Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

T-bred... for the record

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 18, 2002 7:59:08 AM

Look, im an AMD fan. But I will always try and disseminate truth. And the truth is, the T-bred will not likely overclock well.
I would take a few pages to explain why. But I hope the folks that know me will trust me on this one. Dont expect too much. Hell, AMD may surprise me. But form everything I heard, im not holding my breathe.
If im proven wrong, then great. But lets end the speculations why it hasnt overclocked well. None of you were even close. The core is NOT at its end (like I speculated). Theres still some speed left in athlon.

Now for the good news. Hammer does not have any probs at all. Though it will not debut at the speed I hoped, I am assured it will kick some serious a$$. Cache levels are still being debated.
Finally, im really itching to see a 800mhz bus in action. Hypertansport is specd to run at that speed. So it should be hella fast.

-later

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.

More about : bred record

June 18, 2002 10:11:33 AM

well come on then.. what is the reason behind the poor oc ability of the tbred? you say none of us were even close which means you must the reason. i for one am itching to know what the problem is. i had put it down to the core being at the end of its life but you say its not..... so whats is the issue with the damn thing??

I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 18, 2002 10:53:07 AM

Quote:
the T-bred will not likely overclock well.

no, the TBred is not likely overclocking well.

Quote:
I would take a few pages to explain why.

i would like as well.

Quote:
And the truth is, the T-bred will not likely overclock well....
...The core is NOT at its end (like I speculated). Theres still some speed left in athlon.

what do you mean exactly here. is there a misconception?


:smile: i like toasted cpus but not AMD-inside. :smile:
Related resources
June 18, 2002 2:15:57 PM

Quote:
Finally, im really itching to see a 800mhz bus in action. Hypertansport is specd to run at that speed. So it should be hella fast.

Well, I'm not sure that I can entirely agree on 'hella fast' there. For home-use systems, sure. So far though, it's just sticking right to spec. When you actually sit down and examine it, an 800MHz HyperTransport ring <i>sounds</i> good, but turns out to be completely empty.

The HyperTransport technology according to what I've read is 16-bit upstream and 16-bit downstream. At 800MHz, that means that they're only using a DDR implementation to achive the 6.4GB/s that the primary HyperTransport ring will be using. Which sounds just fine for a home use PC.

But you also have to keep in mind that this 6.4GB/s is actually 3.2GB/s upstream and 3.2GB/s downstream. So only in a best case scenario 6.4GB/s will be realized. Realisticly, it's about as likely to be realized as a DSL connection maxing out both the upload and download streams. Usually the majority of data is only flowing one direction at a time. This will mean most data flow will be capped at 3.2GB/s, the maximum capacity of one direction in HyperTransport.

Now add in the fact that the AGP card can no longer directly access memory. The memory controller is now on the CPU. AGP 8x, the new emerging standard, has a maximum bandwidth of 2.13GB/s. So for a 1-CPU system, the 3.2GB/s of a HyperTransport stream should be more than enough. But what happens when you have a dualie system? That AGP 'bus' might end up getting squeezed by communication between the two CPUs.

Take that one step further down the AMD product line though. Picture a quad-CPU 64-bit Opteron running on a 6.4GB/s HyperTransport hub. Each processor has it's own memory banks. So if ProcessB in Processor1 needs to access Processor2's memory for ProcessA, that means all that data needs to travel through the HyperTransport hub. Now imagine a massively-used workstation, running numerous processes simultaniously, each using their own memory but also having to access each other's memory. Imagine that this is also in 64-bits, where each 'object' in memory takes up twice as many bytes. Now put an AGP 8x card back into the picture, which is also trying to use up to 2.13GB/s on that 6.4GB/s ring. Is an 800MHz DDR 16-bit bi-directional hub going to cut it? (And does this sound strangely like RDRAM to anyone else here?) Or is it going to become a massive bottleneck for a 64-bit 4-way AGP graphics image render box running well-designed multi-threaded code? Going by specs, it would make image rendering software being run on a 4-way Opteron completely useless, that's for sure. You'd probably be better off trying to use only a 2-way Opteron because otherwise, that HyperTransport will become a massive bottleneck.

