View Full Version : C1 stepping Preslers in retail stream?
goatzool
07-26-06, 12:06 AM
Since the recent price drop the Preslers are much more attractive for those who cannot afford Conroes yet. There were predictions that C1 stepping Preslers would be available in retail markets about the time Conroe made its debut. Has anyone bought a C1 presler (SL95 in the product code instead of SL94) from a retail outlet recently and if so, which Presler and which retail outlet? I'm after a 950.
I'm not a big Intel guy so I have to ask the signifigance of the C1 rev processor. Whats so special? Better OC than all the others or what? Would you be able to find out which stepping it is in CPUz or would there need to be a physical check on the IHS itself?
Fenixviper
07-26-06, 12:34 AM
I have a 930 C1. Not retail, but OEM. They do run a bit cooler and have more features, like Speedstep.
I can get mine to 4Ghz on stock volts where its really hard to do on a B1 at stock volts.
You can tell its a C1 by looking at the stepping on the CPU or it says C1 in CPU-Z also.
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a373/fenixviper/myrecord-1.jpg
benbaked
07-26-06, 02:36 AM
as far as I've heard everyone is getting them through oem, I've yet to hear of a retail C1. I have a B1 and it's a-ok in my book, it'll be a good holdover until i can replace the Elvis Presler with the Rob Conroe.
goatzool
07-26-06, 11:38 AM
I have no criticism of the B1, but the C1 is necessarily better built. I just wonder if I should wait days, weeks, months to go from 920 to 950. I may have to swap out the processor from someone else's Dell, huh?
can't help on sourcing retail one but i recently got several oem c1's and they oc about the same for 724 stable folding on lower VC. I have 2 pre c1's, and one could only do folding at 260 on air, while the other was good for 285.
The C1's all seem to fold stable at 285.
My conclusion on a sample of 3 c1's and 2 b1's is that the c1 has a better chance of a higher reliable oc at lower VC.
RangerXLT8
07-26-06, 04:50 PM
can't help on sourcing retail one but i recently got several oem c1's and they oc about the same for 724 stable folding on lower VC. I have 2 pre c1's, and one could only do folding at 260 on air, while the other was good for 285.
The C1's all seem to fold stable at 285.
My conclusion on a sample of 3 c1's and 2 b1's is that the c1 has a better chance of a higher reliable oc at lower VC.
This is kind of off-topic, but what programs do you use to determine 724 stable for folding? I'm interested because folding strains a CPU more then any other task\stability test.
dwschoon
07-26-06, 05:19 PM
This is kind of off-topic, but what programs do you use to determine 724 stable for folding? I'm interested because folding strains a CPU more then any other task\stability test.
Most use the Prime95 Torture Test. Even a prime stable rig will sometimes not be "folding stable". You can actualy run folding to test stability. Just make sure that after you download a wu you disconnect the network cable, so that if it errors out, it wont try to upload it.
RangerXLT8
07-26-06, 06:22 PM
Most use the Prime95 Torture Test. Even a prime stable rig will sometimes not be "folding stable". You can actualy run folding to test stability. Just make sure that after you download a wu you disconnect the network cable, so that if it errors out, it wont try to upload it.
Oh ok thanks, I use dual instances of prime95 torure test.
So I guess there is no stand alone simulated WU program that test for errors.
hugonow
07-26-06, 06:28 PM
Since the recent price drop the Preslers are much more attractive for those who cannot afford Conroes yet. There were predictions that C1 stepping Preslers would be available in retail markets about the time Conroe made its debut. Has anyone bought a C1 presler (SL95 in the product code instead of SL94) from a retail outlet recently and if so, which Presler and which retail outlet? I'm after a 950.
I wont go for the 950.
The best price/performance ratio is from the 930/940.
I on water and reaching 5ghz is very hard if you wont go for more extreme cooling solutions.
http://hugonow.planetaclix.pt/940D.JPG
My cpu isn't retail either. Came from a Dell machine.
They announced a D0 stepping now as well. All 925 and 945 CPUs should be D0.
dwschoon
07-26-06, 09:13 PM
So what are the 915's? Newegg has them already.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116253
This is kind of off-topic, but what programs do you use to determine 724 stable for folding? I'm interested because folding strains a CPU more then any other task\stability test.
I use folding itself ... but you MUST take precautions so you don't hurt the science.
I have seen a few who start folding and produce reams of errors since their rig is not at all stable due to OC or hardware error problmes.
It hurts the science by slowing down the projects ... a work unit (WU) that ends in an error will be assigned to 3 or 4 other computers ... since the error could be the correct result of the simulation stanford has to assign it to several other rigs to see if they get the same error. Subsequent wu's in the sequence cannot be started until the previous one is completed since they depend on the results of the previous wu. So errors caused by a bad oc or hardware errors delay the whole folding sequence simulation as well as wasting cycles on other rigs that need to run the same wu to verify a bad result.
As a result of the above, people do not generally recommend folding as a stress test since reckless use of it hurts the effort.
Since my main purpose for me to have lots of oc'ed rigs is to produce as much good folding as possible, after doing all the normal stress testing, folding itself is my final verifier.
One approach I sometimes use is to run a few saved but already completed wu's (work units) which i can run to benchmark. I have serveral types which stress different parts of the system. eg. I have some of the old qmd's which are heavy on mem bandwidth testing but have been out of circulation since jan.
A second which I normally use, is to fold regular current wus. After i download them, i back them up, and then disable the lan interface so they can't turn in any errored work units due to a bad OC. Then i let them run. If they error out i just stop them, restore the backup, reduce the oc, and start them up again from the last good backup. If they error again at the same point, then the error is not due to my OC but is in fact a valid result.
If they complete ok, then i just enable the lan so they can turn in their results, download another wu and keep folding. Disable the lan again if i don't yet feel confident with the oc, but usually 1 or 2 WU's per core will prove it.
I tend to have more than 1 of the same cpu/mobo combo, so once i have OC'ed 1, it is pretty easy to get the others to a good folding stable OC.
I have run dual p95's for long periods of time only to get errors while folding.
Depending on the wu's you get, they can take from 6-8 hours up to 2-3 days or even more complete 1 wu.
The second method (folding current WU's) is the greedy one since it will usually produce points during a stability test. And does not hurt the science effort by turning in bad results.
Folding will produce higher load temps than p95 so your complete cooling capability will be tested. Almost all my rigs are caseless.
Folding will not test all your memory tho ... the biggest wu's atm use about 100MB ... the qmd's i mentioned above use about 350 mb each.
So p95 (or memtest) still needs to be run first ... but i only run 1 instance and let it run through the the first 2 fft sizes in the blended torture test - an hour or 2 depending on the rig. Then it is onto folding.
Finding the OC initially i use superpi and sandra bandwidth untill i get near what i think the max will be, then i also run pcmark04 to get a score. Once at max, then p95 as above, then folding as the final verification.
This is the routine i have developed from running a folding farm with 15 or so OC'ed rigs.
Pirate_Freder
07-27-06, 05:52 PM
sorry guy's i'm an amd guy considering going to intel, because there dual cores seem so appealing, so i need to pick your brains a bit. so are the odd numbered ones(915,925,945) new or what? also whats the differnce between them and there even numbered counterparts that appear to be exactly the same. also since JCLW is pointing out the D0 stepping; is that supposed to be a better oc'er like C1? better than C1?
bignick
07-27-06, 08:10 PM
The D0's are to new to know how they clock or perform. They're supposed to be "mainstream processors" and the older ones are labeled "performance" according to Intel. The B1/C1's are very different physically so I'm not sure how similar they will be. I'm hoping they will be strong performers because they are CHEAP!.
sno.lcn
07-27-06, 08:40 PM
I have no compaints about my b1 930. It folds perfectly stable @ 4.2ghz & 1.27v.
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=106853
I have no compaints about my b1 930. It folds perfectly stable @ 4.2ghz & 1.27v.
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=106853
You are lucky sno ... not many of the b1's did so well on minimum VC, well at least not many that i have read about :shrug:
greenmaji
07-27-06, 09:13 PM
The later b1's did pretty good, not too many people bought them though, C2D was comming ;)
sorry guy's i'm an amd guy considering going to intel, because there dual cores seem so appealing, so i need to pick your brains a bit. so are the odd numbered ones(915,925,945) new or what? also whats the differnce between them and there even numbered counterparts that appear to be exactly the same. also since JCLW is pointing out the D0 stepping; is that supposed to be a better oc'er like C1? better than C1?
Yes, 915, 925, and 945 are all newer.
The ones that end in "5" lack VT, or "Virtualization Technology" so get labeled as "Mainstream" instead of "Performance". But unless you're running a server 24/7 and can't afford any downtime then VT is useless.
In the history of intel, I don't think there has ever been a stepping that performed worse then the one it followed. So D0 should be at least as good as C1. Better? Probably, but no guarantee.
Pirate_Freder
07-27-06, 10:51 PM
:(, hey iunno if this article is right but it says the D0 stepping won't be released until...september, 11....o.0? odd date to pick but yeah....
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060615113237.html
RangerXLT8
07-27-06, 10:58 PM
@ Pscout: I see, I always run dual P95 and memtest before folding on a rig because WU's with errors are no good.
benbaked
07-27-06, 11:00 PM
The later b1's did pretty good, not too many people bought them though, C2D was comming ;)
what week B1s are good? mine is april 18th, my motherboard can't overclock it.
:(, hey iunno if this article is right but it says the D0 stepping won't be released until...september, 11....o.0? odd date to pick but yeah....
