Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 17:59:42 07/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2003 at 17:58:58, Aaron Gordon wrote: Gordon you are not answerring what is the worst case timing path in an Athlon? If that path is there at 2.2Ghz and intel gives them a 2.2Ghz sticker or a 1700 sticker and you clock them to 2.4Ghz that means simply that you *definitely* are crossing that border. It is trivial that some XP1700s will be in fact stickered XP1700 even when some of them can go XP2200. That doesn't take away the fact that they will not be capable of going to 2.4Ghz when the fastest processor Produced by AMD is 2.25Ghz in those series. At 2.4Ghz you are definitely above specifications and you will lose quality in the chip. QUALITY you hear. You keep answerring here, but it is big nonsense of course to say they run very well at 2.4Ghz. They just don't blow up at 2.4Ghz that's all you proof. If i can run 2.4Ghz for a small while at a tournament with a 2.1Ghz chip, i'll do it perhaps. But i know the risks very well. I know that with DIEP which is basically doing integer math, that the chance is not so big that it will be hitting a path that is the weak chain. Denying that is complete nonsense. AMD would cutoff their left arm to get them stable clocked to 2.4Ghz if they could. They would only sell a small % anyway at 2.4Ghz, so only a few would be needing to test till 2.4Ghz anyway. They didn't however. That means trivally that they concluded that something goes wrong in a certain combination of instructions fired at the cpu when clocked to 2.4Ghz >On July 02, 2003 at 13:08:36, Keith Evans wrote: > >>On July 02, 2003 at 12:38:42, Aaron Gordon wrote: >> >>>You keep thinking the chips are technically overclocked, which infact they are >>>not. These chips have 2.4GHz cores and run those speeds with ease, at low >>>voltages. If you push up to 2.5-2.6GHz, you have to raise the voltage and then, >>>and only then are you actually 'overclocking'. I'm sure you would still consider >>>an Athlon XP 1700+ (1.46GHz) with a 2.4GHz core set to 1.53GHz "overclocking". >>> > >Read this post of mine about how I figure out the core type: >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?304354 > > >>Please explain how you know that these are 2.4GHz cores. Do you have something >>in writing from AMD? I personally define overclocking as operating parts at a >>frequency higher than the manufacturer guarantees. >> >>When I looked at your website I saw the disclaimer that overclocking chips may >>result in a shorter lifespan. I agree with this. > >I have to put this, at least until I get my "Overclocking Myths" page finished. > >>>Well, feel free to buy one of my chips and run it for a year doing your matrix >>>calculations. :) BurnK7 is much more intense than anything like that. If any >>>program was unstable enough to produce errors then BurnK7 would be able to find >>>the problem faster, as it would heat the chip up MUCH more and thus cause the >>>instabilities to be seen quicker. The chips I test go through harsh testing OVER >>>the speed I rate them at, at higher temperatures than anyone would normally run, >>>THEN I clock it back. This results in a completely stable chip. >> >>What is the worst case timing path in an Athlon? Just because BurnK7 heats up >>the chip does not mean that it exercises the worst case path. > >Hard for me to explain, but the extra heat BurnK7 generates would push your chip >'over the edge' if it was that unstable. Running your 'important' code for >example would result in a cpu temperature a few degrees cooler. Read my post for >proof how the cpu would be stable in those few degrees. Also, I don't run the >chips on the very edge. Don't knock my pretested chips before you try them. >I've taken a lot of time/effort to make sure they work flawlessly. > >>It looks like BurnK7 doesn't even attempt to test every instruction: >> >>"N E W burnK7 for AMD Athlon/Duron/Thurderbird has been released. >> >> >> >>These programs are designed to load x86 CPUs as heavily as possible for >>the purposes of system testing. They have been optimized for different >>processors. FPU and ALU instructions are coded an assembler endless loop. >>They do not test every instruction. The goal has been to maximize heat >>production from the CPU, putting stress on the CPU itself, cooling >>system, motherboard (especially voltage regulators) and power supply >>(likely cause of burnBX/MMX errors)."
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.