Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Sample Preview

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the core-tastic dept.

146

MojoKid writes "Intel took the wraps off a new Core 2 Duo desktop chip today, dubbed the E6750. Though this chip shares the same basic clock speed as the Core 2 Duo E6700 at 2.66GHz, this new processor also runs on a faster 1,333MHz Front Side Bus. The new chip's additional bus bandwidth affords it up to a 5% performance advantage over standard 1066MHz FSB-based Core 2 chips. However, what's perhaps more promising is this new chip's overclocking head-room of up to 3.92GH and beyond on standard air cooling."

cancel ×

146 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

All on one page (5, Informative)

edgr (781723) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633131)

The link to the article all on one page is http://www.hothardware.com/printarticle.aspx?artic leid=989 [hothardware.com]

Re:All on one page (2, Funny)

muszek (882567) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633759)

If you knew how much effort they put into creating those cute 11 pages, you wouldn't have rushed to destroy everything.

Good marketing? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633135)

Why not just sell them rated at a higher clock speed? It would be funny to think they made a fast chip and purposefully rated it at a lower speed to grab some of the extra hobbiest market while simultaneously cutting down on support calls from overclockers who cause system instability by making the overclockers think they are overclocking. :)

Hi there! Let me introduce... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633227)

...the ",". It's pronounced "comma", and comes in very handy sometimes.

Thanks.

Re:Hi there! Let me introduce... (-1, Flamebait)

caspper69 (548511) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633289)

...the ",". It's pronounced "comma", and comes in very handy sometimes.

Yeah, and your momma called and she said save the drama for the comma because you're a douchebag loser. Ooooh.. I'm sooo smart that I can call out others' grammar, but I'm not smart enough to figure out what you're saying.

Learn to read a message board. I know that particular skill is a challenging one to master, but it'll save real folks like me from having to read your stupid ass grammar comments in the future. Seriously, doesn't anyone have an internal monologue anymore? Kackle to yourself and move on. If you actually waste the time to post something as assinine as this, you should question your worth to the human race.

And yes, this is the kind of guy that winds up with a mail order bride. Guess why? Well, studies have shown that possessing the personality of wet paper towel has absolutely nothing to do with it. I guess the greatest mystery in the universe will remain unsolved.

And yes I am aware of the fact that I took the time to respond. But at least my post was entertaining.

Re:Hi there! Let me introduce... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633511)

Entertaining? Both your posts in this thread have been tedious shit, and your pathetic attempts at 'attitude' aren't fooling anyone. But what has resulted in this sudden display of attitude? My theory - Caspper69 held a door open for a nice young lady, and got the first smile he has ever acheived from a female outside of his family. Well done, Caspper69! But don't let it go to your head, Caspper69, you are not The Man so don't go telling your nerdy friends you just got laid! (I know you have though, you naughty boy!)

HAHAHAHAHA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633519)

Now your karma is in the toilet!

Re:Hi there! Let me introduce... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633779)

I might add that a comma before an "and" is redundant and considered a syntaxerror in the English language.

Re:Hi there! Let me introduce... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633891)

You would feel wonderful if only you were correct, but you aren't.

Re:Good marketing? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633299)

Overclocking raise the heat and power consumption, and the most important, it lower the lifetime of the CPU. Intel have to guarantee that chips work a certain amount of years, this is not so important in the desktop world, but in the server space it is very important.

Re:Good marketing? (5, Informative)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633325)

Yes, it's all market related... but not how you think.

There is no such thing as a xyz GHz chip. They are all the same (except for caches on chip and so, but let's neglect that) The chips are all made from the same wafers and then are tested: those that are tested at high speeds and work, get sold als "high speed chips", the chips that fail are tested at lower speed and then, if they work, sold for that speed.

Now, that's fine in theory, the problem is that when the yields of high speed chips are very high. At that point Intel has a problem: their high-premium chips are plentiful and hence they should sell them at lower cost. Especially that they don't have lower speed chips that are for the middle and low-segment market. But wait! Why not just sell the chips that work at high speeds, but tell the customer that they are slower speed chips. The (average) customer will not test if it runs higher speeds, and frankly, it is not in their interest to do because they would lose warranty.

That's what really happens...

Re:Good marketing? (1)

operato (782224) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633361)

spot on and that doesn't only happen with cpu's. hard disks are the same too.

Re:Good marketing? (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633507)

Yeah, but it's much more difficult to unlock a hard-disk...

Re:Good marketing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633607)

The keys usually do it...

In your face! In your FACE!

Re:Good marketing? (2, Informative)

level_headed_midwest (888889) | more than 7 years ago | (#19636471)

Yes and no. You are correct in that a two-platter 250 GB drive and a two-platter 320 GB drive likely use the same platters, with the 250 GB unit being "locked." But the hard drive manufacturer can and does vary the number of platters for differing capacities as well as putting in a different motor for different speeds. Intel generally has one set of dies for all of a certain arch of chip- the Core Duo, Core Solo, Pentium Dual Core, and Celeron M 400 series are made from the same mask. Even the Core 2 Duos are generally all made from one mask, with a handful of Merom-2Ms and Allendales being made from the smaller 111 mm^2 mask rather than the 140 mm^2 one for 4 MB L2 cache.

Re:Good marketing? (1)

borat4president (1083997) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633657)

By the way, that's called price discrimination. Flea market hawkers do the same: sell at the price that the buyer is ready to pay, thus maximizing their profit.

Re:Good marketing? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#19635349)

Well, there's the sane overclockers and then there's the to-the-limit overclockers. I've read some rather interesting forum posts on how their overclocked chip was getting unstable, so they dropped it to stock speed and sold it. All the honor of selling a used car that'd been driven like hell as if your grandmother used to drive to church. I bet six months to a year later whichever sucker bought it will start experiencing the same instability because the overclocker burnt through 90% of the lifetime like a crisp. And I got the impression that most people doing overclocking aren't clocking lowend parts to typical speeds for cash savings, they're the ones going for bragging rights and 3dmark points, which means clocks to the max. Reminds me a lot of the people who spend 80% of their time pimping out their ride and 20% driving it.

