Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

x2 3600+ Brisbane hits 3.1 GHz

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 27, 2007 2:57:48 PM

For those who were wondering the folks at AMDZone managed to get their 1.9GHz 3600+ to run stably at 3.1GHz with 1.48V and the retail HSF.

Linkage!

Looking at this result makes me think that Barcelona will do 80% OC. I mean Brisbane is just a shrink where Kuma will be from the ground up 65nm with all of that DSL stuff showing off it's ability.

We'll see though. Since AMD did mention 1.8x faster per dual core, they obviously have the mobile version of Barcelona up and running to compare directly to Windsor.

AMD hasn't been talking a lot about mobile lately but the last word was that mobile and server would hit at the same time.

I am actually of the opinion that mobile should hit first since it is said that mobile revenue will overtake desktop this year.

More about : 3600 brisbane hits ghz

January 27, 2007 3:04:48 PM

Quote:
For those who were wondering the folks at AMDZone managed to get their 1.9GHz 3600+ to run stably at 3.1GHz with 1.48V and the retail HSF.

Linkage!

Looking at this result makes me think that Barcelona will do 80% OC. I mean Brisbane is just a shrink where Kuma will be from the ground up 65nm with all of that DSL stuff showing off it's ability.

We'll see though. Since AMD did mention 1.8x faster per dual core, they obviously have the mobile version of Barcelona up and running to compare directly to Windsor.

AMD hasn't been talking a lot about mobile lately but the last word was that mobile and server would hit at the same time.

I am actually of the opinion that mobile should hit first since it is said that mobile revenue will overtake desktop this year.


:)  no it won't

Though it is a good OC for this chip.

2.0GHz x 1.8 = 3.6GHz which is not easy for K8L chips :wink:
January 27, 2007 3:09:48 PM

Quote:
For those who were wondering the folks at AMDZone managed to get their 1.9GHz 3600+ to run stably at 3.1GHz with 1.48V and the retail HSF.

Linkage!

Looking at this result makes me think that Barcelona will do 80% OC. I mean Brisbane is just a shrink where Kuma will be from the ground up 65nm with all of that DSL stuff showing off it's ability.

We'll see though. Since AMD did mention 1.8x faster per dual core, they obviously have the mobile version of Barcelona up and running to compare directly to Windsor.

AMD hasn't been talking a lot about mobile lately but the last word was that mobile and server would hit at the same time.

I am actually of the opinion that mobile should hit first since it is said that mobile revenue will overtake desktop this year.


:)  no it won't

Though it is a good OC for this chip.

2.0GHz x 1.8 = 3.6GHz which is not easy for K8L chips :wink:

So first everyone says how can AMD give numbers when it doesn't exist, but now everyone can say with certainty that it can't OC better than Brisbane?
Related resources
January 27, 2007 3:16:42 PM

That's a pretty damn good OC. Like...better than 90nm Opteron good.
January 27, 2007 3:21:54 PM

Quote:
That's a pretty damn good OC. Like...better than 90nm Opteron good.


Definitely. 1.2GHz is HUGE. And they said it stays around 53C. Kuma will do at least as well probably better.
January 27, 2007 3:24:19 PM

Quote:
2.0GHz x 1.8 = 3.6GHz which is not easy for K8L chips :wink:


So first everyone says how can AMD give numbers when it doesn't exist, but now everyone can say with certainty that it can't OC better than Brisbane?[/quote]

So I would not say "2.0GHz x 1.8 = 3.6GHz which is impossible for K8L chips" :wink:
January 27, 2007 3:37:09 PM

Quote:
2.0GHz x 1.8 = 3.6GHz which is not easy for K8L chips :wink:


So first everyone says how can AMD give numbers when it doesn't exist, but now everyone can say with certainty that it can't OC better than Brisbane?

