Slashdot Mirror
AMD's New Venice Core Shows Overclocking Potential
Vigile writes "It looks like the new Venice core processors from AMD are going to offer more than just 90nm technology through the entire line up. According to this article on PC Perspective, it is going to offer a lot of headroom for future processors as the author was able to overclock their 2.0 GHz sample to 2.8 GHz! I think I hear an FX-61 calling my name!"
Will it be easy to unlock these though, because if there is potentially to destory it I would not risk it.
We know that clock for clock, AMDs are faster than Intels. So what does 2.8 Ghz in AMD mean in terms of Intel performance?
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
I think I hear an FX-61 calling my name!
Sorry, actually, that's my Intel chip. Noisy bugger.
Huzzah! Hopefully I can keep it running cool enough :)
Mens et Manus
One has to wonder how overclocking about 40% does not introduce heat issues, that is, without elaborate cooling mechanisms like water cooling, etc.
A blog like any other.
What real good does overclocking 2 to 2.8 really do? These cores keep getting faster and faster, yet the increase in number of floating-point operations per second achieved isn't really that spectacular. How about a more intelligent (parallel) architecture to begin with?
Take off every sig. For great justice.
Bah, only 2.8Ghz! Intel's processors are already up to 3.8! AMD's are pathetic.
for those of you who don't recognize sarcasm, this is a big clue.
I don't mean to be flip, but if I can't judge the power of a processor by a simple metric like "megahertz" or nowadays "gigahertz", how can I know which processor is best suited to me? I've got a 2.8GHz P4 machine sitting next to me. How is that not better than the 2.0GHz AMD "Venice" processor that's only clocking in at 2.0GHz?
If CPU speed is irrelevant to processor power, then why do we keep talking about it?
An 800MHz overclock on stock cooling is absolutely incredible... But it kind of makes me wonder why AMD doesn't make the default core speed on the proc higher.
The Barton core is awesome, and AMD is just refining their game here, working with the same basic silicon for the A64 and the XP. Intel's brains are divided up among way too many incompatible irrelevent architectures.
Just my 2 cents.
What, me worry?
If CPU speed is irrelevant to processor power, then why do we keep talking about it?
It's not irrelevant if you don't make stupid architectural changes specifically designed to raise the clock speed, like Intel did with Prescott. It's not everything, but it's still something.
Or were you just trolling for Intel?
Help fight continental drift.
Becuase its relavent per CPU type. One can compair a type of Athlon to a type of Pentium when many tests are done where Ghz is the common speed factor. Its just a number to look at AFTER you understand what multiplier to place under it when compairing it to whatever else.
Yes, please do buy an Fx61. Buy 100 of them. tell your friends and their friends so you can, all 100 of you, half our national dept and allow me to by an AMD lesser proc at %25 the cost at 90% of the preformance.
I have a friend who once dated a guy who had a "80286" when it came to the size department. While you can argue that size is irrelevant past a certain point, even if the size is sufficient according to spec, it still may not be enough if it keeps popping out of the socket.
How about a more intelligent (parallel) architecture to begin with?
Unless you have a way around the von Neumann bottleneck, what intelligent architecture are you thinking about? Adding multiple cores will eventually hit a wall because of memory bus contention. The only solution I see is for someone to create a memory architecture that permits unlimited simultaneous memory access. At that point, fast processors will not matter much. Just have a bunch of cheap processors share a single huge memory space.
What heat sink are you using, and what voltage are you giving the chip?
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
We eventually did connect our network hubs, and I gave her a taste of my K7. The upgrade was worth it for her.
Though we are not networking these days, we still remain good friends.
AMD chips have multipliers unlocked downwards. That means if its got a 10x or 12x multiplier, you can chose 8, 9, 10, up to the default number. It works well, even if you dont want to OC, you can turn down the multiplier and crank up the FSB for better performance.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
What's the point of higher core clock if you are unable to ... feed it? (to the tone of Agent Smith and NEO)
Seriously, with storage stuck in 7200 RPM or 10000 RPM, higher core clock is rather mood...
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Just to save everyone the trouble:
1. How many eggs can I fry on it?
2. Yes.. but will it run Linux??
3. ????
4. I, for one, welcome our new overclocking overlords.
5. In Soviet Russia, old Korean people overclock you.
If CPU speed is irrelevant to processor power, then I've got a shiny 4 MHz 8086 to sell you!
You can RTFA, where numerous benchmarks are displayed to help you make just those kinds of decisions. The point of mentioning the numbers 2.0 and 2.8 GHz was not to provide an absolute performance metric but to demonstrate that the processor was easily overclockable (by 40% with only a normal AMD heatsink).
The problem is that GHz isnt the only parameter that CPUs are measured agaisnt. A 2.0Ghz AMD is faster than a 2.0Ghz Intel. There is also the difference between 32 and 64 bit processors, soon there will be single and dual core processors, cache size, etc... The move towards a standarized benchmark by Intel is a smart move. Now if they would allow AMD to use the same benchmark and allow for a standardized system by both manufacturers, the challenge in determining which processor is superior would be much much easier.
If you're interested in the best articles on AMD CPUs then read Ilya Gavrichenkov's work at http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/
This is so dejavu.
Now it's AMD's turn to pull an Even Steven on Intel with cool running cpus that also O/C high. That SOI sure does wonders ever since they started using it on the first A64's.
Most people don't run around overclocking their cpus but it is a great market to target (oh I'm da rappa!) because Intel has had great cores to O/C ever since the first Northwoods until the first Prescott, the bacon-cooker.
That's why AMD doesn't put a higher clock speed on all their chips.
Forgot to mention a great on the new core and its new features and benchmarks from Xbit Labs
gigahertz are a fairly useless comparison between different chip types. A 2.0 ghz AMD64 might run circles around your 2.8ghz P4, while a 1.5Ghz Pentium-M could go faster than an AMD XP 1800 without worries. Architectures make this happen. If a 2.0ghz AMD64 can go the same speed as a 2.8ghz P4, obviously the 2.0ghz AMD64 is running more instructions per megahert. This means, that each one counts for more. Thus, a .8ghz increase is a huge increase in speed. Imagine running a 2.0ghz P4. Not very fun, eh? Now, the difference between a 2.0ghz P4 and a 2.8Ghz P4 is smaller than the difference between a 2.0Ghz AMD64, and a 2.8Ghz version of the same exact chip. That is a huge speed increase!
Help Fight SPAM today!
Just how much memory bandwidth did those things have 10 or 15 years ago?
I remember when there was an actual megahertz race between amd and intel. Now it appears as though everyone is out breath. I can't believe we are still talking about 2.0 ghz AMD processors. Are they ever going to break 3 GHz? Intel seems to be no better off. How long was it since the first 3 Ghz was release and there is no 4 Ghz chips in sight? As a mac user, I can only revelled that physics has caught up with everyone and I no longer have to spout out about the megahertz myth in defence of my platform.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
There's plenty of explinations.
Here's some:
A) The chip is designed to run very cool. Overclocking it makes it hot, but it still runs fine. Just very hot.
B) The chip is designed to be run at higher speeds, and the initial offering is clocked-down. This gives AMD a few steps before more core/retooling work.
C) The cooler that comes with the CPU is very good.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
I think of AMD64 more as a consumer, then a flame=seeker. Is it the most powerful - NO CLUE Is it stable - YES Is it cooler - YES Is it affordable - YES Is it for a PC - YES Why should I buy anything that is more advertised, but actually too expensive. I dont buy it. Others buy it. But not me! I like my AMD :)
IRTFA and I am going to say it once:
Overclocking capabilities does not mean just speed, they mean stability under extreme circumstances, therefore granted stability under normal circumstances!
sex is better than war!
