|
The Official OC (OverClocking) Thread!
|
|
|
NO Fanboy comments needed
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. June 2009 @ 12:43 |
Link to this message
|
im sure intel hit 45nmm a year before AMD.....
MGR (Micro Gaming Rig) .|. Intel Q6600 @ 3.45GHz .|. Asus P35 P5K-E/WiFi .|. 4GB 1066MHz Geil Black Dragon RAM .|. Samsung F60 SSD .|. Corsair H50-1 Cooler .|. Sapphire 4870 512MB .|. Lian Li PC-A70B .|. Be Queit P7 Dark Power Pro 850W PSU .|. 24" 1920x1200 DGM (MVA Panel) .|. 24" 1920x1080 Dell (TN Panel) .|. |
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. June 2009 @ 13:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yeah I think they did as well. The Q9 and E8 series were the first I think and were released 18 months or so ago, maybe a bit longer than that.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. June 2009 @ 13:02
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. June 2009 @ 15:53 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Yeah I think they did as well. The Q9 and E8 series were the first I think and were released 18 months or so ago, maybe a bit longer than that.
Sam & Shaff,
The 45nm Quad was first demonstrated by AMD in August of 2006. In fact, Intel was third to 45nm chips as Toshiba had a GPU that was 45nm about a month after AMD demonstrated the 45nm Quad core Opteron!
Best Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
 This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. June 2009 @ 15:55
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. June 2009 @ 16:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
show casing it and bringing it to the market are completely different.
MGR (Micro Gaming Rig) .|. Intel Q6600 @ 3.45GHz .|. Asus P35 P5K-E/WiFi .|. 4GB 1066MHz Geil Black Dragon RAM .|. Samsung F60 SSD .|. Corsair H50-1 Cooler .|. Sapphire 4870 512MB .|. Lian Li PC-A70B .|. Be Queit P7 Dark Power Pro 850W PSU .|. 24" 1920x1200 DGM (MVA Panel) .|. 24" 1920x1080 Dell (TN Panel) .|.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. June 2009 @ 17:10 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by shaffaaf:
show casing it and bringing it to the market are completely different.
shaffaaf,
They didn't just showcase it, they demonstrated a working model in 45nm. Of course it took much longer to get them out, but AMD was the first operational 45nm CPU, closely followed by Toshiba's 45nm GPU! It was in one of the articles I posted in the AMD thread!
Best Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
13. June 2009 @ 17:13 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by theonejrs:
shaffaaf,
They didn't just showcase it, they demonstrated a working model in 45nm. Of course it took much longer to get them out, but AMD was the first operational 45nm CPU, closely followed by Toshiba's 45nm GPU! It was in one of the articles I posted in the AMD thread!
Best Regards,
Russ
Sounds to me like they were being cautious. Nothing wrong with that. Sounds like a wise business decision to me :D
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. June 2009 @ 17:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
i wouldnt say so, imagine the PIIx4 came out 2 years ago!
MGR (Micro Gaming Rig) .|. Intel Q6600 @ 3.45GHz .|. Asus P35 P5K-E/WiFi .|. 4GB 1066MHz Geil Black Dragon RAM .|. Samsung F60 SSD .|. Corsair H50-1 Cooler .|. Sapphire 4870 512MB .|. Lian Li PC-A70B .|. Be Queit P7 Dark Power Pro 850W PSU .|. 24" 1920x1200 DGM (MVA Panel) .|. 24" 1920x1080 Dell (TN Panel) .|.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. June 2009 @ 17:59 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by shaffaaf:
i wouldnt say so, imagine the PIIx4 came out 2 years ago!
Shaff,
It was almost 3 years ago when AMD demonstrated a working 45nm Quad Opteron, in August of 2006! That's 34 months ago! That's a bit more than two years ago! LOL!!