Let us hope that by the time AMD releases the 4-way Opterons, they come up with a better implementation of Hypertransport than just an 800MHz DDR 16-bit bi-directional ring. (Still sounds a lot like RDRAM to me...) Upping the clock would help, but more so than that, making it either QDR or dare I suggest, make it 64-bit (DDR SDRAM's datapaths anyone?) and really give those 4-way Operon systems the HyperTransport bandwidth that they'll need. Until AMD does something like this for HyperTransport, for 4-way Opterons the 800MHz will be as empty as the 1.6GHz of an Intel 'Wilty' Celeron.


Tech support said take a screen shot.
Putting it down with my .22 was the humane thing to do.
June 18, 2002 3:55:56 PM

Quote:
But you also have to keep in mind that this 6.4GB/s is actually 3.2GB/s upstream and 3.2GB/s downstream. So only in a best case scenario 6.4GB/s will be realized. Realisticly, it's about as likely to be realized as a DSL connection maxing out both the upload and download streams. Usually the majority of data is only flowing one direction at a time. This will mean most data flow will be capped at 3.2GB/s, the maximum capacity of one direction in HyperTransport.

3.2GB/sec is still an enormous amount of bandwidth for a PC, especially considering that it's only going to be used to communicate with AGP and the southbridge.

Quote:
Now add in the fact that the AGP card can no longer directly access memory. The memory controller is now on the CPU. AGP 8x, the new emerging standard, has a maximum bandwidth of 2.13GB/s. So for a 1-CPU system, the 3.2GB/s of a HyperTransport stream should be more than enough. But what happens when you have a dualie system? That AGP 'bus' might end up getting squeezed by communication between the two CPUs.

Probably not. Decent 3D cards these days are designed so that they don't do much access to main memory. They mainly load the texture and bump maps into extremely fast onboard memory and then just pass basic wireframe geometric data back and forth across the AGP bus.

Quote:
Now imagine a massively-used workstation, running numerous processes simultaniously, each using their own memory but also having to access each other's memory. Imagine that this is also in 64-bits, where each 'object' in memory takes up twice as many bytes.

This does become a problem if threads are switched back and forth between one CPU and another. Of course, threads don't get switched much between CPUs for reasons much like this--it complicates things. Usually this switching occurs only in two circumstances:

1) One CPU is pathologically loaded, another is spinning its wheels, and the process scheduler can't find enough new work to pass over to the idle CPU. How often does this happen? Not often under a heavy workload. It's most likely to happen when the workload is reaching a lull, in which case the slowdown might not even make a practical difference.

2) A process is being swapped back into memory from disk. In this case, the bottleneck is the disk I/O.

Quote:
Going by specs, it would make image rendering software being run on a 4-way Opteron completely useless, that's for sure.

Not really. Remember, rendering software is often designed to be run on rendering clusters, where each CPU is even more isolated than the CPUs in a 4-way Opteron system. The workload can be split up among several CPUs, and each one can work independently; video memory never has to be touched until the final raytraced image is ready for viewing.

<pre>We now <b>return</b>(<font color=blue>-1</font color=blue>) to an irregular program scheduler.</pre><p>
June 18, 2002 4:18:14 PM

Quote:
None of you were even close.


Then it has to be mfgr problems. Everyone was trying to avoid saying it since there were valid speculations like packaging, core re-arrangement, EOL of Athlon core etc.

Anyways, I would love to know more about hammer and also what's wrong with the T-bred.

KG

"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity." - Sarah Chambers
June 18, 2002 4:20:38 PM

Wow.

I don't know much about hypertransport, but I knew there is "hype" built into it. Anyways, I think you are forgetting that Claw will be single channel DDR controller and Sledge will be duel Channel DDR Controller.

KG

"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity." - Sarah Chambers
June 18, 2002 6:15:12 PM

this is stupied.
the situation isn't any better with regular SMT systems when 4 processors accsess the same memory directly spliting the bandwith farther...


This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
June 18, 2002 6:17:32 PM

Quote:
3.2GB/sec is still an enormous amount of bandwidth for a PC, especially considering that it's only going to be used to communicate with AGP and the southbridge.

As I said, it's pretty good for a single CPU system. It'll probably even suffice for a dualie. I still have qualms about it in a quad configuration though.

Quote:
Probably not. Decent 3D cards these days are designed so that they don't do much access to main memory. They mainly load the texture and bump maps into extremely fast onboard memory and then just pass basic wireframe geometric data back and forth across the AGP bus.

And when a scene doesn't change much, that works fine. However every time you have to load new textures, bump maps, vertex arrays, color arrays, etc. into the memory of the graphics card, it takes a massive main memory to AGP transfer. Maybe it's just my company, but our software reloads data like that rather frequently because the point of most of our 3D modelling software is to allow the user to edit data in 3D, so each time the user edits, you have to recalculate and reload at least some of it. Granted, we don't use nearly the memory that image rendering machines would because we have minimal textures and try to keep the verticies down because a lot of our users don't even have hardware acceleration. Still, from people I've talked to, scene changes can really max out that bandwidth.

Quote:
This does become a problem if threads are switched back and forth between one CPU and another. Of course, threads don't get switched much between CPUs for reasons much like this--it complicates things. Usually this switching occurs only in two circumstances:

1) One CPU is pathologically loaded, another is spinning its wheels, and the process scheduler can't find enough new work to pass over to the idle CPU. How often does this happen? Not often under a heavy workload. It's most likely to happen when the workload is reaching a lull, in which case the slowdown might not even make a practical difference.

2) A process is being swapped back into memory from disk. In this case, the bottleneck is the disk I/O.

Again, maybe my company's software is unique or something, but some of our multi-threaded code really generates a lot of short-lived processes and threads which all contain data taken from a single source (so that they're always using up to date data). Not that our software needs a 4-CPU system (in fact we still debate if it even needs a 2-CPU system) but if our software got into heavy calculations, it would totally kill a 4-way Opteron. And we're toying with the idea of 64-bit for improved accuracy. So far, AMD's HyperThreading has disappointed us. We were hoping for a solution that wouldn't need a massive software rewrite to be usable.

Quote:
Not really. Remember, rendering software is often designed to be run on rendering clusters, where each CPU is even more isolated than the CPUs in a 4-way Opteron system. The workload can be split up among several CPUs, and each one can work independently; video memory never has to be touched until the final raytraced image is ready for viewing.

A single 4-way Opteron system might do better than a 4 single CPU system render farm, but a 4 dual-Opteron system render farm will probably do just as well or better than a 4 quad-Opteron system render farm.

My point though is that the HyperTransport's bandwidth can cause 4-way Opteron systems to scale vary badly in at least some (if not many) of the applications that will run on 4-way Opterons. It would be sad to see such a thing happen because the Opteron sounds like a good chip. So I am hoping that AMD sees this possability and addresses it before 4-way Opterons are released by increasing the bandwidth of HyperTransport in some way, at least on 4-way Opteron boards.


Tech support said take a screen shot.
Putting it down with my .22 was the humane thing to do.
June 18, 2002 6:22:33 PM

Quote:
Wow.

I don't know much about hypertransport, but I knew there is "hype" built into it. Anyways, I think you are forgetting that Claw will be single channel DDR controller and Sledge will be duel Channel DDR Controller.

Um, no. I'm not forgetting that because it has nothing to do with HyperTransport.

HyperTransport is the mechanism for the CPUs to talk to each other, access each other's memory banks, and work with the AGP card. The memory controller of the chips has nothing to do with HyperTransport's performance.


Tech support said take a screen shot.
Putting it down with my .22 was the humane thing to do.
June 18, 2002 6:31:21 PM

Quote:
this is stupied.
the situation isn't any better with regular SMT systems when 4 processors accsess the same memory directly spliting the bandwith farther...

Except that we already know and expect that particular performance degredation. The combination of each CPU having it's own seperate memory bank along with HyperTransport however has the potential to alleviate a lot of that.

However, a 4-way Opteron system can be bottlenecked by HyperTransport if AMD doesn't improve HyperTransport's bandwidth. So the seperate memory banks would solve one problem, only to recreate an equivalent to the same problem by too low of a bandwidth in HyperTransport for 4-CPU systems. It seems odd to me that AMD would even risk that. So I hope that by the time they release a quad-Opteron motherboard, they'll have a buffed-up HyperTransport specifically for it to ensure that there is no bottleneck. If they can do that, then 4-way Opteron systems will really kick arse.


Tech support said take a screen shot.
Putting it down with my .22 was the humane thing to do.
June 18, 2002 8:38:46 PM

Well, just so you know. AMD is approaching the quad setup COMPLETELY different than any other platform.

