venice on ice 2850mhz 1.38v -40°C

[Vincentvega18]

im so glad i just checked this thread.......gotta love dumb luck.

[saaya]

ok, thats all so far, as soon as i get more results from pc ice or oppainter i will post them

[Fzero]

what caused the error in sandra just pushed it to high and what you said in the first post about the volts is that still there with water?

[odb]

does anybody have any reservations about buying one of these venice chips and it might not work on phase change? i know i do. i been looking for a solution incase my winchester doesnt agree with the chilly1 phase change cooler that hes making soon, and well i know it wont reach -90c and -40c might be more reasonable but who says all venice chips work like this one. i guess we have to wait till they are released for some solid feed back on subzero compatibility, besides one chip.

[s7e9h3n]

does anybody have any reservations about buying one of these venice chips and it might not work on phase change? i know i do. i been looking for a solution incase my winchester doesnt agree with the chilly1 phase change cooler that hes making soon, and well i know it wont reach -90c and -40c might be more reasonable but who says all venice chips work like this one. i guess we have to wait till they are released for some solid feed back on subzero compatibility, besides one chip.

Well.....so far it's two outta two that work with single stage. Both the 3800+ and the 3500+ didn't have a problem at sub zero. The coldest I could get the 3800+ was ~ -35C. Also, the 3800+ was able to run benches @ ~2.9G on a stock hsf:

Personally, I think that these cpu's do scale with voltage. It's just that the range of vcore is smaller that what we're used to. The 3800+ stopped responding to bumps in Vcore at around 1.65V.

[saaya]

what caused the error in sandra just pushed it to high and what you said in the first post about the volts is that still there with water?

check the first post of this thread, i sorted all results regarding water and phase change cooling

and yes, the error was caused by a too high oc.

Well.....so far it's two outta two that work with single stage. Both the 3800+ and the 3500+ didn't have a problem at sub zero. The coldest I could get the 3800+ was ~ -35C. Also, the 3800+ was able to run benches @ ~2.9G on a stock hsf:
Personally, I think that these cpu's do scale with voltage. It's just that the range of vcore is smaller that what we're used to. The 3800+ stopped responding to bumps in Vcore at around 1.65V.

you mean you couldnt get the temps to go lower than -35°C because the mach2 didnt get the cpu cooler, or do you mean the cpu crashed when you reached temps below -35°C? evap temps or cpu temps read by the internal diode?

hmmm did you play with the 3500+ on air or phase change steven?
did it respond to vcore? dave said the 3500+ didnt respond to vcore bumps AT ALL and he tried up to 1.6v maybe its a problem with his board?

[s7e9h3n]

Hey saaya,
All temps I noted were read on a uei dt200 from a thermocouple attached to the side of the cpu. The -35 was just the limit of the cooling, not the 3800+. I don't think my unmodded mach2 could have gone any lower with this cpu.
Nope, I never even considered testing the 3500+. I needed a break after the 3800+ and put my fx55 back. I actually had spent more time testing the 3800+ with the mach2 than I had with the fx55.
In no way am I questioning PC-Ice's results with the 3500+, but there probably is a problem with this board or something of that nature. I have yet to see a cpu which didn't respond at all to bumps in vcore. The Venice scaled as well as, if not better, a lot of cpu's I've seen. It's just that the way it scaled was a little different. It seemed as if bumping the 3800+'s Vcore didn't have a large affect on the cpu's temperature. I don't think I recall the cpu temp ever idling in the 40's, even @ 1.70 Vcore. Basically, the cpu just stopped responding OC-wise beyond ~1.65V.

check the first post of this thread, i sorted all results regarding water and phase change cooling

and yes, the error was caused by a too high oc.



you mean you couldnt get the temps to go lower than -35°C because the mach2 didnt get the cpu cooler, or do you mean the cpu crashed when you reached temps below -35°C? evap temps or cpu temps read by the internal diode?

hmmm did you play with the 3500+ on air or phase change steven?
did it respond to vcore? dave said the 3500+ didnt respond to vcore bumps AT ALL and he tried up to 1.6v maybe its a problem with his board?

[SLaY3r07]

Damn, that sux pc ice. Lets just hope it's just your Venice that doesn't like volts.

[_Eduard_]

Could be that they're now using the "crappy" cores for s939 512kb cpu's, and the good ones for the 1mb cache mobiles (turion) on s754 that have a lower wattage rating (around 35w?). this is however just a theory...

[Raul]

hi. first I want to say HI o/c potencial of Venice is realy big! there is some test os San Diego too?

[s7e9h3n]

hi. first I want to say HI o/c potencial of Venice is realy big! there is some test os San Diego too?

Welcome to XS Raul...If you look at the stickies in this forum and "The Best of AMD" you'll find a peek at the 4200+ San Diego....

[saaya]

Could be that they're now using the "crappy" cores for s939 512kb cpu's, and the good ones for the 1mb cache mobiles (turion) on s754 that have a lower wattage rating (around 35w?). this is however just a theory...

i dont think so, even average winchester cpus are able to work at the frequencies and voltages of a turion, i dont think that the turion cpus are the best a64 silicon amd can make, i think the best is used for fx chips, then high end a64 chips and opterons and then they test wich of the remaining cpus works good with low volts and make them turions or mid to low end a64s...

hmmm im going to ask amd about this, it shouldnt be a big secret they wont tell us

hi raul, welcome to XtremeSystems

[WOLF_OF_DK]

Could it be possible that Venice and San diego has some kind of overvoltage protection ?

