• 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.

Thouroughbred Rev B temps?

J

jachristie79

Member
I've heard they run cooler than the Rev A T-Breds , but does anyone know exactly how much cooler or can sharee a link to give me temps🙂
 
Compared to what??? I can't see how theoretically they can...They are 333mhz more in speed then rev a tbred 2200+ and should have no major revision in contact size...I have heard maybe they change core size slightly but I don't think it was enough to offset the obvious more heat produced due to the higher clock speed...

I have seen that overclocking them to say 2400mhz can be possibly done with good aircooling so it may be better then first Tbreds. At 2500-2600mhz it appeared most have used water cooling and the extreme cooling....
 
I think HardOCP reported much lower temps. Like close to 50F lower when overclocking than the 2200+core!!

I know, i'm amazed too.
 
Duvie:

AMD are using an extra interconnects layer, which lowers temps by improving/optimizing signal and power flow through the design. WignutPEZ (An Intel .13 micron process engineer, so not Biased and knows his $hit) explained this to me in another thread.

So, please base your statements on fact, not 'Intel good, AMD bad' all the time.
 
Originally posted by: Duvie
Compared to what??? I can't see how theoretically they can...They are 333mhz more in speed then rev a tbred 2200+ and should have no major revision in contact size...I have heard maybe they change core size slightly but I don't think it was enough to offset the obvious more heat produced due to the higher clock speed...
Click to expand...

It's a 4mm area increase over T'bred A.
 
XP 2200+ 1800MHz > 67.9 watts
XP 2600+ 2133MHz > 68.3 watts

An increase of 4mm for the die size and now 9 layers of interconnects vs 8 for the revision A.

This is what I predicted the original Thoroughbred would do, up to 2.5GHz or so. People quoted thermal specs and said it would never happen. All I could do was say that AMD had something up their sleeve we didn't know about. And I must admit after the release of the revision A, I had my doubts too. But I still resisted going to the P4 1.6a. Now let's see how many people are gonna switch back to AMD!
 
Originally posted by: Duvie
TBRED specs in anandtech review

Notice the vcore is the same...

Die size is only 4mm greater in area...

.4 million more transisitors (likely associated with the added 9th metal layer to the cpu)...

333mhz more cpu speed...


Cooler??? I can't see how!!!
Click to expand...

duvie, your bias for intel is showing. read the reviews instead of making stuff up.
 
yes, htey run cooler than the revision A. That was a necessary move, since the rev A tbred's were already hitting amd max recommended DIE temp limits.

As far as overclocking of the B revisions, not all of them hit 2.5ghz. When looking at the reviews on a whole, for example, the AMDzone review got high 2.2ghz range with air, and slightly over 2.3ghz range with a koolance water cooling setup. An increase of ~200mhz. Aces got 2.4ghz, ~300mhz increase, but only with a louder fan. Just like any other chip, overclocking mileage varies and to quote only one overclocking number can be misleading.

so, congrats to amd on reducing temp, and the overclocking "headroom" looks great, but let's see what happens when they're finally out for purchase. with the revision A tbreds, with the exception of the vapo-chill guys, almost no one approached the overclocking that the early reviews had.


Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top