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060615113237.html
http://intel.pcnalert.com/content/eolpcn/PCN106404-00.pdf
Pirate_Freder
07-27-06, 11:04 PM
waiiiit...the e6300 and e6400 are almost as cheap as the pentium d's, they have a slower stock speed but don't they still have a high enough multiplier to oc way better than the D series. this is only one places prices too(cause i have a $75 gift certificate there :D..cheap conroe maybe)
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/category/category_slc.asp?CatId=2396&
Evilsizer
07-27-06, 11:07 PM
waiiiit...the e6300 and e6400 are almost as cheap as the pentium d's, they have a slower stock speed but don't they still have a high enough multiplier to oc way better than the D series. this is only one places prices too(cause i have a $75 gift certificate there :D..cheap conroe maybe)
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/category/category_slc.asp?CatId=2396&
with a $75 gift certificate i would say get the 6400, get the higher multi for just in case.
rainless
07-27-06, 11:08 PM
waiiiit...the e6300 and e6400 are almost as cheap as the pentium d's, they have a slower stock speed but don't they still have a high enough multiplier to oc way better than the D series. this is only one places prices too(cause i have a $75 gift certificate there :D..cheap conroe maybe)
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/category/category_slc.asp?CatId=2396&
Yeah, it's pretty much OVER for me and the Pentium Ds...
Pirate_Freder
07-27-06, 11:12 PM
...dang it. e6400 sounds good butttt, i just realized only has 2mb of total cache, 1mb per core :(, still good but i iunno if i wanna go back to small cache.
greenmaji
07-27-06, 11:16 PM
what week B1s are good? mine is april 18th, my motherboard can't overclock it.
the ones selling about the time the news of C1's, fishy and crimedog bought about that time..
And if Im not mistaking.. isnt that an ECS mobo your trying to OC your 930D on? That just MIGHT be the problem.
Evilsizer
07-27-06, 11:28 PM
...dang it. e6400 sounds good butttt, i just realized only has 2mb of total cache, 1mb per core :(, still good but i iunno if i wanna go back to small cache.
its 2mb shared not 1mb per core like fx. what exactly do you do that you need the extra 2mb's? i only bought the e6600 for the higher multi, cause the one i was looking at the e6500 wont be out till q1-07.
even look here
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=9
the overclocked e6300 @2.592 ghz isnt that far behind the e6700 @2.66ghz.
Pirate_Freder
07-27-06, 11:31 PM
not sure if i would need it or not, just figured that since there is a performance differance when you go from 1-1mb on a single core cpu that there would be a diff on the conroe
EDIT: is the multi on the E6400 enough to get a max oc for the conroe core(with really good water cooling)?
Evilsizer
07-27-06, 11:43 PM
not sure if i would need it or not, just figured that since there is a performance differance when you go from 1-1mb on a single core cpu that there would be a diff on the conroe
EDIT: is the multi on the E6400 enough to get a max oc for the conroe core(with really good water cooling)?
you mobo will limit ur oc on the 63/64 long before the cpu runs out of steam. simply current mobos cant do 500fsb with out mods or extreme cooling, even then it will still be unstable.
the most a mobo has done with the highest voltage in bios being 1.8v for chipset is 480 i think or there abouts. These were on the new 965 boards though. The 975x boards have kinda dropped off for some reason at xs, atm i cant remember what they were clocking at.
Pirate_Freder
07-28-06, 12:33 AM
well i'm considering your mobo at the moment(abit ab9-pro). what's the max fsb on it?
Evilsizer
07-28-06, 12:49 AM
well i'm considering your mobo at the moment(abit ab9-pro). what's the max fsb on it?
Anatech had it topped out around 380ish i think it was. they were using a beta bios but word out of abit is they have a board that will be doing 425-450mhz. They didnt say what mobo but with the aw9d-max not out yet that could be the one. It could be the ab9-pro but the bios needs a bit o work.
benbaked
07-29-06, 03:27 AM
And if Im not mistaking.. isnt that an ECS mobo your trying to OC your 930D on? That just MIGHT be the problem.
that probably is why, but it was essentially free. it's not bad @ stock for free.
EDIT: i actually got this ecs board to overclock...finally. 3.33ghz, any faster and the hard drives mess up. i haven't done much intel overclocking but my guess is this board won't lock the pci/agp bus speeds. i'll take what i can get.
goatzool
08-06-06, 02:29 PM
OK, I was wondering whether the 950 Preslers would be out in a C stepping to retail buyers. In another thread, someone linked to Intel's product spec page that suggests there will be no C stepping for the 950. So I am buying a 945 for considerably less than a B stepping 950 from MWave. I know that Conroe is all the rage, but it requires a new mobo, which is more than I can afford now. I'll bet that Conroe prices drop after 6 months. News reports say Intel has produced too many chips and is going to have to sell them somehow.
rainless
08-06-06, 04:17 PM
Not that anybody but me still cares... but did they ever get around to releasing C1 930s? I'm selling all my current parts and could use a CPU while I wait on Conroe...
Evilsizer
08-06-06, 05:26 PM
according to intels cpu finder. the C1 stepping cpus are as follows.
SL9QB 3.40 GHz 945 05A 800 MHz 65 nm C1 4 MB LGA 775
SL9D9 3.00 GHz 925 05A 800 MHz 65 nm C1 4 MB LGA 775
SL9DA 2.80 GHz 915 05A 800 MHz 65 nm C1 4 MB LGA 775
other c1's are out but oem only and not listed in intel sspec finder. with that said the sweet spot looks like the 915 P-D. @145 at the egg.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.