[Ackbar]

Oh, and I forgot to say....for those that are wondering if these cpu's scale with voltage: They do scale, and very well if I may add. My 3800+ could take up to ~1.75-1.8V and didn't explode. But upping the Vcore didn't help beyond somewhere in the range of 1.65-1.7. Than again, you never know what a cascade could do with these Venices

more than stock vcore barely seems to do anything to this chip

As I said before, you can not just assume that CPUs scale with voltage. My Clawhammer gets to 2.6 with near stock voltage, but it is entirely unachievable to get to 2.7 at ANY voltage with air (XP-120). I also do not believe this is an "overvoltage protection" issue since on the 3500+ Clawhammers this phenomena has been seen on most CPUs. Since the Clawhammer is much older than the Venice, I think this implies that this is just a result of the CPU itself and not a new "feature".

[chefnr1]

i dont think so, even average winchester cpus are able to work at the frequencies and voltages of a turion, i dont think that the turion cpus are the best a64 silicon amd can make, i think the best is used for fx chips, then high end a64 chips and opterons and then they test wich of the remaining cpus works good with low volts and make them turions or mid to low end a64s...

hmmm im going to ask amd about this, it shouldnt be a big secret they wont tell us

hi raul, welcome to XtremeSystems

Like mine winnie 3000+ i could run on stock and up to 1.8v vcore and when it was going at the best it run 2840mhz, but my 3500+ winnie just like stock and up to 1,6 over that it doesnt happen anything it run as best on water 2870mhz cold water..3500+ did on stock 1.4v 2800mhz right out of the box

[Jasonhk]

Could it be possible that Venice and San diego has some kind of overvoltage protection ?

possible the San Diago somehere got to use was Stable to 2850 Mhz then just dies of doesnt scale well at all to more voltage.

[s7e9h3n]

As I said before, you can not just assume that CPUs scale with voltage. My Clawhammer gets to 2.6 with near stock voltage, but it is entirely unachievable to get to 2.7 at ANY voltage with air (XP-120). I also do not believe this is an "overvoltage protection" issue since on the 3500+ Clawhammers this phenomena has been seen on most CPUs. Since the Clawhammer is much older than the Venice, I think this implies that this is just a result of the CPU itself and not a new "feature".

Um......I'm not sure where I stated that there was an "overvoltage protection" "feature" on these cpu's. And, unless your clawhammer is able to get to 2.6 AT default vcore, then it would be considered scaling -albeit minor- if you acheive a higher clock with increased voltage.

[Ackbar]

Um......I'm not sure where I stated that there was an "overvoltage protection" "feature" on these cpu's. And, unless your clawhammer is able to get to 2.6 AT default vcore, then it would be considered scaling -albeit minor- if you acheive a higher clock with increased voltage.

Sorry, I wasn't answering you about the "overvoltage" but I quoted you kinda as to show that there are two sides to this story. Sorry for the confusion!

I'm able to get 2.6 at ~1.55V (default is 1.5V). So you're right, that 0.05 V helped. But no, nothing after that really did anything. Don't get me wrong, voltage helps, by no means am I able to use anything below 1.55V to get to 2.6 GHz. That's obviously not the point though, the point is that after a certain point, the the voltage to clock curve reaches a point where it is no longer well-behaved (ie. it blows up and becomes infinite for all intents).

[saaya]

here is a nice peek at the short preview/review oppainter wrote with the 3500+ to get you all excited

because what we had not mentioned so far is that venice is faster clock for clock than a winchester


Specs:
DFI 939 Ultra
MSI X800XT 520/560
OCZ 3700 2.5-4-4-8 @ 300
All CPUs ran at 300x8 2400MHz

this is an average result!
there was no bad/buggy run





i wont post more results in this thread.
opps review/preview should appear on the front page very soon, dont miss it!

[agenda2005]

Hehe! SSE3 at work. A promising result.

[S0nic]

I wonder how a 3500+ clawhammer would do in that graph? worse than winnie?

[texuspete00]

i dont think so, even average winchester cpus are able to work at the frequencies and voltages of a turion, i dont think that the turion cpus are the best a64 silicon amd can make, i think the best is used for fx chips, then high end a64 chips and opterons and then they test wich of the remaining cpus works good with low volts and make them turions or mid to low end a64s...

hmmm im going to ask amd about this, it shouldnt be a big secret they wont tell us

From anandtech's talk with AMD...

Much as we suspected, all of the power optimizations that went "into" Turion 64 are all transistor level optimizations. Basically, selecting transistors that provide better thermal and power characteristics at the expense of lower switching frequencies.

Top story there today... the talk with AMD. There is more to it than Turion.

[LowRun]

Hehe, this answers all the "Why should i need a Venice" threads and posts.

[terrace215]

True, all these folks thinking they are going to overclock Turion to 3GHz + are sadly mistaken. AMD has traded transistor speed for lower power.

The parts to overclock are the Venice/San Diego parts.

[terrace215]

That's a 1% improvement over Winchester in that benchmark... not exactly thrilling, but better than no improvement at all.