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
13. June 2009 @ 18:18 |
Link to this message
|
I think if the Phenom IIs had come out 2 years ago, AMD would have dominated easily. But now, they are merely catching up. I know I'll be on it when they release something newer and faster, but my 940 is the same chip as all Phenom IIs so buying anything else would be useless. Intel, on the other hand, offers several variations on their quads and duals, so there's more freedom of choice within their product line. AMD's tri-cores offer something similar to this but they are really a whole class of their own. I know what you mean about the 720BE Russ, that is a fantastic value CPU.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388 |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. June 2009 @ 18:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
Demonstrated is irrelevant. Yes, they made one, but it means nothing unless the public can actually buy them. As far as 'if it had come out two years ago it would have dominated' you could say the same for any technology. Had the HD4870 came out when the 8800GTX still ruled the roost it would have been ridiculously overpowered. Had the Core 2 Duos come out before the Athlon X2s it would also have been ridiculous.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. June 2009 @ 19:41 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Demonstrated is irrelevant. Yes, they made one, but it means nothing unless the public can actually buy them. As far as 'if it had come out two years ago it would have dominated' you could say the same for any technology. Had the HD4870 came out when the 8800GTX still ruled the roost it would have been ridiculously overpowered. Had the Core 2 Duos come out before the Athlon X2s it would also have been ridiculous.
Sam,
I understand and fully agree with you, but all I'm saying is that AMD demonstrated a successful working model of 45nm Quad core architecture, before Intel did! Even though it was more than likely a "one of", they were still the first to accomplish it. It was a milestone in CPU technology, nothing more! The fact that the public didn't get them until 14 months later doesn't change the accomplishment.
Best Regards,
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. June 2009 @ 21:47 |
Link to this message
|
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if I heard Intel had made a 45nm chip but didn't display it because they weren't happy with it...
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. June 2009 @ 22:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if I heard Intel had made a 45nm chip but didn't display it because they weren't happy with it...
Sam,
Intel was having it's own problems at the time with 45nm. That was part of the delay they had in bringing them out! They couldn't get it to work! That's why they went to the Metal gate Transistors. I don't know if it was the C2 design over the Monolithic design of the AMD Quad, but I do know those Transistors solved the problem for Intel. AMD had their own problems as well. Poor clock speeds and the TLB error among other things. Both were late to market.
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. June 2009 @ 09:18 |
Link to this message
|
Indeed, but what's really important is who got to market first, and Intel beat AMD by a huge leap. That wasn't really necessary in terms of performance, only when the Phenom II X4 940 came out did Intel have competition against any of their 45nm products, but it had a dramatic effect on power consumption.
|
Member
|
14. June 2009 @ 09:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
hmm it appears people have been forgetting to take note of this particular message at the top of the page 'NO Fanboy comments needed'.
Does it really matter who beat who we all bought whichever chip for our own reasons. If you want to argue aimlessly go elsewhere.
Peace out.
I could put something funny here but I cant be arsed. Now GO AWAY! This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. June 2009 @ 09:32
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. June 2009 @ 09:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
Not really, it isn't a case of fanboyism comments (at least I don't think so) - more an explanation of why the market panned out like it did.
|
Member
|
14. June 2009 @ 09:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
Its needless arguing no matter which way you look at it.
I could put something funny here but I cant be arsed. Now GO AWAY!
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. June 2009 @ 09:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
I wasn't trying to argue... :S
|
Member
|
14. June 2009 @ 09:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
On a lighter note rather nastily and from an outside looking in perspective on Sims 3 it is impossible to achieve faster speeds via OCing you end up with one of the following predicaments:
The computer breaks
You are told there is no effect
You are told 'its not running any faster but the graphics somehow look better'
or finally 'its not running any faster but it certainly looks more stable'
How unfair is that bearing in mind this a PC exclusive...
I could put something funny here but I cant be arsed. Now GO AWAY!
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. June 2009 @ 09:52 |
Link to this message
|
So wait, you have the option to overclock PCs in The Sims? Whatever next (Oh, and as a developer's standpoint that's probably what they were paid to put in the game)
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
14. June 2009 @ 10:06 |
Link to this message
|
Interesting (yawns to self) debate, but no one has really provided any links to verify just who was the first to design a 45nm CPU. If I had to choose sides I would have to go with Intel since there were rumours that go back at least a year before they released their first which was in turn released more than a year before AMD released on. Any company can spin a yarn about having a working processor but until they actually release one it is all vapor, smoke and mirrors. AMD announced that they were going to release one in 2007 but it was a year later before it happened.
AMD indeed was the first to release a true monolithic Quad and I expect more first from AMD because they are true innovators. Without them many of us would still be running some variant of the P4.
AMD's first 45NM chip was released in November of 2008 or about 8 months ago. By then I had already replaced my 45NM E8400 with an E9650 and Q9550 EO stepping. In the end however none of it matters. All that I want to know is which overclocks the best and provides the most performance. I don't overclock for sport I do it for practical reasons such reencoding Blu-Ray to fit on a standard single or dual layer disc.
http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/605178/am...-45nm-cpus.html
Quote:
Intel first to demonstrate 45 nm silicon
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-a...-sram,2130.html
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. June 2009 @ 10:15 |
Link to this message
|
Overclocking is an interesting debate, because recently I would say in almost all sectors of the market up to £180, AMD vs Intel is a tough call. The AMD performers are slightly cheaper, but use more power and the big one is that they don't overclock as well. I've seen some high numbers from the recent chips, 3.7-3.9Ghz sometimes even 4.0 or 4.1, but taking into consideration most of these chips are 3Ghz+ to start with, the fact that 2.66-2.8Ghz Intel rivals can reach these numbers as well skews the balance somewhat. It's also a matter of manageability, the AMDs often take big voltage hikes to reach these figures. The Intels can often do it without any settings that would compromise long-term reliability. As a stock CPU, the X2 7750 and 7850 are better value than the E5200 and E5300 but barely overclock by more than 15%, whereas 60% isn't especially hard with the E5 series. Again, the Phenom II quad cores, very competitive CPUs on their own against the Q9400 and Q9550 (though the latter is now cheaper over here than the 955), but overclocks are rarely much over 25%, whereas the Core 2s will happily manage about 40 in a lot of systems, provided they're well designed.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
14. June 2009 @ 10:28 |
Link to this message
|
As I stated overclocking is only part of the picture, the other is performance. If I decide to build today I might well go for an AMD but already having a highly clocked Q9650 and Q9550 it would be throwing money away. As far as I know the Q9650 and Q9550 maximized are still faster than the best maximized AMD. Until there are 6 core units there is really no reason for me to upgrade
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. June 2009 @ 10:49 |
Link to this message
|
The Q9550 and Phenom II X4 955 are actually impressive rivals. As always with AMD vs Intel and video encoding it depends on the method you use but in some tests the 955 gives the Q9650 a fair fight. That said, if you've got the Q9550 or Q9650 any further than about 3.6Ghz, you'll flatten the AMD regardless, and 3.6Ghz isn't even difficult to achieve with a C1 stepping Q9550, let alone an E0 9550 or 9650.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
14. June 2009 @ 10:57 |
Link to this message
|
Well it's a given that Intel chips are still on top ATM. Core 2 technology has been around 2 years longer and they've got it refined and have maxed out the current architecture or very close. That's why they released i7, which isn't all that practical to build with anyway. The same will happen with Phenom II soon too. Maybe they'll match Core 2, or maybe they'll surpass it. But that's all that's left to do with the architecture, refinements. Last I heard, both companies had difficulties doing 45nm to begin with. So anything smaller will take a while. Mind you, Phenom II is a lot newer so they have more room to improve.
Also, if you're going for absolute speed, you'll be buying Intel either way. But when you get into the more mainstream segment, competition is fairly close. That's why I've chosen to keep quads from both sides, and both are damn good chips. No matter if my Phenom II has a higher stock clock. It still hit the same 3.7GHz my Q6600 did and both can still go a bit higher with reasonable voltage. Past 3.9 does start sucking voltage on the Phenom II though. But this is characteristic of almost all AMD chips since Clawhammer.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. June 2009 @ 11:02
|