Re:Good marketing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19635951)

Clearly you have no idea of failure modes and rates. Your intuition is garbage. Instead of listening to what the voices in your head say perhaps you should become educated on the matter before running your mouth. But I know in the days of wiki and internet half-truths this may be hard for you to grasp.

Re:Good marketing? (1)

Danny Rathjens (8471) | more than 7 years ago | (#19636635)

And I got the impression that most people doing overclocking aren't clocking lowend parts to typical speeds for cash savings, they're the ones going for bragging rights and 3dmark points, which means clocks to the max. Reminds me a lot of the people who spend 80% of their time pimping out their ride and 20% driving it.

I think your impression is quite the opposite of reality. Sure, there are some folks as you describe, but they are the vocal minority. Even when you look at the results of those enthusiasts [hardforum.com] you still see quite a lot of them using air cooling on the lower end chips. There are plenty of people performing modest overclocks on air cooling to get better bang for their buck. (And the biggest surge in overclcocking I recall were all the people running their 350Mhz celerons at 500Mhz... because the celerons were cheap.) Nowadays people are even using the very modest (+5%) dynamic overclocking which is built-in to some motherboards.

FSB speed upgrades (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633137)

Mmm, yummy... Much better than just playing with the multiplier.

what... (2, Funny)

cosmocain (1060326) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633143)

....a coincidence: the overclocking article is from ->hothardware. yeah. i truly believe, that an ordinary aircooling and a C2D at 3.92GHz have really earned an article on a domain called like that.

So we like Intel now? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633153)

Does that mean I have to start hating AMD instead?

Reviews of samples should stop talking about... (5, Interesting)

heyguy (981995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633169)

overclockability. I believe those chips sent out for review are cherry picked by intel. Most of the reviews for the Core 2 Duo chips last year said the lower end chips could easily be overclocked to 3.5ghz+. That ended up not being the norm. I think something around 3ghz is pretty standard.

Re:Reviews of samples should stop talking about... (1)

presearch (214913) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633239)

I'm overclocking an off the shelf Q6600 to 3Ghz with a Zalman air cooler and an Intel XBX2 board. Going just past that and things fall apart quickly.
I assume the E6600 "extreme" part, with the changable multiplier, could easily go to three and a half.

The 45mn parts are going to be much more fun.

Re:Reviews of samples should stop talking about... (1)

niceone (992278) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633529)

Reviews of samples should stop talking about overclockability

Problem is, there isn't anything else interesting about this chip! The non-synthetic bechmarks are a couple of % up (or down in once case, but they say that's within the margin of error). Not that that's a criticism of thhe chip itself, they have to update their line.

Megahertz myth (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633181)

I thought we had finally put the "megahertz myth" behind us. But no, here we are again cheering on Intel for producing chips with their many megahertzes and gigahertzes.

We should lean on them to use a more sensible naming convention. AMD has led the way in this area. Consumers are much better served with descriptive product names such as, for example, "Turion 64 X2 TL56", rather than some arbitrary clock speed designations.

Re:Megahertz myth (5, Insightful)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633363)

Descriptive product names? You know what "Turion 64 X2 TL56" means? I don't.... That said, I don't know what "Core 2 Duo E6600" means either. Is a "Turion TL60" better than a "Turion TL56"? Or a "Core 2 Duo E6800" better than a "Core 2 Duo E6600"? Heck, it's like with graphic cards: you cannot say squat based on the names of graphics cards. It's all dust and mirrors.

For the bad car analogy: is a BMW 318 better than a BMW 320? You're gonna say the BMW 320 is better, evidently! I might argue that the BMW 318 I was talking about is full option and that the BMW 320 doesn't even have power windows.

Yeah, yeah, I know you're kidding... but really: the chip names of all manufacturers are pretty much a joke.

Re:Megahertz myth (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633565)

It's "smoke and mirrors", not "dust and mirrors".

Re:Megahertz myth (1)

The Clockwork Troll (655321) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633639)

He was actually referring to cocaine; the fact that visual inspection of a quantity of cocaine can tell you nothing of its actual content. This is analogous to the meaninglessness of processor designations. So the metaphor was appropriate.

Re:Megahertz myth (2, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633711)

You know what "Turion 64 X2 TL56" means?

Turion - Series
64 - 64-bit CPU
X2 - Dual-Core
TL - Taylor Core
56 - Dunno.

Re:Megahertz myth (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633903)

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/05/17/amd_launch es_dual-core_turions/ [reghardware.co.uk]

TL-50 1.6GHz 2*256KB caches $184
TL-52 1.6GHz 2*512KB caches $220
TL-56 1.8GHz 2*512KB caches $263
TL-60 2.0GHz 2*512KB caches $354

There are borked chips with half the cache disabled (or maybe faulty) and then a load of different speed grades.

Re:Megahertz myth (1)

asc99c (938635) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634351)

Fantastic! So now it's as simple as reading the nice descriptive name and looking that up in a table on a website to find out the speed and cache size. If only there was an even simpler way...

Re:Megahertz myth (1)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634455)

Cache size is occasionally useful if you happen to know what the working set is of the app you're running. Clock speed means basically nothing unless you're comparing two chips with identical architectures - actually, for these chips, comparing the model numbers (higher is better) probably gives you almost exactly as much useful information.

Re:Megahertz myth (4, Funny)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633907)

>56 - Dunno.
That's the percentage of performance compared to the Intel equivelent i.e the Turion is 56% the speed of an Intel equivelent.

Re:Megahertz myth (1)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634645)

How are they defining "equivalent"?

Re:Megahertz myth (2, Funny)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634851)

How do you define "whoosh"?

Re:Megahertz myth (1)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 7 years ago | (#19635143)

That's what I figured, but I thought I'd ask anyways.

Re:Megahertz myth (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#19635257)

Damn, sorry. If I'd known I could have come up with some semi-plausible sounding reply such as 'It's a function of the specmark's, RAM bus speeds and Intel's stock price versus AMD's. ;-)

OT: bmw names (1)

digital bath (650895) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633739)

Off topic, I know, but the geek in me loves to notice and dissect these things.

