Overclockers says Penryn no OCer?

Good ol StrollinHo is back. This time with his impressions on the OCability of Penryn.

Feel free to flame. He usually does things like this in regards to AMD. Does that mean there's something to it?

Linakge!
36 answers Last reply
More about overclockers penryn ocer
  1. I understand the logic that a 400mhz fsb sounds like it will be hard to OC. On the other hand though, he fails to mention the benefits of high K. It sounds to me like the guy is basing his entire opinion of the new processor on the fact that it is shipping with a 400mhz FSB.

    I think that all other signs point to Penryn being a very good OC'er, but in the end we will just have to wait and see. I think we will find out how well Penryn OC's before we see any benches on Barcelona though.
  2. I think 1600MHz FSB is reserved just for Xeons.
    Desktop parts should be shipping with 1333 FSB
  3. I'm curious to know if intel keeps pushing the fsb closer to its limits to deter people from taking low end chips and overclocking them to a higher end levels (which seems more common with c2d than any other cpu in history), expecting people to overclock with their high end chip which will probably be the only one with an unlocked multiplier.
  4. Quote:
    Good ol StrollinHo is back. This time with his impressions on the OCability of Penryn.

    Feel free to flame. He usually does things like this in regards to AMD. Does that mean there's something to it?

    Linakge!



    "Of course, we don't know how much faster Penryns will be overclocked (remember, this is a new formulation, past performance is not necessarily indicative of the future), and that's the real question for us. "

    What was really said as quoted above was they don't know if it's a problem. Can we move this to the FUD section.
  5. well right now my 680i is running at 1600FSB with ram at 1200...

    so I dont see why next chipsets wonth be able to break that barrier...

    As example, 680i and i think the intel 965 or whatever # it is have reached
    1700+ fsb so OC with actual hardware will be possible, maybe not extreme
    but anyway cpu is not out yet and when it gets out we will have new chipsets that mya have faster fsb for OC....


    like always, every1 is speculating and looking into the future :P :lol2:
  6. Quote:
    Good ol StrollinHo is back. This time with his impressions on the OCability of Penryn.

    Feel free to flame. He usually does things like this in regards to AMD. Does that mean there's something to it?

    Linakge!


    Firstly Mr. Baron, you should be glad the hugely bandwidth starved utterly crippled Core2due chips are finally getting enough bandwidth to begin to perform closer to Athlon x2 levels...

    But seriously, lets say the new bearlake boards can OC to say 600+ mhz (x 4) FSB, given that a lot of the really good 680 and 965 boards will do 500+, this is not a "crazy" guess.

    400 => 600 is a 50% overclock, which prior to the Core2duo was a really good overclock.

    Core2due has just re-written the OC rules, with e6300 often nudging, and if you lucky even exceeding, a 100% overclock.

    100%+ Overclocks will never be the norm, we just have a case where Core2due is sooooo far ahead that the low bin parts are just vastly underclocked versus "normal" economic models.

    If your entry level 3.0 ghz penryn "only" did 4.5 ghz, it's not like, by historical standards, this would be a bad OC :)
  7. That was exactly what i said in one of my posts as soon as those statements where 3.2GHz was 20% faster than 3.0GHz.
  8. Quote:
    Good ol StrollinHo is back. This time with his impressions on the OCability of Penryn.

    Feel free to flame. He usually does things like this in regards to AMD. Does that mean there's something to it?

    Linakge!


    As usual, Baron you misunderstood what Ed was saying..... low mulipliers and high FSB are not the favorite of overclockers because it is more difficult to squeeze MHz out of the system and not the CPU.

    Penryn will OC like Conroe does, the lower end slower FSB/higher multiplier CPUs will go 4 GHz and higher without any issues is my guess.... it is written in the data, with Idsat of 1600+ on the high-K process, this is not only possible, but likely.

    Jack

    Misunderstand must be your favorite word. But maybe only when referring to my posts. Hmmmmmmmm.
  9. Quote:
    Good ol StrollinHo is back. This time with his impressions on the OCability of Penryn.

    Feel free to flame. He usually does things like this in regards to AMD. Does that mean there's something to it?

    Linakge!


    Firstly Mr. Baron, you should be glad the hugely bandwidth starved utterly crippled Core2due chips are finally getting enough bandwidth to begin to perform closer to Athlon x2 levels...

    But seriously, lets say the new bearlake boards can OC to say 600+ mhz (x 4) FSB, given that a lot of the really good 680 and 965 boards will do 500+, this is not a "crazy" guess.

    400 => 600 is a 50% overclock, which prior to the Core2duo was a really good overclock.

    Core2due has just re-written the OC rules, with e6300 often nudging, and if you lucky even exceeding, a 100% overclock.

    100%+ Overclocks will never be the norm, we just have a case where Core2due is sooooo far ahead that the low bin parts are just vastly underclocked versus "normal" economic models.

    If your entry level 3.0 ghz penryn "only" did 4.5 ghz, it's not like, by historical standards, this would be a bad OC :)

    Well, at least I worded this so it didn't sound liek I said it, regardless of what my perceived opinion might be.
  10. You do appear as the most confused poster...
  11. Doesn't really matter with Nehalem coming out next year. It's not like overclockers are really going to hit a serious wall with Intel systems before its release.
  12. penryn will not be special!! maybe a little less power consumption...maybe a little higher clocks/fsb its just throw away technology in the face of k10 (and its successors) and nehalem!!
  13. Quote:
    penryn will not be special!! maybe a little less power consumption...maybe a little higher clocks/fsb its just throw away technology in the face of k10 (and its successors) and nehalem!!


    Arguably not, considering the low clockspeeds of the K10 quad-cores.
  14. Quote:
    well right now my 680i is running at 1600FSB with ram at 1200...

    so I dont see why next chipsets wonth be able to break that barrier...

    As example, 680i and i think the intel 965 or whatever # it is have reached
    1700+ fsb so OC with actual hardware will be possible, maybe not extreme
    but anyway cpu is not out yet and when it gets out we will have new chipsets that mya have faster fsb for OC....


    like always, every1 is speculating and looking into the future :P :lol2:


    That is the stupid point... its always a $700-$800 upgrade between a middle end CPU and a new motherboard. Its ridiculous... They should make chips overclockable with existing hardware. Let people breathe a little.

    You can't have a middle motherboard to overclock a middle cpu to a high end CPU standards. So boards are always FULL PRICE and the most expensive of them all as usual. This nf680i was NOT cheap. Neither was the processor at $313 USED when i bought it. E6600.

    If they pull a stunt like that, that ANOTHER chipset is required for decent performance with the processor I will not upgrade and MOVE to amd again. They have to keep some loyalty to their customers. They have to provide a good upgrade route with current generations of chipsets. If they don't, all they are saying. I am only interested in the money and not my customers and it should be a little bit of both. Every time I buy an intel type motherboard I feel as soon as i bought it... I am already obsolete, and its not fair.
  15. Quote:
    You do appear as the most confused poster...


    Well, you seem to be only looking for justification for your silliness. Isn't it funny how you all jump through hoops to entertain the Brood while I just post news stories and support AMD.
  16. Quote:


    Misunderstand must be your favorite word. But maybe only when referring to my posts. Hmmmmmmmm.


    Hmmmmmmmm ..... perhaps because you are always misunderstanding, though it is clear you do not care to learn why you do not understand, sad really.

    This has nothing to do with the OCability of Penryn, but then you are the head jester with white papers.
  17. I just don't understand your logic. Would you be happier if Intel just stopped releasing products? They are not forcing you to buy a new motherboard or processor. By releasing a newer product, does that somehow make your computer start to run slower?
  18. It's crazy how these processors, as fast as they are clock for clock, overclock as easy as a Netburst cpu lol :lol:

    God I love my E6300
  19. Quote:
    well right now my 680i is running at 1600FSB with ram at 1200...

    so I dont see why next chipsets wonth be able to break that barrier...

    As example, 680i and i think the intel 965 or whatever # it is have reached
    1700+ fsb so OC with actual hardware will be possible, maybe not extreme
    but anyway cpu is not out yet and when it gets out we will have new chipsets that mya have faster fsb for OC....


    like always, every1 is speculating and looking into the future :P :lol2:


    you do realize your FSB is really just 400Mhz quad pumped to 1600Mhz which your board is reporting.

    I have my FSB at 450Mhz, which quad pump reports it as 1800Mhz /CPU 3.6Ghz.

    I have gone as far as 475Mhz which would report as 1900Mhz/CPU 3.8Ghz on the Evga 680i SLI. Keep in mind the 8X multiplier. If my multiplier was higher my FSB would be lower to reach the same speeds.
  20. whatever, isnt this obvious anyway? The more cores you add to something the less you will be able to overclock due to bandwidth issues, its not brain surgery
  21. Quote:
    I think 1600MHz FSB is reserved just for Xeons.
    Desktop parts should be shipping with 1333 FSB

    Exactly. And a little bird told me that Bearlake will do 500MHz easier than Broadwater does 400MHz. :wink:
  22. ohhh, Why would anyone worry so much on the OC'ability of Penryn when nobody has gotten smell, taste, and touch of the BOARD that Penryn is really designed for? Well, my point is that most of us are using current board as reference, evidently someone mentioned the 680 boards. The gist here is that those mobos designed for Penryn is worth another thing to consider, if we put Penryn's whereabout specs on the environment of the current existing mobos around, chances are high that we will find it a layoff.. Current FSB's on existing high-end enthusiast mobos are designed and made with its limit line on the C2D procs lineup - what i mean are the FSB limits achievable. For Penryns' certainly it will be higher FSB walls, a lot higher than any existing high-end enthusiast boards..

    As from the Article; "worry NOW, we'll be confident hitting higher OCs' later" :|
  23. Quote:
    I think 1600MHz FSB is reserved just for Xeons.
    Desktop parts should be shipping with 1333 FSB

    Exactly. And a little bird told me that Bearlake will do 500MHz easier than Broadwater does 400MHz. :wink:

    Maybe I'm missing something but isn't the multiplier more important in determing the max OC potential of the CPU.

    If 1333Mhz is desktop than the FSB is 333Mhz. A CPU with 8X multiplier would be 2.6Ghz+ chip

    But a CPU with a 6X multiplier and 1333Mhz bus or 333Mhz would only be roughly a 2Ghz chip and at 400Mhz would only OC to 2.6Ghz, pretty lame.

    My existing board running 450Mhz FSB or "1800" would only OC that chip to 2.7Ghz as opposed to the 3.6Ghz of my current E6400, making it a bad OC'er

    So whats all the talk of FSB when its the low CPU multipliers that would severely limit the OC potential of the Penryn more than FSB in my opinion.
  24. For an overclocking site, they sure aren't too bright.

    DDR3-1600 anyone?
  25. Quote:
    Good ol StrollinHo is back. This time with his impressions on the OCability of Penryn.

    Feel free to flame. He usually does things like this in regards to AMD. Does that mean there's something to it?

    Linakge!


    As usual, Baron you misunderstood what Ed was saying..... low mulipliers and high FSB are not the favorite of overclockers because it is more difficult to squeeze MHz out of the system and not the CPU.

    Penryn will OC like Conroe does, the lower end slower FSB/higher multiplier CPUs will go 4 GHz and higher without any issues is my guess.... it is written in the data, with Idsat of 1600+ on the high-K process, this is not only possible, but likely.

    Jack
    Oh, so you think there will be a 1067/high-multiplier Penryn? I expect so.
  26. Quote:
    Good ol StrollinHo is back. This time with his impressions on the OCability of Penryn.

    Feel free to flame. He usually does things like this in regards to AMD. Does that mean there's something to it?

    Linakge!



    "Of course, we don't know how much faster Penryns will be overclocked (remember, this is a new formulation, past performance is not necessarily indicative of the future), and that's the real question for us. "

    What was really said as quoted above was they don't know if it's a problem. Can we move this to the FUD section.

    At this point, that is really what it is (FUD). 8 months ago, people had real questions about getting the most OC out of an E6300 as possible. 6 months later, there are a half dozen motherboards (some cheap) that can run an E6300 rock solid at 430-500FSB.

    To do so certainly puts a lot of MHz on the system parts. Can they ramp to 600-800Mhz? How much will a northbridge (or other component) take?
    So, you have that the motherboards have to get better. Assuming they will...

    Then you have to ask "Will Penryn be a greate OCer?". There are no guarantees. Just because the 65nm were great, it doesn't mean the 45nm shrink will also be great. The Conroes/Allendales might be the best to come along for a while to come. We might be scrambling to buy the last of the Conroes if Penryn doesn't OC well or at all, or if motherboards can't be developed to overclock it significantly.

    The real point is there are still quite a few things that have to fall into place before we can say for sure if Penryn is the next Conroe.
  27. What this article is telling me is that Intel believes they have skunked AMD. Right now AMD is little league in comparison and Intel knows it. Heck, even you know it. This next set of Chips will allow Intel to cash in on this skunking.

    With the April Price cuts, I will be able to get a $115 E4300 that can easily outperform a E6800 at stock speeds. This is really not good for Intel's Bottom line. They need the expensive chips to necessarily outperform the lower chips. So, yes, as the article states it is an Anti-OC attempt, at least in part but Intel.

    I have no doubt that Intel have seen extensive Barcelona benchmarks.
    (Somebody will make some $$$ for providing this info to Intel.)

    All this article means is that AMD will not be able to compete.
    This means the the profit margins for Intel will go up.
    This means more R&D.
    This means more uh-oh for AMD.

    Not great for consumers in the future perhaps, but life certainly is good with Intel applying pressure from all sides to AMD.
  28. Quote:
    What this article is telling me is that Intel believes they have skunked AMD. Right now AMD is little league in comparison and Intel knows it. Heck, even you know it. This next set of Chips will allow Intel to cash in on this skunking.

    With the April Price cuts, I will be able to get a $115 E4300 that can easily outperform a E6800 at stock speeds. This is really not good for Intel's Bottom line. They need the expensive chips to necessarily outperform the lower chips. So, yes, as the article states it is an Anti-OC attempt, at least in part but Intel.

    I have no doubt that Intel have seen extensive Barcelona benchmarks.
    (Somebody will make some $$$ for providing this info to Intel.)

    All this article means is that AMD will not be able to compete.
    This means the the profit margins for Intel will go up.
    This means more R&D.
    This means more uh-oh for AMD.

    Not great for consumers in the future perhaps, but life certainly is good with Intel applying pressure from all sides to AMD.


    ok zenmaster...., but I think you're getting into UFO conspiracy and big foot sightings now., I'll wait for the hard numbers to come out
  29. Well, I'm not claiming facts.

    What I am doing is providing business level analysis to the situation.
    I don't know these things as fact, but they are reasonable conclusions based upon many known items.

    All anyone can do is wait, but AMD's refusal to show open testing and Intel's switch to the very high FSB when earlier chips were not seeing a FSB limitation is a clear sign that they think they have AMD licked going forward, IMHO.
  30. Quote:
    whatever, isnt this obvious anyway? The more cores you add to something the less you will be able to overclock due to bandwidth issues, its not brain surgery


    That's a weird statement considering that I didn't say anything either way.
  31. Quote:
    I understand the logic that a 400mhz fsb sounds like it will be hard to OC. On the other hand though, he fails to mention the benefits of high K. It sounds to me like the guy is basing his entire opinion of the new processor on the fact that it is shipping with a 400mhz FSB.

