Got my Conroe system going!

Discussion in 'Processors' started by chrisv, Aug 21, 2006.

  1. chrisv

    chrisv Guest

    Dual Core Power!!!

    Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66GHz (1333Mhz FSB)
    Intel 975XBX "BadAxe" mobo
    2GB Crucial DDR2-667
    EVGA "Superclock" (560Mhz) Nvidia 7900GT 512MB

    If you did a doubletake at the above CPU numbers, yes, I'm
    overclocking what is normally a 2.13GHz CPU. I haven't overclocked a
    PC since the Celeron 300A machine that I built back in the 90's, but
    with Intel supporting 1333MHz FSB on the BadAxe, and reports that
    overclocking the Core2 Duo is pretty-much a slam-dunk, it just seemed
    too easy, and too fun 8), to resist.

    Seems to be working fine so far. "Stress-testing" was done playing
    FEAR. After reading about people OC'ing these things to 4Ghz, I think
    my mild 25% OC is very likely to continue to work fine. More bang for
    the buck! 8)

    In normal usage, it doesn't seem any different from my old Northwood
    3.0, which was already plenty snappy for most tasks. One reason for
    the upgrade was so that my kid can get the Northwood box (6600GT
    video), as her P3-1Ghz box was getting kind of long in the tooth.
    Plus, even though I don't game very often, it's fun to do occasionally
    and my new machine can now handle pretty much anything out there at
    high resolutions and high quality settings. The graphics in FEAR are
    pretty darn impressive...

    So, even though I didn't "need" to upgrade, it seemed like the right
    time to do it. We use the hell out of our computers, so it's not a
    bad place to spend some money...
     
    chrisv, Aug 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. chrisv

    Rthoreau Guest

    chrisv wrote:
    > Dual Core Power!!!
    >
    > Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66GHz (1333Mhz FSB)
    > Intel 975XBX "BadAxe" mobo
    > 2GB Crucial DDR2-667
    > EVGA "Superclock" (560Mhz) Nvidia 7900GT 512MB
    >
    > If you did a doubletake at the above CPU numbers, yes, I'm
    > overclocking what is normally a 2.13GHz CPU. I haven't overclocked a
    > PC since the Celeron 300A machine that I built back in the 90's, but
    > with Intel supporting 1333MHz FSB on the BadAxe, and reports that
    > overclocking the Core2 Duo is pretty-much a slam-dunk, it just seemed
    > too easy, and too fun 8), to resist.
    >
    > Seems to be working fine so far. "Stress-testing" was done playing
    > FEAR. After reading about people OC'ing these things to 4Ghz, I think
    > my mild 25% OC is very likely to continue to work fine. More bang for
    > the buck! 8)
    >
    > In normal usage, it doesn't seem any different from my old Northwood
    > 3.0, which was already plenty snappy for most tasks. One reason for
    > the upgrade was so that my kid can get the Northwood box (6600GT
    > video), as her P3-1Ghz box was getting kind of long in the tooth.
    > Plus, even though I don't game very often, it's fun to do occasionally
    > and my new machine can now handle pretty much anything out there at
    > high resolutions and high quality settings. The graphics in FEAR are
    > pretty darn impressive...
    >
    > So, even though I didn't "need" to upgrade, it seemed like the right
    > time to do it. We use the hell out of our computers, so it's not a
    > bad place to spend some money...


    I thought you had an AMD system at one point, or was that just an
    acknowledgement of the technology at the time? Also you fail to
    mention what OS you are using? I would love someone to try give a hands
    on report of how the 64 bit extensions work in a real world situation.
    As I have heard various things in the media and how some features are
    not yet implemented.

    I am also surprised you went with a 7900 GT, doesn't that gpu have a
    history of problems. I would watch that with an eagle eye as that could
    be problematic. Also why not go with a nvidia chipset? Also did your
    motherboard have any markings that indicate who manufactured it, such
    as Foxconn, also what brand of caps does it use?

    Rthoreau
     
    Rthoreau, Aug 22, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. chrisv

    chrisv Guest

    Rthoreau wrote:

    >chrisv wrote:
    >> Dual Core Power!!!
    >>
    >> Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66GHz (1333Mhz FSB)
    >> Intel 975XBX "BadAxe" mobo
    >> 2GB Crucial DDR2-667
    >> EVGA "Superclock" (560Mhz) Nvidia 7900GT 512MB

    >
    >I thought you had an AMD system at one point, or was that just an
    >acknowledgement of the technology at the time?


    I built an AMD64 machine for my brother, and came close to getting one
    for myself a couple months ago. Then Conroe came along... 8)

    >Also you fail to
    >mention what OS you are using? I would love someone to try give a hands
    >on report of how the 64 bit extensions work in a real world situation.
    >As I have heard various things in the media and how some features are
    >not yet implemented.


    I'm going to Dual-boot XP and Mepis Linux, but so far only XP is on
    the HD. I hadn't given much thought to going with a 64-bit OS...

    >I am also surprised you went with a 7900 GT, doesn't that gpu have a
    >history of problems. I would watch that with an eagle eye as that could
    >be problematic.


    From what I understand, the issue was with the Samsung memory that
    many companies were using. To their credit, EVGA acknowledges the
    problems and now offers what they call their "reload" cards, which
    have different memory chips and should not have any problems.

    http://www.evga.com/articles/317.asp

    >Also why not go with a nvidia chipset?


    I don't think there's any Nvidia-based mobos that support the Conroe
    (yet). The Intel board is a good one, albeit pricey. (I got my money
    back from them by buying a cheaper chip and overclocking it. 8)

    >Also did your
    >motherboard have any markings that indicate who manufactured it, such
    >as Foxconn, also what brand of caps does it use?


    I didn't examine it for markings, but I doubt it will say anything but
    "Intel" on it... As for the caps, I'll look at them and report back,
    if I don't forget.
     
    chrisv, Aug 22, 2006
    #3
  4. chrisv

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    chrisv wrote:
    > Dual Core Power!!!
    >
    > Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66GHz (1333Mhz FSB)
    > Intel 975XBX "BadAxe" mobo
    > 2GB Crucial DDR2-667
    > EVGA "Superclock" (560Mhz) Nvidia 7900GT 512MB


    Is that with the 2MB or 4MB cache?

    Yousuf Khan
     
    Yousuf Khan, Aug 22, 2006
    #4
  5. chrisv

    The Kat Guest

    On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:51:19 -0400, Yousuf Khan <> wrote:

    >chrisv wrote:
    >> Dual Core Power!!!
    >>
    >> Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66GHz (1333Mhz FSB)
    >> Intel 975XBX "BadAxe" mobo
    >> 2GB Crucial DDR2-667
    >> EVGA "Superclock" (560Mhz) Nvidia 7900GT 512MB

    >
    >Is that with the 2MB or 4MB cache?


    The e6300 and 6400 have 2x1 meg,
    the e6600, 6700, and 6800 have the 2x2 meg cache.


    Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

    This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity...

    Remove XYZ to email me
     
    The Kat, Aug 23, 2006
    #5
  6. On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:09:18 -0500, chrisv <> wrote:

    >Rthoreau wrote:
    >

    <<snip>>
    >>Also why not go with a nvidia chipset?

    >
    >I don't think there's any Nvidia-based mobos that support the Conroe
    >(yet). The Intel board is a good one, albeit pricey. (I got my money
    >back from them by buying a cheaper chip and overclocking it. 8)


    Yes, Asus has a couple of Conroe-compatible nVidia mbrds, one an upgrade of
    a nForce4-based board, the P5N32-SLI SE Deluxe... the other a 570-based
    system. Apparently the 590-based board is err, imminent.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
     
    George Macdonald, Aug 23, 2006
    #6
  7. chrisv

    chrisv Guest

    Yousuf Khan wrote:

    >chrisv wrote:
    >> Dual Core Power!!!
    >>
    >> Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66GHz (1333Mhz FSB)
    >> Intel 975XBX "BadAxe" mobo
    >> 2GB Crucial DDR2-667
    >> EVGA "Superclock" (560Mhz) Nvidia 7900GT 512MB

    >
    >Is that with the 2MB or 4MB cache?


    As "The Kat" said, the E6400 has "only" 2MB L2 cache, although I
    object to his description of it as "2 x 1 Meg" when AFAIK it's really
    one shared cache.

    For awhile I was thinking that the E6600, which runs at a nominal
    2.4GHz and has 4MB L2, would be the one to get, but at the last minute
    I changed my mind. The E6600 wasn't readily available, and the $360
    price was a bit high. I read reports that showed that the benefit of
    the larger cache was a few percent at best, and reports of the easy
    over-clockability, especially of the "slower" variants. So I thought,
    "what the heck, get the cheaper one and OC it PAST the 2.4GHz that I
    was planning on getting." Cool!

    Plus, the 8xFSB core multiplier gives a nice symmetry to things, with
    the memory in my memory running dual channels at 333MHz DDR, perfectly
    matching the FSB running at 333MHz QDR ("1333MHz" FSB), and the CPUs
    running twice that at 2.66MHz. Geeky. 8)

    Heck, for all I know, many of the "2.13GHz" E6400's run just fine at
    much higher frequencies, but had a test failure in the L2 so that they
    had to switch half of it off, and then for marketing reasons (not
    wanting two products, 2M and 4M, at each frequency) they just sell
    those as their "low end" chips. After all, with the huge L2, the odds
    are 50-50 that any defect in the chip will be somewhere in the L2.
     
    chrisv, Aug 23, 2006
    #7
  8. chrisv

    chrisv Guest

    chrisv wrote:

    >As for the caps, I'll look at them and report back, if I don't forget.


    Too hard to see the cap's brand, after the board in installed. Sorry.
     
    chrisv, Aug 23, 2006
    #8
  9. chrisv

    willbill Guest

    chrisv wrote:

    > Dual Core Power!!!
    >
    > Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66GHz (1333Mhz FSB)
    > Intel 975XBX "BadAxe" mobo
    > 2GB Crucial DDR2-667
    > EVGA "Superclock" (560Mhz) Nvidia 7900GT 512MB
    >
    > If you did a doubletake at the above CPU numbers, yes, I'm
    > overclocking what is normally a 2.13GHz CPU.


    <various snips>


    how is it on output of heat?

    also IIRC, that 7900GT is a current mid
    to high-end video board, right?

    meaning that it also puts out a lot
    of heat, right?


    > Seems to be working fine so far. "Stress-testing"
    > was done playing FEAR.



    how long have you been running this
    new machine for? (to the closest week)



    > Plus, even though I don't game very often,
    > it's fun to do occasionally


    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    agreed

    i'm currently running Oblivion on
    XP with a single Opty 248 2.2 GHz
    (socket 940, single core) with
    a 7600GT/256MB

    runs pretty decent, and is suprising
    (to me) in how stable it is (both XP
    and Oblivion), and in how, when it
    (Oblivion) does fold up, that i can
    almost always restart without having
    to reboot XP. :)


    > and my new machine can now handle pretty much anything out there at
    > high resolutions and high quality settings. The graphics in FEAR are
    > pretty darn impressive...



    the 3D graphics are the one thing
    that consistently gets better. :)

    glancing at the c.s.i.p.g.action n/g,
    FEAR appears to be a shooter?

    how does it's graphics compare to Oblivion?


    >
    > So, even though I didn't "need" to upgrade,
    > it seemed like the right time to do it.



    correct me if i'm wrong; IIRC each of Intel's past
    major CPU transitions weren't without problems

    nothing like being a guinea pig with
    new technology (whether it's h/w or s/w)

    all ears. :)

    bill
     
    willbill, Aug 26, 2006
    #9
  10. chrisv

    chrisv Guest

    willbill wrote:

    >chrisv wrote:
    >
    >> Dual Core Power!!!
    >>
    >> Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66GHz (1333Mhz FSB)
    >> Intel 975XBX "BadAxe" mobo
    >> 2GB Crucial DDR2-667
    >> EVGA "Superclock" (560Mhz) Nvidia 7900GT 512MB
    >>
    >> If you did a doubletake at the above CPU numbers, yes, I'm
    >> overclocking what is normally a 2.13GHz CPU.

    >
    >how is it on output of heat?


    The CPU seems to be running cool and quiet with the stock
    heatsink/fan.

    >also IIRC, that 7900GT is a current mid
    >to high-end video board, right?
    >
    >meaning that it also puts out a lot
    >of heat, right?


    A respectable amount, I suppose, but not bad for "high end" card.
    Nvidia's new 90nm GPU's are known to be pretty reasonable on the power
    consumption.

    On a related note, if you want a 7900GT but don't want to be able to
    hear the cooling fan from the next room, plan on getting an
    aftermarket cooler. I use a Zalman VF900-Cu, which is not only
    virtually silent, but is a MUCH better cooler.

    >> Seems to be working fine so far. "Stress-testing"
    >> was done playing FEAR.

    >
    >how long have you been running this
    >new machine for? (to the closest week)


    1.5 weeks. 8)

    >(snip)
    >
    >glancing at the c.s.i.p.g.action n/g,
    >FEAR appears to be a shooter?


    Suspense/shooter, I'd call it. I like it.

    >how does it's graphics compare to Oblivion?


    I've not tried Oblivion. As far as I know, it's the one game that
    even a high-end card can't do well, unless you have two cards in SLI,
    and I'm not gong there...

    I should note that, even on my fairly respectable new rig, FEAR can
    get a bit jerky during intense battles. Some of these new games are
    VERY demanding.

    >correct me if i'm wrong; IIRC each of Intel's past
    >major CPU transitions weren't without problems
    >
    >nothing like being a guinea pig with
    >new technology (whether it's h/w or s/w)
    >
    >all ears. :)


    I think these last issues deserve their own thread. 8)
     
    chrisv, Aug 29, 2006
    #10
  11. chrisv

    chrisv Guest

    Intel's downs and ups

    willbill wrote:

    >correct me if i'm wrong; IIRC each of Intel's past
    >major CPU transitions weren't without problems
    >
    >nothing like being a guinea pig with
    >new technology (whether it's h/w or s/w)


    Well, Intel clearly went down a technological dead-end with their
    "Netburst" architecture, with it's design goal of "performance via
    high clock rate". I think that everyone agrees that their more-recent
    designs, from the Pentium M up to the Core 2 Duo, are designed much
    more intelligently. I think there's a couple points to be made beyond
    the obvious "they were getting their butts kicked and needed to do
    something".

    1) Netburst just had to be the result of Intel marketing's demand to
    have the highest GHz numbers. I can't believe that they thought that
    it was really the optimal engineering solution, especially when power
    requirements are factored-in.

    It seems the world is now over this "faster clock = better" nonsense.

    2) In the past, a new Intel CPU architecture was expected to last
    three process generations, and, because of that, it seemed that their
    new architectures didn't really "hit their stride" until the second,
    die-shrunk generation. This resulted in first-gen products that were
    hot running and mediocre in performance. With the Netburst CPU's the
    third generation proved to be a bust as well (which was their wake-up
    call).

    It seems that Intel has now accepted that, in order to be competitive,
    they need to redesign more often, so that their new designs work great
    right from the start and so that they are not stuck with old designs
    that are past their use-by date.
     
    chrisv, Aug 29, 2006
    #11
  12. chrisv

    chrisv Guest

    Re: Intel's downs and ups

    willbill wrote:

    >correct me if i'm wrong; IIRC each of Intel's past
    >major CPU transitions weren't without problems
    >
    >nothing like being a guinea pig with
    >new technology (whether it's h/w or s/w)


    Well, Intel clearly went down a technological dead-end with their
    "Netburst" architecture, with it's design goal of "performance via
    high clock rate". I think that everyone agrees that their more-recent
    designs, from the Pentium M up to the Core 2 Duo, are designed much
    more intelligently. I think there's a couple points to be made beyond
    the obvious "they were getting their butts kicked and needed to do
    something".

    1) Netburst just had to be the result of Intel marketing's demand to
    have the highest GHz numbers. I can't believe that they thought that
    it was really the optimal engineering solution, especially when power
    requirements are factored-in.

    It seems the world is now over this "faster clock = better" nonsense.

    2) In the past, a new Intel CPU architecture was expected to last
    three process generations, and, because of that, it seemed that their
    new architectures didn't really "hit their stride" until the second,
    die-shrunk generation. This resulted in first-gen products that were
    hot running and mediocre in performance. With the Netburst CPU's the
    third generation proved to be a bust as well (which was their wake-up
    call).

    It seems that Intel has now accepted that, in order to be competitive,
    they need to redesign more often, so that their new designs work great
    right from the start and so that they are not stuck with old designs
    that are past their use-by date.
     
    chrisv, Aug 29, 2006
    #12
  13. chrisv

    willbill Guest

    chrisv wrote:

    > willbill wrote:
    >
    >
    >>chrisv wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Dual Core Power!!!
    >>>
    >>>Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66GHz (1333Mhz FSB)
    >>>Intel 975XBX "BadAxe" mobo
    >>>2GB Crucial DDR2-667
    >>>EVGA "Superclock" (560Mhz) Nvidia 7900GT 512MB
    >>>
    >>>If you did a doubletake at the above CPU numbers, yes, I'm
    >>>overclocking what is normally a 2.13GHz CPU.

    >>
    >>how is it on output of heat?

    >
    >
    > The CPU seems to be running cool and quiet with the stock
    > heatsink/fan.
    >
    >
    >>also IIRC, that 7900GT is a current mid
    >>to high-end video board, right?
    >>
    >>meaning that it also puts out a lot
    >>of heat, right?

