450mhz wall with Penryns

[Papafox]

From reports I see, the Penryn chips are hitting a wall at 450mhz FSB. Looks like the chip and not the mb is the cause. My guess? Intel doesn't want us buying the less expensive Penryns and overclocking them to 4Ghz and above. I suspect this 450mhz wall is quite intentional. You'll need to buy the $900+ chip with its unlocked multiplier to enjoy the full overclocking benefits of Penryn. Hope I'm wrong!

[El<(')>Maxi]

I saw one over 500 and quite a few around 475, seems pretty standard for a quad.

[Kuroimaho]

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z88/Kuroimaho/3675mhz.jpg

[satandole666]

That's a picture of an ES chip. I could care less about those now that the QX9650s are out. Not only that, but 525x7 is nothing to be proud of IMO. A G0 Q6600 can probably pass that up fairly easily (mhz and benchmarks).

The two retail chips I read about on this forum haven't passed 451 and 455 respectively (I believe those are the right numbers).

[Elluzion]

it is sad that the fsb wall is so low. Especially with the Q9450 having an 8x multi. Just because of that I am considering just getting a Q6600 G0(its cheaper) or on of the E8500's.

[satandole666]

Agreed. Used G0 here I come. Heh.

[Elluzion]

Yeah^ they are cheaper too and still not bad. They use a bit more power and don't have as much cache but are still great clockers. The chip has also been perfected with the G0 stepping. I bet when the Q9450 comes out it will be in one stepping then their will be a better one. Sucks waiting on a chip.

Will prices on Q6600's drop at all?? doubt it but just wondering

[thideras]

From reports I see, the Penryn chips are hitting a wall at 450mhz FSB. Looks like the chip and not the mb is the cause. My guess? Intel doesn't want us buying the less expensive Penryns and overclocking them to 4Ghz and above. I suspect this 450mhz wall is quite intentional. You'll need to buy the $900+ chip with its unlocked multiplier to enjoy the full overclocking benefits of Penryn. Hope I'm wrong!How would they implement that? Unless ALL processors stop EXACTLY at the same FSB, then they are not trying to stop us. That "feature" would cost tons of money to implement and they would lose money from people not overclocking them. Plus, people would find a way around it :p

They make money off of us. We get huge overclocks; other people see that and think that Intel is the best. They buy processors because of that.

Do you think Core2 would have sold as well as it did with overclockers? No.

[Super Nade]

Where are these reports you see? Links?

[satandole666]

Where are these reports you see? Links?

The "reports" I've used come from two of our champ OCers here, dom32 and Deanzo. Links incase you haven't seen them:

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=536645

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=535911

I don't know what reports the OP is talking about though.

[Kuroimaho]

That's a picture of an ES chip. I could care less about those now that the QX9650s are out. Not only that, but 525x7 is nothing to be proud of IMO. A G0 Q6600 can probably pass that up fairly easily (mhz and benchmarks).

The two retail chips I read about on this forum haven't passed 451 and 455 respectively (I believe those are the right numbers).

Has nothing to do with pride, simply tried to answer the question with some evidence.

The only OC experience I had recently with Intel is my 2160 so I wasn't aware it's fairly easy to beat, but with 9.5X525 I will be happy anyway.

[BLHealthy4life]

The average Q6600 G0 will do 450-465 FSB...

I seriously doubt Intel has implemented a FSB wall of ~450 on the Penryn Yorkfields.

[Papafox]

When I started this thread, I was referring to the two very competent overclockers on this forum who were pushing these chips to the max. An unexpected barrier at 450mhz in both cases seems too much for coincidence. Still hoping I'm wrong.

[RJARRRPCGP]

Fat chance that it's intentional, unless it has an integrated memory controller like Athlon 64s.

[thideras]

When I started this thread, I was referring to the two very competent overclockers on this forum who were pushing these chips to the max. An unexpected barrier at 450mhz in both cases seems too much for coincidence. Still hoping I'm wrong.That is only two processors. You don't have even close to enough information to come to a conclusion ;)

[bing]

It will never be intentional, too costly to make and serves no purpose.

"Purpose" here means for OCer like us, our population is nothing from their overall CPUs produced quantity point of view. :)

[thideras]

our population is nothing from their overall CPUs produced quantity point of view. :)Correct, but we make a bigger impact that you would think. Tons of people look at our results and make decisions off of that. ;)

[bing]

Correct, but we make a bigger impact that you would think. Tons of people look at our results and make decisions off of that. ;)

My grandma didn't when she was looking for a new rig ! :)

[knight_of_knee]

My grandma didn't when she was looking for a new rig ! :)

lol, My entire family doesn't whenever they get new computers, they spend like $2,500 on a dell and then I see them over christmas and ask me if they got a good deal and I just shake my head and walk away.

[dominick32]

lol. you guys are great.
Back to the topic. Yes, you are correct. We cannot base a conclusion of a quad FSB wall simply on Dean's and my own results. We are both using a beta bios (created immediately on sheer compatiblity concern by both manufacturers Gigabyte and Abit simply for the QX9650) so who knows if a future bios release may be able to fine tune the quad 45nm FSB?

Just to add to the topic, there was another member having stability issues with higher FSB on Xtremesystems.org. EVA2000. So that makes three but I believe he was able to take her up to 475 FSB, without true stability though. He also claimed better (more stable) performance with higher multi/lower FSB.

[White_Pawn]

Correct, but we make a bigger impact that you would think. Tons of people look at our results and make decisions off of that. ;)

in my experience. Any family that doesn't OC but knows about computers frowns upon w/e i do with my pc. They believe i'm killin' my ****. LOL i tell em they n00b for buying the more expensive stuff when my cheapo 80 buck e2140 will rape their pc.

on a side note (totally irrelevant with the topic, but i'll say it anyway)

...there was this one time where my dad's PC in the kitchen some p4, was in a real small case with like one 80mm fan. I told him that pc will die from overheating. At the same time, he was complaining about the brand new hole at the top of my case. :santa:

...in the end... his PC died and i was smiling. :beer:

so yeah, i think its really a half and half here. I know lots of people that loathe overclockers like us.

[>HyperlogiK<]

How would they implement that? Unless ALL processors stop EXACTLY at the same FSB, then they are not trying to stop us. That "feature" would cost tons of money to implement and they would lose money from people not overclocking them. Plus, people would find a way around it :p

They make money off of us. We get huge overclocks; other people see that and think that Intel is the best. They buy processors because of that.

Do you think Core2 would have sold as well as it did with overclockers? No.

I don't think any overclocking related hype did very much to persuade Dell, HP Compaq or PC World to sell C2Ds, and I doubt more than 1% of their collective customers have even heard of overclocking.

The chips may not have sold as well with overclockers, but then so what? We are now just about important enough for them to justify sellling a few extra hand picked chips in the form of extreme editions, but that doesn't mean we matter. A tiny extra profit for a tiny extra cost may be worthwhile for intel, but it doesn't mean that it is important.

As far as an FSB wall is concerned, couldn't it be implemented after manufacture with some kind of microcode update?

[Surfrider77]

I agree with WP. Friends that I talk with... hell some are real gamers too... all seem to think overclocking is certain death to computer components. I try and explain how good C2Ds in particular are and tell how they can get a few hundred more MHz out of their PCs with stock voltage. Yet, they still refuse thinking they are going to turn it on and into a big cloud of smoke one day in the immediate future.

What can you do but laugh... :D

[thideras]

in my experience. Any family that doesn't OC but knows about computers frowns upon w/e i do with my pc. They believe i'm killin' my ****. LOL i tell em they n00b for buying the more expensive stuff when my cheapo 80 buck e2140 will rape their pc.Now that is funny :beer:

What about the recent even where Intel "launched" penryn with that overclocker and some liquid nitrogen. Tell me that didn't sell some processors right there...:rolleyes:

[Gautam]

From reports I see, the Penryn chips are hitting a wall at 450mhz FSB. Looks like the chip and not the mb is the cause. My guess? Intel doesn't want us buying the less expensive Penryns and overclocking them to 4Ghz and above. I suspect this 450mhz wall is quite intentional. You'll need to buy the $900+ chip with its unlocked multiplier to enjoy the full overclocking benefits of Penryn. Hope I'm wrong!

It's all a conspiracy!!!

Seriously, Intel couldn't care less.

All quads have trouble with FSB, or to be accurate, motherboards have trouble with FSB with quads. The load of four cores is too heavy.

The Wolfdales are dual cores, not comparable. And no more ES whining please, its getting old.

Kentsfields also did not hit high FSB's. No one was whining then since everyone had 9x multies. Now you won't have that luxury.

Intel isn't concerned about that. They're concerned about having a 333MHz FSB stock, since that's what the rest of the world wants to see.

You won't see anything close to 500MHz FSB on any quad for quite some time. Definitely not P35, X38 or X48. Mark my words. Its no conspiracy, its just that the northbridges are only spec'ed for a 333MHz FSB, so even 400MHz FSB is a considerable overclock for it, let alone 500MHz. The CPU isn't the only factor in overclocking.

I don't know what to say just yet for people considering lower end Yorkfields. I don't think there is much to say besides its just reality.

[dominick32]

I agree with WP. Friends that I talk with... hell some are real gamers too... all seem to think overclocking is certain death to computer components. I try and explain how good C2Ds in particular are and tell how they can get a few hundred more MHz out of their PCs with stock voltage. Yet, they still refuse thinking they are going to turn it on and into a big cloud of smoke one day in the immediate future.

What can you do but laugh... :D

So true. :)
But I found a way to change the mind of the non believers. I own a family business with my father and he would always bust my chops about things related to my rig. Imagine a father coming to see his son after work with a bare motherboard sitting on top of a cardboard box with a custom phase change unit displaying -60*C on the evap LCD. Basically what looks like a mess or science project to him, is beautiful to us. He would just look at me and be like: WTF are you doing to computer? Being sarcastic: "Your just gonna blow that thing up one day what the hell is going on in here? Are you making a bomb?."

So, the way I turned him over to the darkside is one day he complained about the speed of his home productivity rig. (consists of a P5B + E6400 + OCZ 800 ram) So, of course the home PC of a regular user contains spyware, trash, wasted space, uber amounts of memory resident software and programs running, too many resident services, etc. I cleaned it up and promised him I wouldnt "Overclock" his system. Because of course, the term overclock = "sudden death and horrible processor abuse" to all OC outsiders.

I ended up clocking it to 3.10 GHz @ 1.40vcore on the stock Intel HSF. Extremely mild overclock that lasted a long time. He was extremely impressed with the speed increase of his rig that months and months have gone by and I finally tell him this year that his rig was overclocked a full 1 GHz higher than stock at a relatively mild voltage bump. Boom, just like that he is a full believer in Overclocking and he always trys to pick my brain at work about new hardware and quote on quote "doing it himself". hehe

Heck, I now have all of the office computers overclocked rather healthy all with less than 5% bump in voltage.

[White_Pawn]

So true. :)
But I found a way to change the mind of the non believers. I own a family business with my father and he would always bust my chops about things related to my rig. Imagine a father coming to see his son after work with a bare motherboard sitting on top of a cardboard box with a custom phase change unit displaying -60*C on the evap LCD. Basically what looks like a mess or science project to him, is beautiful to us. He would just look at me and be like: WTF are you doing to computer? Being sarcastic: "Your just gonna blow that thing up one day what the hell is going on in here? Are you making a bomb?."

So, the way I turned him over to the darkside is one day he complained about the speed of his home productivity rig. (consists of a P5B + E6400 + OCZ 800 ram) So, of course the home PC of a regular user contains spyware, trash, wasted space, uber amounts of memory resident software and programs running, too many resident services, etc. I cleaned it up and promised him I wouldnt "Overclock" his system. Because of course, the term overclock = "sudden death and horrible processor abuse" to all OC outsiders.

I ended up clocking it to 3.10 GHz @ 1.40vcore on the stock Intel HSF. Extremely mild overclock that lasted a long time. He was extremely impressed with the speed increase of his rig that months and months have gone by and I finally tell him this year that his rig was overclocked a full 1 GHz higher than stock at a relatively mild voltage bump. Boom, just like that he is a full believer in Overclocking and he always trys to pick my brain at work about new hardware and quote on quote "doing it himself". hehe

Heck, I now have all of the office computers overclocked rather healthy all with less than 5% bump in voltage.

you sneaky son of a....

i shuld try that. :santa:

[Elluzion]

yeah the upcoming quads with 8x multi's r gnna hav problems.

it's almost smarter to get a dualie (the 45nm) or a Q6600 for now....