So I would not say "2.0GHz x 1.8 = 3.6GHz which is impossible for K8L chips" :wink:[/quote]

My point was that Brisbane is a shrink. AMD will probably do their usual and go for power conservation over clockspeed but from the papers on 65nm and Kuma being native 65nm, I would think a 15-20% increase in headroom would not be out of the question.
January 27, 2007 3:47:54 PM

Quote:
So I would not say "2.0GHz x 1.8 = 3.6GHz which is impossible for K8L chips" :wink:


My point was that Brisbane is a shrink. AMD will probably do their usual and go for power conservation over clockspeed but from the papers on 65nm and Kuma being native 65nm, I would think a 15-20% increase in headroom would not be out of the question.

Okay, I am a little bit convinced now :wink:
January 27, 2007 3:58:36 PM

Where are the benchmarks?????? Maybe is not that stable as they say. Plus review about a AMD chip from AMDZONE is like a Intel review from Intel themselfs. Thanks Baron, it does look interesting but i'll wait for the benchmarks.
January 27, 2007 4:05:25 PM

Quote:
For quad core, yeah impossible on 65 nm --- for dual core, outside -- skin of their teeth in my opinion.... based on the current revision of 65 nm, it would be impossible.... time will tell how much they can sqeeze from 65 nm.

This is why the high-k announcement is so important.. AMD has the same gate oxide thickness as Intel -- this is why you see 3.0 GHz 6000+ running at TDPs of 120 watts and also why you see (at load) 65 nm AMD CPUs consuming about the same amount of power as Intel's 65 nm CPUs, though AMD uses fewer transistors.


AMDs load power should be a little higher because the IMC takes power. Again, we need to see a native part before making conclusions. Kuma is said to go to 2.9GHz at 89W/65W. Adding L3 and extra FP/SSE4, etc units means the process is rather good natively to remain in the same envelope.

I'm sure the 65W chips will be excellent OCers but I am only speculating based on what I've heard and seen.
January 27, 2007 4:07:46 PM

Like I've said, AMD's first 65nm parts are pretty rough, they're not even including some of the technologies they plan on implementing in "final" 65nm run. It's kind of like the warm-up lap. That fact that someone got a 3600+ to 3.1Ghz impresses the hell out of me.
January 27, 2007 4:09:59 PM

Quote:
AMDs load power should be a little higher because the IMC takes power. Again, we need to see a native part before making conclusions. Kuma is said to go to 2.9GHz at 89W/65W. Adding L3 and extra FP/SSE4, etc units means the process is rather good natively to remain in the same envelope.

I'm sure the 65W chips will be excellent OCers but I am only speculating based on what I've heard and seen.


The lower TDP ones are the worse OCers than the higher TDP ones.
January 27, 2007 4:52:41 PM

Quote:
For those who were wondering the folks at AMDZone managed to get their 1.9GHz 3600+ to run stably at 3.1GHz with 1.48V and the retail HSF.

Guys from AMDZone just provided a screenshoot of CPUz without a CPUz validation! Claims from a HARDCORE BIASED site like AMDZone are credible as much as Shakira's blog.
So, here I am, pushing their Brisbane to 5.95GHz on air:

:lol: 
You know BaronBS, you are full of BS as always! Even if the CPUz screenshot is not fake, running a CPUz does not mean that the CPU is stable. We can say that it runs stably after it will pass 24 hours running two threads of Prime95 CPU torture, combined with RAM stability test.

I wonder what is the ambient temperature, because the system is not in ATX case and the CPU is surrounded with huge fans.


I'll skip commenting about the rest of your BS. Your mega fanboyism, blind optimisam and faithfull expectations about your beloved brand will make you to suffer more. :) 
January 27, 2007 5:01:10 PM

your post was ok, but the last paragraph seemed like poltergeist.
January 27, 2007 6:24:34 PM

Quote:
For those who were wondering the folks at AMDZone managed to get their 1.9GHz 3600+ to run stably at 3.1GHz with 1.48V and the retail HSF.

