Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Deneb ES 4.0GHz this time no ****

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 11, 2008 5:01:19 PM

http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=191848&page=...



No benchmark provided.

On the other news, same bunch of Taiwanese got E8600 and QX9650 to 6GHz.......

http://www.overclock.net/hardware-news/396697-coolaler-...

More about : amd deneb 0ghz time

October 11, 2008 5:39:28 PM

That thread is becoming another fanboy battle front. Unlike most around here, I do read Chinese and I am not reliant on google translator to figure out what these people said on that particular forum. Also I posted current Intel OC result as comparison.

Oh, BTW, the tester seems to be a contract board tester, and he has to add CPU codes into the BIOS to do the test. So don't bother check voltage. It's his job to figure out the calibration curve.
Related resources
October 11, 2008 5:41:35 PM

Also, according to the tester, not all Deneb ES goes to 4.0GHz. He got one that stopped at 3.8GHz.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 11, 2008 5:43:16 PM

^So you are saying that CPU-Zs voltage is incorrect?

And also that it may be that Deneb has the same thing as Agena and not every CPU OCs the same or at all? If thats true then that means that its possibly the architecture limiting the OCing, not the process.
October 11, 2008 5:46:32 PM

...and why wouldn't this thread become another fanboy thread?

To be honest, you can save THG a lot of storage space by posting in the same thread. Before you post, please check this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9q2jNjOPdk
October 11, 2008 5:55:50 PM

chaohsiangchen said:
Oh, BTW, the tester seems to be a contract board tester, and he has to add CPU codes into the BIOS to do the test. So don't bother check voltage. It's his job to figure out the calibration curve.


Actually your translation is incorrect. The board he added the code to was P35 Neo2-FR, which is a P35 board.

So the voltage is somewhat closer to what we will be seeing in the future.

By the way, you're not the only one to have the ability to read Chinese on this forum. :sarcastic: 
October 11, 2008 6:00:05 PM

Voltage and temperature of CPUs were both read from a small ADC on the board. If the resistance changes, you will have the reading way off the real value. That happens with new process is introduced.

I think it's too early to say. AMD is now churning Shanghai processors, and retail Deneb is still not in production yet. These ES were sent to MSI (all leaked Deneb ES chips were from MSI employee/contractors) probably for them to test board compatibility to 45nm process.

ES chips were made on small scale production inside design facility or a separate test line in a fab. It only tells us that some Deneb will OC to 4.0GHz.

a b à CPUs
October 11, 2008 6:11:48 PM

Yeah but it takes a 1.6v core to get there. I don't know about that. I'll reserve judgment until you can actually buy the CPU.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 11, 2008 6:17:08 PM

Well thats all the more reason to not get our hopes up with this.

1. its a ES chip.
2. even with a CPU-Z shot, since we don't know what the main reason that Agena cannot OC very high (process,arch) we cannot say if this would even be remotely standard for Deneb at all, even the 3GHz model.

So in all its nice to see it but we will have to wait until the retail chips come out.
October 11, 2008 6:41:17 PM

yomamafor1 said:
...and why wouldn't this thread become another fanboy thread?

To be honest, you can save THG a lot of storage space by posting in the same thread. Before you post, please check this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9q2jNjOPdk


To save space, that's why I don't use sig or avatar.

This thread might become another fanboy thread, but, yet, it might not. Deneb ES at 4.0GHz is now as much fact as Intel QX9650 at 6GHz. If you have nothing more worth to say, stop wasting Tom's hard drive space and find something else to grow your e-peen.

And I don't think the voltage is even right. Take a look at the next page where the other guy shows what happened at his work: AM3 test board with dual channel DDR3-800. 2.6GHz with 1.65V? That's just not right.

I brought up the CPU code thing to high light what he might be doing for life. Go ahead an be picky all the way you want. I may not be the only one who can read Chinese, but can you?
October 11, 2008 6:50:27 PM

chaohsiangchen said:
To save space, that's why I don't use sig or avatar.

This thread might become another fanboy thread, but, yet, it might not. Deneb ES at 4.0GHz is now as much fact as Intel QX9650 at 6GHz. If you have nothing more worth to say, stop wasting Tom's hard drive space and find something else to grow your e-peen.

