Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

16 of 288 comments (clear)

  1. Longevity? by User+956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:Longevity? by tomstdenis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    2. Re:Longevity? by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 5, Informative

      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?

      What is it with you people?

      Here on slashdot no less, a bunch of people decried my overclocking of a Celeron 300A to 450... FYI, its still running right now...

      You decried my overclocking of my AMD Barton 2500+ to 3200+... I am still using THAT as my primary machine...

      I am aware of the risks of overclocking, but I am also aware of the benifits. I weigh those considerations carefully before doing so. Overclocking not for you? Fine. No problem.

      However, it has been working just great for me thanks - and people told me my celeron would just *EXPLODE* or catch fire... or... Whatever...

      If you don't like overclocking, don't do it. However, stop whining about the chip frying. If it works, and you keep it cooled, it will probably work for a long time to come.

      --
      Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    3. Re:Longevity? by Firehed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  2. Article overclocking! by cr3ative · · Score: 5, Funny

    With minimal alterations, you can also perform mad overclocks on your articles!

    They watercooled this 10 page story up to an incredible FORTY FIVE pages, using only duct tape, a small iceberg and tons of adverts. Wow!

    SET YOUR CLICKING FINGERS TO STUN, LADIES!

    1. Re:Article overclocking! by SenatorTreason · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear tomshardware.com,

    2. Re:Article overclocking! by megrims · · Score: 5, Funny

      I would like to inform you,

    3. Re:Article overclocking! by SenatorTreason · · Score: 5, Funny

      Please put more than one sentence per page.

  3. and oh, boy, the heat... by NerveGas · · Score: 5, Informative

    Instead of Athlon64+ 3200 and X2 3800s, we built a few machines at the office with P-D 805s. Every user has complained about how hot it gets under their desk with the machines. You reach down and put your arm under the desk, and it's like a sauna. We haven't had any complaints with the AMDs.

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  4. 260 Watts. by DAldredge · · Score: 5, Informative

    This processor, when overclocked to 4.1 Ghz, draws 260 Watts.

    That will run up the electric bill just a little.

  5. Trading one cost for another by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 5, Informative

    Too bad that "free" 1.5GHz comes with a 216W increase in power consumption, totalling nearly 500W for the system.

  6. ARTICLE TEXT (or, "Bite Me, Tom's Hardware") by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    [Note: this is the first 10 pages of the article, with images removed. The charts are given as tab-delimted text.]

    There are still some situations in life that are guaranteed to put a grin on anyone's face, even hard-boiled technical skeptics like us. This particular story borders on being a sensation unmatched in our last eight years of hardware reviews. The news, for those who just can't stand the wait any more, is this: Intel has offered a budget Pentium as part of its processor line-up for a little while now. With a simple modification, however, this CPU can outperform every top-of-the-line processor around.

    The bottom line is that the Athlon FX-60 and the Pentium Extreme Edition 965 have both met their match - there's simply no escaping this conclusion! This is bound to cause lamentation among the elite circle of users who've invested big bucks in their high-end systems, if not outright wailing and rending of garments. The basic stats for this insignificant-seeming budget processor read as follows: Pentium D 805 clocked at 2.66 GHz, equipped with two processor cores both with 64 bit support. At your friendly neighborhood retailer you can pick up this secret weapon for pocket change - right now, for example, it's available at newegg.com for just under $130. We were quite amazed as the first performance figures emerged from our test labs: stable operation was possible at 4.1 GHz, and without even the need for substantial boosts to cooling!

    As one of our more enthusiastic readers wrote to us a few years ago, when we were chasing new overclocking records on what seemed like a daily basis: "I'll knock your numbers down to the ground." In this case, he was referring to the video encoding performance numbers that a heavily overclocked system could post when compared to a stock PC. We've also seen another similar phenomena in days of yore, which ambitious (but older) users probably remember. For example, the Intel Celeron 300A, for which a 300 MHz clock rate was specified, worked flawlessly at 450 MHz. Foreshadowing our current champ, this low-cost offering also knocked a much more expensive Pentium II 400 into the back seat.

    The Pentium D 805 gives Intel an unassuming budget CPU for its processor portfolio, but simply overclocking the device to 4.1 GHz puts it ahead of top-of-the-line high-dollar processors. For overclocking aficionados this means one thing: the AMD Opteron 144, which led the overclocking pack until just recently, has been dethroned by the Pentium D 805. This latter processor is not only easier on the pocketbook, it's also a noticeably better performer, thanks to its dual core architecture - the Opteron offers only a single core.

    The Pentium D 805 is based on the first Intel dual core processor, the Pentium D with the Smithfield core. Its predecessors in this family were rated at clock speeds of 2.8 GHz (D 820) to 3.2 GHz (D 840). Both cores in this CPU family come equipped with a 1 MB L2 cache, whereas the most current dual core processors in the 900 series make 2 MB available to each core. For the last year, Intel has brought no new models in the 800 series to market, because the company has switched its fabrication from a 90 nm process to a 65 nm one in the meantime, and has used this smaller building block size only for processors in the 900 series. But then out of nowhere, the old Smithfield core put in another appearance in the form of the Pentium D 805.

    By comparison with all the other processors in this series, the D 805's relatively low clock speed of 2.66 GHz doesn't make much of an impression on store shelves. At 133 MHz (533 QDR), its front side bus clock rate is laughable when compared to state-of-the-art CPUs with 200 and 266 MHz speeds.

    The Secret Of The Multiplier

    The multiplier expresses the ratio between the processor clock speed and the FSB clock. For the Pentium D 805, the combination of FSB and processor clocks results in a multiplier value of 20x. By comparison with other CPUs with 200 MHz or 266 MHz FSB, this is a very high valu

  7. More underclocking/undervolting articles! by Phoenixhunter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Hand picked sample? by meatflower · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you had RTFA you'd see that overclocking this card to 4.1 isn't actually a big strectch because of the unique way this chip was designed by Intel.

    Normally the clock multiplier is in the 10's but on this chip it is 20x. That means that a relatively small change to the FSB clock increases the overall clock speed greatly.

    The default FSB speed is 133mhz. 20x133 = 2.66ghz (the original speeds)

    By raising the FSB by only a bout 70 mhz to 200 we get a huge change. 20x205= 4.1ghz

    It's a relativley low increase in FSB speeds that translate to a much higher clockrate.

  9. Thats nothing! by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have my IBM PC XT overclocked to 5 GHz, unfortunately it costs 50 KiloWatts to run, but on the plus side I can use it in my kiln to cure pottery.

    --
    stuff |
  10. What the summary doesn't mention. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    1) Using the Standard Intel CPU cooler the processor wasn't even stable at 3.3Ghz, so they put on a zalman cooler.
    2) The zalman cooler wasn't good enough and would throttle after 3.8Ghz
    3) The 4.1Ghz was achieved using water cooling. The CPU is rated at 1.4v max and they had to run it at 1.56v to make this work.

    The headline says "A 4.1 GHz Dual Core at $130?" - but you'll need water cooling to make it to 4.1 ghz and that will at least double the price. Not to mention you'de probably need a new power supply.