Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 69

Thread: new way to play with Phenom X4: 4 cores, 4 frequencies!

  1. #1
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    324

    new way to play with Phenom X4: 4 cores, 4 frequencies!

    We know that in Nov.15 HD 3800 will begin to sell. But we still don't know that RD790 and Phenom X4 will come out earlier(than the AMD plan) or not.

    Here is some news that every AMD fanboy would like:

    AMD is developing a software called "AMD overdrive" .Just like nTune,it can adjust different system values. It's interesting that we find out the software can adjust multiple frequencies of different cores independently.

    Personally I think that's good news for people that cares about the total power consumptions of their computers. They can just turn off some cores while they are watching DVDrips.



    source(finally, the site loves FF now):http://www.expreview.com/news/hard/2...3419d6698.html
    Last edited by cookerjc; 10-30-2007 at 11:09 PM.

  2. #2
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Rochester, NY / RIT
    Posts
    104
    This will be useful when playing with core affinity.

  3. #3
    D.F.I Pimp Daddy
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Still Lost At The Dead Show Parking Lot
    Posts
    5,182
    Not to be disrespectful but whats up with you're Avatar? Looks like you have a cap from a Salt Shaker on dudes head
    SuperMicro X8SAX
    Xeon 5620
    12GB - Crucial ECC DDR3 1333
    Intel 520 180GB Cherryville
    Areca 1231ML ~ 2~ 250GB Seagate ES.2 ~ Raid 0 ~ 4~ Hitachi 5K3000 2TB ~ Raid 6 ~

  4. #4
    Did anybody notice the 3.3GHz overclock on core 3?

    And 3.2 on core 2 as well

  5. #5
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Lancaster, PA
    Posts
    3,814
    That's one of the guys from Daft Punk.

    This could be useful. How many of us have had a core that just won't go past a certain speed while the others will go another 100-200mhz?
    Last edited by [XC] DragonOrta; 10-30-2007 at 11:26 PM.
    A wolf in wolves clothing.

  6. #6
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Esau View Post
    Not to be disrespectful but whats up with you're Avatar? Looks like you have a cap from a Salt Shaker on dudes head

  7. #7
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by [XC] DragonOrta View Post
    This could be useful. How many of us have had a core that just won't go past a certain speed while the others will go another 100-200mhz?
    this will be a nice feature for sure. but it would be kinda annoying if your core1/2 hits significantly lower clocks than your core3/4 - and you're playing games that are only optimized for 1 or 2 cores hehe.
    in this case it would be cool to change the order the cores are used =D (or is that already possible somehow?)
    1. Asus P5Q-E / Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @~3612 MHz (8,5x425) / 2x2GB OCZ Platinum XTC (PC2-8000U, CL5) / EVGA GeForce GTX 570 / Crucial M4 128GB, WD Caviar Blue 640GB, WD Caviar SE16 320GB, WD Caviar SE 160GB / be quiet! Dark Power Pro P7 550W / Thermaltake Tsunami VA3000BWA / LG L227WT / Teufel Concept E Magnum 5.1 // SysProfile


    2. Asus A8N-SLI / AMD Athlon 64 4000+ @~2640 MHz (12x220) / 1024 MB Corsair CMX TwinX 3200C2, 2.5-3-3-6 1T / Club3D GeForce 7800GT @463/1120 MHz / Crucial M4 64GB, Hitachi Deskstar 40GB / be quiet! Blackline P5 470W

  8. #8
    I am Xtreme zanzabar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SF bay area, CA
    Posts
    15,871
    Quote Originally Posted by [XC] DragonOrta View Post
    That's one of the guys from Daft Punk.

