Author: Lonnie Cook
Date: 19:29:20 02/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 10, 2000 at 18:11:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 10, 2000 at 17:03:30, Albert Silver wrote: > >>On February 10, 2000 at 16:50:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 10, 2000 at 14:35:24, Peter Kappler wrote: >>> >>>>On February 10, 2000 at 10:52:38, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 10, 2000 at 10:13:16, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On February 10, 2000 at 01:04:50, Lonnie Cook wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On February 09, 2000 at 23:30:14, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On February 09, 2000 at 23:00:35, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Integrated = on-die. So it should be running at the same speed as the core. But >>>>>>>>>the design of the L2 cache may have increased latencies, so it's possible that >>>>>>>>>it won't be as fast as some people think it "should" be. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>-Tom >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>hm. >>>>>>>>whatever - could be a killer-cpu for cstal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I have run CSTal a little Thorsten and I was getting 50-60K on mine >>>>>> >>>>>>on 1000 ? >>>>>> >>>>>>that would be 3.3 - 4 times faster than on my k6-3/400 ! >>>>>>nice nice nice. >>>>> >>>>>That's because the KryoTech 1000 Mhz L2-cache runs at 400 Mhz. I hope >>>>>my new toy will arrive tomorrow :-) >>>>> >>>>>Ed >>>> >>>> >>>>Hi Ed, >>>> >>>>When will we get a chance to see this machine in action in a GM Challenge game? >>>> >>>>--Peter >>> >>> >>>I would hope "never". This is not exactly the most reliable thing to do to >>>hardware. Remember that for every system hang you see, there were hundreds of >>>thousands of cases where an instruction produced the wrong result but was in >>>"user-land" where it didn't crash anything. >>> >>>It is incredibly risky to overclock when 'it counts'. >> >>Even at -40 degrees? Furthermore, I remember reading at Tom's Hardware that one >>could adapt the system to use other chips, so it isn't limited the chip it comes >>with. If one used a chip that was naturally faster, wouldn't the dangers of >>overclocking be gradually minimized, especially at that temperature? >> >> Albert Silver > > >The basic clock frequency for a chip comes from adding up gate delays in a >path from X to Y inside the chip. If you go too fast, you latch data before >it settles. If you go too slow, you just go too slow. If you ramp up the >clock beyond spec, you _must_ do something to speed up the gate delays. One >way is to up Vcc. That ups the heat. Which kills the chip lifetime. You >can do various tricks to conduct the heat away (ie kryo approach). But no >matter what you do, you can't make the gates function much faster. In some >cases the vendor intentionally underclocks the chip, so that they can lower >the voltage to avoid a serious heating problem. In that case, you can run >the clock back up if you are willing to spend the money to cool it properly. >In other cases (ie L2 cache) you simply can't push it any faster no matter >what you do. > >There are several variables, including temperature, Vcc, manufacturing process, >gate delays, clock frequency, etc. Running the clock frequency up without >addressing anything else is asking for trouble. Running the clock frequency up, >running the voltage up, and dropping the temp via a kryotech cooling device >isn't a sure thing either. As there is definitely a frequency beyond which >the best ICs of today simply won't function. We still have to overcome >resistance, capacitance and inductance, each of which adds heat or delay to >the thing. > >I had a student here that was running an AMD and was getting odd results on rare >occasions, while it produced perfect answers on an Intel box. He wrote a pretty >good cpu diagnostic in assembly, which tried to test every instruction multiple >times with various types of data (ie all 1's, alternating 1/0's, sliding 1's, >etc.) He found that his slight overclocking was simply bogus. His machine >"seemed" stable, but only because an instruction has to screw up in the O/S to >crash things. A bogus operation in a program might or might not cause it to >fail. > >I don't like the risk, personally. Ed had problems with his kryo machine. >Lonnie has had hangs with his. I prefer "rock-solid" myself... The problem I had was with Athlon in general which r known to be finicky about power supplys. I told them before they shipped to me that I wanted an "Enhance" power supply as I read beforehand that other power supplies used caused problems for the SuperG (ala, Anand's site) They gave me a different power supply PLUS they used a Gigabyte mbd that is KNOWN to be kinda quirky at times too,ala, the GA7IX mbd. They shipped me new one with right power supply and mbd and it runs like a charm
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.