Guys from AMDZone just provided a screenshoot of CPUz without a CPUz validation! Claims from a HARDCORE BIASED site like AMDZone are credible as much as Shakira's blog.
So, here I am, pushing their Brisbane to 5.95GHz on air:

:lol: 
You know BaronBS, you are full of BS as always! Even if the CPUz screenshot is not fake, running a CPUz does not mean that the CPU is stable. We can say that it runs stably after it will pass 24 hours running two threads of Prime95 CPU torture, combined with RAM stability test.

I wonder what is the ambient temperature, because the system is not in ATX case and the CPU is surrounded with huge fans.


I'll skip commenting about the rest of your BS. Your mega fanboyism, blind optimisam and faithfull expectations about your beloved brand will make you to suffer more. :) 


You're STILL the little kid in your avatar. Your credibility with me DISAPPEARED FOREVER when you used my thumbnail as your avatar you sick stalker.

It will be BS when Kuma doesn't have 15-20%(200MHz/GHz) more headroom - that's just 3.6GHz from 3.0GHz. If AMDZone decided to cheat like that they should go down in flames.
January 27, 2007 6:27:11 PM

Quote:
2.0GHz x 1.8 = 3.6GHz which is not easy for K8L chips :wink:


So first everyone says how can AMD give numbers when it doesn't exist, but now everyone can say with certainty that it can't OC better than Brisbane?

Quote:
So I would not say "2.0GHz x 1.8 = 3.6GHz which is impossible for K8L chips" :wink:


I say you are a brainless idiot !!!

what part of 1.8 times of the PERFORMANCE do you not understand ?!?! your simple school boy theory is based on CLOCK SPEED and we here do not talk about CLOCK SPEED anymore. Just look at the Intel Core 2 Quad vs Core 2 Duo, in some Benchmark it is 2 times the performance than Core 2 Duo but I dont see no Core 2 Quad hits 4.0GHz or higher.

Quote me wrong if you got a source AMD said K8L will be 1.8 times the CLOCK SPEED of K8...

stupid idiots frustrates you and they think they are know all.
January 27, 2007 6:34:52 PM

Quote:
2.0GHz x 1.8 = 3.6GHz which is not easy for K8L chips :wink:


So first everyone says how can AMD give numbers when it doesn't exist, but now everyone can say with certainty that it can't OC better than Brisbane?

Quote:
So I would not say "2.0GHz x 1.8 = 3.6GHz which is impossible for K8L chips" :wink:


I say you are a brainless idiot !!!

what part of 1.8 times of the PERFORMANCE do you not understand ?!?! your simple school boy theory is based on CLOCK SPEED and we here do not talk about CLOCK SPEED anymore. Just look at the Intel Core 2 Quad vs Core 2 Duo, in some Benchmark it is 2 times the performance than Core 2 Duo but I dont see no Core 2 Quad hits 4.0GHz or higher.

Quote me wrong if you got a source AMD said K8L will be 1.8 times the CLOCK SPEED of K8...

stupid idiots frustrates you and they think they are know all.
They were talking about overclocking headroom.
January 27, 2007 6:48:31 PM

Quote:
You're STILL the little kid in your avatar.

Yes, I want to be a kid. Is there any problem?

Quote:
Your credibility with me DISAPPEARED FOREVER when you used my thumbnail as your avatar you sick stalker.
I really don't care if you are going to respect me or not. Because you cry, I'll refresh your memory: you used to insult me, my nationality and my country, before I started falming you.

Quote:
It will be BS when Kuma doesn't have 15-20%(200MHz/GHz) more headroom - that's just 3.6GHz from 3.0GHz.

You can't stop BS-ing!


Quote:
If AMDZone decided to cheat like that they should go down in flames.
No! It will destroy Shakira's, Shitcentia's, 9nm's, LameNoobMike's and your life.
January 27, 2007 7:43:15 PM

Its this another flame thread? I can be bothered to scroll beyond Barons reply.
January 27, 2007 9:29:06 PM

Quote:
Can't we all just get along? :lol:  Actually I have to give props to Baron for accepting the possibility that the results could have been faked like he did and not cling on to the article like it was gospel. Just this once I say we give him a little bit of a break and cut him a tiny bit of slack.


Flame On. My day is not defined by your response to me or acceptance of me.
January 27, 2007 9:33:07 PM

Quote:
You're STILL the little kid in your avatar.

Yes, I want to be a kid. Is there any problem?

Quote:
Your credibility with me DISAPPEARED FOREVER when you used my thumbnail as your avatar you sick stalker.
I really don't care if you are going to respect me or not. Because you cry, I'll refresh your memory: you used to insult me, my nationality and my country, before I started falming you.

Quote:
It will be BS when Kuma doesn't have 15-20%(200MHz/GHz) more headroom - that's just 3.6GHz from 3.0GHz.

You can't stop BS-ing!


Quote:
If AMDZone decided to cheat like that they should go down in flames.
No! It will destroy Shakira's, Shitcentia's, 9nm's, LameNoobMike's and your life.


I said sarcastically that I was surprised you had electricity in your cave in Macedonia. How is that an attack on anything but you, gDODO?
a c 99 à CPUs
January 27, 2007 10:53:59 PM

Three things:

1. Does Windows do a per-window screenshot of is it simply a full-screen dump? If it is the latter, one would have to crop the rest out to get just the CPU-Z window. That would require something like The GIMP or Photoshop.

2. 3.1 GHz on the chip sounds believable. CPU-Z verified shots from other sites have seen the Brisbane 4000+ do about 2900-3000 MHz. AMDzone only got 3-6% better, so it's entirely possible that their chip in fact did do 3.1 GHz. It was a very recently-produced chip and as we all know, AMD and Intel tweak with their processes over the runs. Also, perhaps AMDzone just got a chip that was like one of the CCBWE Opteron 165s and was from a batch that was more OC-friendly than other batches. Now if they'd gotten something like 3.3 GHz or better, I'd be suspicious, but 3.1 seems very likely.

3. I do frequent AMDzone occasionally and knowing them, I don't think they would lie. They are certainly a fan site, but if you sift through the forums and reviews, you'll see they try to get the facts right (even if they might - okay, do- spin them.) If the chip didn't overclock to 3.1 and hit the same 2.9 or 3.0 or whatever the other guys got, they would have published it anyway and talked more about how it would be a good, cheap overclocking CPU.
January 27, 2007 11:24:31 PM

Quote:
Hahaha! :lol: 
Their OC-ed Brisbane CPUz picture is PHOTOSHOPED! :tongue:

http://www.amdzone.com/pics/cpus/athlon64/65nm/x23600+brisbane/3600+oc.jpg
Download the image from their site and open it as a ASCII/text doucment. You'll reveal the secret behind their OC:
"Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0"


You're fcuking shitting me!

Are you certain they photoshopped it? That's a pretty serious accusation, and if true, this has immense implications on what (little) credibility they have left as a (fanboy) site.
January 27, 2007 11:24:41 PM

Quote:
Two things:

1. Does Windows do a per-window screenshot of is it simply a full-screen dump? If it is the latter, one would have to crop the rest out to get just the CPU-Z window. That would require something like The GIMP or Photoshop.

2. 3.1 GHz on the chip sounds believable. CPU-Z verified shots from other sites have seen the Brisbane 4000+ do about 2900-3000 MHz. AMDzone only got 3-6% better, so it's entirely possible that their chip in fact did do 3.1 GHz. It was a very recently-produced chip and as we all know, AMD and Intel tweak with their processes over the runs. Also, perhaps AMDzone just got a chip that was like one of the CCBWE Opteron 165s and was from a batch that was more OC-friendly than other batches. Now if they'd gotten something like 3.3 GHz or better, I'd be suspicious, but 3.1 seems very likely.

3. I do frequent AMDzone occasionally and knowing them, I don't think they would lie. They are certainly a fan site, but if you sift through the forums and reviews, you'll see they try to get the facts right (even if they might - okay, do- spin them.) If the chip didn't overclock to 3.1 and hit the same 2.9 or 3.0 or whatever the other guys got, they would have published it anyway and talked more about how it would be a good, cheap overclocking CPU.


two things

1


2


3

lol
January 27, 2007 11:49:05 PM

Quote:
They were talking about overclocking headroom.