    This could be useful. How many of us have had a core that just won't go past a certain speed while the others will go another 100-200mhz?
    but what will that do to teh memory controller since its linked to frequency and not the htt and it has 2 (1 for each channel) so this looks like it could have strange consequences, and i dont see a voltage per core so that could also be a problem since if u have a high voltage at low speed its much hotter than the high voltage at what ur oc is like when u oc with c&Q
    5930k, R5E, samsung 8GBx4 d-die, vega 56, wd gold 8TB, wd 4TB red, 2TB raid1 wd blue 5400
    samsung 840 evo 500GB, HP EX 1TB NVME , CM690II, swiftech h220, corsair 750hxi

  9. #9
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    4,308
    Quote Originally Posted by RaZz! View Post
    this will be a nice feature for sure. but it would be kinda annoying if your core1/2 hits significantly lower clocks than your core3/4 - and you're playing games that are only optimized for 1 or 2 cores hehe.
    in this case it would be cool to change the order the cores are used =D (or is that already possible somehow?)
    That's the idea of setting affinity. Of course that would be a pain in the arse to set all the time but I'm sure we'll see a nifty software that would make this much easier. But perhaps we also see some software from AMD or some1 else yet that allows you to specify in which order the cores should be utilized, then disabling cores wouldn't be required.

    If core 2 and 4 for example clocks significantly higher you would use those by setting affinity to core 2 and 4 and turn of the others. This is useful though only as long as things doesn't improve over 2 cores. Well you could also of course do the same for single threaded apps, just use the core that clocks highest and for apps that would use 3 cores you could at least disable the core that clocks worst.

    So yea independent core frequency adjustment is a quite nice feature. It will give you better chance of reaching better results in a non 4-core utilizing application vs a normal quad core CPU without this feature.

    So except power consumption saving it should give a garantuee of slightly better performance in apps that utilizes no more than 3 cores max as long as it's not core4 that is the worst clocking core. Should also be quite interesting to see how much the max clock results varies between the cores on the same CPU.
    Last edited by RPGWiZaRD; 10-31-2007 at 12:34 AM.
    Intel? Core i5-4670K @ 4.3 GHz | ASRock Extreme6 Z87 | G.Skill Sniper 2x8GB @ DDR4-1866 CL9 | Gigabyte GTX 970 OC Windforce 3x | Super Flower Titanium 1000W | ViewSonic VX2268wm 120Hz LCD | Phanteks PH-TC14PE | Logitech MX-518 | Win 7 x64 Professional | Samsung 850 EVO & 840 Pro SSDs

    If all people would share opinions in an objective manner, the world would be a friendlier place

  10. #10
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ithaca, ny
    Posts
    2,431
    cool. it'd be nice if some of the cores suck but others overclock well
    E8400 8x500=4000 | ABIT IP35-E
    2x2GB Tracer PC2-6400 1:1 500MHz 5-5-5-15 2.0V
    Galaxy 8800GT 800/2000/1100 1.3V | 80GB X25-M G2 + 1.5TB 7200.11 | XFiXG
    Fuzion | MCW60 | DDC2+Petra | Coolrad22T+BIP1

    Merom 13x133=1733 1MB L2 0.950V

  11. #11
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    'Zona
    Posts
    2,346
    Quote Originally Posted by zanzabar View Post
    but what will that do to teh memory controller since its linked to frequency and not the htt and it has 2 (1 for each channel) so this looks like it could have strange consequences, and i dont see a voltage per core so that could also be a problem since if u have a high voltage at low speed its much hotter than the high voltage at what ur oc is like when u oc with c&Q
    Independent clocks and voltages for all you mentioned, so that won't be a problem.

  12. #12
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Esau View Post
    Not to be disrespectful but whats up with you're Avatar? Looks like you have a cap from a Salt Shaker on dudes head
    cat > new ava

    on-topic: that's an interesting feature. but what is the use of it? if you got a software that uses all cores the slowest will be the one that counts.
    on the other hand, maybe one core just bails out at a lower clock and then you can overclock the others higher and have an improvement in single-core applications.

    we will see what this will bring. this should be the biggest advantage for energy saving though. two cores run at 100% and the other two are bored so they can clock down.
    Notice any grammar or spelling mistakes? Feel free to correct me! Thanks

  13. #13
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,125
    Well core affinity helps make sure that certain cores aren't used if they aren't needed.

    Anyways, I guess with the split power planes and all that, handling the overclocks of separate cores shouldn't be a problem.

  14. #14
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by LordEC911 View Post
    Independent clocks and voltages for all you mentioned, so that won't be a problem.
    No independent voltages - only clocks.

