Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 390

Thread: Official Desktop Penryn Discussion Thread

  1. #51
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by nn_step View Post
    then why are people thinking it is going to be a revolution when even Intel says it is just going to be an evolutionary step?
    I don't believe anyone thinks it is going to be a revolution, unless they've been living in a cave or some other crevice here in computerland. But it should be a respectable performance boost all the same, then again we won't know until next month .

  2. #52
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    good old Germany
    Posts
    914
    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=142326

    same Topic to another news from TG Daily

    Qoute of Myself:

    Hey guys I talk to intel on monday
    and Martin Strobel (German Press Manager)
    say to me that this news will be a fake
    and that Intel do not give such infos thg
    45nm Penryn CPUs are far away from Sampleing
    he says that in Q3 07 the sampling can beging but not in June or July.
    5.2.2007

    nothing to belive in this news ...
    only printed to push 45nm hype

  3. #53
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    1,990
    People are excited because of the clockspeeds. 4+ Ghz quad on air.
    Heatware: 50-0-0
    Quote Originally Posted by Charile
    I believe that GWB, who may NOT be the best overclocking CPU in the tray...
    Quote Originally Posted by -thc-(cZ) View Post
    oh c'mon, maxxx, kick that cat of that monitor and have it poop for you

  4. #54
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    603
    Any news which NVIDIA chipset will support Penryn ?

  5. #55
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    896
    http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=408


    *June 3 Bearlake release
    *Wolfdale debuts in Q307
    *Yorkfield debuts Q407/Q108
    *CPU with IGP will be 45nm and debuts after Wolfdale

  6. #56
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    1,195
    680i already supports 1333fsb, so its likely that the chipset supports penryn even if current motherboards may or may not due to the VRM.

  7. #57
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    603
    But NVIDIA doesn't support DDR3. So it seems the only option for Penryn + DDR3 in the near future is Intel Bearlake.

  8. #58
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    1,195
    well penryn doesn't need ddr3, so until nvidia release a 780i the choice will be either the 0-10% performance boost from ddr3 or the 10-60% boost from sli. And at the moment for the same capacity of ram you could go sli + ddr2 for the same price as single card + ddr3 - so it would probably be better to let ddr3 mature (and drop in price) and get it on the next upgrade cycle (nehelam or later).

  9. #59
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    603
    Cool. Just looking at all the options

  10. #60
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    896
    http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5928
    There is Nvidia Intel chipsets for 2007.

  11. #61
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    DE
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by GoThr3k View Post
    4GHz in a 65w TDP
    keep on dreaming
    Does a XS-User really think about TDP?

    cu, BitpowerPM
    PC: Asus DSGC-DW, Dual Intel Xeon E5345, 4x1 GB FB-DIMM DDR2-667, 4x250 GB RAID10 + 250 GB backup, 8800 GT -.-
    PC: Intel P4C 2,4 @ 3,0 GHz, 2 GB DDR400, GF FX5900 XT (477/777 MHz), 320 GB disk space
    Server: Intel PM 745 1,8 @ 2,4 GHz, 256 MB DDR-266, onboard i855GME graphics, 200 GB disk space ^^
    Notebook: Intel PM 735, 1 GB DDR333, Radeon 9650, 80 GB disk space

  12. #62
    YouTube Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Klaatu barada nikto
    Posts
    17,574
    Quote Originally Posted by BitpowerPM View Post
    Does a XS-User really think about TDP?

    cu, BitpowerPM
    one word "Prescott"
    Fast computers breed slow, lazy programmers
    The price of reliability is the pursuit of the utmost simplicity. It is a price which the very rich find most hard to pay.
    http://www.lighterra.com/papers/modernmicroprocessors/
    Modern Ram, makes an old overclocker miss BH-5 and the fun it was

  13. #63
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    7,747
    Quote Originally Posted by nn_step View Post
    one word "Prescott"
    Two words, Athlon FX-7x
    Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.

  14. #64
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    1,195
    I think as a market, enthusiasts don't really care about cpu's maintaining a 65w tdp as long as tdp levels remain acceptable.

    Even the 130w fx-74 can be kept cool with simple heatsink and fan, the main problem with that is that its competition has twice the number of cores and better performance with the same power consumption due to the dual socket nature of 4x4 (260w for 2 x3.0ghz amd dualcores versus 110w for quadcore QX6800)

    The only reason we prefer lower tdp's is to keep a processor within an acceptable tdp when overclocked.

    If intel released a 95w 4ghz quadcore, there would still be 'acceptable' headroom for overclocking.

    65w tdp's appeal more to system integrators as it means they can cut costs on power supply, cooling, and allows them to make smaller, more attractive computers for the retail market.

    If TDP's really bothered people do you think a single HD2900 would get sold?

  15. #65
    Xtreme Monster
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,182
    Quote Originally Posted by onewingedangel View Post
    I think as a market, enthusiasts don't really care about cpu's maintaining a 65w tdp as long as tdp levels remain acceptable.

    Even the 130w fx-74 can be kept cool with simple heatsink and fan, the main problem with that is that its competition has twice the number of cores and better performance with the same power consumption due to the dual socket nature of 4x4 (260w for 2 x3.0ghz amd dualcores versus 110w for quadcore QX6800)

    The only reason we prefer lower tdp's is to keep a processor within an acceptable tdp when overclocked.

    If intel released a 95w 4ghz quadcore, there would still be 'acceptable' headroom for overclocking.

    65w tdp's appeal more to system integrators as it means they can cut costs on power supply, cooling, and allows them to make smaller, more attractive computers for the retail market.

    If TDP's really bothered people do you think a single HD2900 would get sold?

    Well it depends for me the maximum TDP is 77 for CPU and 150 for graphics card.

  16. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Belgium, Dendermonde
    Posts
    1,292
    Quote Originally Posted by BitpowerPM View Post
    Does a XS-User really think about TDP?

    cu, BitpowerPM
    i dont care about TDP
    it's just the TDP that intel uses for their dualcores.
    i don't think 4ghz is doable in a 65W TDP,so dont expect 4GHz Wolfdales (on stock that is...)
    that was my point

  17. #67
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by Metroid View Post
    Well it depends for me the maximum TDP is 77 for CPU and 150 for graphics card.
    Nice rule, live your life by those numbers. How did you come up with those very specific values anyway? I will go for 77.2, makes a lot more sense.

    Manufacturers TDP, who cares when OCing, still havent seen the low TDP of X2 EE make a big difference in OC, and on the oposite end of the TDP scale Prescotts OC'ed well. Just admit it, TDP is something we pretend to care about only in AMD vs Intel discussions
    BadAxe2, WC'ed L631B115 Xeon3060 3.4GHz 1.27v summer OC, 2GB BallistiX 4:5,
    2x250GB-16 Raid-0 + 400GB-16, 7900GTO 512MB, Acer 22" Wide, Nexus 500W.

  18. #68
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    7,747
    Quote Originally Posted by GoThr3k View Post
    i dont care about TDP
    it's just the TDP that intel uses for their dualcores.
    How many times do you want to be proven wrong?

    The actual TDP for Intels dualcores is WAY below their official announced TDP.
    Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.

  19. #69
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    DE
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by GoThr3k View Post
    i dont care about TDP
    it's just the TDP that intel uses for their dualcores.
    i don't think 4ghz is doable in a 65W TDP,so dont expect 4GHz Wolfdales (on stock that is...)
    that was my point
    Core 2 Extreme X6800 Dual-Core and Xeon 5160 have a TDP of 75/80 watts and not 65.

    The target frequency of Penryn core is around 3,6-3,7 GHz - so the way to 4 GHz is not far.

    cu, Bitpower
    PC: Asus DSGC-DW, Dual Intel Xeon E5345, 4x1 GB FB-DIMM DDR2-667, 4x250 GB RAID10 + 250 GB backup, 8800 GT -.-
    PC: Intel P4C 2,4 @ 3,0 GHz, 2 GB DDR400, GF FX5900 XT (477/777 MHz), 320 GB disk space
    Server: Intel PM 745 1,8 @ 2,4 GHz, 256 MB DDR-266, onboard i855GME graphics, 200 GB disk space ^^
    Notebook: Intel PM 735, 1 GB DDR333, Radeon 9650, 80 GB disk space

  20. #70
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by GoThr3k View Post
    i don't think 4ghz is doable in a 65W TDP,so dont expect 4GHz Wolfdales (on stock that is...)
    that was my point
    Just thought more about this and decided to calculate a little. Keep your guns in the holster if i calculated wrong along the way, im unarmed and had half a bottle of wine

    Using the Xbitlabs numbers on page 2 of this thread i came up with the following:

    D820=145w, D915=94w, same clockspeed, ~35% reduction from 90nm to 65nm

    D915=94w, EE965=126w, increase in clockspeed is 33%, TDP increase is 34%

    E6700 is 2.66GHz and 65w TDP, -35% for process shrink gives TDP of ~42.5w

    Now, to go from 42.5w to the desired TDP of 65w, we take 65 and divide by 42.5 and get 1.5294, that means we have to increase 42.5w by ~53% to reach a TDP of 65w.

    53% still, and we had a TDP increase of 34% to get a 33% increase in clockspeed. 53 multiplied with 33 divided by 34 gives a clockspeed increase of 51.44%, lets say ~51%.

    So we take E6700, 2.66GHZ + 51% and we get? 4.016 Ghz

    -------------

    Ok, these are numbers based on only one test, for all i know the EE965 used here was xtremely good and the D820 was extremely bad (which i doubt, i had both D830 and D930, very big difference to say it the least)

    On the other hand, what i did NOT take into consideration is that 90 to 65nm was a shrink, while 65 to 45nm is a shrink + the addition of High-K. Also, i used the TDP of E6700 here instead of the 59w power consumption meassured by Xbitlabs.

    Also the EE965 got hyperthreading which adds to its power consumption.

    Its just a bunch of theory anyway, doesnt mean in reality, the point is that i cant totally exclude the posibility of 4GHz/65w, and because the X6800 got a TDP of 75w theres still some slack.

    ....And i still dont know if my calculations are any good, thats up to you guys to check Im surprised myself here so some numbers could be a bit off.
    BadAxe2, WC'ed L631B115 Xeon3060 3.4GHz 1.27v summer OC, 2GB BallistiX 4:5,
    2x250GB-16 Raid-0 + 400GB-16, 7900GTO 512MB, Acer 22" Wide, Nexus 500W.

  21. #71
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    392
    OMG, thats just great, no comments on my calculations yet. Noone takes me seriously or they still didnt find any flaws after 1 hour??
    BadAxe2, WC'ed L631B115 Xeon3060 3.4GHz 1.27v summer OC, 2GB BallistiX 4:5,
    2x250GB-16 Raid-0 + 400GB-16, 7900GTO 512MB, Acer 22" Wide, Nexus 500W.

  22. #72
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Herbert's House in Family Guy
    Posts
    2,381
    well the lower the TDP the better.. cuz when u add say 30% more vcore the heat it generate is a lot more than that ....

    a 226W TEC barely holds E6600 @ 1.5v ... loadi s like 35C+
    E6600 @ 3.6
    IN9 32x MAX
    EVGA 8800Ultra
    750W

  23. #73
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Shintai View Post
    Two words, Athlon FX-7x
    three words and one number, Intel 840 EE

  24. #74
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by Nooc View Post
    three words and one number, Intel 840 EE
    Agreed. Its just that FX-7x came from the company that was extremely loud about how terrible EE 840 was, then they went ahead and copied it =) I bet many here didnt even know that AMD launched a 3GHz 8-series Opteron just a few weeks ago, a very quiet launch because of the Netburst-level TDP. Easy to swallow camels when the going gets tough, Hector can vouch for that.
    BadAxe2, WC'ed L631B115 Xeon3060 3.4GHz 1.27v summer OC, 2GB BallistiX 4:5,
    2x250GB-16 Raid-0 + 400GB-16, 7900GTO 512MB, Acer 22" Wide, Nexus 500W.

  25. #75
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    288
    Does anyone think a step up from a C2D to a Wolfdale is worth it ? I know that there are clock for clock improvements, but is it enough to make C2D users buy them.

Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •