Printable View
So how are these cpu´s supposed to be overclocked? I mean if cpu freq is "pll clock*cpu multiplier" we must be able to adjust any of those two factors to increase frecuency right? or am I missing something here?:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
Held back?Quote:
Originally Posted by Extelleron
I was more speaking of getting the ref clock from 133 to 200 might be a bit of a feat. The ref clock will increase, but it remains to be seen if a 50% overclock on the reference clock is even obtainable. All i'm saying is without hearing more, don't get your hopes up on seeing the reference clock move that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by npk
I doubt the reference clock is designed to be overclocked on AMDs either but they seem to go high enough on select chips.
If they don't overclock well via the reference clock or the board manufacturers don't figure out a way to sneak in higher multipliers than intended through 'Turbo' then I must say I'm less tempted. A $999 CPU is probably the last thing I'll ever buy.
If one can't OC nehalem, then why getting one? ...unless early 2 GHz Nehalem is faster than 3.8-4.2 GHz Core2Quad. :D
...which I doubt.
Why buy a $999 processor when the 2.66GHz is already given a $284 tp-1000. $299 to $325? There hasn't been many times that folks bought a top to then overclock.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
It will kick a$$ without high overclocks anyway. That's without comparing it to an already slower AMD but Intel processors as well.
The slowest model will be 2.66GHz and what Intel Quad Cores overclock to 3.8 to 4.2GHz right now? Current models might need about a 400MHz head start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
I'm kinda out of it on how high the ref clock on AMD chips goes, but is a 50% increase there within the realm of possibility? It's a very similar system so if 300MHz clocks from a base of 200 on AMD are possible I would assume that it's may be possible to get 200Mhz from a base of 133 on Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
I haven't been paying too much attention to AMD clocking, but I don't think i've seen 300. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
EDIT:
hehe, and I found some
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=167502 There's 310
So right now it's all just a waiting game. We will have to wait and see how well the reference clock does scale.
front side bus clocks is said to make things hotter (right?)
so 266mhz down to 133mhz may lower heat & power some how.
I don't want to wait..:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
You can't really compare the 2 in that way. It's a totally different interconnect. The move from the FSB to the QPI, i think does have some positive effects on power usage, but in this case the power usage doesn't have anything to do with clock speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
I know, I'm all giddy tooQuote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
SQUWEEEEEEEEEEE
This is sitting behind me waiting for a Gainstown system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
Just the case, the guts will be not Koolance..:D
http://www.koolance.com/water-coolin...product_id=198
The Yorkfield core is capable of 4GHz, but the Q9300 / Q9450 are held back because of the multiplier. 4GHz on a Q9450 would require a 500MHz FSB, absolutely impossible to make stable on air cooling with a quad-core.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
It does have a low core volt. I think it is 1.075v. I think we will soon start seeing some OC Nehalem reviews.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extelleron
http://www.nehalemnews.com/
That is just the slowest first release Bloomfield (4 cores w/ hyperthread). They call the 2.66 Bloomfield mainstream. I don't think any Bloomfield is mainstream. Many LGA1366 CPUs will follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
No mainstream parts will be available at launch. It will be all server and high end at launch, with mainstream and performance mainstream trickling in over what probably will be a few months.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckbam
Remember, Intel still has some Penryns to sell off, and the Christmas buying season is perfect for that.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
Bloomfield isn't mainstream, but cheapest 2.66GHz 285$ is mainstream. Whole mainstream platform is Lynnfield, that will be available late Q2/Q3 2009.
A 3000mhz dual Gainstown is "faster" than my Harpertown at 3600..Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
I needed to break 3750 to match it and remember, thats matching a pre release beta system not a refined retail.
This was using CineBench10 as a test..
Yes and no .... The system clock is used to derive the clocks for many of the other components in a system, some other oddites have their own clock gens, but the major components, memory - CPU - bus /chipset time themselves from a common clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
Each device operates at a frequency of some multiplier of that base clock. The power given by any one chip is really, to a simple form, a sum of two terms.
Ptotal = Pdynamic + Pstatic
The Pdyanamic term is the electrical power as a result of an oscillating current against a load formed from a capacitor. The Pstatic term is the rest power or idle power which comes from leakage (but not all the potential leakage, just the 'off' state leakage). Think of Pdynamic as the power to flip the switch (transistor) and the Pstatic term as the small amount of current that may flow through a faulty switch when in the off position.
The Pstatic term is very hard to define, so for the sake of argument let's say this is small. Of course it isn't terribly small but it use to be in the past :)
The main contribution then is Pdynamic which is simply defined as P=C*V^2*F with C as the total capacitance for the device (chip), V is voltage, and F is frequency.
So while the system clock is 133 MHz, if the chip is multiplied up to 3.0 GHz, it will consume the same amount as if the system clock was 300 Mhz and multiplied up by 10. This is no different.
However, there are other system components that clock against this, and the new QPI implementation ... it will not be readily known how the power will compare until we actually get to see the stuff in action.
Jack
holy $hit
Intel and its f'ing blitzkrieg product releases. This is going to totally kick amd in the ballz.... again
I'm definitely not complaining though.
I only did reply because the others replied so well. There are currently Mainstream Xeons and Bloomfield will fit right in with these in that same market. One thing Intel has always done well by Hook or by Crook is fill all market segments half-way nice choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckbam
Mainstream is the defined differently by almost all tech companies. Intel's road-map lists that slowest Nehalem as Mainstream, not be confused with Budget Mainstream.
Edit for example.
http://www.expreview.com/img/news/20...oomfield_1.png
is all this information correct?Quote:
Nehalem is not overly well optimized to do much of anything with single threaded apps, which represent most of the bulk of the software sold out there in cyberland. At most you will see about a 10% performance increase clock per clock, quad core per quad core. So a Bloomfield running at 2.66 GHz will outrun a Q9450 by roughly 10% on benchmarks that involve single threads. However, feed the Bloomy a blooming multithreaded app, and watch it leave the Penryn in its trail with up to double the performance.
Yep, pretty correct.
Im tired of my E6600. When does the waiting stop?!?!?!?
No. because of this -- " ... represent most of the bulk of the software sold out there in cyberland" .... it is probably 1/2 or more is multithreaded. Everything else is about right, though i would disagree with the 10% number ... it will vary pretty wildly from just a little to 20% or more for some single threaded apps. However, I would not say he is wrong because either of us could be right, we will know when the processor arrives.Quote:
Originally Posted by natty
Jack
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
I'd say that 10% is far too high estimation.
50%+:rofl:
Most programs don't need it though.