Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 18:06:28 07/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 04, 2003 at 12:16:36, Aaron Gordon wrote: Don't repeat the same nonsense Aaron. It is *you* who has to show the proof that the weakest path is delivering correct bytes and bits. Or an official AMD statement that it is possible to clock them to 2.4Ghz without losing garantuee at the chips. You deliver just 3 weeks garantuee at the chips or so. If you really are convinced that they work well at 2.4Ghz then you would give a 1 or 2 year garantuee. You are not however that's why you just give 3 weeks. However we both know that overclocked chips break within a few months. Sometimes they even work a year before breaking. An official cpu here has however never been broken. The only types of cpu's that broke here were overclocked cpu's, or when i tried to XPs as MPs. You give even worse garantuees at your chips in fact than some very bad car dealers here. A 3 week garantuee at such hardware is forbidden in europe by the way. Using european standards you would need to give at least 1 or 2 years. I am not sure about US laws here. I do not live there. I live in Netherlands. Basically all garantuees are 2 years now officially. Still 1 year is at the package but you can claim, using european laws, here a 2 year garantuee at such hardware nowadays (that is if you sell such a product now). Best regards, Vincent >On July 04, 2003 at 10:58:13, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On July 02, 2003 at 23:40:13, enrico carrisco wrote: >> >>Enrico things are very easy. >> >>AMD can make hundreds of millions more dollars by having a cpu that is >>performing better at specint/specfp. that's why they created the opteron in the >>first place. it is not only a good cpu for us, it is especially good for >>specint/specfpu in the first place. >> >>They clock their cpu's to 2.13Ghz. > >Fastest Athlon MHz wise is the 2800+ at 2.25GHz. > >>Now if they could with *any* remote logics clock them to 2.4Ghz >>they would do it. >> >>Aaron however claims here that if it can run 24 hours with the program burnk7 >>or whatever, that a cpu that he has clocked to 2.4Ghz (from 1.4Ghz or whatever >>it was sold for for $45 to him or less), that it works correctly at 2.4Ghz. >> >>However, Aaron cannot know this. > >Again you keep assuming things. I pay over 2x more than a regular 1700+ costs, >why? Because regular 1700+ chips do not have cores that are worth a damn, these >hand-picked chips are the absolute latest cores. > >>The AMD guys can with a 2 minute test, test 100x better than burnpc can do for >>Aaron in 2 months of time. > >Once again you are speculating. Show some proof. > >>AMD can directly test all instructions quickly and simultaneously fill all pipes >>and stages and try whether it also works correctly when using the worst case >>paths. >> >>Aaron doesn't have that software of course. Just AMD has it and will be >>preferring to die as a company, before releasing their utmost secrets (such >>information is very secret). >> >>So Aaron is selling a lot of cheap nonsense here in fact. >> >>All he proofs is that if he clocks a cpu to 2.4Ghz, that it doesn't fry. But >>most likely it will be losing bits and bytes to worse paths. >> >>If it wasn't losing them at 2.4Ghz, then AMD would have been the first to create >>a 2.4Ghz chip and sell them if needed in small quantities. > >You really should learn to read. It would save me a lot of time repeating >myself. AMD COULD clock up to 2.4GHz easily, but they would rather slap more L2 >on the chip (so they can put a higher PR rating on the cpu) and lower the >voltages rather than having a 2.4GHz/1.75v chip. A 2.25GHz 1.65v Athlon XP 2800+ >WOULD have a 2.4GHz core at 1.75v, and would run absolutely flawlessly. Intel >doesn't care about having 100+ watt chips, AMD does. > >>After all, they can earn hundreds of millions more by looking better than they >>look now. >> >>Fact is that by some major fooling of their audience (using SSE2 in dumb open >>source programs; actual testing showed DDR ram to be better than RDRAM, but for >>some reason people believed RDRAM had a bigger bandwidth which was simply not >>true. Even intel couldn't fool itself too long and went to ddr ram too; now the >>bandwidth to its L2 cache *is* bigger than that of K7, but only a part of what >>opteron can deliver for graphical applications or whatever streaming software >>that needs bandwidth) P4 looks better than K7/Opteron now, where K7/Opteron from >>99% of the software viewpoint is a lot better. >> >>The only exception being those people who like to buy hardware from a big >>monopolist. It is trivial that AMD being the competitor of such a big monopolist >>will do *anything* to clock their cpu's higher. Even if they can deliver it in >>small quantities. > >Smarter thing would be to drop the heat, slap more L2 on the chip and sell it as >a higher PR rating. This works, this lets AMD have a higher yield on the chips >and etc. How about that, thats exactly what AMD is doing. :) I'm sure AMD could, >if they wanted, produce 2.6GHz chips. They'd be in an extremely small quantity >however, and they would waste tons of time trying to test each cpu. Right now >they know they can do 2.4GHz 1.75v (which == 2.25GHz at 1.65v, or 2045mhz @ >1.50v) on any of the newer cores. Grab a 1700+ JIUHB DLT3C 0319XPMW chip if you >can find one. You can verify what I say is true. Hell, go get a 2800+ if need >be.. same core. > >>Imagine how much they must fight against all the brainwashed people who last 20 >>years have learned that only intel makes pc processors (and most are very good >>also and very bugfree working with exception of their 64 bits processors). >> >>All that fighting. day in day out. First AMD was called cheap because they >>produced 'cheap' processors. Now AMD produces a more technological advanced >>opteron processor (9 layers, versus P4 using only 6 layers or so) which they for >>sure can't produce very cheap (when compared to what intel can produce for), and >>now they still hear that they suck somehow. >> >>Imagine how they would love to show a processor a bit better whenever it is >>possible. Even if they lose money at clocking a processor to 2.6Ghz. if they can >>get it correctly to work at it, they *will* do it. >> >>But they can't. All those processors just work to 2.2Ghz. A few 2.25Ghz others >>2.17Ghz. My MP2600 at 2.127Ghz. >> >>Now some dude here says it works cool at 2.4Ghz because of a software program >>that isn't crashing for him. >> >>That software program in fact doesn't even *show* that the code >>executed, is actually *correctly* executed. > >Why don't you code something you deem worthy and I'll purposely clock right on >the edge, where I know the CPU will fail in ~5-10 minutes.. then I'll run your >program. I did the same test with "warmup.exe", a program Hyatt & Nalimov both >suggested. It ran stable all night, and other programs ran fine. Only BurnK7 and >Prime95 nailed the system. If you can do better, be my guest. > > >>Best regards, >>Vincent >> >>>On July 02, 2003 at 20:40:43, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On July 02, 2003 at 17:51:47, Aaron Gordon wrote: >>>> >>>>Just because you can work with your hands at a microchip doesn't mean you know >>>>anything from testing a chip to be not losing bits and bytes. >>>> >>>>It's even intel that has problems with it. They had to clock back itanium2s from >>>>1Ghz to 800Mhz. >>> >>>You're very right -- even the manufacturers have problems with this. So how >>>does this argument hold true with these overclocked chips? Any of these >>>overclocked cpus "that lose bits and bytes" were having this problem straight >>>from AMD -- though I doubt that this is even an issue on anywhere close to a >>>minute scale let alone the broad sense in which you are applying it here. >>> >>>Much of the testing and development that is going into HIARCS 9 (to be released >>>mid July) has been taking place on overclocked AMD cpus from Aaron's stable. We >>>are quite happy with both the performance and stability of these units. In >>>fact, should HIARCS enter the tournament this November or any other time in the >>>near future, it will be running on one of Aaron's overclocked AMD cpus. Should >>>we get the chance to play Diep, we will see just how many "bits and bytes" it is >>>truly losing. ;) >>> >>>-elc. >>>> >>>>Now you would of course clock that thing back to 1Ghz, because it doesn't blow >>>>itself up nor crashes within 24 hours :) >>>> >>>>But i am sure you will never understand the above :) >>>> >>>>>On July 02, 2003 at 11:24:12, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>Since the cores are all technically 2.4GHz, running one of these cores (from the >>>>>>>hand-picked XP 1700+ chips) at 2.0-2.4GHz isn't overclocking at all. This is >>>>>>>similar to taking a P4-3.06 remarked to 2.4GHz, then modifying it back into a >>>>>>>3.06.. is that overclocking? No. >>>>>> >>>>>>It is overclocking by definition. A product you bought to be running X you run >>>>>>at y > x. >>>>>> >>>>>>It even more emphasis to the average user to not overclock himself. >>>>>>Overclocking is a dangerous business. >>>>>> >>>>>>A big problem of overclocking is that the reliability becomes less of for >>>>>>example the FPU. Now you might care shit for this, because you only 'test' it >>>>>>for a few seconds, but the reason those cores are clocked for example at 2.2Ghz >>>>>>where you find out that they 'work' for you at 2.4ghz is because some parts at >>>>>>the cpu are not handling 2.4Ghz very well. >>>>> >>>>>Only test it for a few seconds? Read my webpage AND previous post. I test for 24 >>>>>hours on single CPU chips and 48 hours on dual capable chips. >>>>> >>>>>>A good example is the itanium2 cpu's 0.18 which were clocks 900 and 1 Ghz. Intel >>>>>>has either all ordered them back to factory or clocked them back to 800Mhz, >>>>>>because they found out that in some calculations users lost bits. >>>>>> >>>>>>It is exactly this that will happen at your chips. >>>>> >>>>>Just because you can program and babble on about matrix garbage doesn't mean you >>>>>know a single thing about overclocking. The chips *ARE* stable. Not a single one >>>>>has had a problem after I've shipped it to a customer. The methods and