Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Thuban gets turbo...kinda

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2010 2:14:27 PM

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20100205073010...

Switching off unused cores could be even better, or well should be even better in terms of gaining clock speed.

We're probably looking at 2.8ghz max on the top Thuban, overclocking to 3.6ghz+ in single threaded stuff. Should be interesting times ahead.

More about : thuban turbo kinda

a b à CPUs
February 5, 2010 2:17:42 PM

I would assume it will be renamed 'Overdrive', keeping in line with the software.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2010 3:05:15 PM

This is good news. Would be even nicer if AMD could release a new stepping of the current Phenom II's with the feature as well.


It is going to be interesting to see what all of the AMD loons who call Turbo a gimmick and all that nonsense say.
February 5, 2010 3:12:59 PM

If I have understood, The thuban won't be able to be o/c due to TDP (6 core in the same time) so if one software is using 1 thread, the thuban will o/c the first core used at 3.6 ghz (par example) instead of 2.8 ghz
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2010 3:14:01 PM

Nobody said turbo was a gimmick, just that it was unfair when benchmarking and 'clock for clock' comparisons.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20090235108.pdf

According to that, it could have overclocking potential based on how good your cooling is, which is a radical departure from intels turbo boost tech.
February 5, 2010 3:16:03 PM

I expect that all of the "turbo boost is a useless ploy" posts over at AMDZone will be disappearing very shortly. :) 

Lets all hope that Thuban makes a positive splash on the market - AMD gaining market share, even if only in regards to enthusiasts, spells good news for everyone (including Intel fans).
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2010 3:19:06 PM

clement4413 said:
If I have understood, The thuban won't be able to be o/c due to TDP (6 core in the same time) so if one software is using 1 thread, the thuban will o/c the first core used at 3.6 ghz (par example) instead of 2.8 ghz


You will still be able to overclock it as normal, probably even past 4ghz on all 6 cores.

The reason it has this automatic overclocking is so that it can keep within the 140w tdp limit for motherboards. AMD could be on to a winner here, especially if my assumption on how far it overclocks itself is true.

Think how 4.2ghz on a single threaded benchmark is going to look compared to 3.2ghz on an i5, or 2.8ghz on an i7.
February 5, 2010 3:27:30 PM

Atranox said:
I expect that all of the "turbo boost is a useless ploy" posts over at AMDZone will be disappearing very shortly. :) 


That is not likely to happen since the arguments against "Turbo" and "Overdrive" or dynamic overclocking in general have nothing to do with brand name.

Unless any benefit received from this type of "feature" applies in all situations, conditions and real time environments then it is a useless feature only good for benchmarketing. (I.e., fooling people that don't have enough knowledge to know any better.)
February 5, 2010 3:30:49 PM

Actually, turbo has been called a marketing gimmick over and over in these very forums. I don't think it is a gimmick and glad to see AMD adopt optimization for lower thread count operations but it could very well be the most useless feature to put in a chip designed for a server (assuming that a 6 core is designed for that market as targeting desktop market that doesnt take advantage of 4 cores would be asinine ). I am guessing this is first implementation and this product feature will find its way to the quad cores and lower.
.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2010 3:33:36 PM

I agree that anything like this is basically just a benchmarking tool with limit uses. Turbo and SMT were devised as methods for intel to break up their market into nice little sections.

However, I'm excited because AMD are doing exactly what they need to be doing, which is taking on intel on the benchmarks.

Depending on how aggressive this 'overdrive' is set, we might even see Thuban beating Gulftown in single or double threaded apps. I would sure be able to appreciate the irony in AMD beating intel in something that intel devised, and AMD perfected.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2010 3:35:38 PM

Jenny. You did not say it was a gimmick. But a good portion of the AMD loons did. And you just used language like "which is a radical departure from intels turbo boost tech.". Which is the AMD spin in action already.

Turbo was not used in a clock for clock comparison. That defeats the purpose of clock for clock itself. It was not unfair during benchmarking. It and what ever AMD ends up calling this should be benchmarked at stock settings(turbo and AMD version running). After that you can disable them both and and do all your clock for clock test you want.

All that is going to happen is the usual. The AMD lovers that hated on turbo will just now say AMD's version is better/radically different and so on.

I love this technology and am thrilled that AMD is adding it to its CPU myself.

February 5, 2010 3:39:27 PM

I do not believe AMD is using this for benchmarks any more than Intel. It is a very useful function that makes sense. It can be disabled at will so I see no reason to cry foul over it. it comes out of the box on and I am certain AMD will do the same. Turbo wasn't something with enthusiasts in mind. It was the folks who have no knowledge or desire to tweak their systems to make use of power that they otherwise would never take advantage of. Calling it something different doesn't make it something different.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2010 3:39:54 PM

Well we don't know for sure yet, just looking at the patents (check out fig 4) - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20090235108.pdf it looks like AMD's solution will allow a constant increase depending on how good the cooling is.

Intels turbo increases by a bin or two, that's it. It isn't really 'dynamic' overclocking in the way the AMD one is. Why I am excited about this is, imagine future chips that can determine which cores are best for overclocking and how far they can go etc.

That being said, this kind of 'dynamic' overclocking must carry certain risks with it.
February 5, 2010 3:43:30 PM

Sorry but for all intents and purposes, it is generally the same. This isn't me knocking it. It is a great idea and hope they go all out with it across all product lines they possibly can.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2010 4:05:57 PM

keithlm said:
That is not likely to happen since the arguments against "Turbo" and "Overdrive" or dynamic overclocking in general have nothing to do with brand name.

Unless any benefit received from this type of "feature" applies in all situations, conditions and real time environments then it is a useless feature only good for benchmarketing. (I.e., fooling people that don't have enough knowledge to know any better.)

It applies to ALL single threaded CPU-limited applications. Which is still quite a lot to be perfectly honest. You can keep claiming it does nothing (and I'll freely admit that its implementation on Bloomfield is quite weak), but in anything single threaded, a laptop with an i7-720QM will do MUCH better with turbo enabled (>2.5Ghz IIRC) than with turbo off (1.6GHz, again IIRC).
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2010 4:06:34 PM

Well it is the same in that it speeds up cores, but that really is the end of the similarities (assuming AMD are doing what the patents suggest).

This feature should be able to determine exactly what the sweet spot is for the cpu at all times. Compared to turbo boost it is far more advanced. All turbo mode does is determine when 1, 2 or 4 cores are being used, then increases the core by 133mhz or so. The AMD version should be constantly checking the cpu temperature and power and which cores are being used, then deciding whether or not to increase/decrease the clock speed.

If this all works to plan, there could be some very interesting benchmarks results appearing soon. 2010 just got a lot more interesting at least.
a c 680 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 5, 2010 4:38:23 PM

jennyh said:
Nobody said turbo was a gimmick, just that it was unfair when benchmarking and 'clock for clock' comparisons.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20090235108.pdf

According to that, it could have overclocking potential based on how good your cooling is, which is a radical departure from intels turbo boost tech.


Actually iirc, keithlm has called it a gimmick numerous times.
February 5, 2010 5:08:43 PM

jennyh said:
I agree that anything like this is basically just a benchmarking tool with limit uses.



Obviously you know very little about programming. Multithreading code is often a very difficult process, as some, if not most, processes work much better in a single threaded environment due to concurrency issues. Obviously a 2.4ghz hexacore processor has a lot more processing horsepower than for instance, a 4ghz single core of the same architecture. Unfortunately, harnessing that power for some applications is just not feasible, and certain applications could very well run faster on the single core than the hexacore simply due to the clock speed. For this reason, the clock speed boosting that both Intel and now AMD are implementing make a lot of sense. I see nothing gimmicky or limiting about them.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2010 5:22:15 PM

Yes the thing about turbo is, you can get the same effect simply by doing a minor overclock on the cpu. Take the i5 for instance, there is absolutely no reason at all why the cpu couldn't just be clocked to 3.2ghz all the time.

In the end, all this is doing is overclocking the cpu and I'm not about to change my mind on that just because AMD has a better version incoming. It's a cool feature, and if AMD nail it they will see great results in benchmarks...but it's still just an overclocked 6 core cpu.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2010 5:30:48 PM

someguy7 said:
Jenny. You did not say it was a gimmick. But a good portion of the AMD loons did. And you just used language like "which is a radical departure from intels turbo boost tech.". Which is the AMD spin in action already.

Turbo was not used in a clock for clock comparison. That defeats the purpose of clock for clock itself. It was not unfair during benchmarking. It and what ever AMD ends up calling this should be benchmarked at stock settings(turbo and AMD version running). After that you can disable them both and and do all your clock for clock test you want.

All that is going to happen is the usual. The AMD lovers that hated on turbo will just now say AMD's version is better/radically different and so on.

I love this technology and am thrilled that AMD is adding it to its CPU myself.



it would be a radical departure from intel's turbo if it was not just binned by speed, but binned by tdp on the running chip, and thus, if you had LN2 on the damned thing it can reach 6 GHz for you while intel is locked to it's topest bin


granted that is if they actually made it so that it knows how to up the voltages intelligently, if they did a speed thing like intel did then this would be a respin by jenny/amd but if they did it by tdp and unlimited speeds up, then kudos to them and intel is simply using this as a market cutoff and amd is actually trying to help the consumers that don't oc whom have good airflow cases or aftermarket hsf because they are purtty
February 5, 2010 5:36:09 PM

jennyh said:
Nobody said turbo was a gimmick

Dopey Keith did.

Quote:
According to that, it could have overclocking potential based on how good your cooling is, which is a radical departure from intels turbo boost tech.

What BULLSHlT. :non: 

And it is good to see that AMD is copying yet another Intel innovation. :lol: 

jennyh said:
You will still be able to overclock it as normal, probably even past 4ghz on all 6 cores.


:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  What for a suicide screenshot or under LNP.

Why would AMD's Hex core on the same process be any easier to overclock than their Quads?

Quote:
AMD could be on to a winner here, especially if my assumption on how far it overclocks itself is true.

I think we all know you will be wrong, again.

Quote:
Think how 4.2ghz on a single threaded benchmark is going to look compared to 3.2ghz on an i5, or 2.8ghz on an i7.

Leaving aside that Thurban clearly won't be able to get 4.2Ghz under air cooling in a non-overclocked system when it gets released in a few months, the i7-860 on a single thread should be at 3.33Ghz.



February 5, 2010 5:45:50 PM

logainofhades said:
Actually iirc, keithlm has called it a gimmick numerous times.


That's because... regardless of all the Intel fanboy argument... at the end of the day the most beneficial use of "Turbo-Boot" is benchmarking. Which makes this a benchmarketing gimmick.

BTW: Did you know that Tom's posted a 2.8Ghz clock-per-clock comparison? This comparison can easily be used to show that Turbo-Boot is generally not even as good as overclocking the i7 920 or i5 750 to a constant 2.8Ghz. All you have to do is compare the results in that article with the standard "clock" speed results. OOPS... this reveals that Turbo-Boot is basically worthless. Worthless == Gimmick.

But some people are stupid enough to buy into the marketing hype. (And it makes them really angry when somebody points out that it is merely marketing hype.)

Chad Boga said:
Dopey Keith did..


Hey LOOK! The flame-baiter that likes to insult people because he doesn't agree with them. How mature.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2010 5:48:35 PM

jennyh said:
Yes the thing about turbo is, you can get the same effect simply by doing a minor overclock on the cpu. Take the i5 for instance, there is absolutely no reason at all why the cpu couldn't just be clocked to 3.2ghz all the time.

In the end, all this is doing is overclocking the cpu and I'm not about to change my mind on that just because AMD has a better version incoming. It's a cool feature, and if AMD nail it they will see great results in benchmarks...but it's still just an overclocked 6 core cpu.

Going back to my example, you actually can't just overclock it. Even if the laptop's cooling was up to cooling an i7-720qm at 2.5+GHz all the time (which it almost definitely is not), the battery life would be atrocious. The best solution for a laptop is the solution Intel has - turbo mode. I agree that it is perhaps less useful in a desktop (though even there it has a purpose), but in a laptop, turbo mode is a great idea.
February 5, 2010 5:50:23 PM

cjl said:
I agree that it is perhaps less useful in a desktop (though even there it has a purpose), but in a laptop, turbo mode is a great idea.


Actually every time I think of this feature in a laptop I cringe.

The last thing I want in a laptop is something that will decrease battery life in ANY way. I guess if you use the thing plugged into the mains all the time then that would be one thing... but when using a battery... just... NO.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2010 6:06:39 PM

man i feel ignored....
anytime when I try to post something that tries to look at it objectively and provide what logical information I can glean on these things no one seems to see it

do i have to be biased to the extreme for people to actually read them??

if so then gooooooooooooooooooo via!! via rails that is, they are really comfortable in canada with the nice rooms with beds. just don't mind the speed.
a c 83 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 5, 2010 6:22:50 PM

This technology is useful for those who don't overclock, but I personally overclock and underclock while changing my cool n quiet power states. For the most part this is worthless to me, but it helps out in the oem sector.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2010 8:06:12 PM

Chad Boga said:
What BULLSHlT. :non: 

And it is good to see that AMD is copying yet another Intel innovation. :lol: 


Oh really? Do intel cpu's check temps and voltages and dynamically change the clock speed based on that?

Quote:
Why would AMD's Hex core on the same process be any easier to overclock than their Quads?


Excuse me are you on drugs? Easier to overclock? Since when could X4's not overclock past 4ghz?

Anyway to answer your question, why wouldn't they? A C3 stepping Phenom II easily hits 4ghz on all cores so unless you believe GF's 45nm process has gone backwards then why exactly would Thuban not go above 4ghz?

Quote:
Leaving aside that Thurban clearly won't be able to get 4.2Ghz under air cooling in a non-overclocked system when it gets released in a few months, the i7-860 on a single thread should be at 3.33Ghz.


4.2ghz under air cooling? A lot of C3 Phenoms can do 4.2ghz on 4 cores, never mind a single core. Given the choice of 6 cores, and the other 5 switched off, give me one good reason why a single core on Thuban couldn't hit *at least* 4.2ghz, and probably higher.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2010 8:18:37 PM

And so it begins.
February 5, 2010 8:46:12 PM

jennyh said:
Oh really? Do intel cpu's check temps and voltages and dynamically change the clock speed based on that?

Here is all the info you will need http://download.intel.com/design/processor/applnots/320...

Quote:

===============================================================================
Why would AMD's Hex core on the same process be any easier to overclock than their Quads?
===============================================================================

Excuse me are you on drugs? Easier to overclock? Since when could X4's not overclock past 4ghz?

Ahhh Jenny, fcuk all people are able to run a PhII @ 4Ghz with air cooling, on a 24/7 basis.


===============================================================================
Anyway to answer your question, why wouldn't they? A C3 stepping Phenom II easily hits 4ghz on all cores so unless you believe GF's 45nm process has gone backwards then why exactly would Thuban not go above 4ghz?
===============================================================================

A C3 PhII does not easily hit 4Ghz on air, for a 24/7 setup, so you start off on the wrong foot and then you ignore that the extra 2 cores will hold it back.

Quote:

===============================================================================
Leaving aside that Thurban clearly won't be able to get 4.2Ghz under air cooling in a non-overclocked system when it gets released in a few months, the i7-860 on a single thread should be at 3.33Ghz.
===============================================================================

4.2ghz under air cooling? A lot of C3 Phenoms can do 4.2ghz on 4 cores, never mind a single core. Given the choice of 6 cores, and the other 5 switched off, give me one good reason why a single core on Thuban couldn't hit *at least* 4.2ghz, and probably higher.

Fcuk all C3 PhII's do 4.2GHz on air cooling as a 24/7 system. You get confused by a screenshot only overclock.

And considering you mentioned a i7 at 2.8Ghz, I am assuming you are talking about a comparison of all products as shipped by the manufacturer, and not with user overclocking.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 5, 2010 9:02:43 PM

AMD a day late and a die shrink late, I wonder how the engineers thought this up ?
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 5, 2010 9:07:56 PM

Maybe someone had a vision and thought a fusion of techniques would be a good idea. :whistle: 
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 5, 2010 9:22:27 PM

Intel's turbo boost helps windows load faster,
helps application load faster.
programs run faster, for example convert x to dvd.
anti-virus scans. Most games don't run off of 4 cores , so that
means the game is running faster up to 4x133 faster in the case of the i7-860.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2010 9:50:18 PM

LOL - so AMD is copying Intel's turbo-boost, MCM and hyperthreading technologies now, but the AMD fanbois of course state "But-but-but - it's different! I swear, it's different!! Really!!!"

Well at least AMD can learn from its mistakes, after it learns to eat a huge pile of humble pie of course :D 
February 5, 2010 10:31:43 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
LOL - so AMD is copying Intel's turbo-boost, MCM and hyperthreading technologies now, but the AMD fanbois of course state "But-but-but - it's different! I swear, it's different!! Really!!!"

Well at least AMD can learn from its mistakes, after it learns to eat a huge pile of humble pie of course :D 



But-but-but it's NOT different. I swear it's NOT different!! Really!!!

Any implementation of such a feature that AMD produces will be just as useless as what Intel currently has in place.

OMG... it makes a 2.66Ghz chip perform almost as good as if it was just clocked at 2.8Ghz... CALL GUINNESS.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2010 11:31:18 PM

Maybe we could call the speed increase "Catchup" ...

Seriously though it is the cache latency that is the one area when AMD needs improvement at this stage ... as that will improve IPC.

February 5, 2010 11:43:35 PM

jennyh said:
Well it is the same in that it speeds up cores, but that really is the end of the similarities (assuming AMD are doing what the patents suggest).

This feature should be able to determine exactly what the sweet spot is for the cpu at all times. Compared to turbo boost it is far more advanced. (At this point you can't say that, that is what you hope.) All turbo mode does is determine when 1, 2 or 4 cores are being used, then increases the core by 133mhz or so. The AMD version should be constantly checking the cpu temperature and power and which cores are being used, then deciding whether or not to increase/decrease the clock speed.

If this all works to plan, there could be some very interesting benchmarks results appearing soon. 2010 just got a lot more interesting at least.


Jenny, that is exactly what Intel's Turbo boost does. They accomplish this by putting in a separate controller using ~1Million transistors. It constantly checks internal junction temperatures and package temperature. It shuts down cores when it detects they are not needed per the work load and per the way the processor is fused you get a minimum of 1, 2, 3, 4 or more 133MHz increases in clock speed depending on the specific processor model.

The new Arrandale mobile Westmere parts have the largest turbo boost of any Intel processor. The word is that Gulftown will launch at 3.33GHz and have a max 1 core Turbo boost up to 3.6GHz.

We will have to see how well AMD impliments this feature in the Thuban. I hope it will have enough thermal margin to reach some high single core clocks!
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2010 11:51:30 PM

With sustainability in mind I'd be hoping both companies make good use of those transistors to shut areas down when not required ... in order to use even less current at idle ... or identify certain loads that require minimal cpu use (running software updates and AV scans).

Thus saving a few more trees for MM to live in ... and random to get stuck up.

As an AMD fan I was very impressed with Intel's turboboost ... good initial strategy ... and if the other fanbois cant handle it tough titties.

Its like when the car industry got ABS / SRS / Window wipers / radial tyres / engines without crank handles ... compete or go dodo.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 5, 2010 11:53:53 PM

:)  Yup, we definitely need more trees on planet earth.
February 5, 2010 11:54:02 PM

Well said. +++
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 5, 2010 11:54:43 PM

Thank you.
February 6, 2010 12:05:34 AM

Jenny, From Intel's white paper on Turbo Boost technology.

Link to white paper: http://download.intel.com/design/processor/applnots/320...

Description of Turbo Boost:

Intel® Turbo Boost technology is available only on supported processor versions. With Intel® Turbo Boost technology, the processor is capable of maximizing core frequency while ensuring that it does not exceed its electrical and thermal specifications. This means workloads that are naturally lower in power or lightly threaded may take advantage of headroom in the form of increased core frequency. Continual measurements of temperature, current draw, and power consumption are used to dynamically assess headroom.

Dependencies and limitations:

Intel® Turbo Boost technology core frequency upside availability is ultimately constrained by power delivery limits, but within those constraints, it is limited by the following factors:

• The estimated current consumption of the processor
• The estimated power consumption of the processor
• The temperature of the processor

The number of active cores at any given instant dictates the upper limit of Intel® Turbo Boost technology. For this discussion, a core is considered ‘active’ if it is in the “C0” or “C1” state; cores in the “C3” or “C6” state are considered ‘inactive’. The upper limits will vary on a per processor number basis. For example, one particular processor may allow up to two frequency steps (266.66 MHz) when just one core is active and one frequency step (133.33 MHz) when two or more cores are active. Therefore, higher deep C-state residency (“C3” or “C6”) on some cores will generally result in increased core frequency on the active cores. The upper limits are further constrained by temperature, power, and current. These constraints are managed as a simple closed-loop control system. If measured temperature, power and current are all below factory-configured limits and the OS is requesting P0, the processor automatically steps up core frequency (+133.33 MHz) until it reaches the upper limit dictated by 6 White Paper the number of active cores. When temperature, power or current exceed factory configured limits and you are above the base operating frequency, the processor automatically steps down core frequency (-133.33 MHz) in order to reduce temperature, power and current. The processor then monitors temperature, power, and current and continuously re-evaluates.
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2010 12:06:07 AM

AMD did very well on cool n quiet with the 64's ... I'd like to see their low power strategy continue to be advanced.
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2010 12:07:55 AM

pausert20 said:
Jenny, that is exactly what Intel's Turbo boost does. They accomplish this by putting in a separate controller using ~1Million transistors. It constantly checks internal junction temperatures and package temperature. It shuts down cores when it detects they are not needed per the work load and per the way the processor is fused you get a minimum of 1, 2, 3, 4 or more 133MHz increases in clock speed depending on the specific processor model.


Hmm yes I realise that now. Though...typical of intel it doesn't keep going no matter how good your cooling is, you get a limit that can't be breached...until the next 'new' chip down the line :whistle: 

Anyway, my bad on not fully understanding Turbo mode.

Quote:
We will have to see how well AMD impliments this feature in the Thuban. I hope it will have enough thermal margin to reach some high single core clocks!


Agreed. What is exciting is AMD won't be held back due to concerns of having to keep a perfect market split. Thuban can basically be allowed to go full out, on a mature process too.

It's no fluke that AMD are releasing 6 core desktop and 12 core server chips soon. The yields on these are nigh-on perfect.
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2010 12:08:11 AM

Reynod said:
With sustainability in mind I'd be hoping both companies make good use of those transistors to shut areas down when not required ... in order to use even less current at idle ... or identify certain loads that require minimal cpu use (running software updates and AV scans).

Thus saving a few more trees for MM to live in ... and random to get stuck up.

As an AMD fan I was very impressed with Intel's turboboost ... good initial strategy ... and if the other fanbois cant handle it tough titties.

Its like when the car industry got ABS / SRS / Window wipers / radial tyres / engines without crank handles ... compete or go dodo.



Hehe. You said titties.
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2010 12:10:19 AM

Has anyone plotted how Turbo Boost operates under a gaming load?
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2010 12:12:59 AM

It's no fluke that AMD are releasing 6 core desktop and 12 core server chips soon. The yields on these are nigh-on perfect.

Umm ... that's complete rubbish.

The yeilds on these would be poor.

Size of the die / process / previous track record / forklift driver told me.
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2010 12:14:46 AM

It should be no different then any other load. Its like the cpu plays favorites with different types loads. What ever the cpu can do within its design spec it will do.
February 6, 2010 12:18:47 AM

Quote:
Oh really? Do intel cpu's check temps and voltages and dynamically change the clock speed based on that?

Uhh, that's exactly what it does.

Quote:
Excuse me are you on drugs? Easier to overclock? Since when could X4's not overclock past 4ghz?

My Phenom II 940 BE wouldn't go above 3.7ghz and run completely stable, regardless of voltage.

Quote:
Anyway to answer your question, why wouldn't they? A C3 stepping Phenom II easily hits 4ghz on all cores so unless you believe GF's 45nm process has gone backwards then why exactly would Thuban not go above 4ghz?

Umm, maybe because the 6 core chip has a lot more transistors, and is a lot more complex. Maybe you don't completely understand chip design, but the more wires and the longer the wires in the CPU, the more crosstalk there is- which in turn lowers the CPU overclocking ability. The process is a good place to start, but that is FAR from the only aspect affecting clock speed in a CPU.
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2010 12:21:13 AM

I would not say AMD's yields are crap. But I would not say near perfect either. If they where near perfect almost every x3/x2 would be unlockable. They are not. Add on another two cores I suspect the yield rate of the x6 to be lower then the x4 of course. Heck its not a triple cheeseburger or anything.
!