    >
    >
    > A respectable amount, I suppose, but not bad for "high end" card.
    > Nvidia's new 90nm GPU's are known to be pretty reasonable on the power
    > consumption.


    i only have a 7600GT and i'm more than a little
    surprised at how much heat comes off it

    have you put your hand on the outside
    of the metal case where your video card is?

    is it hot?

    if yes, you have a hot spot


    >
    > On a related note, if you want a 7900GT but don't want to be able to
    > hear the cooling fan from the next room, plan on getting an
    > aftermarket cooler. I use a Zalman VF900-Cu, which is not only
    > virtually silent, but is a MUCH better cooler.



    i've looked at them but felt i could do
    without one (whether Zalman or other)

    i at 1st had a hot spot with it,
    but since i keep positive pressure
    in the case, i removed the slot plate
    immediately below the video board and
    that resolved it


    >
    >>>Seems to be working fine so far. "Stress-testing"
    >>>was done playing FEAR.

    >>
    >>how long have you been running this
    >>new machine for? (to the closest week)

    >
    >
    > 1.5 weeks. 8)



    that's what i thought <grin>

    give it 3+ months. :)


    >>(snip)
    >>
    >>glancing at the c.s.i.p.g.action n/g,
    >>FEAR appears to be a shooter?

    >
    >
    > Suspense/shooter, I'd call it. I like it.
    >
    >
    >>how does it's graphics compare to Oblivion?

    >
    >
    > I've not tried Oblivion. As far as I know, it's the one game that
    > even a high-end card can't do well, unless you have two cards in SLI,
    > and I'm not gong there...
    >
    > I should note that, even on my fairly respectable new rig, FEAR can
    > get a bit jerky during intense battles. Some of these new games are
    > VERY demanding.
    >
    >
    >>correct me if i'm wrong; IIRC each of Intel's past
    >>major CPU transitions weren't without problems
    >>
    >>nothing like being a guinea pig with
    >>new technology (whether it's h/w or s/w)
    >>
    >>all ears. :)

    >
    >
    > I think these last issues deserve their own thread. 8)



    i see the new thread title. i may well
    choose to stay out of that discussion. :O)

    btw, pretty good response to some mildly
    agressive questions. :)

    have you had enough time yet to figure
    out how much benefit you'll see with
    a dual core CPU?

    do another thread title if you choose

    bill
     
    willbill, Aug 30, 2006
    #13
  14. chrisv

    willbill Guest

    Re: Intel's downs and ups

    chrisv wrote:
    > willbill wrote:
    >
    >
    >>correct me if i'm wrong; IIRC each of Intel's past
    >>major CPU transitions weren't without problems
    >>
    >>nothing like being a guinea pig with
    >>new technology (whether it's h/w or s/w)

    >
    >
    > Well, Intel clearly went down a technological dead-end with their
    > "Netburst" architecture, with it's design goal of "performance via
    > high clock rate". I think that everyone agrees that their more-recent
    > designs, from the Pentium M up to the Core 2 Duo, are designed much
    > more intelligently. I think there's a couple points to be made beyond
    > the obvious "they were getting their butts kicked and needed to do
    > something".



    i'm not all that sure what Netburst includes

    were the Northwood CPUs Netburst?

    and do you really think that Intel's Prescott (both
    early and late, both of which i presume are Netburst)
    is a major CPU transition?

    i could be wrong but i don't see Prescott as
    a major CPU transition


    >
    > 1) Netburst just had to be the result of Intel marketing's demand to
    > have the highest GHz numbers. I can't believe that they thought that
    > it was really the optimal engineering solution, especially when power
    > requirements are factored-in.
    >
    > It seems the world is now over this "faster clock = better" nonsense.



    i rather doubt that


    >
    > 2) In the past, a new Intel CPU architecture was expected to last
    > three process generations, and, because of that, it seemed that their
    > new architectures didn't really "hit their stride" until the second,
    > die-shrunk generation. This resulted in first-gen products that were
    > hot running and mediocre in performance. With the Netburst CPU's the
    > third generation proved to be a bust as well (which was their wake-up
    > call).
    >
    > It seems that Intel has now accepted that, in order to be competitive,
    > they need to redesign more often,



    that's been true for every industry
    this past two or three decades

    what makes you think that Intel
    hasn't seen that?

    bill


    > so that their new designs work great
    > right from the start and so that they are not stuck with old designs
    > that are past their use-by date.
     
    willbill, Aug 30, 2006
    #14
  15. chrisv

    chrisv Guest

    willbill wrote:

    >chrisv wrote:
    >> willbill wrote:
    >>>also IIRC, that 7900GT is a current mid
    >>>to high-end video board, right?
    >>>
    >>>meaning that it also puts out a lot
    >>>of heat, right?

    >>
    >> A respectable amount, I suppose, but not bad for "high end" card.
    >> Nvidia's new 90nm GPU's are known to be pretty reasonable on the power
    >> consumption.

    >
    >i only have a 7600GT and i'm more than a little
    >surprised at how much heat comes off it
    >
    >have you put your hand on the outside
    >of the metal case where your video card is?


    No, in fact the cover is not on the case yet. I put my hand on the
    backside of the card itself. Yes, during gameplay it did get rather
    "hot" with the stock cooler. WAY cooler with the Zalman. The stock
    cooling for the memory chips was especially lame - their contact to
    the heatsink was through a pad that was a good 1mm thick and looked
    like foam rubber. The Zalman system uses individual memory heatsinks
    that stick to the chips with a very thin layer of thermal adhesive.

    >> On a related note, if you want a 7900GT but don't want to be able to
    >> hear the cooling fan from the next room, plan on getting an
    >> aftermarket cooler. I use a Zalman VF900-Cu, which is not only
    >> virtually silent, but is a MUCH better cooler.

    >
    >i've looked at them but felt i could do
    >without one (whether Zalman or other)
    >
    >i at 1st had a hot spot with it,
    >but since i keep positive pressure
    >in the case, i removed the slot plate
    >immediately below the video board and
    >that resolved it


    My Antec Sonata II case has a funky air-duct thingy that hangs-over
    the CPU and video card so that heat can be directly ducted out of the
    case. I'm not using it now, though, and I don't think I will.

    >>>>Seems to be working fine so far. "Stress-testing"
    >>>>was done playing FEAR.
    >>>
    >>>how long have you been running this
    >>>new machine for? (to the closest week)

    >>
    >> 1.5 weeks. 8)

    >
    >that's what i thought <grin>
    >
    >give it 3+ months. :)


    Piece of cake. 8)

    >(snip)
    >
    >have you had enough time yet to figure
    >out how much benefit you'll see with
    >a dual core CPU?


    No, not really. It just seems the way of the future, with supposed
    benefits in "system responsiveness". No app that I use needs two
    CPU's... Future games could, but I'm not sure what the point would be
    since 99% of us are GPU-limited anyway...
     
    chrisv, Aug 30, 2006
    #15
  16. chrisv

    chrisv Guest

    Re: Intel's downs and ups

    willbill wrote:

    >chrisv wrote:
    >> willbill wrote:
    >>
    >>>correct me if i'm wrong; IIRC each of Intel's past
    >>>major CPU transitions weren't without problems
    >>>
    >>>nothing like being a guinea pig with
    >>>new technology (whether it's h/w or s/w)

    >>
    >> Well, Intel clearly went down a technological dead-end with their
    >> "Netburst" architecture, with it's design goal of "performance via
    >> high clock rate". I think that everyone agrees that their more-recent
    >> designs, from the Pentium M up to the Core 2 Duo, are designed much
    >> more intelligently. I think there's a couple points to be made beyond
    >> the obvious "they were getting their butts kicked and needed to do
    >> something".

    >
    >i'm not all that sure what Netburst includes


    http://www.sandpile.org/impl/p4.htm

    >were the Northwood CPUs Netburst?


    Yes, the second-gen. The only good one, IMO.

    >and do you really think that Intel's Prescott (both
    >early and late, both of which i presume are Netburst)
    >is a major CPU transition?
    >
    >i could be wrong but i don't see Prescott as
    >a major CPU transition


    Major or minor, my point remains the same.

    >> 2) In the past, a new Intel CPU architecture was expected to last
    >> three process generations, and, because of that, it seemed that their
    >> new architectures didn't really "hit their stride" until the second,
    >> die-shrunk generation. This resulted in first-gen products that were
    >> hot running and mediocre in performance. With the Netburst CPU's the
    >> third generation proved to be a bust as well (which was their wake-up
    >> call).
    >>
    >> It seems that Intel has now accepted that, in order to be competitive,
    >> they need to redesign more often,

    >
    >that's been true for every industry
    >this past two or three decades
    >
    >what makes you think that Intel
    >hasn't seen that?