With respect to BMW car naming conventions, the model number makes quite a bit of sense if you know how to break it down. The first number tells you which "series" the car belongs to (3 series, 5 series, etc). The second two numbers refer to engine displacement (25 is 2.5 liters). The trailing characters that are sometimes used refer to various options (i=inline engine, x=all wheel drive, etc). So if you were to ask me to decide between a 318 and a 320, I'd probably pick the 320 for the bigger engine. Then I'd smack myself for picking a car that hasn't been in production since 1982.

God only knows why the chip manufacturers use the names they pick, though :) And don't get me started on video cards. *shudder*

Re:OT: bmw names (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633813)

I knew all that. It's the reason I chose BMW, because I knew it's a series 3, 1.8l engine versus 2.0l engine. You have to give the Germans that: their car model numbers do make a lot of sense. Well, most of the time anyway ;-)

However, you'll have to explain me this [www.bmw.de] . Both the 318 and the 320 are still in production (sure the i is there, but as you say it means "inline"... even though I though it stands for "injection"...)

Re:OT: bmw names (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634257)

So what size engine is in a 1985 325e? The same 2.7L engine that's in the 1985 528e. BMW is generally pretty close in its naming convention but it does fall apart under scrutiny, especially when minor engine revisions drive up the displacement. Personally, I'd take a 320 (old or new) since there's no way I'd ever own the piece of tin that is the 1.8L BMW 4-cylinder engine ever again.

Re:OT: bmw names (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634291)

Actually the video cards usually have regular increasing numbers for every new chipset revision. It's the asian OEMs like Asus, Gigabyte and others that totally mess it up. Like for example, Asus released a V9999 many years ago which had a Geforce 6800 Ultra at its heart. It was a fast card for sure, but where do you go after 9999 ? Is the EN8800GTX slower than the 9999 (No, it's not).

It gets even dumber when truly unenlightened souls try to compare video cards by their onboard memory. I've lost count of how many times people walked up to me and bought a $50 rock-bottom 256mb-card, which is basically a stick of ram with a blitter duct-taped to the backside. The next day they come back and complain that my card sucks because FEAR didn't run smoothly on their Radeon x300 "but the box says 256mb recommended". Then the guy will try to "upgrade" to a 512mb entry-level card, which is usually where I put my foot down and try to explain the whole VRAM scam, but often times I just have to throw them out of the store once they've made two things clear: 1. they aren't listening to my wisdom and 2. they can't afford the $200 mid-range gamer card that will allow them to run that brand new game they just pirated.

It used to be simple, all graphics cards sucked equally, and all processors had almost linear performance relative to their clock speed. Most people are still stuck in that mentality, even the semi-techy crowd if they haven't been throwing all their money at the upgrade gods.

Re:Megahertz myth (1)

niko9 (315647) | more than 7 years ago | (#19636731)

The 318 and 320 series BMW's has 1.8L and 2.0L liter engines respectively. 3 stood for 3 series, and the engine sizes followed. BMW 328 has a 2.8L engine. Quite simple if you ask me, and a hell of a lot easier to understand than CPU and graphic card specs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_3_Series [wikipedia.org]

p.s. I understood BMW's series naming scheme before I looked it up on Wikipedia.

Re:Megahertz myth (1)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633533)

This reminds me of an idea for processor model naming I heard somewhere. Why can't processor companies do what car companies do and release processor models once annually? Have only a few base models (Athlon for desktops, Turion for notebooks and Opteron for server) and make sure those names almost never change. Maybe even have a few "package" levels similar to how you can get a car with extra features but in this case have higher processor speeds, memory bandwidth, etc. that people who really care can look at. Then you can buy a computer with a 2007 Athlon with package 2. You still can't compare it very well with an intel chip but at least you have some clue as to what came out this year versus last year. In processor technology, you also have the advantage that what comes out this year is in almost all cases better overall than what came out last year.

Re:Megahertz myth (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633609)

Yeah, and then people will start replacing their machines because it's "old" even though the computer is in perfectly fine working order and fulfills the needs of the user. Guess, it's time to tell my wife that her 2003 P-IV needs replacing... ;-) Preferably with an iMac 2007 ;-)

I'm not sure about cars, but the first time I heard about year-based car models, was when I talked with North Americans. I've never heard anyone in Europe refer to their car as a 2001 Golf. They'll say I have a Golf 3 (for example) I think that the car makers had a very good marketeer that thought of the year-based car models, because now people are forced to admit how old their car is.

Think about it: when I was a student, I had a 14 year old Audi 80 (Loved that car, by the way) and people often thought it was "just a few years old" ranging from 2 years to 7 years. I just told people that I drove an Audi 80... With the year-based system, I'd have to say: "Yes, I drive a 1989 Audi 80", which would immediately give away how old the car really was.

I say it's marketing brilliance and it's the last thing we want to happen with computer chips.... The naming schemes today are already bad enough. Oh, and to "Joe Home User", you can always say these days "Buy the system on sale, it'll do anything you want". (Don't say this to "Joe Gamer" of course, but he's supposed to know what he needs)

Re:Megahertz myth (1)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633795)

Ask a person on the street which one of these is a better: An Intel Core 2 Duo e6800 or an Intel Core 2 Duo t5600? Now no one will ask that question but if people come in to Best Buy and want a computer how in the world would they know the difference? I can't even tell you which one is better and probably 90% of the people on Slashdot would be the same way. I assume the e6800 but since there is a t7600 maybe the t series is always better?

Most people don't even know where the number levels begin or end. t7600 could be near the beginning of the numbering series or it could be at the end. The only reason I know its at the top end is because I visit pricewatch.com and they have CPUs in order by number.

If two computers had an Athlon package 1 but one was from the 2007 model year and another in the 2008 a consumer at least would have a chance at evaluating the difference (or lack of difference) in price between the computers. Sure some people will probably buy a new computer after 4 years just like some people buy a new car after 4 years. But I think on the whole agreeing on simplified naming standards in the industry is good for tech-savvy and non-tech-savvy consumers.

Re:Megahertz myth (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634323)

It doesn't just say how old the car is, it also says how young YOU are :) Seriously though, dating computers by their year of release would help a little bit. It would give the non-techies something easy to latch onto, instead of having people say "Pentium 4 ? you're trying to sell me old junk! I want a Pentium 64!"

At least when you buy a used car, even a non-mechanic can figure out that a 2001 Ford Focus is a piece of shit... erm, and that it's 6 years old. If people advertised their PC as a "2004 AMD" then you could derive that it's between 1.6 and 2.4ghz, probably has 256mb of ram and a 40gh hard drive. More importantly, they'd know it's probably not extremely different from someone else's 2004 computer.

Re:Megahertz myth (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634555)

At least when you buy a used car, even a non-mechanic can figure out that a 2001 Ford Focus is a piece of shit...

Why? Because it's a Ford, or because that it's 6 years old? I mean I drive a 7 year old Audi TT now... (Yes, you USies would call it a 2000 Audi TT, and that's the year I bought it.) I don't think it's a piece of shit and I'm most definitely not going to sell it.

If people advertised their PC as a "2004 AMD" then you could derive that it's between 1.6 and 2.4ghz, probably has 256mb of ram and a 40gh hard drive.

A 2004 AMD with those specs? I built in April 2004, an AMD Athlon XP 2600+/512Meg RAM/80Gig HD for my sister. The challenge for me was "if I manage to put together a PC for 500€ or less, you'll get it as a gift from me". She got it as a gift, just that you know. Yes, she still uses it to this day.

Say, a 2001 AMD, and I agree. See, there your argument already starts to fall apart because you don't even remember what was "common" back then. If you don't know, as presumably a IT professional, how would Joe Blow know?

Actually, until recently it was pretty much possible to say when a PC was made by just looking at the components. In 2004, any machine worth its money was featuring 512Meg RAM, probably 1Gig in the higher end. There is also a thing that is very different compared to cars: upgrading your machine is easy and if you're Joe Blow, you could let it do by your trusted brick & mortar shop. The difference between a 256Meg machine and a 512Meg machine is phenomenal even with the same CPU. Upgrading RAM is something even Joe Blow can do: I walked a non-technical girl once through the process by phone. No harm was done to the machine.

Finally, keep in mind the following: my last desktop machine was build in february 2003. So, let's call it a 2003 AMD. Well I've got news for you, that "2003 AMD" was an AMD Athlon MP 2400+/1Gig RAM.... That was way out of the norm back then.

Re:Megahertz myth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633715)

I don't think you understand what the "megahertz myth" issue actually was.

Re:Megahertz myth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633737)

Basically the only way they are going to start valid naming conventions is when we the consumer start a dominant benchmark with a score standard. Then if we persist and the manufacturers see that we don't care about their flashy names, only then will they think of using our standard as a marketing angle.


Or we can just band up, visit them with chains and bats and demand it right now.

Re:Megahertz myth (1)

Thundersnatch (671481) | more than 7 years ago | (#19636429)

Almost every processor is bechmarked using SPECint 2006 and (for multi-core systems) SPECint_rate 2006. Yes, it ignores some I/O effects, but it's not too shabby of a "universal" benchmark. We frequently use SPECint_rate scores to help us decide what sort of application and datbase servers to buy in a particular year.

Doing realistic benchmarks on all that disparate hardware with our own apps would be way too expensive and time consuming, so we just rely on SPEC to make the benchmarks "fair".

Wouldn't it be nice if the SPECint_rate score was the model number of a chip? You'd have the intel 2-180 or the AMD b193. You'd know the AMD was marginally faster than the 180 in total multi-threaded throughput.

Re:Megahertz myth (1)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634093)

"I thought we had finally put the "megahertz myth" behind us."

Do you even know what the Megahertz myth is? It's completely irrelevant in this context; we're talking about overclocking one architecture (from 2.66GHz to almost 4GHz), which means we should see a fairly nice scaling of the performance within these numbers (and if it's not 1:1, we should have a reason for it, such as drawbacks within the architecture itself).

Now if we were talking about a 2.66GHz Intel chip in comparison to an X.XXXGHz AMD chip, that'd matter. But within the same company and same architecture, the "myth" isn't a myth at all, it's factual and is how frequency scaling should work.

WHOA *jaw drops* (2, Funny)

Tama00 (967104) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633203)

This is like sex, except im having it!

Re:WHOA *jaw drops* (-1, Flamebait)

caspper69 (548511) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633333)

This is like sex, except im having it!

Offtopic? This is hilarious. What happened to the /. of Old? Oh yeah, we've got a bunch of pimple-faced vaginaphobes here. Talk to me in ten years.

Well, not you sitting in your parents' basement. You're hopeless. Your best chance at procreation is to master asexual reproduction in humans. With your beowulf cluster of linux boxes (not including the one Windows box you keep to play WoW) along with the Profit!! you make from Russians selling advertising to you, you should have it mastered in no time.

You must be new here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633617)

GP is a pretty tired joke by now...

Re:You must be new here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19634495)

So is * Cowboy Neal *, but that doesn't go away, does it.

Overclocking... (1, Funny)

stox (131684) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633207)

the reason some people measure the MTBF of their systems in weeks instead of years.

Re:Overclocking... (4, Informative)

commlinx (1068272) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633303)

Exactly, and why the chip is sold as 2.66GHz not the 3.92GHz that the marketing department would prefer. Semiconductor manufacturers do a stellar job of testing and specifying things over the complete operating range of the device. Ignoring obvious differences in things like ambient temperature and power supply fluctuations when you overclock a device you risk a number of factors for reliability. Any temperature measurement is always taken at a single point and if another point on the surface of the silicon is hotter, for example because your application of heatsink compound was not so great or it contains higher speed switching and more dense circuitry in that area you always run the risk of frying things. Not to mention there is a difference between running a game that might place peak demands on the CPU and allow it to cool versus compute-intensive applications where you might want to drive all cores at 100% over a long period. And they might be using a different section of the processor, and your CPU might be from a different batch, and...

Stability? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633243)

Great, so it's bloody fast. But can it complete 10+ hours of Prime95 and 32M digits of SuperPI without any errors? Simply booting and running a few benchmarks is hardly a means of stability testing.

Stability of in-spec chips not 100% either (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633945)

But can it complete 10+ hours of Prime95 and 32M digits of SuperPI without any errors?

That's a good question, in principle.

The error rate of the CPU increases when you overclock it, undoubtedly, but you have to remember that a device running at its rated speed has a non-zero error rate too.

A more precise question would be to what extent the error rate has worsened by overclocking the device, and that is related to the decrease in signal to noise margins, which is quantifiable. The CPU manufacturers must have these figures internally, but we're extremely unlikely to see them, unfortunately.

Re:Stability of in-spec chips not 100% either (1)

fitten (521191) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634307)

A more precise question would be to what extent the error rate has worsened by overclocking the device, and that is related to the decrease in signal to noise margins, which is quantifiable. The CPU manufacturers must have these figures internally, but we're extremely unlikely to see them, unfortunately.

I would believe that you're more likely to run into data setup and hold time violations. Your clocking the circuit faster means that less time is given for the circuit to settle which means you're more likely to latch in a signal that isn't stable, resulting in that bit (or bits) being who-knows-what. This is determined by the critical paths in the logic in the pipeline stages. If you're lucky, the critical path is in the control circuitry so the result would be a crash of some sort. If the critical path is in data, you won't necessarily get a crash but you might get bad data (calculations have the wrong results) or other things like an incorrectly calculated target address.

Re:Stability? (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 7 years ago | (#19635389)

ge3425yhWEw5yw erVdfdgb;'/gslpe4gdheokhut, the reality is, the CPU's working fine.

"Up to 5%..." (3, Insightful)

Flying pig (925874) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633247)

Pay more for memory, reduce the error margin on the motherboard, all for a virtually unnoticeable improvement in performance. Someone is trying to cash in to pay for the development of versions that will consistently run at higher clock speeds. The processor companies are getting like the drug companies - hyping things that work hardly any better than the one before, and then seeking to profit from early adopters.

Now what I would like to see advertised - but won't - is slower but highly reliable motherboards, processors and memory at commercial prices. How about a Core Duo Reliability Edition? I would reallyt like to be able to build a server and a few desktops from commodity hardware and almost be able to forget about them for 5 years. I can get HDDs that will do that, but where can I get the commodity silicon where the manufacturer will make a statement about long term reliability?

Re:"Up to 5%..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633271)

Underclock the system.

Re:"Up to 5%..." (2, Informative)

cowbutt (21077) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633543)

Now what I would like to see advertised - but won't - is slower but highly reliable motherboards, processors and memory at commercial prices. How about a Core Duo Reliability Edition? I would reallyt like to be able to build a server and a few desktops from commodity hardware and almost be able to forget about them for 5 years.

Er, that's exactly why I stick with Intel CPUs on quality motherboards (Gigabyte/ASUS) that use Intel chipsets and Crucial memory, despite the taunting of my AMD fanboy friends. Also, pay attention to your cooling and PSU (i.e. fit as many fans as you physically can fit in the case, and don't use the cheapest case/PSU combination you can find), as cutting corners here will severely impact your reliability. I'm not interested in overclocking, either. My oldest self-built Intel machine is 9 years old this summer and being used as a desktop by my dad. I also have a 5 year old Celeron machine that's on 24/7 as my MythTV box and firewall.

I know it's possible to build reliable AMD-based systems, but it seems to be harder work, and probably involves going with an Opteron on a Tyan or Supermicro board in order to be able to use an AMD chipset, rather than one of the third-party (e.g. VIA, SiS, ALI) chipsets.

Electrolytic capacitor reliability has been a problem throughout the electronics industry for the last 10 years or so, but even that should be less of a problem shortly. Gigabyte, for one, are introducing all-solid capacitor [gigabyte.com.tw] boards to eliminate this weak link in the chain.

Well, yes... (1)

Flying pig (925874) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633763)

I declare a special interest. At one time in my career I used to design industrial computers that had to run 24/7. It was possible than without much trouble to buy uprated components ("industrial" rather than "commercial" grade) and then run them with tight tolerances. The overall cost premium wasn't very great, in fact, around 20% of system cost.

I've had no real problems with either AMD or Intel, but none of our recent boxes have been around long enough to be sure. What I would like to know is the likely life upfront, that's the problem.

By the way, though I agree with you in general, as many fans as possible is not always a good idea. It makes a lot of difference where they are placed, and the thing you do not want to do is to create internal vortices. As a matter of principle I pay attention to getting heat away from the CPU and graphics, but it is important to get a good flow over the HDDs and sometimes you find that large coolers actually have a bad effect on the board chipset by blocking flow. My preferred technique is not to use cheap fans but to buy good ones, especially now Muffin fans are available again and there are some really good 5W 120mm ones from Papst. These just produce a huge flow (over a cubic metre per minute) without being too noisy, and with so much air available it is easy to ensure it is going everywhere. The main thing to ensure is that they support the power supply rather than oppose it.

In fact, the last two causes of system failure we had have been a PSU fail (3V going out of regulation) and a SATA chip throw intermittent errors - which wrecked a mirrored setup. Talk about common mode failure. Overclocking is all very well, but not if you actually need to do any real work.

Re:Well, yes... (1)

cowbutt (21077) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634627)

By the way, though I agree with you in general, as many fans as possible is not always a good idea. It makes a lot of difference where they are placed, and the thing you do not want to do is to create internal vortices.

True; I was being a bit flippant. I aim to bring in cool at the front and bottom of a tower case, and exhaust warm air from the top of the back, hopefully resulting in forced convection to do as good a job as can be done without a thermal lab.

Re:"Up to 5%..." (1)

ZwJGR (1014973) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634057)

"Quality motherboards" is the tricky bit in your post...
I'm using an Asus motherboard (P5ND2-SLI) and the number of problems I've had is unbelievable.
Firstly the power supply controller on the motherboard is faulty, so I have to short the power on pin on the ATX connector to ground with a paper clip to get any action at all.
Then the Asus drivers totally screwed my Windows XP SP2 installation over, BSODs, freezing, no booting. Reinstall needed...
Then I had to upgrade the BIOS to change the CPU fan speed...
I couldn't get the onboard LAN to work at all with Slackware 11, but Slackware 12 worked OK (but this is probably my fault not theirs...).

Motherboard manufacturers don't see reliability and stability as major goals, cutting expenses, faster production rates and quick improvements to their products make them more money.
Additionally, I daresay that they bank on the fact that most people who buy a computer/motherboard will replace it before various bits start to fail...

Re:"Up to 5%..." (1)

cowbutt (21077) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634603)

"Quality motherboards" is the tricky bit in your post...
I'm using an Asus motherboard (P5ND2-SLI) and the number of problems I've had is unbelievable.

Personally, I disqualify nVidia chipsets immediately, primarily due to the necessity to use their proprietary drivers, but secondarily because I've never had a problem with Intel chipsets supporting Intel CPUs, whereas I have had problems with AMD on SiS and VIA and Intel on UMC.

Firstly the power supply controller on the motherboard is faulty, so I have to short the power on pin on the ATX connector to ground with a paper clip to get any action at all.

Why didn't you return it immediately for a refund? Behaviour like that strikes me as a clue that the design 'ain't right, or it isn't compatible with the PSU you've chosen

Then the Asus drivers totally screwed my Windows XP SP2 installation over, BSODs, freezing, no booting.

See above re. nVidia drivers. Nice to see that even their Windows drivers are problematic for some. Not.

Reinstall needed... Then I had to upgrade the BIOS to change the CPU fan speed... I couldn't get the onboard LAN to work at all with Slackware 11, but Slackware 12 worked OK (but this is probably my fault not theirs...).

...nVidia drivers...

Motherboard manufacturers don't see reliability and stability as major goals, cutting expenses, faster production rates and quick improvements to their products make them more money.

Some do, some don't. And of the ones that do, they have products targeted at serious users and others for gamers. Don't confuse their product lines.

Additionally, I daresay that they bank on the fact that most people who buy a computer/motherboard will replace it before various bits start to fail...

That's cyclic; I used to buy the best motherboard I could, and the cheapest CPU that would fit, in expectation of upgrading the CPU every year or so as prices fell. These days, increasingly, you seem to need a new chipset and memory to get the best from later CPUs, so I'd not place quite so much emphasis on claimed future upgradeability as it probably won't pan out (the last boards I bought had 18x multipliers and 667MHz FSB; Intel jumped from 533MHz FSB to 800MHz, and didn't go higher than 3.2GHz).

Re:"Up to 5%..." (1)

ZwJGR (1014973) | more than 7 years ago | (#19635179)

Why didn't you return it immediately for a refund? Behaviour like that strikes me as a clue that the design 'ain't right, or it isn't compatible with the PSU you've chosen
I got it virtually for free, nearly new, from a friend who was having some other problem with the motherboard, forgot what it was. PSU is high quality and compatible.
If I couldn't fix it for cheap, I was just going to buy a new one...

Re:"Up to 5%..." (1)

WuphonsReach (684551) | more than 7 years ago | (#19635249)

That's cyclic; I used to buy the best motherboard I could, and the cheapest CPU that would fit, in expectation of upgrading the CPU every year or so as prices fell. These days, increasingly, you seem to need a new chipset and memory to get the best from later CPUs, so I'd not place quite so much emphasis on claimed future upgradeability as it probably won't pan out (the last boards I bought had 18x multipliers and 667MHz FSB; Intel jumped from 533MHz FSB to 800MHz, and didn't go higher than 3.2GHz).

My preference is to buy the best CPU at the knee in the price/power graph. For instance, if we look at the Athlon64 X2 prices, the 3600 and 3800 are around $60-$65, then the 4000-4800 in the $100-$127 range, the 5000-5600 at $156-$175, and finally the 6000 at $225. So, for an absolute budget processor, I'd go with either a 3600 or 3800, but for an average system, the 4800 is probably the best choice. Beyond that the price ramps up rather quickly.

Re:"Up to 5%..." (1)

edwdig (47888) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634101)

I know it's possible to build reliable AMD-based systems, but it seems to be harder work, and probably involves going with an Opteron on a Tyan or Supermicro board in order to be able to use an AMD chipset, rather than one of the third-party (e.g. VIA, SiS, ALI) chipsets.

You do it the same way you build a reliable Intel one. Go with a motherboard from one of the larger brands and toss in some Crucial or Kingston RAM. I don't think AMD has made a chipset since the original Athlon launched. Generally you want to go with an NVidia chipset. To keep things simple, you probably want an NVidia video card as well, as every now and then an NVidia chipset and ATI graphics card will be a pain to get working together.

Of course, once AMD & ATI have been merged long enough for it to have actually affected product development, this will probably change.

Re:"Up to 5%..." (1)

neersign (956437) | more than 7 years ago | (#19635019)

Core Duo Reliability Edition == Celeron. If you want to compromise on performance, go ahead...the chips are waiting for you.

Re:"Up to 5%..." (1)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 7 years ago | (#19636209)

First of all, the expected performance gain between any hardware generation -- video, CPU, RAM, whatever -- is only about 5%.

In your actualy post, however you're confusing the enthusiast and home user environment with the business commodity hardware environment. If you want long-term support hardware, you need to go to a PC manufacturer, not to a chip designer.

HP's dc5xxx and dc7xxx as well as Dell's OptiPlex series are very, very stable. At my last job, we ordered roughly 500 dc5000 PCs over the course of two years, and the hardware did not appreciably change at all. Indeed, the only things that did change were the make of the hard drive and the make of the RAM, both components that are relatively OS independent. Even today you can still get HP's dc5700 with a Pentium 4 processor. They stopped offering the original dc5000 series only a year or so ago, and that was DDR RAM, P4 processor, IDE HDD, and Intel 845 chipset. Those are specs that date from 2002 being sold brand new in 2006.

Re:"Up to 5%..." (1)

ChrisA90278 (905188) | more than 7 years ago | (#19636797)

"Now what I would like to see advertised - but won't - is slower but highly reliable motherboards, processors and memory at commercial prices."

Then you should be reading this...
http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/t2000/index .xml [sun.com]

It is _very_ conservatively designed I would expect
many years of "up time". It's an 8-core machine. The
cores are slow compared to a
Intel C2D but overall it is a very powerfull little box

Re:"Up to 5%..." (2, Informative)

niko9 (315647) | more than 7 years ago | (#19636883)

The company your are looking for is Tyan. http://www.tyan.com/ [tyan.com] Their workstation and server boards are some of the most reliable around, i.e., for people in the know. You don't hear much about them from "mainstream" review sites because the boards lack l33t OC'ing features and super cool LED lit fans. Take a look at their workstation boards, they make a great desktop board alternative. Available for AMD and Intel CPU's.

I have had zero issues with any series of boards I have used from them, and all of them with Linux no less.

What I would like to see in hardware reviews (4, Insightful)

LarsWestergren (9033) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633259)

Do people still overclock? It is such a focus on this in online hardware reviews, but none of the people I know still do it, even the gamers. Power consumption, heat and noise is much more important to them. Low sample number to draw any significant conclusions from, I know, but still... Perhaps the market has moved on a bit?

Also, whenever they do speed comparisons, I wish they would add in models from one and two years ago. I really don't care if a chip is 0,05% faster than its similarly priced competition, I want to know if it is a good time to upgrade my old computer.

Re:What I would like to see in hardware reviews (5, Interesting)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633359)


Do people still overclock? It is such a focus on this in online hardware reviews, but none of the people I know still do it, even the gamers. Power consumption, heat and noise is much more important to them. Low sample number to draw any significant conclusions from, I know, but still... Perhaps the market has moved on a bit?


You're right, the hardware reviewers are getting out of date with their metrics.

Overclocking a modern CPU gets you mostly nothing nowadays. Gamers can still be found overclocking their *graphics cards*, but overclocking their Core 2 Duo's wouldn't really change anything for them (and I'm sure we'll reach a point where messing with your graphics card will be just as unnecessary as it is today with CPU-s, just this industry is younger than generic cpu).

I mean, on laptops one of the features is dynamically underclocking the CPU for less power usage. It's the kind of market we're in.

Multi-cores are lucrative area for servers, where no CPU amount is enough, and less so for desktops.

No wonder the companies are concentrating on features such as power usage: there's basically nothing else they can impress us with (and low power usage allows smaller more mobile devices with longer battery life etc.).

Re:What I would like to see in hardware reviews (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633571)

Overclocking a modern CPU gets you mostly nothing nowadays. Gamers can still be found overclocking their *graphics cards*, but overclocking their Core 2 Duo's wouldn't really change anything for them (and I'm sure we'll reach a point where messing with your graphics card will be just as unnecessary as it is today with CPU-s, just this industry is younger than generic cpu).
A lot of newer motherboards can auto-overclock your cpu and ATI/nVidia both include auto-overclocking (for the cards that support it) in their driver packages.I mean, on laptops one of the features is dynamically underclocking the CPU for less power usage. It's the kind of market we're in.That's a feature for the desktop too, since electricity bills are not a small business expense.

I think it's pretty obvious that (for the desktop at least) automatic over and under clocking are going to be the norm. All you're buying is a minimum performance guarantee from Intel or AMD, your BIOS/software will do the rest.

Re:What I would like to see in hardware reviews (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633645)

I think it's pretty obvious that (for the desktop at least) automatic over and under clocking are going to be the norm. All you're buying is a minimum performance guarantee from Intel or AMD, your BIOS/software will do the rest.

The motherboard clocking is just a gimmick which could actually damage your hardware if used in excess. It's not a trend, it's just fighting for attention in a crowded market.

As for the graphics chips: When a chip has been tested to run at a certain clock rate and it runs fine, then running at that clock rate can't possibly be "overclocking". It's the max certified clock rate, at which your warranty isn't void and the manufacturer guarantees proper behavior of the hardware.

We're really talking adaptive underclocking, to keep wear/power down when you don't use the extra cycles. For that, as I mentioned in my original post, I agree it's a trend for all sorts of devices.

Re:What I would like to see in hardware reviews (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633785)

No wonder the companies are concentrating on features such as power usage: there's basically nothing else they can impress us with (and low power usage allows smaller more mobile devices with longer battery life etc.)
Low-power CPUs are also critical for large server farms, because when you have a few thousand processors together in a room, you've got a big heat problem if you haven't got a chunky aircon as well. Pumping all that heat in and out again is expensive, and indeed in many server farms it is the aircon capacity that really limits what they can do...

Go ahead, OVERCLOCK to your harts content. (3, Informative)

viking80 (697716) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633805)

Of course people overclock. instead of buying the 2.6GHz Core 2 Duo, you just buy the 1.8GHz version and pay half the money ($160 insted of $320).

Now just overclock it back up to 2.6GHz.

You may want to do a little 2 corner testing (Voltage and Temp), just to make sure you are within stable regime.

As long as you dont overvoltage the chip, there is really no reason not to max out the clock rate. As soon as the CPU idles, it underclocks automatically anyway, so you get the boost only when you need it.

If you do any home video decoding, the difference is huge.

To make the point clear: You can burn out a power transistor if you run it too hard, but this is not possible on a CPU. It will hang long before it even gets close to be damaged. If the chip overheats and/or is driven at a too high clock, it just hangs. Reset and cool, and it is good as new.

Re:Go ahead, OVERCLOCK to your harts content. (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634235)

Of course people overclock. instead of buying the 2.6GHz Core 2 Duo, you just buy the 1.8GHz version and pay half the money ($160 insted of $320).

Now just overclock it back up to 2.6GHz.


All right, and what can you do with a 2.6 GHz Core 2 Duo that you can't with 1.8 GHz?

I get the "half the money part", but I don't get "back to 2.6 GHz part".

A) It just makes you feel smart (jeesh, I tricked Intel!).

B) Makes you feel you get a better deal (hahah! I bought 1.8 GHz CPU and run it at 2.6 GHZ! .. and actually needed 1.0 GHz most of the time).

C) It's about your friends ("oh of course I bought the 2.6 GHz version. I'm not POOR or something, right.. huh").

Re:Go ahead, OVERCLOCK to your harts content. (1)

DarkJC (810888) | more than 7 years ago | (#19635087)

You must've missed this part:

If you do any home video decoding, the difference is huge.

That's about one of the only sections where overclocking does make a huge difference. It's a big time saver.

Re:Go ahead, OVERCLOCK to your harts content. (1)

neersign (956437) | more than 7 years ago | (#19635237)

you're right. nobody uses their computer for anything other than email and browsing the internet, so no one needs to upgrade their computer ever. There's absolutely no reason for these faster chips. Why would I ever need to do things faster?

the point is, just because YOU don't need a faster computer doesn't mean that EVERYONE doesn't need a faster computer.

Re:What I would like to see in hardware reviews (2, Interesting)

xouumalperxe (815707) | more than 7 years ago | (#19635335)

Actually, the reason why overclocking the processor will do squat for a gamer's performance is because the bottleneck is on the graphics card. The day the graphics industry matures enough to be on par with the general purpose processor industry will not mean you won't get anything from overclocking the graphics card. Rather, it'll mean that you'll gain the most performance by overclocking both GPU and CPU (because neither is holding the other back). Of course, the question is "do you really need the extra performance?" -- I seriously doubt that games will hit a cap on the power they can harness from your box anytime soon. There's always higher res textures, more detailed models, more elaborate particle systems, etc to be had, especially if the support for physics cards doesn't really become a trend and nVidia/AMD manage to make the GPGPU thing happen.

Re:What I would like to see in hardware reviews (1)

asliarun (636603) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633713)

No, most people don't overclock, even though it has become MUCH simpler nowadays to do simple overclocks (as it no longer requires hardware tweaks). Furthermore, overclocking does decrease the reliability and longevity of the CPU, as has been mentioned before in this thread. I still think there is some merit for hardware sites to focus on overclocking mainly because it gives you an indication of the headroom available in the CPU architecture (merom/conroe/woodcrest in this case), which indirectly gives you an indication of how good or robust the architecture is, and if it can still hold its own against the competition. This also gives you an indication if your investment in the said architecture will be worthwhile or not.

To answer your other questions, the "..50" set of Conroe CPUs have the same TDP (65W for the non-Extreme models) as their older versions, and you can expect a small improvement in system stability, mainly because of the new stepping and because Intel should have likely made several improvements in its 65nm manufacturing process over the last year. The new chipset also has a much better memory interface, though you will not notice the improvements in real life usage unless you are planning on a quad core. On the flip side, i believe that the new chipset consumes a bit more power than the earlier 965 chipset, but it's not an obscene increase.

If you already have a dual-core, you might want to wait a little until quad-cores get cheaper (Intel should be reducing quad-core prices by July-end, and you should be able to get it for $300). However, if you currently have a single core processor, and if you don't do any "extreme" computation, an upgrade to a dual core would definitely be a good idea. Even though individual softwares are not yet optimized to use multiple threads, you will notice that your computer is more "responsive", especially if you have several background softwares/processes running that periodically max out CPU usage on one of your cores.

Re:What I would like to see in hardware reviews (1)

Goffee71 (628501) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634063)

I figure less than 1% of all PC users overclock or even know it exists as a feature. All the high-end PC hardware mags I've seen got very low sales figures and most forums are just a collection of die-hards and a horde of hanger-on fanbees - as a sport it just helps the buzz that makes the industry go round. I don't mind these Noddy upgrade releases, it just means the lower end parts will be a little cheaper when I run down to the store for my next upgrade.

Re:What I would like to see in hardware reviews (1)

neersign (956437) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634387)

yes people still overclock. http://www.ocforums.com/ [ocforums.com]

and yes you can get a lot more performance out of your processor by overclocking vs. buying the faster stock-rated chip. FSB is sort of the clock that everything in your system runs off of, so when you take an "old" Conroe chip that ran at 266mhz fsb and raise it up to 400mhz, you not only make that chip run faster, but you pretty much make everything run faster.

That's a lot of inductance (1, Interesting)

Burb (620144) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633443)

Over three billion Henries? That's a damn big coil. Yes, I have nothing better to do than nitpick. Why do you ask?

Re:That's a lot of inductance (1)

kickedfortrolling (952486) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634121)

Nonsense, it was my first thought too :D

closely followed by 'in soviet russia, giga hertz you!'

Re:That's a lot of inductance (1)

J_Omega (709711) | more than 7 years ago | (#19636337)

And air-cooling might allow you to overclock this puppy to near 4-billion Henries? Where can I buy one?!

Xeon (3, Informative)

AnimeDTA (963237) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633505)

Some models of Xeons run at 1066 and 1333. Just off the specs on the article I'd say they released those Xeon CPUs as desktop model on the LGA775 socket. The larger cache, higher bus speed, thermal design and Smart Cache match up to the Xeon E51xx and E53xx.

Re:Xeon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19634809)

That'd be sweet -- a "real" CPU on a desktop machine. Finally, computing power meets non-crappy video.

Typo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19633895)

I guess it features a 1.333GHz front side bus, not 1.333MHz.

Re:Typo (1)

dolmen.fr (583400) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634401)

1,333MHz is 1.333 GHz is you consider that "," is the thousand separator. But I agree that it is confusing as all other clock spped units are given in GHz.

But there is an other clock speed unit related typo: "3.92GH" which is in fact "3.92 GHz".

Re:Typo (1)

donaggie03 (769758) | more than 7 years ago | (#19635209)

No no, they totally meant gigahenries. DUH!

Gee so that means... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19634771)

I guess I can get the same Microsoft floating point error on the calculator in the Accessory group only faster. Wonder what other errors I can get faster now?

Stability (1)

Durzel (137902) | more than 7 years ago | (#19635859)

Running a CINEbench that lasts 18 seconds is not a decent test of stability. Even hobbyist overclockers ultimately aim to end up with a system that they can use day in, day out for several hours at a time.

I've got a C2D E6700 cooled with a modified freezer system (Vapochill) which cools it down to -40 or so. Despite the fact I could boot it into Windows at 4.5Ghz, it was not stable at these speeds. I have to "make do" with 4.3Ghz for daily running.

Whilst I can just about believe that 3.9Ghz would be achievable with very high-end air cooling, I don't think it's feasible with the standard Intel cooler. Intel may have made subtle changes to the silicon but at the end of the day it's still the same package with the same core technology.

One Laptop Per Child (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 7 years ago | (#19636633)

Man, with them putting these suckers in Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child they are going to really rock!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>