and .. um I forgot, MSI (?) have that slow mode feature too, but you are right, it does not help BCLK. Some boards allow you to change QPI and Uncore multipliers in BIOS for non XE CPUs, but in fact it doesn't do anything :P Didn't check on all boards, though.
placebo features on my 300€ board? no wai :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Fr3ak
Still no sighting of DrWho's cherry picked i7's? Anyone know when he'll have results up?
Notice that I added "for non XE CPUs", Hornet331. Works fine on a 1000€ i7-965 XE :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frontl1ne
It might be a week or two or more. Whenever they get together, and whenever they decide they want to post about it, or *if* they want to post about it.
What are you talking mate :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
QPI is Quick path interconnect speed. It is marked as GT/s Gigatransfers per second. You see this value in CPU-Z front page "QPI link" At stock speed it is saying ~3200MHz, when it should say 6400GT/s(2x3200GT/s). When you raise BCLK this value will raise too and with lowest QPI multiplier (36x) it will go up to ~8000GT/s before it locks. Now if we would have lower multipliers than 36x we could get our BCLK higher before that ~8000GT/s limit.
If you remember AMD 64 days and 1X to 5X HT multipliers, you will see what this issue is. Back then you had to lower HT multiplier to 4X or 3X to get your HT speed up to 200 to 250.
After all this processor is designed for servers and these really high QPI speeds were not what they had in mind. Maybe this will be fixed with new chipsets or 1160 processors. If QPI multipliers on X58/core i7 are limited to 36x on hardware level, there is nothing we can do. Just LN2 to CPU and Chipset and we might see some scaling :up:
Are we on the same page now :D
heheh have you tested the GB board
in bios when you select Slow mode it actually says 100MHz instead of 4800 or whatever it is normally lol
i dont know if it actually sets it at that but thats what the bios states :confused:
My first attempt,
Turn on,
Bios,
Change settings,
restart,
Windows,
CPU-Z Validation,
It was all done in less than 5 minutes.
Who did say Nehalem would not overlock at all?
:rofl:
An idiot said that. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
I think The Inq had something about it a long time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
Yep, and Fud thus my post. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by MotF Bane