Conroe Speed Increases

[Major_Spittle]

We all know that Conroe chips can run with a 1500-1600 fsb without voltage increase if your MB is worth a shit. My 6700 does 3.175ish without any voltage increase. There realisticly should be headroom for faster Conroe chips in the neighborhood of 1500fsb and 3.6 gig if Intel was willing to bump the voltage on higher bin CPUs.

Does anyone fore see Intel doing this when AMD starts Benchmarking the Agena/Kuma? They already did a slight bump on Quad Cores, which I take as a sign that the process has matured and they are getting more stable chips. Also, if P4 D processors could run 65nm transistors at 3.8 gig. with higher voltage, who is to say that Conroe transistors wouldn't be able too.

So who thinks Intel is holding back? Who thinks it is impossible? Who thinks that Intel is not willing to raise the Pwr envelope on their processors high enough to make sure Kuma/Agena benches stay uneventful?

Flame on kiddies.

 

[Tostino]

We all know that Conroe chips can run with a 1500-1600 fsb without voltage increase if your MB is worth a ****. My 6700 does 3.175ish without any voltage increase. There realisticly should be headroom for faster Conroe chips in the neighborhood of 1500fsb and 3.6 gig if Intel was willing to bump the voltage on higher bin CPUs.

Does anyone fore see Intel doing this when AMD starts Benchmarking the Agena/Kuma? They already did a slight bump on Quad Cores, which I take as a sign that the process has matured and they are getting more stable chips. Also, if P4 D processors could run 65nm transistors at 3.8 gig. with higher voltage, who is to say that Conroe transistors wouldn't be able too.

So who thinks Intel is holding back? Who thinks it is impossible? Who thinks that Intel is not willing to raise the Pwr envelope on their processors high enough to make sure Kuma/Agena benches stay uneventful?

Flame on kiddies.

Well there is obviously nothing technically stopping them, other then... Why make a faster processor then the last fastest, if you are already miles ahead of your competition?

All that does is make it harder and more costly to increase performance further when they finally do catch up.

 

[GSTe]

We all know that Conroe chips can run with a 1500-1600 fsb without voltage increase if your MB is worth a ****. My 6700 does 3.175ish without any voltage increase.

3.175/ 10= 317.5

1500fsb/4= 375

:?:

 

[greenmachineiijh]

They can and they will. Remember, the new XQ6800 is just two dual cores put together so the speed increase was no big deal. They already had a dual core at that speed. That is what the Penryn is for. It is just a die shrink which lowers the TDP and the FSB raised to 1333mhz and a few tweaks. This alone is confirmation that the next release after the "50" series CPUs will be multiplier increased for substantial MHZ increases with minimal effort. Maybe they already have them at E6900, E6950, QX6900 and are waiting to release them with the Bearlake-X running DDR3? the next step up from 9x multiplier is 10x 333fsb = 3.33Ghz. Big jump!

 

[m25]

It's Penryn, Conroe was the first Core2 core.

 

[nightscope]

That's what they did with Penryn, same chip, based on 45 nm, with higher clocks.

And don't forget, if they clock CPUs higher before they sell them...what's the fun in overclocking anymore? Most enthusiasts buy them because of their overclocking power. If that's already been done for them...then HMM!?

When they overclock a CPU enough to need voltage increases, then Heat would increase, and it will probably thwart the idea of very cool CPUs with very little power consumption (Just an opinion).

 

[epsilon84]

Assuming Barcelona/Agena comes before Penryn, and outperforms current C2Ds, I guess Intel has the option of releasing a 3.33GHz 1333FSB part on the Conroe core to tide them over until Penryn launches.

3.33GHz on a Kentsfield might be a bit harder, they are pushing 130W @ 2.93GHz, so realistically a 3.33GHz part would run @ 150W or so.

 

[the_vorlon]

In September we get a new stepping of Conroe that is reported to be quite a bit cooler running.

I expect a speed bump them.

10 x 333 => 3.33 ghz is ceratinly very possible.

If Barcelona rocks then 9 x 400 (1600 mhz fsb) is possibly doable as well.

OEMs have already seen Xeons at 8 x 400 (1600 mhz FSB) so if Intel needs to cherrypick a bin speed till Penryn shows up in force, it's do-able.

A quad at 3.6 is likely a stretch unless the new stepping REALLY does good things on the power/thermal side.

 

[Major_Spittle]

Good info. Vorlon. I will probably try to recreate some of the Benches AMD releases on my system OC'd at 400X8 just to see how it would compare. I never did find out what AMD was going to benchmark, but I assume it will be a server chip only and it would be pointless to compare my processor to a sever chip. I have run my chip in the 3.6+ area on air. I figure if AMD can make a Dual Core with the K10 uArch that can compare with my chip clocked at 3.2 by December, then AMD's product line will be more competitive than it is right now for the beginning of 2007 (Unless Intel pulls some crazyass ninja move and releases 4.2 gig Quad penryn as its flagship processor at $1K).

I got the feeling that AMD is going to flop with the K10 though. I think if AMD had the benchmarks comparable to what Penryn did, it wouldn't be the "50% faster than Conroe", they would have keyed on the Div X type benchmark and claimed "150% - 200% faster than Conroe". This just seems to be the way AMD works :!:

 

[dragonsprayer]

i believe your rational is wrong:

intel designs chips to meet a 3 year warranty and not fail - that means even at 100f room with a little box and one little fan cooling it.


you get high speeds by using large coolers and massive case fans turning slowly and moving lots of air.


the chips are rated for much lower power requirements and that means lower cooling requirements. when you apply 125 watt cooling to 80 watt chip it makes massive room for overclocking.

not so with a quad core - the C2D was a 6 month step to the quad core - which runs at the same thermal envelope as a P4 - 125w. when you push a QC then your cooling is very high 150w.

C2D is first step in the green pc - cooler faster more efficient chips - which also means great overclocking abilities!

 

[Major_Spittle]

My processor is an ES from like the first rev. I would hope they could bin stuff higher now. My processor can OC to 3.3ish with a very very minor jump in voltage and my HSF is no better than stock. Runs 3.15 with no voltage increase. This is on a 2.66 processor (10 X266) and I bet it would run fine at 3.192 (12X266) if given a 10% increase in Vmax which would require no change in cooling and the only time it would get hotter would be under a sustained full load, and even then it wouldn't be that much difference with stock cooling.

 

[nightscope]

That's what they did with Penryn, same chip, based on 45 nm, with higher clocks.

And don't forget, if they clock CPUs higher before they sell them...what's the fun in overclocking anymore? Most enthusiasts buy them because of their overclocking power. If that's already been done for them...then HMM!?

When they overclock a CPU enough to need voltage increases, then Heat would increase, and it will probably thwart the idea of very cool CPUs with very little power consumption (Just an opinion).

Intel is not going to clock the CPU at it's highest speed, similarly to what they did at the last IDF.... a top bin will be a multiplier or so higher I suspect.

True, but sooner or later they'll reach a wall that can't be breached and the CPU will not be able to clock higher.