So are the 90nm CPUs really clocking much better?

[imported_whatever]

I have had 2 CPUs in my current mobo: first a 3400+ Clawhammer that I managed to hit 2.6GHz on, and then a 3400+ Newcastle that seems to do about 2.85GHz. Admittedly, both of these numbers are on water, so you could remove maybe 50-100MHz compared to what I would run them at on good air, but my s754 systems doesn't bench much worse than 939 systems running the same video card and clocks. Have I just been lucky about how well my CPUs clock? Or do the Venice CPUs just not clock all that much higher?

 

[theMan]

yes, on average, the 90nm are better. some people, like you, get lucky.

 

[Sentential]

Not really, not like they should since the tools they are using to manufacturer them are becoming quite crude. Infact if I recall both AMD and Intel are using tools that are long outdated and not designed at all to produce 90nm cores.

 

[MADMAX23]

Originally posted by: theman
yes, on average, the 90nm are better. some people, like you, get lucky.

Yeah, I agree with you, on average 90nm cores are reporting higher overclocks.

 

[sangyup81]

Yeah, they haven't really refined the 90nm chips. When they do, the OCs will improve by a lot.

 

[SonicIce]

got 2.2 out of my 1.8 (2800+) Newcastle (+23%) with stock cooling and no volt change and cheap kingmax (lowered to 166) memory

 

[SLIorCROSSFIRE]

i to agree that 90nm's do overclock better, and they also run on average about 10C cooler!!! now thats sweet