And I don't think the voltage is even right. Take a look at the next page where the other guy shows what happened at his work: AM3 test board with dual channel DDR3-800. 2.6GHz with 1.65V? That's just not right.

I brought up the CPU code thing to high light what he might be doing for life. Go ahead an be picky all the way you want. I may not be the only one who can read Chinese, but can you?


You're entirely missing the point.

You're wasting space because you could've post the same thing in a thread specifically created for this. Why create a new thread talking about the exact same thing? You guys even have the same source for Christ's sake. At the moment, you're just an attention seeker to me.

The voltage number remains to be seen. It could be the BIOS set the Vcore at 1.648 when he ran the test. It is very plausible for Deneb to get to 4.0Ghz with 1.6V based on its process node. When Intel introduced Penryn, it never encountered any problem in regards to voltage. So why would AMD have this problem?

You'll be surprised as to who can read Chinese here, mainland Chinese "friend".
October 11, 2008 6:52:03 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Well thats all the more reason to not get our hopes up with this.

1. its a ES chip.
2. even with a CPU-Z shot, since we don't know what the main reason that Agena cannot OC very high (process,arch) we cannot say if this would even be remotely standard for Deneb at all, even the 3GHz model.

So in all its nice to see it but we will have to wait until the retail chips come out.



#3 - It's 1.6v. Not something you can safely run your chip at.
#4 - It's CPU-Z, which does not meant stable. If that is the max CPU-Z, then "Stable" would likely be noticably lower.
#5 - Until we get some IPC and relative numbers, it does not mean much. Sort of like trying to compare a PentiumD at 4.0 vs an E500 at 4.0Ghz.

Now, Denab could come and be great, but until they show significantly increased IPC, significantly lowered Power Usage I will remain doubtful. Especially w/o moving to the improved materials that Intel and IBM are using to reduce leakage at 45nm. (AMD will be moving to this material in 2H '09 last I read.)
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 11, 2008 7:11:30 PM

Well here is something interesting:

1.45

05/10/2008 •Intel Atom Z500/Z510/Z520/Z530/Z540 processors.
•Intel Core 2 Duo E7x00 processor.
•AMD 45 nm Phenom (Dened & Shanghai) processors.
•Intel P45 chipset.
Exe file properties
•MD5 (cpuz.exe 1.45) : DD4E540C04297CF93DC721166C13446E

CPU-Z has had support for Deneb since version 1.45 and even before Core i7 even though Core i7 will probably hit retail before Deneb will.

So I can easily say that more than likely that voltage should be correct. But my only question, is why would they be testing out AM3 models when AM3 wont be out until what 2Q/3Q 09? The AM2 Denebs will hit first so shouldn't that be what we want to see for now?
a b à CPUs
October 11, 2008 7:13:32 PM

What in the world. So now a 4ghz denab=6ghz quad core penryn. I wonder where that figure came from. And all this voltage crap needs to stop. Just wait and see when the retail chips or ES chips are properly tested. All this bios code speculation and all these pipes dreams are just sad. WAIT AND SEE.

Oh and the other thread there is not a flame war going on. If anything this is the fanboy thread with all that junk.
October 11, 2008 7:42:55 PM

Stop crying about saving space, who cares. Go buy THG some webspace and a rack if it bothers you that much.

Back on topic, as the OP says the voltage probably isnt final and the OC's themselves are hit or miss as far as 4ghz is concerned. 1.6v is preety damn high, but if its stable and the chip is designed to handle it then its fine. But any of that remains to be seen. Speculating about this is preety worthless, take the CPUz screenshot and the provided link for what it is.
October 11, 2008 7:49:04 PM

yomamafor1 said:
You're entirely missing the point.

You're wasting space because you could've post the same thing in a thread specifically created for this. Why create a new thread talking about the exact same thing? You guys even have the same source for Christ's sake. At the moment, you're just an attention seeker to me.

The voltage number remains to be seen. It could be the BIOS set the Vcore at 1.648 when he ran the test. It is very plausible for Deneb to get to 4.0Ghz with 1.6V based on its process node. When Intel introduced Penryn, it never encountered any problem in regards to voltage. So why would AMD have this problem?

You'll be surprised as to who can read Chinese here, mainland Chinese "friend".


To be honest, anything I said in a fanboy battle front will be labelled. Why would I want to post in a fanboy battle front? I started this with Deneb ES at 4.0GHz and Intel quads at 6.0GHz for comparison to avoid being labeled.

I do whatever I wanted to post within Tom's allowance, and I have every reason not to post in fanboy battle front. As long as admin don't bother a few kilo bytes on their hard drive, I don't need to bog down to your internet moral intimidation. In the end, you just don't want to see another AMD-overclock-well thread. There are people asking dumb questions on this forum over and over and over again. And I don't see you acting like forum-double-post Nazi over and over and over again on these threads. Why only on AMD-overclock-well thread like this? Feeling sand in your eyes every time you read good about AMD? Missing which point? There is no point in your post other than trying to dissuade people trying to post anything good from AMD.

AMD's CPU design has been very different from Intel since K6. I've burnt AMD CPU but never Intel ones. I won't be surprised with these difference. Also, Intel always have better fab, while AMD's fabs are usually one generation behind. The fact that AMD worked with IBM to develop 45nm process might be the prelude for the spin-off, which rid of themselves with possible lawsuit with Intel on fab patents. You said more than once that Intel is on HKMG while AMD is still on SOI. OK, do you know the exact physical property of the chip? How it changes with shrink? Do you know the exact process and design? The thickness and crystal orientation of substrate? Time and depth of lithography process? How about diffusion, annealing and doping concentration? AMD doesn't even use Hafnium. How would Intel processors even comparable to AMD ones in regards to these engineering detail is out of my mind. And how can you even put "it didn't happen to Intel, so will be AMD."? Nonsense.

Also, 1.65V might be whatever the test board send to onboard ADC for voltage monitor, while the true voltage might be connected to a Keithley Digital Multimeter. The fact is, we don't know. If you ever use AMD product, you'll know that many retail onboard sensors may not even be right in the first place. It only reflects readings from ADC, which gives you a digitized number of the voltage measured there. If you don't have the extensive knowledge about how the thing is hooked and what is the effective impedance, the value is useless to you.

I don't see any of your Chinese friends around here. You either can or you either can't.
October 11, 2008 8:16:28 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Well here is something interesting:

1.45

So I can easily say that more than likely that voltage should be correct. But my only question, is why would they be testing out AM3 models when AM3 wont be out until what 2Q/3Q 09? The AM2 Denebs will hit first so shouldn't that be what we want to see for now?


Why wouldn't they? Motherboard market is very competitive, and you want to get products into the market as soon as possible. They need to do design/validation before going into designing products. They need time for prototyping, testing, EMC test and regulation related tests. After all that was done, they need to prepare production lines and make first batch as pre-production samples. That's the ones you'll see from reviews. Once the pre-production is done, they then start mass-production. The development cycles is usually half year long for motherboards. According to current leaked schedule, AMD should be launching AM3 by March 09. This should be the time Asus, MSI and Gigabyte preparing tech validation boards. If we still don't see AM3 boards by next June, then we know AMD screw up again.

I remember that I've seen prototype X58 boards back in June, and some review sites already have their Ci7 running benchs.
October 11, 2008 8:17:22 PM

chaohsiangchen said:
To be honest, anything I said in a fanboy battle front will be labelled. Why would I want to post in a fanboy battle front? I started this with Deneb ES at 4.0GHz and Intel quads at 6.0GHz for comparison to avoid being labeled.

I do whatever I wanted to post within Tom's allowance, and I have every reason not to post in fanboy battle front. As long as admin don't bother a few kilo bytes on their hard drive, I don't need to bog down to your internet moral intimidation. In the end, you just don't want to see another AMD-overclock-well thread. There are people asking dumb questions on this forum over and over and over again. And I don't see you acting like forum-double-post Nazi over and over and over again on these threads. Why only on AMD-overclock-well thread like this? Feeling sand in your eyes every time you read good about AMD? Missing which point? There is no point in your post other than trying to dissuade people trying to post anything good from AMD.

AMD's CPU design has been very different from Intel since K6. I've burnt AMD CPU but never Intel ones. I won't be surprised with these difference. Also, Intel always have better fab, while AMD's fabs are usually one generation behind. The fact that AMD worked with IBM to develop 45nm process might be the prelude for the spin-off, which rid of themselves with possible lawsuit with Intel on fab patents. You said more than once that Intel is on HKMG while AMD is still on SOI. OK, do you know the exact physical property of the chip? How it changes with shrink? Do you know the exact process and design? The thickness and crystal orientation of substrate? Time and depth of lithography process? How about diffusion, annealing and doping concentration? AMD doesn't even use Hafnium. How would Intel processors even comparable to AMD ones in regards to these engineering detail is out of my mind. And how can you even put "it didn't happen to Intel, so will be AMD."? Nonsense.

Also, 1.65V might be whatever the test board send to onboard ADC for voltage monitor, while the true voltage might be connected to a Keithley Digital Multimeter. The fact is, we don't know. If you ever use AMD product, you'll know that many retail onboard sensors may not even be right in the first place. It only reflects readings from ADC, which gives you a digitized number of the voltage measured there. If you don't have the extensive knowledge about how the thing is hooked and what is the effective impedance, the value is useless to you.

I don't see any of your Chinese friends around here. You either can or you either can't.

Ever notice, that the amount of text in someone's post seems to have a very peculiar relationship with how defensive the poster is being... could almost plot that relationship in some sort of graph. This needs to be studied at once!
October 11, 2008 8:37:16 PM

evilshuriken said:
Ever notice, that the amount of text in someone's post seems to have a very peculiar relationship with how defensive the poster is being... could almost plot that relationship in some sort of graph. This needs to be studied at once!


Yeah, people are always busy anyway.
October 11, 2008 9:37:35 PM

he's right about one thing. all those
'please help me with a problem EVERYONE ELSE HAD and POSTED A HELP ME THREAD ON THE SAME SUBJECT....'


go be a nazi to those newbs (or help them out or create a "problems" category with the most used compnents as sub categories)

i swear every other thread i see on the front of thg's site in the forums box is a bunch of "Help overclock my intel" or "my memory won't run its timings.."

sorry just venting at the lack of newsworthy stories THG has been putting out as of late.


edit: (THG as in the people in the forums, not the website which has been very informative in their up to date news and videos.)
October 11, 2008 10:31:54 PM

Please, no voting war in this thread.
a b à CPUs
October 11, 2008 11:37:11 PM

chaohsiangchen said:
http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=191848&page=...

http://www.coolaler.com.tw/toppc/AMD45NM/4G.JPG

No benchmark provided.

On the other news, same bunch of Taiwanese got E8600 and QX9650 to 6GHz.......

http://www.overclock.net/hardware-news/396697-coolaler-...


1) My old 65nm Q6600 does 3.5ghz at ~1.43v (poor sample compared to some)
2) 1.6v will will that 45nm chip in no time, i wouldnt put my chip to even that voltage
3) The last fanboi posted that it will perform similar clock for clock to the last, so its out to loose
4) Intels have already pulled 6ghz quads, well actually dual quads - http://www.cdrinfo.com/sections/news/Details.aspx?NewsId=23057

on the other hand, its good to see AMD has something new out, 45nm will lower costs and most likely fix those internal issues with dead cores we hear about etc (well poor batches of decent high clocked quads), and AMD has always been great at taking bit by bit away from Intel etc - no big leaps but a steady gain.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 11, 2008 11:38:47 PM

teh_boxzor said:
he's right about one thing. all those
'please help me with a problem EVERYONE ELSE HAD and POSTED A HELP ME THREAD ON THE SAME SUBJECT....'


go be a nazi to those newbs (or help them out or create a "problems" category with the most used compnents as sub categories)

i swear every other thread i see on the front of thg's site in the forums box is a bunch of "Help overclock my intel" or "my memory won't run its timings.."

sorry just venting at the lack of newsworthy stories THG has been putting out as of late.


edit: (THG as in the people in the forums, not the website which has been very informative in their up to date news and videos.)


The biggest one I tend to see is "CPU not running at rated speed". Or as I like to call it, Speedstep Strikes Back. But for some reason its only with newbies with Intel systems and not people with AMD systems. Probably because they were used to the old dtyle P4s that ran full power all the time.
October 11, 2008 11:49:19 PM

zenmaster said:

Now, Denab could come and be great, but until they show significantly increased IPC, significantly lowered Power Usage I will remain doubtful. Especially w/o moving to the improved materials that Intel and IBM are using to reduce leakage at 45nm. (AMD will be moving to this material in 2H '09 last I read.)


Deneb. It should have increased IPC from B3, but Nehalem will probably still have better IPC. I've always found these "CPU goes to X gigahertz" tests to be as much marketing as anything else. Aside from cherry picked processors used by Intel and AMD in different generations, they're usually overclocked in ways that would limit their lifespan if continued for the period of time that real overclocker's want.

It's very much like the Futuremark benchies done with massively overclocked rigs using liquid nitrogen. I'm one AMD fan who wants real world overclocks and benchmarks that are repeatable by other sites. It's called the scientific method. Anything else is magical thinking.

That said, I've been accused of magical thinking because of my religious beliefs, but I don't think it's magical thinking to say that 45nm, even with SOI, should bring improvements to Deneb/Heka and Propus/Rana over B3 quads and triples. That's what it's all about; an improvement over the same company's prior generation. It's not a war between companies except in marketshare and the somewhat fickle hearts of enthusiasts.

Perhaps when AMD and Intel are at 32nm with new architectures, and both are using high k processes, that we'll have an apples to apples comparison, but until then, it's more like apples to pears. Intel wins when everything is averaged out, but AMD does well with certain CPU's at particular price points.

Another thing I can't wait to see is Intel trying to take on AMD and Nvidia with Larrabee. That should be either a surprise or an amusing diversion. I expect Huang's response will be a hoot any which way it pans out.
October 11, 2008 11:49:38 PM

nehalem and deneb/phenom is something that some developers have waited for. with these processors it is possible split up functions in applications to threads, the performance penalty for accessing same memory from different threads isn't as big as C2Q, C2D is ok but it is limited by only having two cores.
nehalem, deneb/phenom is something that some developers have waited for. with these processors it is possible split up functions in applications to threads, the performance penalty for accessing same memory from different threads isn't as big as C2Q, C2D is ok but it is limited by only having two cores.
memory that is moved between the two L2 caches on C2Q takes time
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2008 12:11:53 AM

jimmysmitty said:
The biggest one I tend to see is "CPU not running at rated speed". Or as I like to call it, Speedstep Strikes Back. But for some reason its only with newbies with Intel systems and not people with AMD systems. Probably because they were used to the old dtyle P4s that ran full power all the time.


Actually it was the noobs buying crap boards that wouldn't support the full FSB speeds required to run, or didn't set it up correctly in the bios etc (eg 1.86/1066mhz E6300 @ 1.4/800mhz)
October 12, 2008 12:26:48 AM

jimmysmitty said:
The biggest one I tend to see is "CPU not running at rated speed". Or as I like to call it, Speedstep Strikes Back. But for some reason its only with newbies with Intel systems and not people with AMD systems. Probably because they were used to the old dtyle P4s that ran full power all the time.


It depends on how old the P4 is. Those on LGA775 do have SpeedStep. My old P4 630 usually idles at 2GHz. There might be same thread on AMD systems, but given the fact that AMD CPUs aren't as good as Intel's nowadays, newbies will likely to get Intel systems. Oh, wait, in the old days when Athlon 64 still ruled:

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1...
October 12, 2008 12:36:38 AM

It all depends on which AMD CPU vs. which Intel CPU and at what price point. Overall, Intel "wins" now, just as Athlon 64 "won" back then. In reality, both architectures have good points. Even the Pentium 4's (I had a Williamette 1.6, two Northwoods @ 2.4 and 2.8, and a P4630), were good in some applications compared to AMD.
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2008 12:40:48 AM

phenom is very good multitasking
October 12, 2008 4:00:16 AM

yipsl said:

Another thing I can't wait to see is Intel trying to take on AMD and Nvidia with Larrabee. That should be either a surprise or an amusing diversion. I expect Huang's response will be a hoot any which way it pans out.


If I had to guess, Intel takes a bath on the Larrabee.
It may work for them, but I suspect it will only do so if NVIDIA/ATI misstep.
(Note: NVIDIA is already doing that big time. I think their recent quality issues are going to cost them money they need for research, etc...)
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2008 5:33:33 AM

BadTrip said:
phenom is very good multitasking


pffffttttt

back in the A64 days (single core) the P4 owned them at multitasking thanks to Hyperthreading - only owners of P4's know what im talking about here

phenom good for multitasking? the Q6600 owns any phenom at anything, the phenom is OK for multitasking
October 12, 2008 6:36:32 AM

The p4 was very slow in gaming, my old 2.4GHz a64 beat any heavily oced 4GHz p4. I never bothered with Intel and their slow p4s when amd was way faster, even the athlon xp was great. I am switching to Intel for core duo since I have no brand loyality, I just want the best performance and Intel won that back with core duo.

It's speculation what deneb will do, but core duo has been the champ for a while, one can't go wrong with one of those cpus.
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2008 7:04:58 AM

NewLCD123 said:
The p4 was very slow in gaming, my old 2.4GHz a64 beat any heavily oced 4GHz p4. I never bothered with Intel and their slow p4s when amd was way faster, even the athlon xp was great. I am switching to Intel for core duo since I have no brand loyality, I just want the best performance and Intel won that back with core duo.

It's speculation what deneb will do, but core duo has been the champ for a while, one can't go wrong with one of those cpus.


The P4 was usually faster, and more expensive then the Athlon XP, a pentium M overclocked smashed the A64's, and the A64 initially was barely quicker then a P4, and i think your refering to a Core 2 Duo, not core duo.
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2008 10:17:06 AM

And how many Pentium M's were sold in desktop mobos that anyone here owned?

Zilch.

P4 matched Athlon XP along the "P" cureve right up to the 2800+ ... then the P4 2.8 - 3.2 was slightly superior. The Athlons had a much better IPC ... but could not clock beyond 2.2Ghz because of their inferior process.

Once the A64 was released it owned every Pentium made, including the Pentium D ... by the X2's.

When the core2 line was introduced it reasserted Intel's performance right across the board.

That's a reasonably good potted history.

a b à CPUs
October 12, 2008 1:31:58 PM

i wasnt being serious guys. that was a jab at Kassler.
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2008 1:46:21 PM

Kass is alright ...

October 12, 2008 4:54:32 PM

Reynod said:
And how many Pentium M's were sold in desktop mobos that anyone here owned?

Zilch.

P4 matched Athlon XP along the "P" cureve right up to the 2800+ ... then the P4 2.8 - 3.2 was slightly superior. The Athlons had a much better IPC ... but could not clock beyond 2.2Ghz because of their inferior process.

Once the A64 was released it owned every Pentium made, including the Pentium D ... by the X2's.

When the core2 line was introduced it reasserted Intel's performance right across the board.

That's a reasonably good potted history.


Hmm, I must have had a slightly different history teacher. ;) 

The XP ratings were good when compared to the 400/533 FSB P4s, but not against the 800FSB+HT P4Cs. Back in the day I had a P4 2.6C and XP 2500+, the P4 was faster in most benchmarks.

Initially A64s were not that dominant over P4s, the A64 3200+ was generally considered a bit faster than the P4 3.2C overall, largely thanks to a big increase in gaming performance, but the P4s held the edge in video encoding and rendering due to HT.

Netburst started heading south after Prescott, heat problems meant frequency improvements stalled and as a result A64 with its more efficient SOI process started pulling away, and that seemingly insurmountable lead lasted for 2 years right up until C2D was launched. In retrospect perhaps AMD should have seen the signs with Pentium M and Core Duo and done more to improve K10, but things are always clearer in hindsight. :) 
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2008 6:09:31 PM

That's pretty much what I said.

I didn't specify what areas each were best at ... basically all I use PC's for is gaming ... and converting a bit of video.

Story is still the same.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 12, 2008 6:40:55 PM

Reynod said:
And how many Pentium M's were sold in desktop mobos that anyone here owned?

Zilch.

P4 matched Athlon XP along the "P" cureve right up to the 2800+ ... then the P4 2.8 - 3.2 was slightly superior. The Athlons had a much better IPC ... but could not clock beyond 2.2Ghz because of their inferior process.

Once the A64 was released it owned every Pentium made, including the Pentium D ... by the X2's.

When the core2 line was introduced it reasserted Intel's performance right across the board.

That's a reasonably good potted history.


Not only the inferior process of the Athlon XPs but they also ran very hot.

Actually Asus did make an adapter for the Pentium Ms for the 478 mobos. I was thinking of getting one and putting a Pentium M in it and OCing it but decided just to buy the P4 EE 3.4GHz for $150 on Ebay. One hell of a deal I tell ya.

But I guess it was when Intel saw how fast the Pentium M was compared to A64 and saw that people were buying the adapters to OC them that they realized they needed to take what they learned from Pentium 4/D and apply the ability for higher clock speeds to Pentium M (remember Pentium M was based on Pentium III Coppermine that was clock speed limited at the time).

Then came Core and Core 2. And the rest is history.
October 13, 2008 8:50:38 AM

Interesting story. I remember when the a64s came out, everyone was excited since they were so fast! I got one myself a few months later, but still the cpu itself cost me $200! Stock at 2GHz, it owned any overclocked athlon xp and most any overclocked p4s! I never bothered owning a p4, those were slow and hot and my athlon xp was way cheaper and I saved for a64. But hey im no fanboy, im going back to Intel cause their core 2 duos rock!
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2008 10:00:48 AM

The Northwood 2.4 was a good beast - I had one with an USCSI 160 adaptec card and a 10K server HDD with a Ti 4600 and 1 Gb of RDRAM.

Damned expensive box that was but it lasted well and never ran hot.

Only the XP 3200+ (of the Athlons before the A64) was faster - then only at certain things.

Intel chipset wouldn't overclock ... which was a bastage back then.

I don't recall any RDRAM overclocking ??

Did Anyone overclock RD mobos then ??
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 13, 2008 10:35:37 AM

^My P4 EE is a Northwood luckily but still on the 130nm process so thats one downside. But the speed boost I got in everything from even just a P4 3.2GHz was amazing. That was probably the fastest Northwood based Pentium 4 out and faster than most Athlon XPs up until A64.
October 13, 2008 11:13:32 AM

Reynod said:

Intel chipset wouldn't overclock ... which was a bastage back then.

I don't recall any RDRAM overclocking ??

Did Anyone overclock RD mobos then ??


Ive tried to tinker with several Willamette Cores when they got out. On 400 and 800Mhz RIMMS.
They didn't budge.

So i went Palomino 1.333Mhz way. You gotta love 10x Multipliers :)  And good Ram Also.
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2008 3:08:56 PM

I had a few 1600+ and 2000+ cpus when they were the bomb - a whole hardware lab of them in fact.

I found the Palomino's of that speed hard to overclock generally.

I didn't have a later 1700+ to play with (the most frequently overclocked good chip of that era ... much like the A3000+ I spose) but I had plenty of good returns on the Bartons.

My 3000+ Barton XP (333 model not the 400) was a good overclocker.

I ran a water chiller unit into my thermaltake waterblock from a drink fountain (refridgerated) on a simple recirc circuit - got it to 2.65 stable with a lot of voltage on an Asus mobo ... not for long from memory.

Fried a Ti 4200 learning about condensation on the hoses.


October 13, 2008 5:31:49 PM

Reynod said:
I had a few 1600+ and 2000+ cpus when they were the bomb - a whole hardware lab of them in fact.

I found the Palomino's of that speed hard to overclock generally.


My Atlon XP 1500+ (1.333Ghz) reached the 1.5 with no problem. And it wasn't even very hot. A MSI K7T Turbo Limited Edition did the trick. The problem was the 133mhz SDRAMs. And 166 Mhz SDRAMs were just incredible expensive. I kept it on a conservative 1.43 Ghz. On 133mhz SDRAMs. Above that Memory errors.


Reynod said:

Fried a Ti 4200 learning about condensation on the hoses.


I know water cooling is better, and it is cooler (pun intended), but Hardware and water, both running so close is something i say no no.

I prefer to put my money on a good case and a good HSF.


!