    I think that all other signs point to Penryn being a very good OC'er, but in the end we will just have to wait and see. I think we will find out how well Penryn OC's before we see any benches on Barcelona though.


    I have to agree, it will be a good OC'er because Anand has their Intel Penryn review stating a 1600Mhz FSB or 400Mhz QP and Intel claiming the chip is running "over" 3Ghz which means with a Multiplier of 8X it would be a 3.2Ghz chip with a 1600Mhz FSB. Thats exactly the same multiplier of the E6400 I am using. Running it at 450Mhz FSB or 1800FSB yields me 3.6Ghz, 475Mhz FSB gives me 3.8Ghz.

    I have no doubt with good cooling the smaller die cores could hit 4Ghz at 500Mhz or 2000FSB. I think my machine could handle that. That would be a good OC in my opinion.
  32. I guess, if we look back to when Intel released the P4 EE's with 266FSB, it was hard to fathom a good overclocking chipset(ie. 500+ in some cases with 965P) for it, so anythings possible, i guess. :wink:
  33. you are assuming no speed increase in the fsb - you could be right but:

    die shrinkage and doping may allow fsb's far higher in that case the new chips with higher bus speeds will oc.

    this is rudimentary since amd cpu's can barely get over 3ghz there is no competition anyways at this point!

    shipped another 3.4ghz e6600 with a GTS almost 10k 3dmark06

    amd delayed the r600 so the engineers could help with 65nm fab - omg!
  34. Ohh, i forgot to narrow my post down, what I really mean is that the Bearlakes' aren't retailed and distributed worldwide at this moment of time.. Haven't reached the consumer masses yet..

    Ahh, Cebit 07, i was just browsing top tech sites every now and then during the launch.. No TV coverage here in our country for the Cebit 07, such a mess.

    well, thanks for the pick-up Jack :trophy:
  35. Just a thought:

    Could the newer, faster fsb's be an intended attempt to slow down the overclocking of the c2d's?

    Nowadays anyone with half a brain and decent mobo can run a 6300 or a 4300 if they're lucky at speeds and performance embareassing their extreme editions. Has it ever been this easy to get $1000 performance out of ~$150?

    Could Intel be using the non-neccesary bump in fsb to preserve the value of its higher end stuff?
  36. Quote:
    Just a thought:

    Could the newer, faster fsb's be an intended attempt to slow down the overclocking of the c2d's?

    Nowadays anyone with half a brain and decent mobo can run a 6300 or a 4300 if they're lucky at speeds and performance embareassing their extreme editions. Has it ever been this easy to get $1000 performance out of ~$150?


    My theory:

    It's absolutely possible, though I believe that Penryn 333/400 was the goal all along! The fact of Conroe overclockability along with the coexistence of motherboards available to take advantage of it might have been a miscalculation on Intel's part. I find it hard to believe that Asus, gigabyte, biostar, etc, etc. have all come out with motherboard capable of 500FSB simply because Conroe can reach that. I find it hard to believe that these companies made such incredible overclocking motherboards just for Conroe and the overclocking community. It makes far more sense that they did it for Penryn... and we got the benefit of these boards for Conroe. IF that is true, then there won't be any 600-800FSB motherboards for Penryn, and Ed at Overclockers.com is right... a Penryn at 333 or 400FSB will be motherboard-limited in its overclockability to speeds already acheived by Conroe.

    Penryn/400FSB was the goal. Motherboards got there much earlier than expected! Conroe/430FSB (in the case of my E6300 at 3Ghz ) was a mistake by Intel that motherboard manufacturers were able to capitalize on.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs AMD