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

http://forum.coolaler.com/showthre [...] 848&page=5



No benchmark provided.

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

http://www.overclock.net/hardware- [...] -6ghz.html

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.

^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.

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.

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.

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?

#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.)

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.

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!

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.)

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/ne [...] wsId=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.

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.

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)

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.

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...)

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.

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.

Kass is alright ...

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.

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!

^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.

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.