A 4.1 GHz Dual Core at $130?

joshmo97 writes "Tom's Hardware has found that the Pentium D 805 runs stable at 4.1 GHz and outperforms Intel and AMD's flagship offerings in many benchmarks. From the article: 'The Pentium D 805 is a budget CPU, but it puts lots of processors from AMD and Intel to shame. Although it is not based on the latest 65 nm core, this CPU remains stable even when operating at amazing 4.1 GHz. The Pentium D 805 ascends to the throne as the new King of overclocking, knocking out the AMD Opteron 144.'"

Comments

Longevity?

[User 956]

Ok, so you can overclock it to 4.1Ghz.. but how many weeks will it last before it burns out and you need to buy a new one?

Re:Longevity?

[tomstdenis]

Who says it's not damaged already. That's one of the problems with these hacks. You could break a transistor and instead of getting a 1 in 10^-20 chance of error it's now upto 10^-9. Once in a while you'll get an error, probably not notice it yourself but something your doing could be affected.

This hack may be ok for a gaming rig, but I wouldn't do it to my workstation.

Tom

Re:Longevity?

[Firehed]

Have you ever overclocked before? Going 1MHz over the limit won't fry it, you'll get at worst an unstable system. You'd have to go well over the limit (probably 10% over or more), and often overvolt it by a good amount too, in order to actually damage the thing. And before you counter with the argument of shortening the lifetime - yes, you will, but a processor will far outlast its usefulness, unless you've got it cooled to absolute zero running at 40ghz in which case the lifetime is probably shot. When you're talking about a chip lasting eight years instead of ten... well, how many of us have systems from 1996 (or 1998 for that matter) that we still consider useful?

Re:Longevity?

[networkBoy]

In fact on a given wafer the die's are sorted into "bins". Bin1 parts are top notch and are the 3.4, 3.6GHz pieces, while bin2 may be 3.2GHz, bin3 3GHz, and so on, till you get to the bins that == no good. The sorting is based both on speed and failure mode, such that in the passing parts they are sorted by speed, and in the failing parts they are sorted by failure (for analysis as to what the failure is, why it happens, etc.) so the failure can be fixed and the yield can be imporved.

FWIW: I do not work on processors, I work on ASICs so YMMV in the proc world.
-nB

More underclocking/undervolting articles!

[Phoenixhunter]

Honestly I've been there and done that, I think I still have my Celeron 300mhz running at 450mhz somewhere around here. But these days, all I really want in a computer is something that has decent performance and doesn't sound like a vacuum cleaner. I'd much prefer to know which CPU's I can undervolt/underclock, and reduce the DB to a minimum.

Re:More underclocking/undervolting articles!

[Amouth]

yea but with the 300A i used the box cooler and got it to 750.. this one you have to use massive cooling.. (not fun) remember the artical noted that when they went over the stock speed that the box can couldn't handel anything but stock speed under full cpu load

Re:More underclocking/undervolting articles!

[Amouth]

i agree for the lower end speeds but honestly water cooling shouldn't count in the review.

i am not nocking this proccessor.. i am happey to see these days agian.. it has seemed like both Intel and AMD have both been pushing out max clocked cpu's sence the 1gz barrier was simi broken by intel with cpu's that could run but not compile a kernal

i might look into this cpu for a few things but i think they are trying to hype it up a little to much and are going to piss off alot of people when they can't get that 3.2ghz because they used the stock fan..

although i am suprized that the stock fan can't handel more.. that would be the first intel boxed fan i have seen that wasn't designed to handel atleast one step higher for computers with poor ventalation..

Sample size

[l2718]

The article seems to claim that one chip could be overclocked to 4.1GHz. That's a far cry from saying that all such chips will work at that clock speed. A sample size of one isn't very informative about a population.

Re:Article overclocking!

[gEvil (beta)]

Damn! I thought you were just kidding about the 45 pages, then I clicked the link for TFA...

NO need for 4.1 GHz

[hike2]

Nobody said you need to run it that high. You can run that CPU with slightly higher FSB with a slitghly better cooler and get it at 3.6 GHz which is damn close to one of the $1,000 EE chips. I'm off to buy a combo at Fry's for $150 ... can't beat that

Re:I used to be Intel all the way years ago.

[dlapine]

Sorry, we're talking about what you can get today. Next year, I'll be able to buy and it'll be better than what's available now.

The point of the article is that it's possible to get good value for your money now. I've run dual core for 3 months at home and dual proc for 3 years at work. I own a small computer computer business. I have hard time telling anyone to buy a single core if any dual core is available for under $150. The second core just makes such a big difference for regular usage for OS level tasks.

Would I prefer AMD to have an offering in that price range? Sure, but they don't, and at the moment, it's easy to see where your money is best spent right now. The fact the D805 overclocks insanely for some chips isn't even relevant for most home users, and all business users- because they won't be overclocking.

Is Intel going to regret selling these for under $150? Probably, but if you can't beat them on performance (ignoring the occasional superchip), you sell in volume with good values. That's how AMD survived during the K5 and K6 years.

Waiting for the next best thing is kinda silly in the computer world. Well, waiting more than a week, anyways. :)

Diminishing Returns

[maximthemagnificent]

I notice that while the clock rates climb quickly, the performance levels on most real world benchmarks level out pretty quickly. So why bother waste all the time and electricity?

Re:ARTICLE TEXT (or, "Bite Me, Tom's Hardware")

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Amazing. 10 pages of article with ads removed = 1 page of real text

This is what I've come to expect from sites purporting to be hardware enthusiast sites, and is why I don't visit them unless I have to. The actual content in one page is about 10% of the entire page, the rest is navigation and ads. I swear, this type of site knows nothing about sensible layout and design, as if these people are user interface and art school drop-outs. Two menu bars at the top, two columns on the side, a table of contents, piles and piles of ads, all on EVERY PAGE.

Re:260 Watts.

[rm999]

Or during the winter, savings on heating ;)

Re:ARTICLE TEXT (or, "Bite Me, Tom's Hardware")

[Malor]

Ads served = money. That's why they do it that way.

Re:260 Watts.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anything else is wasted energy."

Wasted as what? Oh ya, heat. Unless you think the by product is something else, and if so then those byproducts will eventually be heat.

You're Forgetting

[GmAz]

Dont' forget you need a pretty good set of RAM to do this. RAM that will most likely cost you over double what the processor is worth. A motheboard that can handle those speeds isn't cheap either. Plus, you need a power supply that is reliant and can deliver a steady stream of power. Cooling is another must for this. Expect to pay at least $60 for a cooling unit if not more and go with watercooling. You will end up looking at around $500 just for the few main components. For the enthusiast, thats great; for everyone else, its not worth it.