don't forget stock cooler. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
don't forget stock cooler. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
True,Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
But AMD can always up the Vcore a little bit, those overclocks we are seeing aren't stable to AMD/Intel standards, but it shows how much headroom is available. If my memory is good there were different voltages between some Thoroughbred models (i don't mean difference between the T-A and T-B ofc) and X2 models?
3.5ghz seems a little high with the current stockvoltages, but it might be possible
With a bump in voltage to 1.375v or 1.400v, AMD is going to have to ship these 3.5Ghz quads with a TRUEQuote:
Originally Posted by GeertDB
If it's not stable that headroom is useless. C2Q processors have way more headroom that current Phenom II and you know where we are now. Also I'm currently looking for OC results in the AMD section. If you read them carefully you'll see that up to ~3,6GHz almost everyone is "stable" at stock volts. But if you keep pushing the required voltage goes through the roof with TDP and power consumption following it. Does that tell you anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by GeertDB
EDIT: Well, more like ~3,4GHz...
snipQuote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
which averages out at ~3.5Ghz again :D
Did you miss that xx hours of Prime95 != stable for AMD?Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
I was being sarcastic. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
if you noticed the higher the volts the more extreme the cooling you need. it's almost linear.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
yep you are correct, the chip limits at stock voltage are 3400-3500mhz.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
3800-3900 needs a bit more voltage.
i managed to get 3600 stable at stock voltage but that requires pretty cold ambient.
Hmmm, do I notice a certain trend trying to find something else to prove AMD cant release 3.5Ghz or something after it's been pretty much clear that PhII ain't a phailure cascade?
No offence, but Ive had to read for about a year by now Intel could release x.xGhz easily and now we got to discuss the definition of stability:confused:
Anyway, Prime95/OCCT is indeed not a solid stability test (look at idle freezing), however it does give a certain indication. And the longer it runs, the more you can be sure it's stable.
However, it will be only stable at architectural parts where it's being tested. For example, where it takes Prime95 to run 7+h to get an error, Prime95 64-bit might make your system BSOD within an hour.
Whether you run Prime95 32 or 64-bit, small or large fft's or blend, it will only give you a stability indication. The best thing to do is use the hardest way to test (64-bit) and test all the options. This still wont make AMD nor Intel say, Yes, good tip Ramm, we'll try and do that, but no one knows what standards they do use so we never can say if forum users are wrong or right when they claim either could easily sell x.xGhz CPU's.
Why do I think that? Look at some :banana::banana::banana::banana: ups both parties made in the past, like AMD's recent B2. If 100% stability had any meaning it should be able to run anything in any setup in any option without errors (leaving eventual software errors out of the story). Since about every CPU has errata's, yeah, what's true stability worth? They just do a more thorough test, but this will just like Prime95 give a certain indication of stability. Maybe they test only for 1h, maybe for 168h:rolleyes: Just like dead pixels on TFT screens basicly, it has to be within a certain margin, because 100% stability, I think there hasnt been one CPU without errata's ever. Then again, I wasnt there from the start so dont quote me on that.
And this is with the stability tools we have. In the AMD lab I doubt it'd pass more than 3,1-3,2GHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by BertM
your guess is as good as mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
there tdp of 125 watt doesnt come close what the phenom takes with occt.
Stock cooler, stock cooler, stock cooler (hint, hint).
My system I can say is stable, because I run it under 100% load for weeks, months even at a time :p:
Part of me is tempted to see how high I can OC my PhII (whenever I get it) on a stock cooler before putting it under the water. Could be interesting to see.
:down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Now what does Intel do to solve this... What could they possibly do to cool both an E8400 and a QX9770.... If only they could have different stock coolers depending on the CPU...
Oh wait, they do. And that's exactly what AMD would do. Bundle a slightly bigger cooler with a slightly bigger fan to handle slightly bigger heat load.
But you're not interested in logic or optimism, you're into putting people down and rambling incoherently against AMD half the time. So have fun, accomplishing whatever it is you believe you will. All I see is someone who can't stop beating a dead horse.
My opteron 165 came with a quad heatpipe sink with an 80mm fan, it wasn't half bad and did a good job at keeping OC'd chips cool in moderation, and that was back in the 90nm days when a modest speed increase and voltage bump could send the TDP way up. It could probably take care of today's 45nm quads just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
1) Intel has no competition on the dualcore front, so why bump up clockspeeds?Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
2) It is quite logical that when you bump up the voltage from 1.35v to 1.5v you will notice an increase in power consumption, but a moderate bump to 1.4V will not result in exhuberant higher power consumption
3) current quadcores doent use 125W in any situation, so there is some headroom regarding with power consumption
Exactly. :D :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
There's definitely a solution. It just depends on whether or not AMD wants to. Or if they want to just let Intel sleep a little bit.
1) To compete with AMD's tricores? To compete with its own quad cores? I don't know what Intel is thinking, but the E8600 and the possible E8700 are there for a reason not only for us to OC the hell out of them ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by GeertDB
2) Have you tested it? You would be amazed about how much a little bump in voltage can raise power consumption and temps under load. But please test it if you can so everyone here can make conclusions.
3) Except the original Phenoms every actual CPU out there consumes way less power than its TDP in usual desktop applications (that includes Prime and the like). There is headroom for a reason, and you want to keep it, even after your bump in voltage.
WTF!? You just said the same thing I said, and you think you're criticizing me? Refer to my comment about the TRUE. This is the problem when people lose all sense of objectivity. So far, ALL the people who have made reference to 3.4-3.6Ghz with stock volts are using the TRUE or equivalent hsf. Forget the fact that their ambients are way better (we're in winter after all) than a user in Namibia (Javier, I had to borrow that one, :rofl:) ), so technically speaking, for AMD to release a PHII at 3.5Ghz even IF they manage to keep the stock vcc pegged to 1.35v, they'll have to test in about 35c ambient with whatever cooler they bundle the processor with. God forbid this piece of news comes from someone other than a perceived AMD fanboy. This is getting ridiculous; in my book you lose all credibility if you can't argue without attacking your opponent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
I did post a ss of my Q9650 overclocked to 4.5Ghz with ONLY 1.360v. It does 4Ghz stable with 1.240v (way below Intel recommended max voltage of 1.3625v) YET NO ONE HAS SAID INTEL CAN RELEASE A 4GHZ PROCESSOR RIGHT NOW. :shakes: Because, I realise that this same processor would perform different and need higher voltages with the stock cooler in Namibia.
How about the Black Edition 6400+ where they didnt bundle a cooler at all because it needed more than they could provide. They could always to this agian as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
im occt benching now at 3500mhz 1.35 volt with only one 30cfm blower on the pa120.3
cpu is 54.5 degree. pa120.3 is realy warm. ambient here is approx 25.
i measured/calculated the cpu power usage and its about 125 watt now full load 3500mhz.
Funny how the rage about stability/stock cooler continues after my post, also not even to mention that there ain't a standard stock cooler. I mean, who is limiting AMD/Intel to even include a TRUE with their CPU?
Read my post regarding stability (issues?), also just keep in mind a stock cooler ain't limited by anything. Since AMD has a constant process improvement a 3.5Ghz CPU, even it was with their current stock coolers, ain't anything questionable. As said, 2.8Ghz C2 has 125W TDP, 2.8Ghz C3 already has 95W TDP. And that's apart from the constant process improvements which can be applied in any revision (B3 9950BE for example).
As Ive said as well, Ive been reading for about a year that Intel could easily launch C2 @ 4Ghz, there wasnt a big deal around that, now it would be for AMD? AMD would have a bigger chance to do something like that than Intel anytime with their tick tock system:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
There's no way AMD could have a new stepping. :rolleyes:
And the core point is great too. It's impossible because you see people online with TRUE's. That makes a lot of sense.
I'm sure AMD is just far too terrible to come up with any possible solutions.
You don't want to see AMD release a more worthwhile CPU than what they have. That's fine, but don't drag us all through your cynical mud.
Boring posts stating the same thing over and over don't do it for me, sorry.
And I just have to say. If you call
"But you're not interested in logic or optimism, you're into putting people down and rambling incoherently against AMD half the time. So have fun, accomplishing whatever it is you believe you will. All I see is someone who can't stop beating a dead horse."
"Attacking your 'opponent'"... You must have been raised in a very Catholic family. And I do therefore apologize profusely for any offense. The truth isn't an attack, it's a statement. :)
Size :D , and probably it will cost more than the manufacturing cost of the CPU excluding R&D (don't quote me on this :p:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner