Slashdot Mirror
Pentium III hits 1Ghz
Frac writes "somebody has finally overclocked a Pentium III to over 1 gigahertz. Here's the translated version of the original French article. "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Are you kidding? Gigahertz speeds are essential to seeing Netscape crash faster than ever.
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
Did you read the article?
They used the ASETEK Vapochill system to cool down the coppermine.
Now, since the multipliers are locked on Coppermine processors, there's no way that these people could get a 7.5 multipler. The highest is a "7" with a front-side bus of 100 mhz
Intel engineering samples are not multiplier-locked. I guess we can throw your "simple facts" table from Tom's right out the window.
it'd be wise to check the facts first.
I agree. Do you plan on following your own advice though?
Here.
This was done a few months ago with 2 P3 500s by Hardwarecentral. They said it wasn't terribly stable at 1055 Mhz (1.055 GHz), but it DID go over 1 GHz. In fact, they did it with DUAL CPUs.
Results.
(Yes, their CPUs were unlocked, they modified the CPU for the cooling, but it does count)
1) If I'm not mistaken, the L1 cache in the PIII is at least 64k (32+32). According to the screenshot (which can easily be faked) it's 16 and 16.
2) The L2 cache of the 733 PIII is 256 kb ONBOARD! Why is this important? Well first of all, there is nothing listed under the L2 setting. Did they have to DISABLE THE L2 CACHE to get it to work? If this is not the case, then why isnt' the L2 amount shown? If it was indeed disabled, then it's extremely doubtful that those benchmarks are reliable.
Performance of todays processors is almost as much dependent on cache performance as archetecture and design. By increasing cache performance and memory throughput through the chip, you are decreasing the amount of time that the processors instruction pipelines are left empty. With no L2 cache, this would prove an incredible crippling of the chips ability to execute instructions.
The only other possibility here is that the L2 is disabled, but the test scores are real. This being based on the idea that perhaps, all of these benchmarks are running within the L1 cache, which if true, would mean that the tests are not indicative or real world performance.
But then again, I could be wrong,
Big Din K.R.
The simple facts (from Tom's Hardware)
Coppermine processors:
Rated Speed Bus Speed Multiplier
733 133 5.5
700 100 7
667 133 5
650 100 6.5
600 EB 133 4.5
600 E 100 6
533 EB 133 4
550 E (PPGA) 100 5.5
500 E (PPGA) 100 5
Now, since the multipliers are locked on Coppermine processors, there's no way that these people could get a 7.5 multipler. The highest is a "7" with a front-side bus of 100 mhz.
Note that they also make absolutely no mention of any method of cooling this thing. The only thing presented are the benchmarks, all of which are directly proportionate to the increase in mHz rating. Coincidence? I doubt it. There's no mention _at all_ of the hardware this was tested on, except for one screenshot that mentions an ABIT BX6 (Rev. 2) motherboard.
Before you go expounding on the wonders of 1ghz Coppermines, it'd be wise to check the facts first.