One big reason is the difference in FSB. Yours is probably what...800MHz max? Intel's fastest FSB is 1066 MHz while AMD's fastest is 2.0 GHz....huge difference there! Even if you had identical core processors *say P4 Prescotts* and they were both at 2.0 GHz but one had a 533MHz FSB and the other had a 1066MHz FSB the one with the 1066MHz FSB would be MUCH faster since the whole system could transfer data among its components faster. That's why when overclocking it's normally better to drop the multiplier on the processor a little and crank up the FSB.
I'm and American and I am trying to learn English. When you guys say "bugger," does it always mean "buggering?" Or did it mean noisy like an insect, a cricket in this case, a PC case that is.
Anyhow, I am rather confused about the whole hamster buggering too, is this a cultural thing? Thanks for the tea.
-Amerikan
I posted this yesterday.
-1 Redundant? Yeah, sure. But it's sad to see this place being overrun not only by racist posters but by moderators who are as well.
Who ever said judging the performance of many different cpus just by looking at the "megahertz" was good enough?
You want to know which cpu is faster than what? read reviews. Easiest and best way. Forget mhz, hell, even forget technical data if you don't feel like understanding it. Simply check out a few reviews on one product, take note of the benchmark results that interest you (such as gaming or compiling) and then see if the results from the different reviewers make any sense. If they look similar, then you can trust them.
In my case, I'm a gamer so I'll do what? Look at reviews and take note of which cpu is faster than which. In the end with a few sites being checked, I can make a conclusion unless all the results are unique. Most sites out there show the same pattern for gaming, A64 > P4. Then somehow, that must be a reliable way to measure performance among different processors, right? Just make sure not to read from crappy reviewers (did I just hear an echo saying "toms hardware"?..)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You could have a nice big 8 or 10 or 12 cylinder car turning 4,000 rpms or you can have that 4 cylinder rice-burner doing 8,000 rpms and getting the same performance.
Obviously each type of car is better suited to particular tasks. Same goes for processors. Clock speed isn't everything.
Or, ADHD
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I dont know what gets people going about speed on CPUs, also better performance. Yes more cache, higher bus speeds and a bigger fan do make for better computer experience but to me all it does is handle more of Windows bloat. I dont get why we have to fork out for a new and improved PC for the latest Windows when a computer thats just moderately new still can do the job just as well. I think all the software companies should refine their applications really push the PC to its limit. Look at Linux, sure it works well on todays computers but heck it still runs well on computer 5 years old. Linux and developers still have a place for the guys with the old computer. I really think software developers should work more on their programs to be as efficient as possible (mainly Microsoft)
If you RTFA, it mentions stability problems with AMD64 and fully populated dimm slots. My brand new AMD system was crashing a few times a day. I had all memory slots populated. I removed a stick of memomory. So far, so good. :)
Sweet !
Intel and AMD chips have completely different designs. In general, Intel chips are designed to blast through simple code very quickly (as Intel thought that's all chips would be doing by now), and AMD chips are designed to be able to handle branches and conditional code better. Also, current AMD chips have a memory controller on the chip itself rather than on a helper chip on the motherboard, which makes their memory access faster.
Before Intel hit the gHz wall, the strategy was actually working out pretty well. They were at a bit of a disandvantage in some areas, but for the most part the clock speeds were so high it didn't matter.
With the new Prescott core in Intel chips, they increased the penalty for branching in anticipation of still higher clock speeds. Those speeds never came, so they're at a disadvantage now.
At more or less the same time, AMD upgraded the memory interface of their chips, which improves performance in most areas in addition to helping them catch up with media stuff. At the same time they kept and in some cases improved their performance on branchy code. They avoided the gHz wall by improving performance without pumping clock speed.