    I don't understand the question. My point was that they do see it
    now, but didn't before.
     
    chrisv, Aug 30, 2006
    #16
  17. chrisv

    willbill Guest

    Re: Intel's downs and ups

    chrisv wrote:

    > willbill wrote:
    >
    >
    >>chrisv wrote:
    >>
    >>>willbill wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>correct me if i'm wrong; IIRC each of Intel's past
    >>>>major CPU transitions weren't without problems
    >>>>
    >>>>nothing like being a guinea pig with
    >>>>new technology (whether it's h/w or s/w)
    >>>
    >>>Well, Intel clearly went down a technological dead-end with their
    >>>"Netburst" architecture, with it's design goal of "performance via
    >>>high clock rate". I think that everyone agrees that their more-recent
    >>>designs, from the Pentium M up to the Core 2 Duo, are designed much
    >>>more intelligently. I think there's a couple points to be made beyond
    >>>the obvious "they were getting their butts kicked and needed to do
    >>>something".

    >>
    >>i'm not all that sure what Netburst includes

    >
    >
    > http://www.sandpile.org/impl/p4.htm



    wow, nice summary of the entire P-4 line,
    including Celeron and Xeon. :)

    so Intel's Pentium 4 is what you are
    calling "Netburst"?

    btw, near the top is: Family/Generation
    80786, 7th Generation, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3 (0.09 ┬Ám)
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    it is these "generation" changes that have
    a greater chance of having changeover problems;
    but i don't know which of them (i.e. Intel's)
    have had more problems than the others

    i'd certainly call the move from P-III
    to P-4 a major CPU change. meaning one
    that has a bigger chance of problems for
    early adapters

    Prescott was a minor change. they run ok.
    hot, but otherwise ok. i also note
    (from the list) that Prescott was 90nm
    and the current 65nm CPUs are Presler

    what i've never seen is an after the
    fact summary of just how rough the
    change over actually was, for the
    various generation changes

    i'd also call the move (from 486)
    to Pentium a major CPU change

    i'm less certain about which of the
    other changes might qualify as
    major CPU changes, nor which of
    them was initially more problematic
    (for early users)

    AMD has had it's own list of
    major CPU changes. :)



    >>were the Northwood CPUs Netburst?

    >
    >
    > Yes, the second-gen. The only good one, IMO.



    i also liked the Northwoods.
    fwiw, i bought a Northwood. :)

    i built two machines at that time:
    a DFI mobo with the Northwood (and
    Intel's high end desktop chipset that
    permitted ECC), and my old Tyan S2875
    (which i'm using to type this) with an
    AMD Opty 142 and AMD chipset. my sister
    expressed an interest in a computer
    and i gave here the choice of either
    of them. of course, she went with
    the "Intel" name. :)

    btw, DFI makes nice boards!

    anyhow, i got what i want: a server
    mobo where i've got high confidence
    that the ECC memory on it really works
    (i.e. corrects/reports any memory errors)

    i don't have that confidence with
    desktop machines. something that
    slowly dawned on me after i got done
    building the two machines

    the only other option of that time
    was an even more expensive Intel Xeon
    of that time, which i did NOT like
    the looks of

    >
    >>and do you really think that Intel's Prescott (both
    >>early and late, both of which i presume are Netburst)
    >>is a major CPU transition?
    >>
    >>i could be wrong but i don't see Prescott as
    >>a major CPU transition

    >
    >
    > Major or minor, my point remains the same.



    my vote goes for minor. :)

    just for the record, kindly state
    what you think the problem(s) are
    with Prescott/Presler

    afaik, the main problem with
    Prescott/Presler is the excessive
    heat generated, which caused Intel to
    fall behind in the performance race

    afaik, Prescott/Presler did *not* cause
    any significant changeover problems

    >
    >>>2) In the past, a new Intel CPU architecture was expected to last
    >>>three process generations, and, because of that, it seemed that their
    >>>new architectures didn't really "hit their stride" until the second,
    >>>die-shrunk generation. This resulted in first-gen products that were
    >>>hot running and mediocre in performance. With the Netburst CPU's the
    >>>third generation proved to be a bust as well (which was their wake-up
    >>>call).
    >>>
    >>>It seems that Intel has now accepted that, in order to be competitive,
    >>>they need to redesign more often,

    >>
    >>that's been true for every industry
    >>this past two or three decades
    >>
    >>what makes you think that Intel
    >>hasn't seen that?

    >
    >
    > I don't understand the question. My point was that they do see it
    > now, but didn't before.



    for sure Intel sees it *now* :)

    here's to real competition coz
    we all come out ahead from it. :)

    fwiw, i hope you don't run into any
    problems with your new dual core
    Intel Conroe CPU

    but you don't know that yet

    and if you do run into problems down
    the line, you also don't know how much
    of a nosebleed it will be

    otoh, looks like you are off to a good start. :)

    bill
     
    willbill, Aug 31, 2006
    #17
  18. chrisv

    chrisv Guest

    Re: Intel's downs and ups

    willbill wrote:

    >chrisv wrote:
    >>
    >> http://www.sandpile.org/impl/p4.htm

    >
    >wow, nice summary of the entire P-4 line,
    >including Celeron and Xeon. :)


    Sandpile is a great reference for all things x86.

    >so Intel's Pentium 4 is what you are
    >calling "Netburst"?


    Yes.

    >just for the record, kindly state
    >what you think the problem(s) are
    >with Prescott/Presler


    Bottom line, they didn't perform well. Whatever the reasons (e.g.
    heat), they didn't perform well.

    >afaik, the main problem with
    >Prescott/Presler is the excessive
    >heat generated, which caused Intel to
    >fall behind in the performance race
    >
    >afaik, Prescott/Presler did *not* cause
    >any significant changeover problems


    Depends what you consider a "problem". Sure, they "work", but the
    performance was lame, and the design fell short of it's goals. Intel
    did not add all those pipeline stages so that they could go from
    3.4GHz to 3.6GHz, with a newer manufacturing process, even!

    Only Intel's size and market muscle saved them from getting laughed
    out of the market during the Prescott years.

    >fwiw, i hope you don't run into any
    >problems with your new dual core
    >Intel Conroe CPU
    >
    >but you don't know that yet
    >
    >and if you do run into problems down
    >the line, you also don't know how much
    >of a nosebleed it will be
    >
    >otoh, looks like you are off to a good start. :)


    I'm not worried at all. The 975 chipset/motherboard platform is
    mature (which one could argue is more important than the "maturity" of
    the CPU), and there's no reason to believe the new CPU is "defective"
    in any way.
     
    chrisv, Aug 31, 2006
    #18
  19. chrisv

    Guest

    Re: Intel's downs and ups

    On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 08:12:54 -0500, chrisv <>
    wrote:

    >Only Intel's size and market muscle saved them from getting laughed
    >out of the market during the Prescott years.


    No, IMO it was the sheer size of the market itself that saved Intel's
    a$$. AMD, producing flat out, could fill only as much of the market
    as their market share was, and there always were shortages of at least
    some SKU here and there. There was no way for AMD to add more
    capacity. After all, somebody had to make all the Celerons for $299
    Dell boxes ;-))))))))))))))))

    NNN
     
    , Aug 31, 2006
    #19
  20. chrisv

    willbill Guest

    chrisv wrote:

    > willbill wrote:


    >> chrisv wrote:


    >>> willbill wrote:


    >>>> also IIRC, that 7900GT is a current mid
    >>>> to high-end video board, right?

    <snip>


    >>have you put your hand on the outside
    >>of the metal case where your video card is?



    > No, in fact the cover is not on the case yet. I put my hand on the
    > backside of the card itself. Yes, during gameplay it did get rather
    > "hot" with the stock cooler. WAY cooler with the Zalman. The stock
    > cooling for the memory chips was especially lame - their contact to
    > the heatsink was through a pad that was a good 1mm thick and looked
    > like foam rubber. The Zalman system uses individual memory heatsinks
    > that stick to the chips with a very thin layer of thermal adhesive.



    a case hot spot has little to do with
    how good/bad the GPU/memory cooling is

    hot spots are driven by how good/bad
    your air flow is within the case


    > My Antec Sonata II case has a funky air-duct thingy that hangs-over
    > the CPU and video card so that heat can be directly ducted out of the
    > case. I'm not using it now, though, and I don't think I will.



    given how much heat comes off your 7900GT,
    my hunch is that once you put the cover
    on the case, that you'll have a hot spot
    where the video card is

    assuming i'm right, do me a favor and post
    about what you do to solve it

    for me, in addition to removing a rear slot
    plate, i also bought a better, speed controlled,
    120mm fan to push more air into the case

    bill
     
    willbill, Sep 4, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Yousuf Khan

    Anandtech's Conroe vs. FX60

    Yousuf Khan, Mar 8, 2006, in forum: Processors
    Replies:
    69
    Views:
    1,579
    YKhan
    Apr 1, 2006
  2. The little lost angel

    Non-intel benchmarks on Conroe vs AMD's AM2 FX62

    The little lost angel, May 23, 2006, in forum: Processors
    Replies:
    117
    Views:
    1,541
    Stuart Krivis
    Jul 12, 2006
  3. Yousuf Khan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    213
    Yousuf Khan
    May 26, 2006
  4. Eddie G

    conroe and broadwater

    Eddie G, Jun 3, 2006, in forum: Processors
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    187
  5. Replies:
    159
    Views:
    2,049
Loading...

Share This Page