Core i7 920 rev D0 stepping 5 :)

[NBF]

To post a screen shot and act like it's all kosher and that it is actually running at those speeds/volts is what sparks the imagination in riots of idiots who believe anything they read. Do you know how many forums are linking this thread and the kind of conversations that are going on about it?

This is not retail, and ES chips should never be shown to the public in the first place because indeed none of us are going to own a chip like that unless we obtain in illegally.

thread = fail....yank it.

I respect how you feel about it, but the OT shouldnt be blamed for what others imaginate from his screenshots IMHO.

All I see in his screens is that he has an ES D0 chip that runs 3dmark06 with 100MHz higher clock than my best C0 on air.

[dejanh]

Just for comparison sake I decided to do a quick max BCLK run on my 940 using the R2E board. For some reason even when I set the BCLK to 222MHz CPUZ still shows it at 220.8MHz, and TurboV (silly Asus tweaking tool) shows it as 221MHz. Either way, it's set at 222MHz x 15 and boots with 3.33GHz. I just randomly picked a voltage of 1.10625V (LLC is not enabled).

Should this be impressive (see screenshot)? Based on what everyone is making out the D0 to be it should...

The point is, this D0, there is nothing to it. It just creates a false impression that the chip is amazing. Realistically, there is nothing different we are seeing here than with a C0. Max BCLK/QPI clock is either restricted by the CPU or by X58 IOH. Not sure which one, and we won't really know until maybe the B-3 X58 revision is out to put this to the test with its IOH improvements. I believe Saaya had a good theory on QPI limitation being tied to the X58. Only a lower multiplier for QPI will at this point allow higher BCLK speeds and I think this was known about a week after i7 came out. I posted about it way back as well. Some boards do a bit better job, like the DFI, but most will top out (99.9%) at 220MHz-222MHz, or basically 4GHz QPI (8GT/s).

[PcCI2iminal]

Should this be impressive (see screenshot)? Based on what everyone is making out the D0 to be it should...

The point is, this D0, there is nothing to it. It just creates a false impression that the chip is amazing. Realistically, there is nothing different we are seeing here than with a C0. Max BCLK/QPI clock is either restricted by the CPU or by X58 IOH. Not sure which one, and we won't really know until maybe the B-3 X58 revision is out to put this to the test with its IOH improvements. I believe Saaya had a good theory on QPI limitation being tied to the X58. Only a lower multiplier for QPI will at this point allow higher BCLK speeds and I think this was known about a week after i7 came out. I posted about it way back as well. Some boards do a bit better job, like the DFI, but most will top out (99.9%) at 220MHz-222MHz, or basically 4GHz QPI (8GT/s).

of course im not sure but i believe the max bclock is restricted by the mobo,bios maybe ,i never reached more than 222bclock with any cpu and i tried to push it hard with tons of Core i7(retail and ES) but I only used three good boards(Tpower ,RE2 and Gigabyte Extreme)

[dejanh]

What board gives the 22 multi on 4 cores?

Technically, all should if the rest of the cores are idle i.e. powered down due to C-state transitions. I have never managed to recreate this on the R2E though with 4 i7 940s unless I physically disable all but one core.

of course im not sure but i believe the max bclock is restricted by the mobo,bios maybe ,i never reached more than 222bclock with any cpu and i tried to push it hard with tons of Core i7(retail and ES) but I only used three good boards(Tpower ,RE2 and Gigabyte Extreme)

I'm quite sure that it's the X58 chipset. My second bet is the CPU itself, but I find this a bit less likely now. Keep in mind that we are talking about many different motherboards, and many different chips, and 99.9% have the same BCLK limit, and the only thing that is consistently common between them is the X58 chipset.

I would not be surprised if the new B-3 revision of X58 allowed higher BCLK though we won't know until sometime after mid-May I think.

D0 is supposed to bring a few things to the table:

1) More consistent overclocks (no large variations in overclocking ability like with C0 chips where some can do only 3.8GHz and others can do 4.6GHz).
2) Slightly lower voltages for same clocks.
3) More balanced temperatures (related to voltages above).

Generally, D0 will not do much for improving the overclocking ability unless D0 was based on the best of the best of C0 in which case most D0 will clock better than an average C0.