I think Intel assumed Itanium would take over in areas that needed branchy code back when they comitted to the Pentium 4 design in the 90s. It arrived very late, and it turns out regular desktop users still need to deal with branchy code.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
One possible reason is to give them room to move in the market. They can now, if this article reflects the general nature of these CPUs, ramp their clock speeds in a hurry if they need to. In the mean time, they can keep slowly upping the speeds and keep the higest speed ones priced to the max.
Here is a better overview of the changes and feature additions
Hey look no pointless curley braces or semicolons... just like Python
If CPU speed is irrelevant to processor power, then why do we keep talking about it? It's not that it is irrelevant, it simply isn't the whole picture. Saying that "*Hertz" is the only thing that counts (in CPU speed) is big lie. It's equally big saying that it doesn't count either.
WARNING: DO NOT LET DR. MARIO TOUCH YOUR GENITALS. HE IS NOT A REAL DOCTOR!
If CPU speed is irrelevant to processor power, then why do we keep talking about it?
Because the marketing droids need a metric to convince the masses to buy the latest shiny thing. If people used standardized benchmarks on processors (say, SPEC's CINT2000 or CFP2000), then it would be too easy to see the benefits and shortcomings. However, the masses don't really care about any of that, they just want what the TV commercials say is "better."
Just as a would-be car enthusiast thinks that the most important element of an automobile is the engine, and that all performance characteristics are centered upon it, a would-be computer enthusiast would see the CPU (and its clock speed) as the most important element, and the component most worthy of an upgrade whenever possible. However, a wise mechanic, similarly to a wise techie, understands that there are many, many elements to make a machine function optimally. Ignoring an auto's suspension, brakes, aerodynamics, etc. makes an auto less-than-optimal, just as ignoring RAM size and speed, hard disk size and speed, L1 cache size, etc. makes a computer less-than-optimal.
All that being said, however, there's no way that we can expect the unwashed masses to instantly grow a brain and realize that they're being duped by marketing con-artists. We, as the educated, can attempt to educate those close to us, but the truth is that there will most likely always be a separation between the people who can see through the advertising double-speak and those who can't.
For instance:
Hummer commercial: An educated person might see through the double-speak and ask, "What about the gas milage?"
Intel commercial: An educated person might ask, "What about the cache size?"
I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
Marketing...
Let me explain. They release a chip they know they can clock higher on a whim. Then when Intel comes out with a faster chip, they don't have to do anything fancy. They have room to grow built into their current core. All they have to do is certify the next chips off the assembly line at the higher clock, and throw the ones that don't pass back down to the lower clock, and all is well.
It is a technique where you milk the consumers for all they are worth, THEN drop the prices later when you are forced to by the competition. It is nothing more than the bottom line. It is a requirement that you make all the margin you can while you can and worry about cutting the margins after you know you need to.
Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
Intel and AMD are selling into a market where at least half the home users follow the Brandsmart(tm) salesman's advice to look at the tag and count the stars becaue, "Mo stars mean mo bettah!"
Bring your application to the store. If it's runs fast enough to make you happy, isn't that suffucient? I like to see how fast a linux kernel compiles. You might prefer some matrix maths.
Now if you REALLY want performance, you wouldn't be using mechanical drives at all but solid state disks, which will net you a 3.75GB/s on a infiniband bus. And that is just one of the different ways you can connect them. There are even faster busses out there.
If you have applications that need to use even more then what you can get off a RAID fibre channel setup, then you have some serious issues with your programming or are doing some absolute MAJOR work (i.e. simulating the earth at the particle level).
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
AMD Athlon64 FX-55 overclocked to 4GHz.
A new FX release and we'll probably see some overclockers running stable 4GHz systems.
3GHz... the FX will hit that for sure. They're at 2.8GHz now and a new model is on the way IIRC
Belief is the currency of delusion.
>> Unless you have a way around the von Neumann bottleneck,
>> what intelligent architecture are you thinking about
I believe we're going to see Itanium re-emerge in some shape or form when Moore's law levels off. Gigaherthz are fun, but at some point you're gonna have to find a way to run things in parallel effectively. And that's exactly what Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing architecture was designed for.
I think what they were trying to say was that it ships slower than it is... overclocking just puts it at the speed it should be at... pretty on topic and insightful...
With AMDs hypertransport and integrated northbridge, every processor you add adds another memory bus. It's call NUMA, for non uniform memory architecture, supported in Server 2003, XP Pro since sp2 and Linux since 2.4, perhaps earlier.
NUMA was first used by SGI with their late 90s MIPS machines.
Intel uses a shared bus, with the exactly the limitations you describe, except with their Itanium in 8 way+ configuration.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
Not necessarily. A lot of CPU's fail testing at very high speeds but run with perfect stability at lower speeds. The CPU companies are profit driven, so they're happy to get some money for the CPU instead of throwing it.
Now, you can get yourself a cheaper CPU and overclock it, knowing it's probably capable of higher speeds, but there's a big risk of stability issues.
The current generations of CPU manufacturing process make very good error free batches compared to what it used to be like. So CPU's tend to work quite well at high speeds but still get badged down. That makes sense from a corporate perspective - if there is demand for a slower, cheaper CPU, you can sell into that market with higher specced CPU's. That just happens to be the way the market works.
The alternatives are untenable. It makes no sense for AMD to deliberately make a batch of CPU's specifically intended to be 2.0GHz when it costs the same as making a batch of 2.8GHz CPUs. AMD then has the *choice* of selling these CPUs at whatever speeds and prices the market demands.
Would the parent prefer than AMD make special 2GHz only CPU's to sell? Or perhaps AMD should instead only sell > $600 high end CPUs and not sell budget range CPUs at all?
This is the way the industry works. If you don't like it, feel free to go back to using transistors instead of IC's.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Intel's brains are divided up among way too many incompatible irrelevent architectures.
Just to get it out of the way, I'm neither an AMD or Intel troll. So here goes...
Intel can afford to divide its brains up more than AMD because it is such a huge company, much bigger than AMD. And they aren't supporting that many architectures. They have IA-64 (itanium), NetBurst (P4), and the Pentium Pro (Pentium Pro thru P3, and the P-M). I think they are going to start phasing out Netburst (and maybe itanium), so they would be back to one main architecture.
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
"If CPU speed is irrelevant to processor power"
... 1.45x 1.51x ... so even though my P4 has an entire ***1 Ghz*** on my AMD64 it still takes longer to AES encrypt data.
It's relevant within the same class. A 1Ghz and a 2Ghz K8 will have largely different performance figures on ALU/FPU related tasks (can you guess in favour of which?).
So when AMD releases a new K8 they want to tell you the clockrate since customers who already own K8 will want to know the difference.
Though you're right companies shouldn't use Hz as the measure against the competition. I don't think they do though. Well certainly Intel does but for AMD they largely let the reputation speak for itself...
As others pointed out keep in mind that a K8 is MUCH faster than a P4. For example, AES [the alg-ref-fast code] in pure C takes ~264 cycles/block on a Newcastle, with Intel's own C compiler it takes roughly 400 cycles/block on a Prescott.
So sure my Prescott (540J) has a 1.45x faster clock it also takes 1.51x longer to encrypt a block of text with AES.
Not to mention that under load my AMD64 takes less power, makes less heat, etc...
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Volcano 11+ and 1.775 VCore
What, me worry?
That sounds an awful lot like airlines selling a one way ticket for more than a round trip. I would prefer that if AMD makes a chip that specs out at 2.6 ghz they then sell that chip at 2.6 ghz. It makes absolutely no sense to introduce inefficiancies into the marketplace. Why on Earth would AMD want to sell a $600 chip for only $100? It's marketing types making a short term profit, but a long term failure. Much like how the major airlines are all being undercut by low cost carriers that sell everything as a cheap one-way ticket.
bance.net
It is nothing like the airlines because the cost to the airline of operating a first class seat is more than the cost to operate say a budget seat. In the chip world within a processor family, i.e. all the Athlon 64's regardless of advertised speed the cost to produce the chip is the same.
