Sl6Z3 has L3 cache

[classy]

It appears as though these chips are indeed EE's that failed. I took this from the cpu info section on 3dmark 2001se

Level: 3
Capacity: 0 bytes
Type: Disabled at Boot, Internal
Type Details: <unknown>
Error Correction Type: <unknown>
Associativity: <unknown>

I wonder if anyone will ever find out to enable it

edit: It is a 2.4 by the way

 

[BD231]

Originally posted by: classy
It appears as though these chips are indeed EE's that failed. I took this from the cpu info section on 3dmark 2001se

Level: 3
Capacity: 0 bytes
Type: Disabled at Boot, Internal
Type Details: <unknown>
Error Correction Type: <unknown>
Associativity: <unknown>

I wonder if anyone will ever find out to enable it

edit: It is a 2.4 by the way

If it was tested as not working by intel what's the point?

 

[XMan]

Is it unlocked like an EE???

 

[Shimmishim]

EE's aren't unlocked unless it's an ES

for that matter no p4's are unlocked unless it's an ES

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Shimmishim
EE's aren't unlocked unless it's an ES

for that matter no p4's are unlocked unless it's an ES

Several reviews I've read said that their EE's would allow them to use lower multipliers.

 

[aggressor]

The m0 stepping 2.4 and 2.8cs are indeed EE editions that didn't hold up. A guy on HardForums peeled off the heatspreader (and destroyed the chip) and proved everyones theroy

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=693498

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: BD231

Originally posted by: classy
It appears as though these chips are indeed EE's that failed. I took this from the cpu info section on 3dmark 2001se

Level: 3
Capacity: 0 bytes
Type: Disabled at Boot, Internal
Type Details: <unknown>
Error Correction Type: <unknown>
Associativity: <unknown>

I wonder if anyone will ever find out to enable it

edit: It is a 2.4 by the way

If it was tested as not working by intel what's the point?

I was just posting what 2001se was reporting. And who said Intel tested it as not working . Maybe it does work, maybe they just disabled it.

 

[DeRailur]

So what exactly does this mean for performance? Is a failed new design better than a succesful original design?

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: BD231

Originally posted by: classy
It appears as though these chips are indeed EE's that failed. I took this from the cpu info section on 3dmark 2001se

Level: 3
Capacity: 0 bytes
Type: Disabled at Boot, Internal
Type Details: <unknown>
Error Correction Type: <unknown>
Associativity: <unknown>

I wonder if anyone will ever find out to enable it

edit: It is a 2.4 by the way

If it was tested as not working by intel what's the point?

I was just posting what 2001se was reporting. And who said Intel tested it as not working . Maybe it does work, maybe they just disabled it.

Common sense tells us the cost of added l3 cache is way too high for Intel to be giving this out for free....If it passed it would likely be an EE chip which are pretty limited anyways...However it would have to pass at 3.2ghz so the flip side to that would be a rather poor ocer, but I have faith INtels yields are pretty good so I would go with the previous then the latter...The new prescotts will not have this l3 cache but added l2 cache....


Also it has been thoroughy debated here and elsewhere...Like HT on early P4 northwoods once it is disabled on chip by intel there is no way you are going to enable it unless you have some million dollar machines laying around....Forget about it!!!


Performance is also debatable...It is likely that this chip encompassed a new stepping to deal with space and heat issues and therefore the potential is many of the m0 stepping chips could be very nice ocers