equipment >>>>>I use ensure full stability under and situation. As I mentioned previously I >>>>>have a 'cushion' of MHz. >>>>> >>>>>I clock the chip back a bit after ensuring stability. When overclocking the chip >>>>>will go from completely stable to extremely unstable over a small temperature >>>>>range when you're on the 'edge' of stability. I let it get very warm (55C+) then >>>>>find the chips 'edge'. I then back the MHz up just a little >>>>>and test until its completely stable. After this I knock the chips MHz back a >>>>>significant ammount, ensuring complete stability. >>>>> >>>>>Intel increases voltages (from 1.50v to 1.525 & 1.55v) to help increase yields. >>>>>This helps the chips run higher, and if you wanted to get down to the >>>>>engineering level you could consider that a mild form of overclocking. Taking >>>>>lower yield chips, boosting the voltage and selling them faster. Intel has been >>>>>keeping the chips right on the edge at times (not all of the time of course).. >>>>>this is why they had to recall the P4-3GHz C, Itaniums and P3-1.13GHz. They know >>>>>what the cores are doing (guesstimate) then sell the chips slightly lower. >>>>>Sometimes they guess wrong & end up with an unstable chip. If they tested the >>>>>chips before hand like I do, they wouldn't have this problem. Of course there is >>>>>absolutely no time for AMD/Intel to run extended stability tests on every cpu >>>>>they produce. It would cost too much money and take a massive ammount of time. >>>>> >>>>>I go the extra mile by testing the chips more than Intel/AMD would ever hope to >>>>>test their chips, then I do as I stated in the previous paragraphs. >>>>> >>>>>You don't know the minute effects of voltage changes on a chip in reguards to >>>>>overclocking & heat, I do. If you need me to show you some proof mathematically, >>>>>I can do that as well. >>>>> >>>>>When trying to find calculations on a cpu you never, ever calculate by the chips >>>>>"rated" speed, the core is almost always much better. Take the latest >>>>>hand-picked 1700+ (1.46GHz) chips. Lets say after 24-48 hours of testing we find >>>>>the core can do 2440MHz at 1.75v, completely stable via Prime95/BurnK7 for hours >>>>>and hours at 60C (via Standard heatsink and fan running low rpms, to raise cpu >>>>>temp to 60C intentionally). >>>>> >>>>>Todays chips will do exactly 100% more at their absolute maximum if you drop the >>>>>temperature 160C. Thus a 1.47ghz rated chip with a 2.5GHz core (40C maximum >>>>>stable temp for example) can run 5.0GHz at -120C. Using this constant, 0.625 (or >>>>>160/100), you can figure out the following. >>>>> >>>>>Lets take our example cpu from before, (max 2440/1.75v @ 60C), we can do this: >>>>> >>>>>We know the normal user won't run 60C, with average cooling (0.16 c/w heatsink) >>>>>and figure in an ambient case temp of 30C, and the cpu at 2440/1.75v being >>>>>86.509 watts. You can figure out the chips wattage by doing, >>>>> >>>>>Overclocked Watts = Default Watts * (Overclocked Mhz \ Default Mhz) * >>>>>(Overclocked Vcore \ Default Vcore)² >>>>> >>>>>I used the numbers from an Athlon XP 2700+ (2167MHz, 68.3 watts, 1.65v) and >>>>>scaled it to 2440MHz, 1.75v. So, the wattage is accurate. >>>>> >>>>>Now, back to cooling. You can figure out the CPU temperature by doing this: >>>>> >>>>>cpu temp(celsius) = (wattage * c/w) + ambient (celsius) >>>>>43.84144 = (86.509 * 0.16) + 30 >>>>> >>>>>So, 43.84144C cpu temp with a 0.16c/w heatsink/fan (this is 0.16 degrees celsius >>>>>increase per watt). Using the constant of 160 per doubling, we can now figure >>>>>out that max cpu speed (with the same stability as 2440/1.75v/60C) at 43.84144C. >>>>>We do: >>>>> >>>>>2686.41804MHz = 2440 * ((((60-43.84144)*0.625) / 100) + 1) >>>>> >>>>>So, at about 43.85C it's capable of running 2686MHz, and that is the SAME >>>>>stability as 2440/1.75v/60C. >>>>> >>>>>Now, upping the voltage to 1.85v also helps stablity. Lets first calculate the >>>>>slight MHz drop from the temp increase at 1.85v. If 2440/1.75v == 86.509 watts, >>>>>2440/1.85v == 96.678 watts (still cooler than a 3GHz P4!). This will result in a >>>>>cpu temperature of 45.46848C and a new max stable speed of 2661.60568MHz. >>>>> >>>>>Now, to figure out the speed increase from upping the voltage from 1.75v to >>>>>1.85v, we do a simple linear equation: >>>>> >>>>>2813.70~ = 2661.60568 * (1.85 / 1.75) >>>>> >>>>>End result, our "example" CPU is capable of doing ~2.8GHz questionably stable >>>>>and is clocked down to 2.4GHz. The CPU will be completely stable beyond any >>>>>doubts. >>>>> >>>>>This is what I do, the chips run perfect. >>>>> >>>>>Please take your asinine babble elsewhere, Vincent. >>>>> >>>>>>So for those people who sometimes run crucial software, they cannot use your >>>>>>chips at all. >>>>>> >>>>>>That i personally am busy with computerchess and that everything is an >>>>>>approximation there and all is integers and not floating point, makes me simply >>>>>>an exception. >>>>>> >>>>>>Despite that i didn't do effort to clock my 2.1Ghz chips to 2.2Ghz. >>>>>> >>>>>>Best regards, >>>>>>Vincent
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.