    Quote Originally Posted by FischOderAal View Post
    cat > new ava

    on-topic: that's an interesting feature. but what is the use of it? if you got a software that uses all cores the slowest will be the one that counts.
    on the other hand, maybe one core just bails out at a lower clock and then you can overclock the others higher and have an improvement in single-core applications.

    we will see what this will bring. this should be the biggest advantage for energy saving though. two cores run at 100% and the other two are bored so they can clock down.
    Needs to be seen and compared to overclocked Yorkfield.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,014
    look at the multiplier settings, and how far it still can go

    locked chips when you buys tehm, but unlocked with this prog

  16. #16
    Xtreme Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    17,242
    now that's VERY cool
    Team.AU
    Got tube?
    GIGABYTE Australia
    Need a GIGABYTE bios or support?



  17. #17
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,462
    Quote Originally Posted by kl0012 View Post
    No independent voltages - only clocks.
    and what about the "split power lines"? if you can't adjust the voltages of each core this wouldn't make any sense.
    Notice any grammar or spelling mistakes? Feel free to correct me! Thanks

  18. #18
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by FischOderAal View Post
    and what about the "split power lines"? if you can't adjust the voltages of each core this wouldn't make any sense.
    Sorry to disappoint you, but split power lines are only for HT and cores. Which mean one voltage for cores and other voltage for HT.

    http://multicore.amd.com/us-en/AMD-M...fficiency.aspx
    Last edited by kl0012; 10-31-2007 at 01:43 AM.

  19. #19
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,462
    damn it. thanks for the info though. then the energy saving effect isn't that big if two of the cores run at 100% and the others clock down...
    Notice any grammar or spelling mistakes? Feel free to correct me! Thanks

  20. #20
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    7,747
    Without affirmity. Any OS will jump around on the different cores. So unless you are crunching or that style. You would end up with a changing speed in games.

    Also note this could lead to severe TSC issues for those still using software. Mentalray is one of them as an example.
    Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.

  21. #21
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,341
    Quote Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD View Post
    That's the idea of setting affinity. Of course that would be a pain in the arse to set all the time but I'm sure we'll see a nifty software that would make this much easier. But perhaps we also see some software from AMD or some1 else yet that allows you to specify in which order the cores should be utilized, then disabling cores wouldn't be required.

    If core 2 and 4 for example clocks significantly higher you would use those by setting affinity to core 2 and 4 and turn of the others. This is useful though only as long as things doesn't improve over 2 cores. Well you could also of course do the same for single threaded apps, just use the core that clocks highest and for apps that would use 3 cores you could at least disable the core that clocks worst.

    So yea independent core frequency adjustment is a quite nice feature. It will give you better chance of reaching better results in a non 4-core utilizing application vs a normal quad core CPU without this feature.

    So except power consumption saving it should give a garantuee of slightly better performance in apps that utilizes no more than 3 cores max as long as it's not core4 that is the worst clocking core. Should also be quite interesting to see how much the max clock results varies between the cores on the same CPU.
    yep, i know some folks that are working on affinity prog, would be nice if you can select a list of program 's that default run on different cpu.
    Quote Originally Posted by Movieman View Post
    Fanboyitis..
    Comes in two variations and both deadly.
    There's the green strain and the blue strain on CPU.. There's the red strain and the green strain on GPU..

  22. #22
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    384
    Mhh.. Interesting development...
    Oh blah?

  23. #23
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    There's no place like 127.0.0.1, Brazil
    Posts
    888
    Awesome... Me, an addicted to power consuption will love this tool

  24. #24
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    881
    That is a nice concept, but it makes oc'ing so much more time consuming. Now we need to test each core for stability (8hr P95 x 4?), then after we found the max speed for each core we need to test all of them at their highest speed for stability (another 8 hrs).

  25. #25
    naokaji
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by awdrifter View Post
    That is a nice concept, but it makes oc'ing so much more time consuming. Now we need to test each core for stability (8hr P95 x 4?), then after we found the max speed for each core we need to test all of them at their highest speed for stability (another 8 hrs).
    i see it more as a nice compormise between sacrificing max clock with all 4 cores on and having to disable cores...

    but maybe thats just me

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •