• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

My Northwood so far at 2.75ghz EDIT: Back to 2.7 to be safe.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<< 1631 Mflops at 2.7Ghz. How pitiful. Even the Athlon 1.33 beats that at 1848.
If you are having trouble interpreting the sandra results, note that there are two numbers for the PIV mflops seperated by a slash. The first number is the true mflops, the second measure is SSE2 optimization. Sandra does not do this for AMD's SSE and 3Dnow, only reporting the true raw speed of the FPU. It the first number that matters for the PIV results. >>



The first number matters just as much as the second number. SSE2 is a part of P4 chips so 3391 is the "true raw speed of the FPU" when SSE2 is used and 1631 is the "true raw speed of the FPU" when SSE2 is not used. If Sandra doesn't use SSE or 3DNow when testing a XP chip you need to shoot SiSoft a email and ask them to fix that but don't act as though the use of SSE2 is cheating or lying.
 
Hmmm...

Nice one, Tex - put those AMD owners to shame 😉

Along the same lines, sorta...

These voltage limitations have got me thinking... anyone know anything about the limitations of .18 cores?
My Celeron has a default of 1.75v, it's currently running 1.90v stable, I did however do some limited testing @ 2.05v...

Im aware of the fact that 2.05 was a tad excessive, but I was trying to sort out some stability issues which were actually fixed by moving to that voltage... until I played more with the memory timings... (DDR has a few more options, doesn't it 😉 )

I haven't tried recently to push the envelope further; 133*8.5 seems to be doing the job for me right now, but I do eventually want to crack the 1.2ghz mark - or at least the '1.15 ghz physical limitation' of the core - according to tomshardware. (Do I sound skeptical?)

For that, I wouldn't mind knowing how far I can go with the voltage - or am I sitting on a knife-edge as it stands?
I know a major problem with higher voltage is greater watts of heat produced (stands to reason... v*a=w), but heat doesn't seem to be a problem; my core is only 2 degrees over ambient case temp.

Naturally this would probably be better in the overclocking forum - but this thread seems to have gotten the attention of people who've read stuff about voltage limitations; something with which I haven't been able to find the information I want.

Again, onya Tex, and im glad to see Intel finally got their sht together and made a CPU worth a damn after all this time of lagging behind...
 


<< I've got a 1ghz that OC's to 1.5ghz. Thats a 50% oc. Does that count? 😉 >>



I've got C300A that does 62%. And a 566 that does 58%. Does that count? 🙂 😉
 
Argh, I'm nearly certain my next platform will be 845 / NW... but that dang nForce still has me interested...

Lol, yeah, I'd personally go for "that nForce" board instead. You're talking about the up and coming 415-D w/o GeF2MX, right? It's supposed to be around $100. Me likey. 😀
 


<< Lol, yeah, I'd personally go for "that nForce" board instead. You're talking about the up and coming 415-D w/o GeF2MX, right? It's supposed to be around $100. Me likey. >>

Yeah, that looks to be the board of choice for tweakers, overclockers, and gamers. Of course, I already have a KT266A board. I have been very pleased.
 
texmaster and others thank you all for correcting me on the rdram thing sorry thought

i knew. just goes to show how much i learn here daily.

thank you all

dang what an overclock🙂🙂🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top