The know the probs with on-die memory controllers and 4-way systems. LAtency, access times etc etc. ANyway, they know the probs and limitations and are addressing it. Scratch that, they have already addressed it.

As for why T-bred has issues... 3 words. open forums=bad

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
June 18, 2002 9:14:11 PM

That's three words and a mathematical symbol, and you're not helping any, dammit :tongue:

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 18, 2002 9:25:02 PM

yeah i know everyone here gets a little woody from ocing. but i think it's flipping hilarious that i keep seeing people saying amd messed up or whatever. weird, i could've sworn that the new tbred was running at the clockspeed/pr# that they specified, i could be wrong though.

[insert philosophical statement here]
June 18, 2002 10:04:31 PM

actully its not completly diffrente - its ALOT like what Compaq did with thier latest Alpha EV7 ptocessor...
not very suprising given who worked in Digital on EV7 and who are they wotking for now ;) 


This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
June 18, 2002 10:35:29 PM

It depends how texas meant it. He might know more than what we know, since he has the AMD contacts, so maybe he's right, or maybe you are!

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
June 18, 2002 10:35:47 PM

hey iiB,
do you know how AMD is going to lay out the chipsets for the 4-way systems?
If so, I would love to hear what you think it is. Cuz unless your real sure about the 4-way architecture how do you know its the same as Compaq's?
So.. if you can guess how a 4-way opteron system will get around the potential bottlenecks of hypertransport, Ill give you $50. Good luck

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
June 18, 2002 11:07:31 PM

Ultimately Slvr, all you've said here is speculation on your admittedly limited knowledge on how AMD will implement the Quad Opteron.

They may have a HT bus between each CPU in anything above a dual. They may increase the bandwidth. They might decide to build all 4 CPUs into one huge core. (Am I even close Texas?) I'm sure we'll find out in time.

I remember reading something about there being double the bandwidth in HT on Opteron systems, but I could be wrong.

"Meesa thinks that yousa gonna die" - Darth Darth Binks
June 18, 2002 11:21:09 PM

4CPUs in one core? Stacked or wide spread? If wide man that'd take pins... around 900 for one Opty, *4, Socket 3600 woohoo! :lol: 

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
June 18, 2002 11:40:27 PM

I never said it was a GOOD idea :tongue:

I'd be a socket 3600 frying pan with a heat spreader :wink:

I don't think stacking would work either. You'd have to mount the HSF strangely, perhaps hanging out of the case.

"Meesa thinks that yousa gonna die" - Darth Darth Binks
June 19, 2002 2:42:49 AM

Yeah with a bus fan engine...

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
June 19, 2002 2:42:34 PM

Quote:
Ultimately Slvr, all you've said here is speculation on your admittedly limited knowledge on how AMD will implement the Quad Opteron.

My admittedly limited knowledge? I readily admit that I don't know everything in the entire world. From that perspective I suppose I do admit that I work from a limited knowledge base. However, I think I'm pretty darn up to date on AMD's HyperThreading. Of course, I'm not an AMD engineer, so there may be unreleased information that no one has that I could be missing, but the same would be true of anyone else here since that knowledge would probably at <i>least</i> be under a Non-Disclosure Agreement anyway and therefore they couldn't talk about it even if they had that knowledge.

Quote:
They may have a HT bus between each CPU in anything above a dual.

Perhaps you've missed the bus (so to speak) but HyperThreading <b>IS</b> the bus between each CPU in all Opteron systems.

Quote:
They may increase the bandwidth.

That's <i>exactly</i> what I have been saying that I hope they do!

Quote:
They might decide to build all 4 CPUs into one huge core. (Am I even close Texas?)

Somehow, I doubt it. Besides the fact that it would destroy their entire design layout for the platform and almost completely negate the point of even having HyperThreading, it would also be insane to put all of the CPUs right next to each other. Talk about hotter than hell...

Quote:
I'm sure we'll find out in time.

Exactly! All I've been saying is that by looking at the specs, HyperThreading could be a small to massive bottleneck for quad-Opterons and I <i>hope</i> that AMD does something to fix that by the time they release quad-Opteron motherboards.

Quote:
I remember reading something about there being double the bandwidth in HT on Opteron systems, but I could be wrong.

If there was (by implementing QDR instead of DDR for example) then that would solve the problem nicely and I would be glad to see it.

HyperThreading sounds cool, and <i>is</i> cool <i>for single CPU systems and probably most dualies</i>. (64-bit dual operation might find that HyperThreading is a minor bottleneck.) However, if nothing changes it has the <i>potential</i> to be a bottleneck for a quad-Opteron system. Just look at the data on HyperThreading so far and it's all there, clear as day.

Ultimately, all I'm saying is: <b><font color=blue>I HOPE THAT AMD DOES SOMETHING TO IMPROVE HYPERTHREADING'S BANDWIDTH BY THE TIME THAT THEY RELEASE A 4-WAY OPTERON.</font color=blue></b>

If anyone got <i>anything</i> else out of what I've said, then they're reading more into it than what I put there.


Tech support said take a screen shot.
Putting it down with my .22 was the humane thing to do.
June 19, 2002 2:55:15 PM

Quote:
Well, just so you know. AMD is approaching the quad setup COMPLETELY different than any other platform.

Gee, I'd have never guessed by their use of 4 memory banks and HyperThreading...

Quote:
The know the probs with on-die memory controllers and 4-way systems.

I was <i>trying</i> to avoid even bringing up the massive difference in bandwidth between each individual memory controller and HyperThreading's bandwidth and how there's no way in hell that HyperThreading in its current design could ever hope to supply that kind of bandwidth between 4 CPUs if they all needed to access each other's memory banks simultaniously. But since you bring it up, do <i>you</i> have any words of wisdom on what AMD thinks about this without copping out with something akin to "I'm not at liberty to say."?

Quote:
LAtency, access times etc etc.

It is my understanding that the on-die controllers are to reduce latency and access times (being generally the same thing).

Quote:
ANyway, they know the probs and limitations and are addressing it. Scratch that, they have already addressed it.

Well I sure hope so, because I can see these problems and limitations a mile away and I would severely hope that this means that AMD can see them too. I hope even more that AMD addresses these problems with reasonable solutions to provide us with a quality product.

So far, all I've said is that if you look at the specs, it is clear to see problems are there, and I <b>hope</b> that AMD addresses and/or fixes those problems before the quad-Opteron motherboards are released.

Am I wrong to think that AMD engineers might actually be smart enough see this as well?

Am I wrong to <i>hope</i> that the engineers do something about it in the many months that they have before 4-way Opteron systems are released?


Tech support said take a screen shot.
Putting it down with my .22 was the humane thing to do.
June 19, 2002 3:13:22 PM

Quote:
However, I think I'm pretty darn up to date on AMD's HyperThreading

Apparently even more up to date than Jerry Sanders himself, since AMD doesn't plan to implement HyperThreading for a good long while. I think you meant *HyperTransport* through your last two posts :=)

Ritesh

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ritesh_laud on 06/19/02 10:14 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
June 19, 2002 3:25:37 PM

Oops. Oh yeah. Thanks. It's just already been a loooooooooong morning trying to debug some unstable multi-threaded code. I must have displaced my thoughts from one task to another. Sorry about the confusion everyone.

I'd change the posts, but they're good for a laugh. :) 

(And at this point, I could really use something to laugh at.)

At least I think I've got the bug nailed though. Evil CStrings...

But anywho, again, sorry for the confusion. I did mean HyperTransport, not HyperThreading. Oh the joys of being an over-worked under-paid programmer working on someone else's poorly-documented code...

[drones into chant]
I love my job. I love my job. I love my job.
[end drone]

Tech support said take a screen shot.
Putting it down with my .22 was the humane thing to do.
June 19, 2002 7:15:54 PM

Quote:
However, I think I'm pretty darn up to date on AMD's HyperThreading. Of course, I'm not an AMD engineer, so there may be unreleased information that no one has that I could be missing

That's all that I ment by your admitted limited knowledge. You don't know what AMD has up their sleave, you're simply speculating on what you know, which is a fair amount I will admit. No offence intended.

Quote:
Perhaps you've missed the bus (so to speak) but HyperThreading IS the bus between each CPU in all Opteron systems.

I ment a single seperate bus between each CPU, not a shared bus.

Quote:
If anyone got anything else out of what I've said, then they're reading more into it than what I put there.

I didn't, I was just pointing out a few other thoughts.

I wonder if Intel will start using HT in any of their new products?

It can be said that smoking is one of the leading cause of statistics.
June 19, 2002 7:33:07 PM

Quote:
I ment a single seperate bus between each CPU, not a shared bus.


So there would be 6 separate HyperTransport busses, just for the CPUs? Sounds a bit tricky to me. Not that it's a bad idea, just that it'd be hard and/or expensive to implement.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 20, 2002 6:32:29 AM

I don't know Texas.......we've had some great talks in the past, but right now its too early to call it. I mean look at Hardocp overclock or AMDMD's, and then you have Anantechs.......

Could it be due to the fact that the first run t-breds were made for moble market so they scalablity shouldn't be that great.......the biggest fact is we don't know.

The first steppings of the P4 were not that great either....:) 

I would say that this stepping has some shinners waiting to be found and some that will only do what speed they are supposed to do. Is there anything wrong with that? No, as long as it does the posted speed, its fine.

t-bred hasn't stretch its legs yet, not yet by far.


MeldarthX
June 20, 2002 6:48:44 AM

[drones into chant]
I love my job. I love my job. I love my job.
[end drone]

rotf........I say that everytime I get up in the morning and goto work. under paid computer tech manager, get this........I have the best department in the world, MYSELF. That's right; I am my own department, well techniclly*sp* a sub department of the main production department of my company........

where do you work Phoenix? or can you say? as for myself........I'll just give a hint......

our main line, are the fastest gaming pcs around.......

and the second hint.......well.....


MeldarthX
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2002 6:53:17 AM

yup. wee dot now but wee can search the reson witch coold maybee explan that stringer phenomenon...
Maybee...


Intel for free. AMD for fee.
June 20, 2002 8:17:16 AM

first stepping have never been good overclockers, we've all known this. The first tbreds haven't changed this either.....as steppings go on, better they should get. All while the hammer is waiting in the background. I understand why AMD is not worrying about tbred first run out the door, not possibly overclocking well.

As long as it does the posted speed, we really can't bitch can we?


MeldarthX
June 20, 2002 3:50:33 PM

Quote:
The first steppings of the P4 were not that great either....:) 


The first Northwoods out the door overclocked great. If you're talking about the original P4s, you can't compare a completely new processor to a die shrink.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 20, 2002 6:22:28 PM

Tbred will not be fixed, AMD is focusing only on Hammer. PM Texas if you want more info.

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
June 20, 2002 8:54:08 PM

"The first Northwoods out the door overclocked great."

This is true, I was able to push the first released 2.0A to 2.8Ghz on air.

Socket 423 was good for about 25% overclock max

You are limited to what your mind can perceive.
June 20, 2002 9:57:12 PM

Quote:
This is true, I was able to push the first released 2.0A to 2.8Ghz on air.

While I don't deny that this might have been possible, I don't believe YOU. Prove it!

I want to see pictures with serial numbers (to prove it was a first run 2.0a); screen shots showing proc speed, multiplier info, and installed device listings; and screen shots of benchmark results to prove stability.

If the thought I thought I thought had been the thought I thought, I wouldn't have thought so much.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ath0mps0 on 06/20/02 03:07 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
June 20, 2002 10:00:58 PM

It is definitly not a normal aircooling, that's one.
If we put in normal regular aircooling, something from a retail fan to the Swiftech MCX serie, then it counts as standard aircooling. Has Fugger done it with such? Who knows.
We do know the 1.6A got to 2.4 on retail, and since it is downbinned, it means a 2A should get to 2.4GHZ as well retail aircooled, which means Fug used something more major.

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
June 20, 2002 10:02:36 PM

The 1.6A tops out because of the high FSB, not because of the limits on the core. That's why I started recommending the 1.8A over the 1.6A. It has a higher top end.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 20, 2002 10:12:55 PM

Most 1.6As top out at 2.8GHz under air cooling because that's their limit not because of high FSB speeds.

With a BD7(II) or IT7, you can get your FSB astronomically high, but the CPU is the limit not the FSB because the RAM and FSB can keep going without effecting the PCI/AGP bus and with decent RAM, you won't be overclocking the RAM too much (if at all).

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
June 20, 2002 10:13:23 PM

Well whatever the limits are, it's what result you get that counts. Who knows, maybe those Tbreds haven't been unlocked, or maybe they were. Regardless, if unlocking did not help as much, it doesn't matter in the end, the limit is the limit, you use it wisely. It's Intel's fault for not unlocking them anymore.

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
June 20, 2002 10:14:52 PM

This is why RDRAM is the perfect match here, since you don't need to OC it anymore than it is, as it is maxed out on the 3.2GB/sec of bandwidth.
However what kind of aircooling you can use to get to 2.8GHZ anyway? Tell me it's not a bus fan engine!

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
June 20, 2002 10:17:31 PM

Quote:
Most 1.6As top out at 2.8GHz under air cooling because that's their limit not because of high FSB speeds.


The ones that get that high, yes. The ones that stop at ~2.4 normally do so because of the high FSB. Sorry that wasn't very clear.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 20, 2002 10:27:14 PM

Well on regular circumstances, assuming the cooling was near Retail, or a bit better, 2.4GHZ is the reach, with 2.8GHZ being a very hard one. I wouldn't put that into some OCer's dream, making him it's easily attainable as 2.4GHZ.

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
June 20, 2002 10:44:10 PM

I agree, my point is that the 1.6A usually tops out because of FSB limits, not core limits. The 1.8A has a higher top end because it has a higher multiplier. If the 1.6A was topping out because the core limit was reached, then the 1.6A and 1.8A would have the same top end.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 20, 2002 11:16:35 PM

Quote:
We do know the 1.6A got to 2.4 on retail, and since it is downbinned, it means a 2A should get to 2.4GHZ as well retail aircooled, which means Fug used something more major.

This is totally wrong. Anand <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1574&p=13" target="_new">Here</A> got 2.2Ghz running at 2.64Ghz on the first day they 2.0aGhz and 2.2Ghz were released. So do you say that 2.0Ghz would also be able to Overclock to 2.64Ghz <b>Air cooled</b>.

KG

"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity." - Sarah Chambers<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by kemche on 06/20/02 07:37 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
June 20, 2002 11:54:42 PM

Prepare to be bitch slapped.

"While I don't deny that this might have been possible, I don't believe YOU. Prove it!

I want to see pictures with serial numbers (to prove it was a first run 2.0a); screen shots showing proc speed, multiplier info, and installed device listings; and screen shots of benchmark results to prove stability.

If the thought I thought I thought had been the thought I thought, I wouldn't have thought so much."

Not a problem, I have all the above. =)

<A HREF="http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=3005860" target="_new">3Dmark 2001 on my 2.0A</A>

<A HREF="http://fugger.netfirms.com/reportmax.htm" target="_new">Sandra @ 2.77Ghz</A>

I will scan in the side of my retail box sticker (I still have it)

ROFL, nice try and better luck next time calling me out like that punk.

I still own that CPU too.

You are limited to what your mind can perceive.
June 21, 2002 12:18:18 AM

I don't know if this makes much difference, but I noticed that the pictures of the Tbreds that NewEgg is selling are AIRDA 0222, I believe making them 7 weeks and one stepping newer than the ones that toms and other sites reviewed (assuming that the picture represents the same stepping that NewEgg is currently selling) so it seems to me that there may be hope that the tbreds can overclock better than the ones that the reviewers had. By the way, the picture was in the brown packaging.
June 21, 2002 1:58:53 AM

The 4-way systems will get around potential latency bottlenecks by...
Well, I wont say exactly. I will say it doesnt have much to do with the chipset or mobo, but has a LOT to do with the Opteron chip itself. I cant even pretend to understand the solution, but it sounded reasonable enough to work. Im not a techno-genius. Just a laymen.


Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.
June 21, 2002 3:00:55 AM

Was it RETAIL aircooled as I said?

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 21, 2002 5:21:23 AM

i am not agreed.
i would like to see it to believe it.
have you some proofs to enforce your meanings?
don't know well but for example some links, some articles or whatsoever..

<i>ps: avoid to speak about your uncle, your grandma or whatever. this is not receivable, this is not an argument.</i>


Intel for free. AMD for fee.
June 21, 2002 1:43:24 PM

Am I the only one here who just sniffed off Labdog...?

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
!