Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

7.1 ghz??? how come the ph2 955 can reach that high and not the i7?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 7, 2009 9:14:53 PM

I just read that a team of overclockers were able to push the phenom 2 955 all the way to 7.1 ghz what i dont understand is why i don't hear the i7 doing better,it's built on better technology i would expect it to be able to be pushed that high but i don't hear anything about the i7 going past 5ghz even on extreme cooling solutions. Why is that? please no flame wars between fan boys i am just curious.

More about : ghz ph2 955 reach high

May 7, 2009 9:26:33 PM

AMD has managed to eliminate the "cold bug" meaning that you can run the processor very cold, i.e. liquid helium at just over a degree Kelvin above Absolute Zero. Intel's Core i7 IS a better technology for performance; just because the AMD can overclock farther than the Intel i7 does not meant that the i7 is bad. In fact, IMO the Intel could probably beat that 7.1 GHz without being clocked nearly that high.

Its just that AMD has managed to design and build a processor that overclocks VERY well, and does provide a good amount of performance.
May 7, 2009 9:35:40 PM

The i7 965 has been overclocked to 5.5ghz before, although I'm not sure if it had been confirmed.

And remember that the clock-to-clock performance ratio is different between the PII and i7 builds (IE, a Pentium 4 running at 3.0ghz != single core of a Core 2 Duo running at 3ghz), and for all intents and purposes, the i7 is better at usable, stable clock ranges. Although AMD does deserve some bragging rights for a 7.1ghz quad core...
Related resources
a c 110 à CPUs
May 7, 2009 10:00:43 PM

WooHoo! Let's play synthetics!

I don't really care what guys do on suicide runs. For the most part I think it encourages the bone-heads with small lives to argue 'mine's bigger than yours'.

The other 98.8% of the world could not care less. All they want is their email and p0rn - or maybe to email their p0rn.

Instead of :fou:  over AMD/Intel people should bitch about all the wasted bandwidth from the 60%+ of useless email ...
May 7, 2009 10:04:39 PM

It probably just overclocks better and thats just about it.
May 7, 2009 10:15:34 PM

mlcloud said:
The i7 965 has been overclocked to 5.5ghz before, although I'm not sure if it had been confirmed.

And remember that the clock-to-clock performance ratio is different between the PII and i7 builds (IE, a Pentium 4 running at 3.0ghz != single core of a Core 2 Duo running at 3ghz), and for all intents and purposes, the i7 is better at usable, stable clock ranges. Although AMD does deserve some bragging rights for a 7.1ghz quad core...



Um, isn't that the pentium dual core where a P4 @ 3.0ghz = one core of a pentium d? the C2D is WAY faster core for core than a P4.
May 7, 2009 10:44:28 PM

"!=" is a programming code for "not" for anyone that didn't understand his equation.
May 7, 2009 11:31:55 PM

silversurfernhs said:
"!=" is a programming code for "not" for anyone that didn't understand his equation.


Oh, sorry! I didn't see the !. :p  stupid of me.
May 7, 2009 11:38:16 PM

well i believe AMD has geared their processors to that end, while intel has not
a b à CPUs
May 7, 2009 11:46:34 PM

silversurfernhs said:
"!=" is a programming code for "not" for anyone that didn't understand his equation.
In some languages it can also be "<>" ;) 

BTW, one thing I find interesting about this news is that it tells the AMD CPU can operate in rather extreme conditions. For most people it doesn't matter, but for people using handhelds in arctic and/or in space, it can matter.
May 7, 2009 11:51:13 PM

That's because, like most people have already said, Core i7 has a much more complicated architecture than Phenom II. Not only that, Intel chose a different approach when designing the transistors, which results in lower heat output at stock voltage.

As for clockings, Pentium 4 has been seen operating well in the 8Ghz range.
May 8, 2009 1:28:07 AM

I think its because Intels arch is wider. If you go wider, it usually means your IPC will be better, but it also usually shortens the pipes, and limits overall ocing to a degree.
a c 127 à CPUs
May 8, 2009 7:06:21 AM

rooseveltdon said:
I just read that a team of overclockers were able to push the phenom 2 955 all the way to 7.1 ghz what i dont understand is why i don't hear the i7 doing better,it's built on better technology i would expect it to be able to be pushed that high but i don't hear anything about the i7 going past 5ghz even on extreme cooling solutions. Why is that? please no flame wars between fan boys i am just curious.


Because when you use extreme cooling methods you can OC a lot of things to a quite high level. There is a CPU-Z record for a Pentium 4 running at 8GHz.

But the thing is that most Phenom IIs, even the 955, only OC to 3.8GHz on air and after that require either a ultra large heatsink or water cooling.

Core i7 was the same until the recent D0 stepping where a Core i7 920 is able to reach 4.3GHz on air.

Intels Core i5 32nm quads can reach 3.6GHz on air within the same thermal envelope meaning that possibly OCing them will be better and easier without having to resort to exotic cooling (peltier, water or compressed air).

Besides, we all know that these results are useless on normal Desktops. They are just for people who like to OC the bejebus out of things. One guy was able to take a HD2900XT and OC its core to 1.6GHz+ from the stock 700MHz. But he did that just to get the 3DMark06 record.
a b à CPUs
May 8, 2009 3:46:00 PM

How did this become a clock for clock thing?

All the op asked was how come the pII hit a higher max overclock than the i7. Not about the performance or anything. Just WHY one cpu can go clock higher with extreme cooling than the other. So much for non flame war.
a c 99 à CPUs
May 8, 2009 5:25:07 PM

yomamafor1 said:
That's because, like most people have already said, Core i7 has a much more complicated architecture than Phenom II.


Not really, they are much more the same than they are different. Both chips have four cores on a die, three levels of cache, an IMC, and a split core/L3+IMC frequency plane. The biggest difference between the two is probably Intel's use of SMT.

Quote:
Not only that, Intel chose a different approach when designing the transistors, which results in lower heat output at stock voltage.


That's much more likely to be part of the reason than any "extra complexity" of the i7.. IIRC, Intel also added two more transistors to their cache cells for lower power consumption but at a loss of performance. Also, Intel's and AMD's manufacturing processes are quite different and it could just be that AMD's leads to better overclocking this time around. Intel's 65 nm was pretty good for overclocking while AMD's wasn't, and the tables could have very well turned.

Quote:
As for clockings, Pentium 4 has been seen operating well in the 8Ghz range.


That was most likely because the P4 Cedar Mill that hit 8 GHz had over 30 pipeline stages, compared to the Phenom II's supposed 12 stages. It's a lot easier to get a chip with a mile-long pipeline to clock higher than one with a shorter pipeline. Look at what IBM is doing with the current POWER, selling it at 4.6 or 4.7 GHz. It's got a pipeline over 20 stages too, IIRC.
a b à CPUs
May 9, 2009 4:19:08 AM

And on another note. The highest possible GHZ either cpu can reach is pointless. Its just for bragging rights. Where it does come into play for 99 percent of the overclockers are how far it will go on water/air.

As for why the amd can get a higher extreme overclock...I'm also ponder how the AMD can hit higher then the Intel. And not in a who is better type of thing. As far as I know both cpus are made with similar goals. (4 cores, IPC. Thermals-clockspeed) so I do wonder how one gets further under extreme temps then the other. Pack in the p4 days we all knew Intel had made the p4 for high clockspeeds but that it just didnt work for them because of the thermals.
a c 127 à CPUs
May 9, 2009 7:36:40 AM

someguy7 said:
And on another note. The highest possible GHZ either cpu can reach is pointless. Its just for bragging rights. Where it does come into play for 99 percent of the overclockers are how far it will go on water/air.

As for why the amd can get a higher extreme overclock...I'm also ponder how the AMD can hit higher then the Intel. And not in a who is better type of thing. As far as I know both cpus are made with similar goals. (4 cores, IPC. Thermals-clockspeed) so I do wonder how one gets further under extreme temps then the other. Pack in the p4 days we all knew Intel had made the p4 for high clockspeeds but that it just didnt work for them because of the thermals.


Expanding on this, I would say whats even more interesting is how the original Phenom couldnt't OC near that high on LN2 cooling but the Phenom II can.

I mean they are basically the same core design, but the Phenom II has a few IPC improvements and bug fixes. Other than that it is a die shrink and not a entirely new chip.

Could it be possible that they don't have a cold bug or have yet to find one while Core i7 does have a cold bug?
May 9, 2009 7:37:09 AM

Besides having the wider arch, until AMD uses HKMG, we cant eliminate it as a possible oc limiter, as the fine tuning using HKMG could limit it in a particular thermal window, or, SOI is slightly better than bulk at these processes.
I think its a combination. HKMG lowers v, but also allows for higher thermal creation outside its design, thus limiting oc. SOI vs bulk, well unless its the 45nm process, bulk has always held its own, tho, going to a native quad may have limited Intel also.
We really need 1 more gen to actually see how this all pans out.
a c 127 à CPUs
May 9, 2009 7:41:07 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Besides having the wider arch, until AMD uses HKMG, we cant eliminate it as a possible oc limiter, as the fine tuning using HKMG could limit it in a particular thermal window, or, SOI is slightly better than bulk at these processes.
I think its a combination. HKMG lowers v, but also allows for higher thermal creation outside its design, thus limiting oc. SOI vs bulk, well unless its the 45nm process, bulk has always held its own, tho, going to a native quad may have limited Intel also.
We really need 1 more gen to actually see how this all pans out.


Until we see what Core i5 can do its hard to say. I mean Turbo Mode itself clocks it to 3.6GHz within the same TDP. That may mean higher clocks at less voltage on air.
a b à CPUs
May 9, 2009 8:15:25 AM

I think the i7 may not overclock so well as it's prefetch and cache are very tightly tuned to increase IPC and the transistors in the cache have a higher idle current.

The Phenom II cpu's have much looser cache timings and so the processor overclocks very well.

Still, you and I are not going to play a decent game for very long running on LN2 ... I don't like the prospect of the burns topping up the canister every 5 minutes and it is going to get very expensive on the nitrogen ... as it is an open loop cooling system.
May 9, 2009 8:18:56 AM

They need to create a super compressor, ala Freon, heheh, close that loop
May 9, 2009 8:20:43 AM

Theres less tie downs regarding i5, so less to have to control during oc. i5 may hit a tad lighter, but its going to be a killer chip.
a b à CPUs
May 9, 2009 8:58:10 AM

Doesn't make any economical sense to release it as Intel would still have tons of inventory of the core2 line.

i5 would kill it's own line and confuse the market.

Thats why there is no i7 product below the 920 - they would be stockpiling all of the silicon that didn't meet that frequency and it will be fused off (reduce the mem contoller channles and cache) to make i5's until that mask is ready ot go ... if it has a new mask.
May 9, 2009 10:04:35 AM

I thought that i5 was going to be base locked aswell as multiplier locked for the lower end versions.

Maybe I'm wrong but I could've sworn I read that somewhere.
a b à CPUs
May 9, 2009 2:19:24 PM

That P2 overclock - depends on if they had all 4 cores running, all cache enabled, all 4 cores @ that clock speed, and dependent on stability etc

An i7 does have more cache, is a "younger" design (1st gen IMC/CSI design, second gen 45nm?) and has a generally higher IPC compared to the P2, so the P2 may need 1+ ghz to beat an i7 at a maximum overclock and does have a newer stepping that was just released wether they have compared that rev. or not?

Any perhaps the theory is right with i7 being more of a server cpu then desktop hence performance/efficency/ipc over scaling (clock speed) - afterall in dual socket benchmarks those babys own AMD quad socket solutions.
May 9, 2009 2:41:57 PM

Anandtech pushed an I7 920 to 5.2ghz on the EVGA classified... pretty impressive for a locked Multi CPU

" Much to our surprise the CPU was capable of booting on the Classified at a brutally cold -160C, and being benchmarked all the way down to -190C during peak CPU loads; that's an instant 35C gain over the ASUS board. In the world of extreme overclocking, this is a big deal. The following picture pretty much says it all, with the CPU test of 3DMark06 running in the background with a pot temperature of -186C "

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/motherboards/2009/e...


INtel are just better at OC ... i can run my Q9550 with only 1.275 Vcore @ 4.08ghz ... an AMD 940 need more @ stock speed ...
May 9, 2009 5:22:57 PM

Volts+amps? Stock depends on all three, watts, volts, amps. Higher voltage means little with low amps. Look at the wattage usage, and the gap between voltage of the 2 chips closes quite well.
Id add that your older chip is actually more frugal when it comes to power vs i7, which is a closer comparison to P2 anyways, as theyre both "native" quads, unlike your 9550
May 9, 2009 10:20:50 PM

Nice setup soldier !
May 9, 2009 11:39:02 PM

nice i want new Computer :(  i will buy i7 920 and 2 275gtx and asus rampage lol i cant wait :( 
May 10, 2009 4:41:04 AM

No you won't. You'll buy a Pentium II with Riva integrated graphics. I know it.
a b à CPUs
May 10, 2009 12:12:04 PM

hdwenthus said:
well i believe AMD has geared their processors to that end, while intel has not


Exactly, AMD is almost desgined like Netburst to handle higher clocks...
May 11, 2009 3:38:37 AM

Problem is, who has a 975? How many 920s can you buy for that 1 chip? How many vid cards? How much more ram? Maybe have 2 rigs? When someone comes in with a 975 here, and shows their 5+Ghz oc, I'll still say it cost too much for so little. Some say using LN2 isnt for everyone, and I agree, but neither is the 975, or any 1000$ cpu. So, fact(or) in all that cost as well
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2009 11:36:41 AM

hehe, some people are just plain rich
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2009 2:11:56 PM

hehe, some people are just plain
hehe, some people are just
hehe, some people are
hehe, some people
hehe, some
hehe
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2009 2:12:42 PM

some sentences reduce so well ... couldn't resist that one ... sorry.

Had an epiphany ...
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2009 10:00:56 PM

I need a holiday.
a c 127 à CPUs
May 11, 2009 10:33:37 PM

Helloworld_98 said:
I thought that i5 was going to be base locked aswell as multiplier locked for the lower end versions.

Maybe I'm wrong but I could've sworn I read that somewhere.


Yea we also were told by Fud that all Core i7s but the 945 EE would have a locked base clock. Guess how true that turned out to be?? Not very.

What seems to be is a lot of speculation with Core i7/i5. Before Core i7 came out Fud had tons of people thinking that Core i7 920/940 would have a locked base clock. Problem is that was all fud.

Best thing to do is wait till we see what the sites say review wise. Of course that will be a while.

Quote:
"BTW - At 3.7Ghz the I7 is up to 50% faster in everything but games compared to the X4. "

Ugh games is what matters here mostly. My 955 runs just fine at 4.2 ghz stable and I play everything maxed settings 1920 x 1200. I wouldnt have a i7 at this point.

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i145/Soldier36/DSC04595ms.jpg


But in gaming with current CPUs, the GPU becomes the major bottleneck, at least in a single GPU setup.

And yes agree thats a nice setup.
May 12, 2009 3:47:54 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Yea we also were told by Fud that all Core i7s but the 945 EE would have a locked base clock. Guess how true that turned out to be?? Not very.

What seems to be is a lot of speculation with Core i7/i5. Before Core i7 came out Fud had tons of people thinking that Core i7 920/940 would have a locked base clock. Problem is that was all fud.

Best thing to do is wait till we see what the sites say review wise. Of course that will be a while.



But in gaming with current CPUs, the GPU becomes the major bottleneck, at least in a single GPU setup.

And yes agree thats a nice setup.


Thats just too broad of a statement. What res? Which games? Almost all top GFX cards are NOT bottlenecked @ 16x10, and alot of games arent even at 19x12, so, whatre you saying?
May 12, 2009 9:36:17 AM

Because AMD contain technology called the cold bug, meaning they can handling temperatures as cold as cooling the CPU with liquid nitrogen, therefore clocks can go very high at high voltages. AMD FTW. :sol: 
May 12, 2009 2:09:16 PM

From anandtech I7 920 @ 5.0+ghz on a EVGA classified.

"CPU was capable of booting on the Classified at a brutally cold -160C, and being benchmarked all the way down to -190C"

I think thats not bad at all ........................ INTEL FTW
a b à CPUs
May 12, 2009 2:12:50 PM

p4 @ 8ghz ftw
May 12, 2009 3:11:45 PM

LOLLL badtrip !
June 3, 2009 6:52:17 PM

Quote:
Ahh soldier and he's fanboyism. Never get's boring to see it. He acts as if i7 920 D0s can't reach 4.5ghz on air. Or that the new 975s aren't reaching 5ghz on air.

Also that i7s don't destroy any CPU when it comes to SLi/xfire configs. When new flagship GPUs come out, we'll see just how powerful the I7 is compared to P2.

See unlike what your saying, I'm basing what I'm saying on fact.


Lol... It is already a fact that AMD is better in gaming. Face it, it will not hurt you Intel fanboy.


PS: I7 is stupid overpriced s**t and we all know it. What normal man would buy 0.3GHz more clocked processor (I7 940) for 200$ more??? But I can't blame Intel for that. They're just smartly using people's stupidity.
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2009 10:48:40 AM

A 45nm Core2Quad beats the Phenom II for gaming ... plus it overclocks as well, and draws less power at idle.

Why bother with the i7 when a core2Quad is cheap and so are the LGA775 mobos?

Spintel wins on most of the games so I think your being a bit optimistic there.

Just posting to put things into perspective ... and I have an AMD shrine so don't call me an Intel fanboi either.
June 4, 2009 11:07:55 AM

The good thing tho is, if they win now, its not by alot. It didnt used to be that way, but go back further, and it was the other way around
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2009 11:14:01 AM

Consider this:

The i7, Phenom II, and Core 2 Quad are all basically identical in most gaming situations. With ridiculous GPU setups, such as quadfire, tri-sli, or quad-sli, the i7 pulls ahead. Every time. That doesn't seem like AMD is better in gaming to me...

(Not that AMD is bad at gaming - their current lineup is about the best they've had relative to Intel since the Core 2 came out, but you can't honestly think they beat the i7 in anything).
June 4, 2009 11:32:34 AM

Yea, the edge goes to Intel, for their IPC and their cache for gaming, its not huge, but its there. There are exceptions, but rare. Phenom, the original one, didnt even come close. Prior to that, C2D walked on the K8's, but the K8's walked on the P4's. And life goes on
June 4, 2009 7:14:13 PM

+1 JIT

I just build a new PII 940 rig for a friend GF and shes VERY happy with it. Doing light gaming, and other things.

Im personnally fully pleased with my Q9550.
June 4, 2009 9:44:11 PM

Core2 is a thing of the past. I do not know why the hell are you even comparing those with the new I7/Phenom II. Core2 is maybe identical in benchmarks, but in true experience... Just take a look a this test:



All right, we clearly see that I7 is a winner (by a small margin you won't even notice), but just PLEASE read the personal experience of the testers.


http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3506&p=4

"After playing through the several levels on each platform, we thought the Phenom II 940 offered a better overall gaming experience in this title than the Intel Q9550 based on smoother game play. It is difficult to quantify without a video capture, but player movement and weapon control just seemed to be more precise. Of course, if you have the funds, we would recommend the i7 platform for best possible performance."


PS: And add all this to the fact that Anand favors Intel much more than AMD...
June 4, 2009 9:52:15 PM

And another thing for Intellies. I'm sick of explaining why does the thing mentioned below happens, but I will just state it and say that my personal experience is the sam with Intel platforms:

During testing, the Intel systems would generate minimum frame rates in the 23~24fps range on a couple of runs and then jump to their current results on the others. We noticed this in game play also; the Intel systems would hitch and pause at times. We would shutdown the game, clear the prefetch folder, and reboot. The game would operate fine in the next series of testing, though we still had stuttering in intensive ground scenes at times. We tried new images, different CPUs, memory changes, and the Sapphire HD 4870 cards with the same results. The Phenom II 940 had extremely stable frame rates in each test and action was very fluid during game play.

Now that we have discussed the numbers, what about the game play experience? As we alluded to earlier, the Intel platforms had problems with minimum frame rates throughout testing - not just in the benchmarks, but also during game play in various levels and online. We have not nailed it down yet, but we have noticed this problem consistently. In contrast, the Phenom II X4 940 had rock solid frame rates and offered the smoothest game play experience. The problem is very likely driver related in some manner (as the man who helped to start DirectX once put it, "the drivers are always broken"), but nevertheless this is an issue on the two Intel platforms.
!