What's your XP1700 T-Bred running at?

[Jeff7181]

Just thought I'd ask since I have one coming in the mail from newegg.
Could you post all the details?
Chipset, stepping, voltage, FSB, mutliplier, cooling, temps

I'm just trying to figure out what I'll be able to run mine at without drastic changes to the voltage or using a HUGE fan.

*EDIT* Another question... I have a KT400 chipset, and my ram will run at 333 Mhz... would it be beneficial to run my FSB at 166 and lower the multiplier? Multipliers 12.5 and below are unlocked on T-Bred A's aren't they?

 

[CraigRT]

I had mine running at 1750 with stock cooling and voltage, but i had to put in my Palomino 1700+ because my older KT266A board doesn't like the TBred CPU.

I am working on getting a new mobo.. I'll have to do a follow-up.

 

[Jeff7181]

I looked at the newegg reviews on it... think 1.8 Ghz would be too much to expect with stock voltage?

I'm thinking of using a 166 FSB and 11 multiplier... that would be slightly more than 1.8... but maybe I could set it to 10.5 and settle for that... I think I'll try benchmarking it with the FSB at 166, and with it at 133, and try to get the final speed as close as possible and see which is better. I've been told these lower speed CPU's (under 2 Ghz) don't really need 166 Mhz of bandwidth. So it might run just as good if I just increase the multiplier

 

[pillage2001]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I looked at the newegg reviews on it... think 1.8 Ghz would be too much to expect with stock voltage?

I'm thinking of using a 166 FSB and 11 multiplier... that would be slightly more than 1.8... but maybe I could set it to 10.5 and settle for that... I think I'll try benchmarking it with the FSB at 166, and with it at 133, and try to get the final speed as close as possible and see which is better. I've been told these lower speed CPU's (under 2 Ghz) don't really need 166 Mhz of bandwidth. So it might run just as good if I just increase the multiplier

I doubt you can hit 1.8Ghz with stock voltage. Never seen one. You would need to increase 0.15v to 0.2v to hit it.

 

[Jeff7181]

So, what do you think is reasonable at stock voltage? 1.67 Ghz? Same as an XP2000?

I find it hard to believe that AMD manufactures processors with the same core, the same amount of cache, the same design, and designs each model differently enough so that one runs slower than another. It just doesn't make sense. I guess that has to do with the stepping though... a new stepping brings improvments to the core so they can run it faster, which would explain why the same model CPU's with different stepping can run faster than others. But that doesn't seem to apply with the T-Bred A, since it was introduced at 1.8 Ghz wasn't it? Which would mean that even a T-Bred XP1600 should be able to run at the same speed as an XP2200. I may do some testing =) maybe I'll leave the L1 alone on my new T-Bred, and change the other bridges to make it an XP2200 and see how it acts.
Has anyone tried this already?

 

[lessell]

:disgust::disgust::disgust:

 

[lessell]

The speed rating is called binning. All silicon is not created equal and on each wafer there are variations that effect performance. That is why the ratings are not exact and there are variations in headroom why some chips over clock very well and some do not. It is compicated even more by the fact that it costs no more to produce higher rated chips than lower rated except for the yield of the higher rated chips, that is why with more mature steppings of chips (more refined processing techniques), there is often very little differance in speed potential. They simply lock the multiplier for the speed necessary. If intel or amd need to supply X number of 2000mghz chips and all they have are 2100mghz they simply use that product with the multiplier lowered.

 

[Jeff7181]

So lets start demanding XP1600 T-Bred B CPU's, and not buy any of the higher clocked ones so they take an XP2800, chop the FSB and multiplier down, and sell em for $60

 

[pillage2001]

Originally posted by: lessell
The speed rating is called binning. All silicon is not created equal and on each wafer there are variations that effect performance. That is why the ratings are not exact and there are variations in headroom why some chips over clock very well and some do not. It is compicated even more by the fact that it costs no more to produce higher rated chips than lower rated except for the yield of the higher rated chips, that is why with more mature steppings of chips (more refined processing techniques), there is often very little differance in speed potential. They simply lock the multiplier for the speed necessary. If intel or amd need to supply X number of 2000mghz chips and all they have are 2100mghz they simply use that product with the multiplier lowered.

What he said. The architecture of both the Palo and tbred is the same but the quality of the wafer plays the most important part in overclocking.

 

[Jeff7181]

That brings up another question... does AMD know if they're using a lesser quality wafer as they're manufacturing the cores? Like... can they test them and say "this will be used for a batch of XP1600, 1700, and 1800 CPU's?" Or do they have to test afterwards and then lock and mark the CPU's accordingly?

 

[Regalk]

I have a Tbred 1700 (1.470) that does 1.950 (close to Xp2400+) at 1.7vcore on the A7N8X.
Also an 1800 Tbred that could not even make 1900 at 1.7 vcore but does 1811 on a MSI KT333 at 1.6Vcore the highest this board allows.
What I do notice is that it is a shade slower than comparable XP CPUs e.g XP2200+ (1.8) or even XP2400+ (2.0)

 

[Jeff7181]

Sounds good... I hope I'll be able to get that kinda speed out of mine =)

 

[Wind]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
That brings up another question... does AMD know if they're using a lesser quality wafer as they're manufacturing the cores? Like... can they test them and say "this will be used for a batch of XP1600, 1700, and 1800 CPU's?" Or do they have to test afterwards and then lock and mark the CPU's accordingly?

After their produced the CPU, it will be tested for stability & label accordingly. A wafer of CPU is 100 CPU...20 might be rated at 2000+, 10 @ 2200+, 40 @ 1900+...& so forth.

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: Regalk
I have a Tbred 1700 (1.470) that does 1.950 (close to Xp2400+) at 1.7vcore on the A7N8X.
Also an 1800 Tbred that could not even make 1900 at 1.7 vcore but does 1811 on a MSI KT333 at 1.6Vcore the highest this board allows.
What I do notice is that it is a shade slower than comparable XP CPUs e.g XP2200+ (1.8) or even XP2400+ (2.0)

Question - what does the 1800+ reach in the A7N8X?

With the extra voltage, I would like to see how it goes.

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: Elcs

Originally posted by: Regalk
I have a Tbred 1700 (1.470) that does 1.950 (close to Xp2400+) at 1.7vcore on the A7N8X.
Also an 1800 Tbred that could not even make 1900 at 1.7 vcore but does 1811 on a MSI KT333 at 1.6Vcore the highest this board allows.
What I do notice is that it is a shade slower than comparable XP CPUs e.g XP2200+ (1.8) or even XP2400+ (2.0)

Question - what does the 1800+ reach in the A7N8X?

With the extra voltage, I would like to see how it goes.

my guess is that it tops out between 1.8 and 2.0 for sure... being its prob. a TBred A, it won't go too much above 1.8

 

[Regalk]

Question - what does the 1800+ reach in the A7N8X? - Mine can get up to 1900 but at 1,75core and still unstable.

With the extra voltage, I would like to see how it goes. see above.

Definitely a dud can't touch my 1700+ Tbred.

 

[rogue1979]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
So lets start demanding XP1600 T-Bred B CPU's, and not buy any of the higher clocked ones so they take an XP2800, chop the FSB and multiplier down, and sell em for $60

Don't worry, T-bred "B" cores have been officially released in 1700+ speeds. We will probably have to wait 3 or 4 more weeks till they start to show up at vendors, but they will be under $60.

 

[Jeff7181]

My T-Bred came today... AXDA1700DLT3C AIUGA... Haven't installed it yet, just going to run a couple benchmarks to set a baseline with this old Palomino before I swap in the T-Bred and do some overclocking. I'll post results as I test.

 

[Jeff7181]

Ok, got it installed with arctic silver 3... MBM reports 1.54 vcore, CPU Temp = 104 degrees F idle, Case temp 82 degrees F idle.
With the Palomino and arctic silver 3... MBM reported 1.78 vcore, CPU Temp = 113 degrees F idle, Case Temp 84 degrees F idle.

Won't bore you with any more details until I have my overclocking results.

*EDIT* Forgot to mention my 3DMark score went up 200 points at the same clock speed, but the T-Bred instead of the Palomino... I'm now at 1666 Mhz, 12.5 x 133... vcore at 1.500 caused a reboot once Windows loaded, so I set it at 1.600 and I'm going to check stability now.

*EDIT* Benchmark results
1666 Mhz, 10x166
RAM at 333 Mhz, CAS 2.5

3DMarks - 10,664 (previous 10,056)
PCMark - CPU = 5014 (previous 4593)
Memory = 3804 (previous 3356)
Hard Drive = 1090 (previous 1086)

*EDIT* Benchmark results
1742 Mhz, 10.5x166
RAM at 333 Mhz, CAS 2.5

PCMark - CPU = 5246 (previous 4593)
Memory = 3850 (previous 3356)
Hard Drive = 1090 (previous 1086)


Max temp recorded was 114 degrees F for the CPU and Case Temp was 84 degrees F