[PcCI2iminal]

I would not be surprised if the new B-3 revision of X58 allowed higher BCLK though we won't know until sometime after mid-May I think.
D0 is supposed to bring a few things to the table:

1) More consistent overclocks (no large variations in overclocking ability like with C0 chips where some can do only 3.8GHz and others can do 4.6GHz).
2) Slightly lower voltages for same clocks.
3) More balanced temperatures (related to voltages above).

Generally, D0 will not do much for improving the overclocking ability unless D0 was based on the best of the best of C0 in which case most D0 will clock better than an average C0.

i think the Intel is working for improving the overclocking ability , things have changed since AMD reached more than 6Ghz with their cheap quad

[dejanh]

i think the Intel is working for improving the overclocking ability , things have changed since AMD reached more than 6Ghz with their cheap quad

What this implies then is that in order to regain its throne as the king of OC Intel will blantantly EOL their 940 and 965 chips to replace them with much better i7 chips based off of D0 stepping. If they do that, I will make them replace my chip if it's the last thing I do.

Not to even mention that would be the biggest show of disrespect for the consumer I have ever seen.

I somehow find this outcome very hard to believe. I would have no issue with them keeping the specs and names on the 940/965 and improving the OC ability slightly compared to C0, but a new chip with new upper multiplier limit is just bull.

[Zucker2k]

What this implies then is that in order to regain its throne as the king of OC Intel will blantantly EOL their 940 and 965 chips to replace them with much better i7 chips based off of D0 stepping. If they do that, I will make them replace my chip if it's the last thing I do.

Not to even mention that would be the biggest show of disrespect for the consumer I have ever seen.

I somehow find this outcome very hard to believe. I would have no issue with them keeping the specs and names on the 940/965 and improving the OC ability slightly compared to C0, but a new chip with new upper multiplier limit is just bull.

Dude, how long have you been in this habit of overclocking? You're hilarious. Oh, you owe PcCI2Iminal an apology for crapping his thread. My God, since when did a guy have to apologize for showing pre-released hardware on XS. Y'all need to take a chill pill and be more appreciative of the fact that you belong in a forum where members get their hands on the new toys far more consistently than other forums.

[Fafeifa]

What this implies then is that in order to regain its throne as the king of OC Intel will blantantly EOL their 940 and 965 chips to replace them with much better i7 chips based off of D0 stepping. If they do that, I will make them replace my chip if it's the last thing I do.

Not to even mention that would be the biggest show of disrespect for the consumer I have ever seen.

I somehow find this outcome very hard to believe. I would have no issue with them keeping the specs and names on the 940/965 and improving the OC ability slightly compared to C0, but a new chip with new upper multiplier limit is just bull.

The Core i7 950 will replace the current 940 so the 975 due in may with an higher multiplier. So what i gather from your post is that intel should stick with i7 forever so your system is top for the next 3 yrs . I bought a opty 3 yrs ago and the next 6 month conroe came out and beat the pants off my AMD. This is how the technology market works, if you don't like it go back to your 486. If you wanna stay on top then be prepare to spend money every 3 month or so.

[zlojack]

Technically, all should if the rest of the cores are idle i.e. powered down due to C-state transitions. I have never managed to recreate this on the R2E though with 4 i7 940s unless I physically disable all but one core.

The same is true for my EVGA X58 and my former GA-X58-UD5. If I disable three cores in bios, I get 22 with Turbo on.

I just thought they'd figured out a way to trick it into 22x multithreaded which is why I asked but I see that's not the case.

[PcCI2iminal]

The same is true for my EVGA X58 and my former GA-X58-UD5. If I disable three cores in bios, I get 22 with Turbo on.

I just thought they'd figured out a way to trick it into 22x multithreaded which is why I asked but I see that's not the case.

but why you need multi threaded 22x?22x is only good for single thread ,the others 3 cores will work at 20x and you need lots of vcore just to get the 22x core stable with high bclock

[zlojack]

but why you need multi threaded 22x?22x is only good for single thread ,the others 3 cores will work at 20x and you need lots of vcore just to get the 22x core stable with high bclock

Well, if I could have a 22 multi with a multithreaded workload on an i7 920 I'd take it

But I know it's not possible. What I'm confused about is, I was under the impression that you get 22 ,(and effectively) 0,0,0 or 21,21,21,21 with turbo on.

At least, on the two boards I've owned, the only way to see 22 is to turn off 3 cores.

Maybe I'm not understanding it properly. I've always said I have just enough knowledge to be dangerous, but not quite enough to know what I'm doing