... etc .. etc ... sell their chips.
... etc ... but all the chips are manufactured on the same process. The frequency all depends on how clean and precise the process for making the chip happens to be, AMD produces a batch of chips, and then the speed bin them (determine what is the maximum stable operation speed for each chip. It very well couold be every chip in the batch runs @ 3.0GHz, they will then sell these chips as the market demands.
The process behind making a chip whether it be a 2.6GHz or 2.8GHz is not different, it's as much the science behind chip making as well as the market that determines what speeds AMD, INtel, IBM, Texas Instr, Nvidia, ATI, Motorola, etc
AMD can not control the frequency that a processor will run stable that is determined by the science. They can control the performance of the chip through other means, i.e. disabling cache, reducing MMX instruction sets, disabling64-bit addressing, etc
If the market is not willing to spend $1000 for a 3.0GHz athlon 64, then they sell them at 2.4GHz for $400 for example. The advertised frequency of the chip is only the guaranteed frequency the chip will operate. When you buy a 2.6GHz chip you aren't buying a chip that iwll only operate 2.6GHz you are buying a chip that will atleast run at that speed.
Take for example the Sempron, why would AMD introduce a line of processors identical to the Athlon 64's with the 64-bit instructions disabled, because most likely semprons are Athlon 64's that were produced that upon testing had flaws in their 64-bit execution parts. It's not AMD intentionally cripples some Athlon 64's, they might, in order to meet demand, but the nature of making a chips dictates that some chips all though produced to have X,Y,Z may not function as produced, so, why throw out a perfectly good product that works in everyway, except Y. Better to sell it for whatever you can get as a different product.
So, there you have it, the chip makers aren't looking for short term profits they are looking to make every chip profitable to them.
Yup. I'm in the choir, Mr. Pastor. I went through the overclocking phase myself, then grew up and out of it. Many overclockers don't understand how a CPU works, much less why the *best* outcome of overclocking is a hard crash (because then you know for sure that you've pushed too far). The most insidious errors don't cause crashes... the computer just keeps cranking along just fine but is outputing incorrect results.
They don't understand that the governor for how fast a CPU runs isn't directly time... it's distance (and because of distance, time). They probably don't know much about data setup and hold times, hysteresis, the fact that computing incorrect values because of setup/hold time violations won't cause a crash, you'll just get wrong answers without a crash, etc.
But hey, they are able to get 2% faster computers while spending less money! That is teh kewl!
You examine benchmarks that are similar to what you intend to be doing. In other words, if you want a machine to do video editing, look for video editing benchmarks that use the software package you will be using on the machine. Don't look at game benchmarks.
Actually PS2 is pretty much up the alley of all the future designs I've seen in the high-end consumer space. And this includes cell.
Cell is named so because you can change out little squares of the chip to put whatever you want on there. You lay down the cells and make up your own custom processor. Some units take more than one cell, but anyway...
A "cell processor" will actually have many processors. You Sony's Cell will have at least one CPU, a vector calculation unit (not coprocessor, separate unit), the basics of a GPU, and a DRM executor. It will likely also have dedicated video decode/processing (MPEG2, MPEG4, H.264) hardware, since I believe Sony's new "reality processor 2" they are talking about shares hardware with the PS3.
So it will have multiple processors, just like any recent gaming system worth its salt. Because You have to have at least a CPU and a GPU, even Xbox has that. And they will be disparate.
As to multiple vectors pulling from the same spot, as far as I know, Cell is not superscalar. I know the CPU in it isn't, I wouldn't think the vectors are either.
It makes absolutely no sense to introduce inefficiancies into the marketplace.
This is precisely why speed-binning exists. When AMD takes 2.6GHz-rated chips and marks them as 2.0 GHz, they are AVOIDING market inefficiencies.
The market only has so much demand at a particular pricepoint at a particular time. Chips cannot sell themselves just because they are "faster," the market only buys the chips when there is a perceived "need" for them.
This is why, as time goes on, speed grades increase quite frequently, but the overall pricing structure changes VERY slowly. Not that the market forces are set in stone...there are more high-end enthusiasts than there were say, a decade ago, but the number is still relatively small, and it has take a lot of time and effort for manufacturers to create and nurture that growing market.
So, here's how speed-binning relates to this market. Let's say AMD's new Venice core can hit 2.6 GHz 40% of the time. That means 60% of your processors have to be downgraded in rating, but that's no big deal because the demand for your "BEST" processor (the 2.6 GHz) is only a few percent of your total processors sold. That is to say, only 5% of people in this competitive market will pay $600 for a processor that is that good.
Now, what if 75% of your total processor sales market wants a "GOOD ENOUGH" processor? You look at your yields: 40% of your processors can hit 2.6 GHz, but let's say 80% hit 2.0 GHz. If you sell a 2.0GHz as your "GOOD ENOUGH," this means you can throw out a lot less processors by serving multiple market segments. It's better than selling the entire 40% of all processors as 2.6GHz, as that would produce market inefficiencies as 95% of buyers would be unwilling to spend $600 in this competitive market.
Yes, you could just sell processors at their maximum tested speed, but market trends are not typically well reflected by yields, so you have to tailor your outputs to fit the market demand via speed-binning. Some of your 2.6, 2.4 and 2.2 GHz chips end up marked as 2.0 GHz to meet demand.
Thus, your 2.0GHz processors end up as a mix...some of them really can't do much better than 2.0 GHz, while others have been speed-binned to meet demand. Thus, you are not guaranteed a marvelous overclocker if you buy the 2.0 GHz processor...and that has always been the fun of overclocking, the mystery and risk involved. Did you buy a dud, or will this one be a bargain screamer?
Myself, I don't overclock much anymore...but it used to be a lot of fun seeing how far I could push chips, before I wanted a system that just worked.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Just a theory, but if I wanted to sell more processors without paying for hype, I'd certainly consider labeling them as slower, starting a little hype about their actual capapbilities, and then reaping the rewards as supplies dwindle and word-of-mouth replaces my advertising.
A pipeline is not that bad an idea, any processor has one. Intel just stretched it a bit, while AMD was stretching their silicum :P
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
'way back, the reasonable explanation was "CPU companies sell processors marked at a slower speed because there are still systems out there that only work at the slower speed." The textbook example was the Motorola 68000; over time Motorola's chip fabrication got more and more sophisticated, as they moved to the 68020, 030, 040, and 060. The 68000 fab was benefiting from all these advancements at the same time; by the time the 68030 came out all of the new 68000s were actually 16 or 32 MHz parts but they still got sold as 8 MHz parts because that's where the 68000 had the most customers. People were regularly overclocking these newer chips to 48-50MHz and they ran perfectly fine. Motorola never sold them as 50MHz parts, I don't think they ever sold them as anything faster than 16MHz parts, but they were built on a fab line that was designed for 50MHz 68030s, and so it went.
-- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
Intel just stretched it a bit
A bit? Williamette had ~10 stages, Northwood had ~20 stages, and Prescott had ~30 stages. That's hardly "a bit."
I agree, if it's anything like my 2400+ XP-M@1.3v running at 12.5*200 @1.5 volts, I say bring it on.
Leaving them with an old antiquated nearly extinct instruction set :P
The day I'm waiting for is when Intel finally admits defeat and releases an A64 compatible chip...
Though I dont think its going to be anytime soon.
What, me worry?
Leaving them with an old antiquated nearly extinct instruction set :P
Yeah, Intel paid very heavily for backwards-compatability that nobody really cares about anymore. x86 should've been mass-genocided a LONG time ago.
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?