Sneak Peak at Gulftown.

[SHAQ]

This doesn't look too shabby.

Ha! LN2 cooling most likely.

 

[Rubycon]

Except for the vcore used!

Yes of course but a 24/7 o/c would be much lower and still well above 4-4.5GHz. ON AIR!

 

[cbn]

I was talking about the new quads, not hex.

The L5609 has my attention.

If the Multi on the L5609 is too low, then maybe Xeon E5620, E5630, E5640 will be better choices. Those chips have hyperthreading but are still quad core and clocked much lower than Gulftown 980X.

 

[Acanthus]

If the Multi on the L5609 is too low, then maybe Xeon E5620, E5630, E5640 will be better choices. Those chips have hyperthreading but are still quad core and clocked much lower than Gulftown 980X.

Yeah i know... I'm wishing there were a few more options.

I wouldn't mind having HT for encoding, but that is really the only case I would use it.

$400 or less for a 32nm quad with a 22x or higher multi please.

 

[cbn]

Yeah i know... I'm wishing there were a few more options.

I wouldn't mind having HT for encoding, but that is really the only case I would use it.

$400 or less for a 32nm quad with a 22x or higher multi please.

http://techpowerup.com/110567/Intel_Readies_13_Westmere-based_32_nm_Xeon_Processors.html

Those are the CPUs were know about so far. The E5640 would have a 20x multi right?

 

[Gillbot]

If the Multi on the L5609 is too low, then maybe Xeon E5620, E5630, E5640 will be better choices. Those chips have hyperthreading but are still quad core and clocked much lower than Gulftown 980X.

the problem with the L5609 is the 14x multi. Even at 200bclk, with the 14x multi you are still under 3GHz. While not bad considering the 12M cache, it's still a bit limited IMHO.

 

[cbn]

the problem with the L5609 is the 14x multi. Even at 200bclk, with the 14x multi you are still under 3GHz. While not bad considering the 12M cache, it's still a bit limited IMHO.

Just wondering what is the practical limit for Bclk on your mainboard. Does a person need special ram to achieve it?

 

[Gillbot]

No idea, I've never pushed the bclk on my board yet.

 

[Rubycon]

No idea, I've never pushed the bclk on my board yet.

What?

First power up I swing 200 and reboot.

If it doesn't go I'm quite disappointed. Had a P6T7 that was like this and the other one sailed up to 223. They do seem to brick wall where you have to really start messing with so many BIOS settings it's enough to make a NASA engineer cry uncle.

 

[cbn]

What?

First power up I swing 200 and reboot.

If it doesn't go I'm quite disappointed. Had a P6T7 that was like this and the other one sailed up to 223. They do seem to brick wall where you have to really start messing with so many BIOS settings it's enough to make a NASA engineer cry uncle.

So it is possible some of these 32nm quad cores maybe be motherboard/RAM limited rather than thermally limited?

Maybe we should be happy with high stock cooler overclocks instead?

 

[Rubycon]

So it is possible some of these 32nm quad cores maybe be motherboard/RAM limited rather than thermally limited?

Maybe we should be happy with high stock cooler overclocks instead?

LOL I would not use the stock cooler unless I had no choice. You will definitely want a top cooler if you plan to shoot for the stars.

 

[cbn]

LOL I would not use the stock cooler unless I had no choice. You will definitely want a top cooler if you plan to shoot for the stars.

Yes, but what if the CPU only has a multiplier of 20x?

Would this require special RAM/mainboard to get over 4.5 Ghz?

 

[Rubycon]

Yes, but what if the CPU only has a multiplier of 20x?

Would this require special RAM/mainboard to get over 4.5 Ghz?

You'd need to get BCLK up there for sure. Turbo would give you 21 which would be a big help. (assuming you don't have a DUMB BIOS that kills the turbo under heavy loading!)

225MHz BCLK (226 setting in BIOS) is not impossible but don't expect cheap motherboards and ram to get there.

 

[Gillbot]

You'd need to get BCLK up there for sure. Turbo would give you 21 which would be a big help. (assuming you don't have a DUMB BIOS that kills the turbo under heavy loading!)

225MHz BCLK (226 setting in BIOS) is not impossible but don't expect cheap motherboards and ram to get there.

+1!

 

[Acanthus]

You'd need to get BCLK up there for sure. Turbo would give you 21 which would be a big help. (assuming you don't have a DUMB BIOS that kills the turbo under heavy loading!)

225MHz BCLK (226 setting in BIOS) is not impossible but don't expect cheap motherboards and ram to get there.

Yeah, unfortunately a Gigabyte X58A-UD7 is a bit much...

I'll need to find a happy balance of high BCLK and multiplier for my budget.

 

[The Sauce]

So how would this compare to my Celeron 300A running @ 450 MHz? Probably not enough to upgrade.

 

[cbn]

Yeah, unfortunately a Gigabyte X58A-UD7 is a bit much...

I'll need to find a happy balance of high BCLK and multiplier for my budget.

These chips are so much different than the early days of Core 2 duo.

Back then it was pretty much assumed a person could get a 100% overclock with a set of Crucial D9MGH memory sticks.

Now it appears am overclock of 50% is about all a person can expect (Blck 200/133 = 50% improvement).

 

[RussianSensation]

These chips are so much different than the early days of Core 2 duo.

Back then it was pretty much assumed a person could get a 100% overclock with a set of Crucial D9MGH memory sticks.

Now it appears am overclock of 50% is about all a person can expect (Blck 200/133 = 50% improvement).

Yes, but remember you are overclocking a Quad Core / Hexa-core with HT. If you look at Core i3 overclocks without HT, it's >50%. Also, consider that they are clocking these bad boys > 3.0ghz+ to start with. I mean, they could have released the Core i7 980x @ 2.4ghz hypothetically and you'll probably still get the same 4.3ghz Aigo got with the same setup. It's not that "overclocking" has necessarily been reduced, it's just that in Core 2 Duo era, Intel clocked most of those chips a lot more conservatively imo. Recall E6300 @ 1.86ghz would often reach 3.4-3.5ghz!!!

 

[dajeepster]

What?
it's enough to make a NASA engineer cry uncle.

Now that's hard core

 

[Acanthus]

Now that's hard core

DFI boards tend to be insane like that. They are getting more complex with each motherboard generation too.

 

[aigomorla]

DFI board also require that you know what your exactly doing.

Its not dummy safe like a asus board.

But asus has the crappy bios that kills your turbo, which ruby is talking about.

 

[grimpr]

Aigo, whats your opinion on the latest fudzilla newsblurp.

Core i7 970 is a 3.2GHz six-core
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/17499/35/

 

[Rubycon]

DFI board also require that you know what your exactly doing.

Its not dummy safe like a asus board.

But asus has the crappy bios that kills your turbo, which ruby is talking about.

Asus workstation boards have this "feature" and I am now convinced it's NOT possible to disable it!

Asus gaming boards let you turn it off and are generally not as durable as the workstation series. The workstation series provide superior IOPS for storage solutions something most enthusiast don't care about.

IOPS performance with Gulftown matters even more as you WANT the disk array to keep the CPU cores busy. Otherwise having them is a waste.

 

[aigomorla]

Aigo, whats your opinion on the latest fudzilla newsblurp.

Core i7 970 is a 3.2GHz six-core
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/17499/35/

didnt i tell people for a while now, that a cheaper hex core would come out along with the 980?

()

 

[Rubycon]

"The Core i7 970 should launch in Q3 2010"

Unacceptable. :hmm: