Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 18:39:37 07/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 04, 2003 at 21:06:28, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. At 1.75v the chips are "truely" 2.4GHz. The MHz scales linearly with voltage. If you take a 2250MHz (2800+) 1.65v chip and run it at 1.5v you now only have a "2045MHz" chip for example. >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. More speculation by you. I have cpus that I've overclocked well beyond what I'd sell to a customer and they are working fine. I still have an old Celeron 566MHz CPU that runs 1004MHz 24/7, it's always running full load. It runs 2.1v, and intels whitepaper max is 2.14v I believe. The chip has been fine for YEARS. Just so happens my old 1GHz Thunderbird (AXIA-9) has been running 2.2v and 1.7GHz for the first year, and 1.5GHz (air-cooled) at 2.2v since then.. I've had it for years as well. It's still doing great. I even have chips from WAY back in the day.. old 5x86-133 that I ran at 160mhz. The chip is still fine today. I've lost count of the chips I've overclocked.. I do know NONE of them has up and died on me. Not a single one. Why? If you know the limits and don't exceed them you'll be fine. Lowering the temperature helps massively. A highly overclocked chip running ~30c will actually last longer than a normal chip running 50C. This is a fact and have been told so by an intel engineer. If you'd like I can dig up the formula he gave me to calculate the life of the chip. The 2 things that REALLY kill a cpu (even non-overclocked) is heat and voltage. Push the voltage too high, doesn't matter what you do.. the CPU will take a dirt nap. Let it run too hot and you'll get the same. I've never let the cpus go beyond these limits and as a result I haven't had problems. Here is an example of some of the voltage limits you shouldn't go above. If you stay at or below these voltages your cpu will last... Celeron-1 (mendinocino) 2.5v Pentium-2 (deschutes) 2.5v Celeron-2 2.1v Pentium-3 (katmai) 2.5v Pentium-3 (coppermine) 2.1v Athlon Thunderbird 2.2v Athlon XP (0.18 micron) 2.2v Athlon XP (0.13 micron) 2.0v AMD K6 (0.25 micron) 2.6v AMD K6 (0.35 micron) 3.6v AMD 5x86 4.0v I have experience with overclocking all of these chips (and more), but these chips (the 0.13 micron XP the exception) have been run at least 1 year. I have many systems here, all running 24/7. One includes an Abit BP6 running dual Celeron 400 chips @ 552MHz. No problems there.. I've had a Celeron 300a @ 644, no problems... Celeron 366 @ 735MHz.. again, no problems. I could go on and on. What all have *YOU* overclocked Vincent? When you did, did you use a $5 heatsink/fan? $30 motherboard? Forget to put heatsink compound on the cpu core? Use a 250 watt non-name PSU trying to power a 100+ watt cpu? These are just a few mistakes people make when trying to overclock.. as well as the obvious pushing the voltage too high, causing the cpu to die over time. Don't go over the limits I described and that will NOT happen. >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. AMD doesn't give any warranty on OEM chips... the warranty I give is generous IMHO. Also, if the person doesn't like it, if it doesn't work with their particular hardware, etc, they can get a refund. It's no big deal Vincent. If they don't have any overclocking experience I modify the chips for them, that way all they need to know is how to install a CPU. They don't have to go into the BIOS or anything. >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). Simple solution. Don't buy one of my chips. Keep in mind though, the people that do will always be one step ahead of you at 1/3 of the price. :) >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.