QMFT!Quote:
Originally Posted by -thc-(cZ)
Printable View
QMFT!Quote:
Originally Posted by -thc-(cZ)
Looking good, here is an overclock they did yesterday.
http://img.coolaler.com.tw/images/n3...0dqyv2gomt.jpg
wow that looks really nice, ~10% ipc improvement at 4ghz.
I just wonder wether the ipc improvement is lower at 3ghz?
Is it just me or does Yorkfield look a little sluggish?
Me Wants Yorkfield!! :D
Shhh :p: ,you are not supposed to say things like that,you will invite a couple of knights for truth into this topic and than we'll never see those screen shots from coolaler forum from all those "truth-spam" posts :).We will only see intel slides & nice numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
So no,it doesn't feel sluggish at all :).
On the other side,does anyone who speaks Chinese knows what was the vcore for that OC with yorkfield?Hard to swallow those 1.1V in CPUz for 4Ghz.
I don't speak chinese but I actually read the coolaler forums and used google translate and btw the numbers aren't chinese :DQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
1.37v @3.36ghz QC
then there's a 4ghz pic of a DC and some talk about 1.45v later
those numbers aren't that good, but you never know how far away the used ES are from retail silicon (i.e. how many spins are in between).
I don't think that yorkfield looks sluggish at all so far, however if you expected wonders (like 20% ipc gains core 2 had...), well then maybe.
edit:
on page 8 you can see that a 3,2ghz yorkfield consumes about 46 watt less than a 3,2ghz conroe.
imo this indicates 3,3ghz is well within tdp even with those ES and 3,6ghz quads should be also doable for Intel in the near future...
on page 4 there's a 3,2ghz QC pic at 1,25v
Well, lets just say that if I plan on upgrading Wolfdale looks a bit more attractive for my needs :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I don't think a single sample (of each model) is enough to draw conclusions regarding overclockability. When I see 8 Yorkfields out of 10 overclocking badly I will start to draw conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
It does look a bit disconcerting though...
Hot damn! Too bad it's yorkfield vs kentsfield. Wait, 46W less? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
For my needs I don't need to draw such a conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theli
maybe that's why AMD doesn't give away any ES...Quote:
Originally Posted by Theli
NEVER draw too many conclusions about overclockability of a chip just from the ES. If the ES oc well then the chip will probably overclock great
Even though we are on an overclocking board, the main constraint for high speed bins is TDP (temperature) and maybe power draw but not overclockability. (and that is what counts for Intel the most)
Just think about the g0 stepping, it reduced power consumption by almost 10 watts and allows for 200-400mhz higher average overclocks and this is just ONE stepping (one "respin"), but those ES may be early silicon - thus 2-3 "respins" away from final silicon and NOT optimized for overclockability.
The only thing that doesn't change much from early to late silicon is IPC and general chip-architecture, TDP/power draw should go down and OC will go up considerably (thinking about speedpath problems/transistor level optimizations).
edit:
corrected minor mistakes
look, an " early conroe/merom ES OCs bad thread" so let's wait for more results before we make conclusions prematurely
Admittedly I was not around here when the first Conroe ES's were making their rounds, so that's another reason for me to not draw conclusions on overclockability.
I would say though that the temperature difference looks promising.
Wolfdale at over 4 GHz on air with a first run engineering sample and a locked 7X multi seams VERY promising to me.
:rofl: :clap: clever.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
So, what does AMD have that can do that same sluggish time LOL!?
Most enthusiast know that early boards aren't tweaked or Performance boards weren't even used, firmware is still too RAW and most software is not optimized. Just as the first SP wasn't optimized for Conroe, oh brother. As these things are updated, scores will improved. The same concept applied to AMD and their 2900 on the Video card side applies here as well.
AMD's best hope is that software makers don't optimize for SSE4;)
http://forum.coolaler.com/showpost.p...4&postcount=55
45nm gave me the feeling :
-Ultra-low temperature (hands almost touch radiator lacks feeling so hot ... TAT not support it is not possible to show)
-Lower voltage and low-power! ~ ~ Default 1.15v However 2.33G
We all need to take into consideration another thing..
It's an MSI board!
well, the people have spoken (if you check there are usually only 100 members and some huge amount of guests on) and it looks like almost all of us agree that the benchmarks are legit
looks like an 'easy' transition by intel to 45nm low k gate..hafnium...:)
good chips with low tdp
another small improvement.
im looking forward to the quads - i read that intel may release two versions of porkfield in regular 2.33GHz(333x7) and extreme @ 3.33GHz(333x10)
the extreme part probably being extremely expensive vs affordable 2.33 part.
...but i can imagine some 8x and 9x versions in time - surely it's inevitable...?
if the plethora of current c2d's is anything to go by :lol: