MSI K8N Neo2
0425 TCCD 256MBX2 1T 2.7V
HYPER6+SanyoH4011
WD-360GDX2
ENERMAX 550W PSU
ASUS MX-440
Printable View
MSI K8N Neo2
0425 TCCD 256MBX2 1T 2.7V
HYPER6+SanyoH4011
WD-360GDX2
ENERMAX 550W PSU
ASUS MX-440
is 2.808ghz the max of your cpu? I do not see superpi with it.
and i see that you're only using 1.55v. have you pushed more volts through the chip?
my 3200+ 0441 does about the same.
Anyways, great overclocks on the cpu and ram.
2.8Ghz on 1.55V thats insane and only with a hyper6 heatsink. I'm jealous...lol, try pushing some more volts and see what you can pull, probuably somewhere aroudn 2.95ghz.
Wow, just wow. QK, where did you purchase your winchester from? Is it OEM or retail?
Nice one! :)
Without heatspreader, or with it?
/Me wants too please :slobber:
Nice!
Yeah, where did you buy it, and was it retail or OEM?
It's retail , from Taiwan... :toast:
Nice !! :cheers:
Need to get one of them.
Really nice chip. :slobber:
Wow! And I thought I was fortunate to be hitting 2610MHz on my 3000+. You've got one very lucky chip, my friend. That's a whopping 52.9% increase over stock on air cooling!
:toast:
quk4722 whats your max stable OC and load temp?
What's the stepping on your chip conrad? Is it OEM or retail and where did you buy it from?Quote:
Originally Posted by conrad.maranan
Your sensors must be out of whack because your cpu temp according to core center at 2.4Ghz is 47C whereas at over 2.8GHz it is only 36C!
you got the strained silcon one, that explains the 2.8GHz clocks. The fx55 with its ss has been seeing easily 2.8GHz, some even 2.9GHz with adequate air cooling. AMD has a small number of winchesters with SS but soon all of them week 45 and newer will use SS. If mine isnt SS I will just sell this and buy a 3000+ maybe 3200+ if I need the 10x multi with SS and ill have about 2.85GHz :D
More unsubstantiated speculation about Winchesters being 100% SS from week 45 onwards. Just because one poster (in another forum!) says that without any shred of evidence does not make it true!
But then again you thought the FX55 would be 90nm and that the Winchesters have a 5% advantage over similar 939 130nm cpus because you saw it on one webpage so I guess you are true to form.
I'm pretty confident I have a Week 39 chip. I have the specs/codes at home so I'll relay that to you in about 2 hours. It's a retail CPU I purchased from mWave last Friday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freya
EDIT: Okay. I just looked at those screenshots again and I must admit that I am very jealous of you. :worship: I would love to hit 2.8GHz on air with a 3000+. **LOOKS INSIDE WALLET** If I still feel this way in the morning, I'm gonna roll the dice and pick up another 3000+ from mWave tomorrow. :shrug:
we dont know if all week 45 will be SS, but most likley some will be. Heck some are even earlier weeks and are SS like his week 39. Mines week 39 and if it does around 2.6GHz stock volts or 2.7+ with volt bump its almost certainly SS ;) and its true winchesters are 5% faster than newcastles, its been proven. I was wrong on fx55 being 90nm but thats cause amd had a change of plans or id be right. They used SS and managed to squeeze 130nm higher and now SS will help 90nm hit 3GHz soon
Winchesters are 5% faster than 754 Newcastles (at a push) they most certainly are not faster than 939 130nms! You need to get your head out of the sand on that one. Even the webpages you used as proof say otherwise, show me one site where it shows the overall performance is 5% better - I think I will have a long wait...........
Hmmm. I'm not even sure mine is strained silicone, not that it really matters to me at this point. Speculation is an amazing event to witness on this forum.
If speculation was an olympic event Geforce4ti4200 would be guaranteed to win the gold.
Oh and GF4, AMD never once stated that the FX55 would be 90nm at launch only you ever said that so they could not have changed their minds. They actually publically stated a couple of months before launch the fX55 would be 130nm.
:lol: So let's just say I purchased a 3000+ that was of the first batch of Winchesters produced and it clocked really well. For the sake of being obnoxious, we'll say 3000MHz on the factory HSF with generic thermal compound and 1.4V of juice being drawn from a no-name PSU. Does this mean that strained silicone was implemented in the manufacture of this chip? Just because a chip can run at insane speeds, it doesn't necessarily equate to strained silicone being the force behind it. It could be strained vinegar or hyper osmosis purified rat piss for all we know. That's just my :2cents:.Quote:
Originally Posted by OC Detective
ADA3000DIK4BIQuote:
Originally Posted by Freya
CBBGD 0439VPCW
1095967J40197
It could also be an exceptionally good chip from a truly perfect piece of silicon crystal - purified rat piss only helps you until a certain point ... ;)
I'm going to get a new 3200+ Friday or Saturday (the shipment is due to arrive at the shop on the 18th), that ought to be from a quite recent week, as K8 fabrication is done in Dresden (not too far from here) and there are 2 of the 12 german AMD distributors within spitting distance of me. Fingers are crossed, hoping for week 44 or 45. :)
i have a week 41 3200+ and it needs 1.504~1.520v to be stable in windows @ 2.6ghz
would boot in to windows with 1.49~1.5 but was not 100% stable - anything less would hang at the windows xp loading screen.
"It could be strained vinegar or hyper osmosis purified rat piss for all we know. That's just my :2cents:."
ROFLMAO!
ADA3000DIK4BI
CBBGD 0439VPCW
1095967J40197[/QUOTE]
My new cpu 939 3000+ 0441SPMW x4 :banana4:
http://home.pchome.com.tw/club/qk4723/3000/new.u.JPG
yuummmy.. nice spend :D
Nice, $1400 in CPU's Where were these from?
qk4722 : 3000+/3200+ CBBFD 0441 SPMW ?
Dont count on it - remember after they are fabbed they are sent to Malaysia for assembly and test then off to Singapore for final test before heading to the various distribution centres around the world. Typically Japan sees them first then US then Europe so you could just see a similar assembly dated cpu to those that people are getting in the US. Then again with the problems AMD have had rolling out new software at their distribution hubs who knows what you might get!Quote:
Originally Posted by MightyOne
http://my.so-net.net.tw/johnnyliu/372_0411SPMW.JPG
very nice! 372Mhz :bows: qk4722
good job :thumbsup: , I also must try to it!! :toast:
Hmmm. I don't understand how running at 372MHz with a multiplier of 6 is impressive, especially with the RAM at 186MHz and 2.5-4-4 timings.
its impressive for the motherboard's super high HTT. I am really hoping my mobo will hit 300htt
I think ....This mainly is tests M/B(K8N neo2) the high-frequency, the memory is unable to achieve DDR744(1:1) in at present. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by conrad.maranan
Now I understand. You were testing the highest HTT you can reach.
HTT316x9 ram 1:1 2.5-4-3-5 2.85v PI 29s :banana4:Quote:
Originally Posted by boblemagnifique
ADA3000DIK4BI
CBBFD 0441SPMW
1077009K400XX
My friend have just arrived ^_^
http://genetics.intercomgi.com/krampak/PC/FX55.JPG
Lets see how a week 42 performs :banana4:
On air cooling? 2.9GHz would be nice :D and with it being unlocked you can max out your ram first than keep rising the multipliers. 240x12=2.88GHz if your ram and cpu can do this :D
... U mean 10x280 MHz! :rolleyes:Quote:
240x12
Well, i've pluged it. I took a screenshot at 2'9Ghz 1'53v stock cooler, but this cpu is pretty hot... I get more than 60ºC at 1'6v full load :S (with the XP-90 too).
By now it's running at 2'75Ghz 1'55v.
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.
Well-reputed websites have confirmed this, as well as personal testing from multiple parties.
Now the week 45 theory... :roll:
Anyway, excellent OC to the original poster. :)
they are faster, 5% I dunno. But faster yes. I reviewed against 0.13u Newcastle 939 and results were very very good.Quote:
Originally Posted by OC Detective
http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=230
I have yet to see one site show a 5% overall improvement on a 939 90nm v 939 130nm if you refer to the Anandtech site go compare the 3500+ results overall (which are heavily gaming slanted) it comes out around 2%. There were no significant architectural improvements made to the 90nm over the 130nm - AMD said that themselves!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallowed
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...011124532.html
Just because it was bandied around before they were released on this site about the 5% does not make it true!
JNav when I made that comment I meant they are certainly not 5% faster than the 130nm. Weeks ago I went on record on other sites saying the upside is 1 - 2%.
well until you have personally run each side by side, I would caution you to believe press releases over actually reported results. Please reference my article. Anandtech saw similar trends. The only review I saw where results were identical used an Asus A8v motherboard. At least on NF3 for me the results were impressive.
I will say that 5% is too optimistic. However, when gauging performance, the FX53 is barely 5% faster than a 3500+ when stratifying for clock speeds. 5.5% faster in 3dmark2001se per my calculations on my benchmarks w/my 3200+ review. Teh 3200+ was 3.5% faster than the 3500+ clock for clock. So it's closer to the FX53 than to the older 0.13u cpu. I don't believe they didn't tweak the core some. I bet they are just not letting on b/c there are more features to come that have not been implimented as of yet, as in SSE3 etc... Then they will announce and get people to want that new cpu.
Jnav I have just read your review and it completely bears out what I stated! When both are at 2.5Ghz the upside is between 1- 2% average overall (though some of your findings were strange - especially in UT!).
Why would AMD say there were no significant improvements if there were - wouldnt that be counter productive?
yes but if you look and the number, the 3200+ bridges gap between the 0.13u and the FX series. Of course it can't catch the FX but for a few benches, but there is performance to be had. These were not flawed scores. I reran benches when I first got chip to confirm findings. I agree the % isn't always that impressive, but for a dye shrink there MUST be some improvements to account for these improvements. Like I say it splits difference between the 0.13u and the FX.
Why would AMD say no improvements? Beats me, other than they are waiting for new stepping where SSE3 will be ready and maybe even more core advancements so it will appear larger improvement in comparison to the 0.13u cpus. That's my theory, but take it as such, just a theory.
the UT numbers are wacked, esp with the 754 beating 939, but that I reran too. Not sure what to say other than in the comments after benches there.
p.s. I have bench screenies if you don't believe me :stick:
Dont worry I believe your scores like I said they average overall 1-2%. Actually Petr listed the changes before and they are not significant.
It depends if the certain benchmark is heavily dependent on cache speed.
Because thats the difference, _the only difference_ between the two, performance wise.
If the benchmark is reliant on other factors, or to lesser degrees, then yes the performance increase will not be as high, or even not present.
For example, using the Anandtech bench, the Winchester is roughly 4.5% faster in Quake 3, an app which more or less runs from cache. DOOM3 on the other hand only benefits 2.5%. 2001 also shows about 5% over Newcastles.
Nevertheless, heres why:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q4...-90vs130nm.gif
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