[White_Pawn]

yeah the upcoming quads with 8x multi's r gnna hav problems.

it's almost smarter to get a dualie (the 45nm) or a Q6600 for now....

really depends on the prices of old/used Q6600. In the end, with the SSE4 instructions, they do much better clock per clock in games. I've seen benches where the equivalent penryn gives a ~10% boost in fps.

[Elluzion]

^but even with the lower clocks?

the Q9450 will clock below the Q6600 (obviously) because of the multiplier. how would it get a 10% boost in fps? it is still a quad..

the only advantage is that it has more cache and consumes less power.

[White_Pawn]

supposing most Q6600 does 3.6ghz and the Q9450 does 450 x 8 = 3.6ghz.

[Elluzion]

supposing most Q6600 does 3.6ghz and the Q9450 does 450 x 8 = 3.6ghz.

well the low multi on the Q9450 is gnna hold it back. no matter how you spin it. 450 is really good, any higher and dang..... its not going to be clocking very high. no matter what mobo you have. Possibly their migh be a bios fix or something but we will just have to wait and see..

[White_Pawn]

well the low multi on the Q9450 is gnna hold it back. no matter how you spin it. 450 is really good, any higher and dang..... its not going to be clocking very high. no matter what mobo you have. Possibly their migh be a bios fix or something but we will just have to wait and see..

i tried to find that review from before, but i couldn't find it. I assure you, clock per clock, penryn shows some improvements in the gaming field.

[Elluzion]

ok^ well we'll see how they clock when they come out.

[satandole666]

3.6ghz for a G0 quad is a little conservative. I think most people can squeeze out a bit more, especially for benching purposes...maybe not for 24/7 settings. Assuming 450-460mhz is a "hard wall", your 24/7 and max benchable OCs are going to the same on the Q9450. That's poopy IMO.

All of that aside, anyone on water can probably hit better clocks with a Q6600 than a Q9450 IF this 450-460 wall exists. Assuming a 10% clock per clock Q9450 bonus to the and a 450mhz wall for both (3.6ghz for the 45nm, 4.05ghz for the G0) the two processors will be within 2% of each other.

Granted that was just an exercise in number play, but it does show that IF the wall exists the 8x multi of the Q9450 should perform on par with the 9x multi of the Q6600. Factor in better heat properties and less power consumption and the Q9450 pulls ahead. The only thing stopping me is price.

It will be a pity if there is a "common" fsb wall. I'd be afraid to buy a new chip because I'd be worried about getting one with the wall, even if the chance is only 1 out 10.

[SH0DAN]

I'll take my chances with the possible FSB issues and get one anyway.Something is telling me I wont have problems with my Q9300.... :)

[thideras]

^but even with the lower clocks?

the Q9450 will clock below the Q6600 (obviously) because of the multiplier. how would it get a 10% boost in fps? it is still a quad..

the only advantage is that it has more cache and consumes less power.How does it do better? It has more transistors, which generally means it can do more work per clock cycle ;)

That is why AMD's beat the crap out of the P4 series. More work per clock cycle, run them slower and cooler and call it even.

[Elluzion]

Yeah well im more than sure im gnna get a Q9450 nyways...

[jmorgan]

I'll take my chances with the possible FSB issues and get one anyway.Something is telling me I wont have problems with my Q9300.... :)

Your q6600 is only at 3.2ghz and you think you wont have a problem getting to 4ghz with a Q9300 with a 7.5x multi? Are you serious?

[Gautam]

The thing is, even at ~3.5GHz, the Yorkfields will probably have a nicer feel overall than Kentsfields that are clocked the same or even higher. They are still an upgrade, but of course the full potential of the CPU will never completely be realized.

[Evilsizer]

The thing is, even at ~3.5GHz, the Yorkfields will probably have a nicer feel overall than Kentsfields that are clocked the same or even higher. They are still an upgrade, but of course the full potential of the CPU will never completely be realized.

QFT

we might though see it or close to it with a stepping change which imo i gonna come around June. simply cause intel has no idea what amd might do and we have to long to wait till socket b gets here.