But they did not mean 1.8x overclock potential. I doubt AMD or Intel would publicly announce their processor's OC potentials anyhow.

So doesn't matter what they were talking about "2.0GHz x 1.8x = 3.6GHz" is just simply stupid way of understanding.[/quote]
January 27, 2007 11:55:02 PM

Quote:
Two things:

1. Does Windows do a per-window screenshot of is it simply a full-screen dump? If it is the latter, one would have to crop the rest out to get just the CPU-Z window. That would require something like The GIMP or Photoshop.

2. 3.1 GHz on the chip sounds believable. CPU-Z verified shots from other sites have seen the Brisbane 4000+ do about 2900-3000 MHz. AMDzone only got 3-6% better, so it's entirely possible that their chip in fact did do 3.1 GHz. It was a very recently-produced chip and as we all know, AMD and Intel tweak with their processes over the runs. Also, perhaps AMDzone just got a chip that was like one of the CCBWE Opteron 165s and was from a batch that was more OC-friendly than other batches. Now if they'd gotten something like 3.3 GHz or better, I'd be suspicious, but 3.1 seems very likely.

3. I do frequent AMDzone occasionally and knowing them, I don't think they would lie. They are certainly a fan site, but if you sift through the forums and reviews, you'll see they try to get the facts right (even if they might - okay, do- spin them.) If the chip didn't overclock to 3.1 and hit the same 2.9 or 3.0 or whatever the other guys got, they would have published it anyway and talked more about how it would be a good, cheap overclocking CPU.



1. Both. If you do Alt-PrtScr you get the active window.

2. The FX70 OC'd to 3.1GHz.

3. They would have to know that soemone ould find out. I doubt they'll be the only site to try to OC the chip.


I expect to see more reviews next week, so we'll see.
January 27, 2007 11:56:31 PM

I think someone said that SiGe hasn't been implimented in the first run of 65nm. Perhaps they added it to this fresh run. If not, I think someone will get a nice surprise when they buy a 65nm part in a month or two and it clocks to 3.4Ghz, heh.
January 28, 2007 12:25:00 AM

Quote:
Hahaha! :lol: 
Their OC-ed Brisbane CPUz picture is PHOTOSHOPED! :tongue:

http://www.amdzone.com/pics/cpus/athlon64/65nm/x23600+brisbane/3600+oc.jpg
Download the image from their site and open it as a ASCII/text doucment. You'll reveal the secret behind their OC:
"Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0"


You're fcuking shitting me!

Are you certain they photoshopped it? That's a pretty serious accusation, and if true, this has immense implications on what (little) credibility they have left as a (fanboy) site.
gOJDO, you seem unusually biased against AMD! What I mean by that is, http://www.legitreviews.com/images/reviews/226/default....
Take a look at that, open it as a text document, and you'll see they used Adobe too? Why? To make a fraud? No I tell you, they did it because they took a screenshot and had to cut the Cpu-Z part out of it.
a c 99 à CPUs
January 28, 2007 12:48:11 AM

I added 3. as an afterthought :oops: 
January 28, 2007 3:58:00 AM

Alt+Print Screen works also to focus on single windows.
January 28, 2007 8:29:00 AM

Quote:
I added 3. as an afterthought :oops: 



easy done my friend, to be honest me and the wife were out last night and i was pretty wasted, so when i was reading the forums before bed and seen your post it really tickled my funny bone. Probably not as funny for a lot of sober forum members lol
January 28, 2007 4:55:32 PM

Without a CPUz validation, I consider the CPUz image from AMDZone as fake.
January 28, 2007 5:07:35 PM

Quote:
Without a CPUz validation, I consider the CPUz image from AMDZone as fake.

why?
January 28, 2007 5:19:50 PM

Because AMDZone is one of the most extremly AMD-biased sites. They have spreaded a lot of FUD and missinformations.
January 28, 2007 5:59:58 PM

Quote:
Hahaha! :lol: 
Their OC-ed Brisbane CPUz picture is PHOTOSHOPED! :tongue:

http://www.amdzone.com/pics/cpus/athlon64/65nm/x23600+brisbane/3600+oc.jpg
Download the image from their site and open it as a ASCII/text doucment. You'll reveal the secret behind their OC:
"Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0"


it might be and it at same time might NOT BE fake..
some people like me, or people who use very big resolutions, do use photoshop or other program to reduce the screenshots's resolution smaller, to upload to websites.
thus hence the Adobe code in the jpg information.

*edit*
Considering what jack said, that pic must be BS then o_O
January 28, 2007 6:02:21 PM

Quote:
BM I love how you get the little kiddies all riled up. Keep up the good work!
Its not your fault they cheated, you were just posting new info that you read. No biggie!


We haven't yet established that. I will go to the site and ask.
January 28, 2007 6:14:58 PM

Bit-Tech.net CPU-Z screenshot




Tom's CPU-Z screenshot



AMDZone's CPU-Z screenshot




Can you see a difference in these?
January 28, 2007 6:21:46 PM

Why is the Bit-tech voltage so much higher than the THG?
January 28, 2007 6:26:19 PM

Quote:
Bit-Tech.net CPU-Z screenshot




Tom's CPU-Z screenshot



AMDZone's CPU-Z screenshot




Can you see a difference in these?

Hell yes!
The first two are 5000+ at 2.6GHz stock freqfency with X13 multiplier.
First was OC-ed +17%(at 1.488v), or 400Mhz more than stock.
The second was OC-ed +15.38%(at 1.392v) or 442MHz more than stock.

The third is a 3600+ at 1.9GHz stock freqfency with X9.5 multiplier.
Guys from AMDZone are claiming that they have OC-ed it +63.47%(at 1.488v), or 1206MHz more than stock.

According to AMDZone 3600+ is OC-ing 4 times more in % or 3 times more in MHz than 5600+.
January 28, 2007 6:43:57 PM

Quote:
Why is the Bit-tech voltage so much higher than the THG?


I would say because this is a OC screenshot. OCing from 2.6GHz may require more V than the lower clock chip.
January 28, 2007 6:47:43 PM

Quote:
Why is the Bit-tech voltage so much higher than the THG?


I would say because this is a OC screenshot. OCing from 2.6GHz may require more V than the lower clock chip.

They are both 5000+ OCed to about the same point, within a few Mhz of each other.
January 28, 2007 7:01:04 PM

Quote:
Why is the Bit-tech voltage so much higher than the THG?


I would say because this is a OC screenshot. OCing from 2.6GHz may require more V than the lower clock chip.

They are both 5000+ OCed to about the same point, within a few Mhz of each other.


Then I would say that YMMV.
January 28, 2007 7:04:19 PM

Quote:
They are both 5000+ OCed to about the same point, within a few Mhz of each other.

This should in no way be interpretted as having identical OC characteristics. :wink:
January 28, 2007 7:36:28 PM

Maybe the data presented here is questionable, maybe it's legit. Either way, you have to give BM some credit here. He's toned down as of late. Heck, earlier today, in another post, he even recommended an Intel chip to a prospective system builder.
January 28, 2007 7:57:19 PM

Quote:
I added 3. as an afterthought :oops: 


You overclocked your post by 50%.
January 28, 2007 8:04:56 PM

Dude that's l33t.
January 29, 2007 4:44:10 AM

Wow. In 8.5 years of doing this I've never had this much time with the elite TG forumz. Why the z exactly? Anyway, when I'm trying to drop the size of an image, and converting it to jpg from bitmap, I gasp, use Photoshop.

http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News...

Of course the bitmap is there. And credibility? There is very little of it in this thread. Some of you seem to have forgotten much of history of hardware sites, or you are too big of newbs to know better. Anyway, come by Tek Republik, and I'll gladly demo it for you. Anything else to say?
!