-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Sen's Ultimate Winchester Thread
- Thread starter Sentential
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Location
- Atlanta
c627627 said:
You could very well make the same argument about intel and their 915/925 chipsets. Intel, the current market leader, has officially abandoned the beloved AGP interface for the more future-proof PCIe/PCI-X. With this in mind, one can only imagine the necessity for AMD/NVIDIA to do the same as a means of sustained competibility. It is true that it will probably mean low sales throughout this year, but it is still the better option to be made in the long run. Generally speaking, AMD should adopt most of the standards that intel incoporates for the fact that intel's decisions play a very important role in the market. The same argument could be made about DDR2, but many are still very skeptical of it as it shares striking resemblances to RDR Ram, which didn't last for more than a year or so in P4 systems.
deception``
OP
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2003
- Location
- Knoxville, TN
- Thread Starter
- #24
nVidia's 6600GT for about $200 <assuming you mean a gaming card>c627627 said:
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2002
so...this is wrong then:
nF4 - supports SATA, AGP 8x, 1G HTT, Socket 939
http://www.ocworkbench.com/ocwbcgi/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1096554026,6710,
nF4 - supports SATA, AGP 8x, 1G HTT, Socket 939
http://www.ocworkbench.com/ocwbcgi/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1096554026,6710,
OP
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2003
- Location
- Knoxville, TN
- Thread Starter
- #26
Affirmativec627627 said:
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Location
- Atlanta
c627627 said:
The sad truth is that there are currently no decent PCIe cards out now
. This will change in the following months. In the meantime, however, most of the video cards worth anything are in AGP form. The important thing to note here is that this is not just a problem with the NF4 chipset but also intel's own grantsdale and alderwood. Furthermore, these intel boards can be purchased now, whereas NVIDIA only paper launched the NF4. So AS OF TODAY, you can see why this actually a bigger problem for Intel than for NVIDIA. The introduction of NF4 can only increase demand for credible PCIe video solutions to emerge. When more people shift away from AGP motherboards on both sides, then we will see more PCIe video cards along with PCI-x ready power supplies and peripherals.deception``
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2001
well, its not gonna be the Ultra/SLI version, there might be an AGP slot for the nf4, I've seen this mentioned on the inquirer I thinkc627627 said:
deception`` said:The sad truth is that there are currently no decent PCIe cards out now
deception``
so the 6600GT, x700XT and x800XT arent decent video cards? lol
OP
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2003
- Location
- Knoxville, TN
- Thread Starter
- #31
<cheap jamacian accent> The cards never lie!c627627 said:I'm talking to that Inquirer guy right now, he says nForce4s are PCIe only
___
Anyhoo, Red told me that often times CheifValue will cancel orders if there is a pricing error, enroute
... that would really suck if that happened to me.- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Location
- Atlanta
xtrmeocr said:
Most of the PCIe cards available are on the low end, such as x300 and x600xt cards. The 6600 and X700 are ok cards, but more specifically I was referring to the type of selection one would find in an AGP-based card. I'm sure we'll see more cards when ATI and NVIDIA port their x800 Pro and 6800 GT mainstream cards over to PCIe.
deception``
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2003
- Location
- Canberra, Down Under
Back to the MOSFET issue ... the major reason the Prescott thrashed the MOSFETs so hard is that it used a lower voltage and consumed more power. Since P = V*I, the current requirements went up significantly. The power dissipated by a circuit is P = I^2 * R, so as the current increased (and the resistance of the power supply circuitry remained roughly constant), the power dissipated by the circuitry went through the roof, resulting in high temperatures. The resistance of a MOSFET (and the connecting wires) increases with temperature, so the power increase will actually be slightly more than what the simple formula above gives. Incidentally, this is why MOSFETs can be run in parallel and bipolar transistors can't. The Ron ("on" resistance) of a bipolar transistors decreases with increasing temperature, so if one heats up slightly more than the others, it will carry more current, so heat up more, so carry more current, etc etc. Typical thermal runaway effect. However, since Ron of MOSFETs increases with increasing temperature, if one heats up more, the resistance increases so the others will take more load, and things all balance out. OK, back to the topic ...
With the 3.41 revision of the "AMD Athlon 64 Processor Power and Thermal Data Sheet" AMD gives the current requirements of the Winchesters: IDD max = 45.8A. For a Newcastle or Clawhammer, you're looking at 57.8A. So in fact the power lost in the regulation circuits will DECREASE by about 37%, so the MOSFETs will run cooler.
Incidentally, the power requirements for a FX55 were released as well, and that chip is a scorcher.
A FX53 gobbles up 57.4A at 1.50V, with a TDP of 89W. A FX55 eats ***67.4A*** at 1.50V, with a TDP of 104W!!! That's the hottest AMD CPU to date, AFAIK. And compared to running a Winchester, the MOSFETS are going to be putting out about 116% more heat. So it's the FX55s you've got to watch out for, not the Winchesters.
With the 3.41 revision of the "AMD Athlon 64 Processor Power and Thermal Data Sheet" AMD gives the current requirements of the Winchesters: IDD max = 45.8A. For a Newcastle or Clawhammer, you're looking at 57.8A. So in fact the power lost in the regulation circuits will DECREASE by about 37%, so the MOSFETs will run cooler.
Incidentally, the power requirements for a FX55 were released as well, and that chip is a scorcher.
A FX53 gobbles up 57.4A at 1.50V, with a TDP of 89W. A FX55 eats ***67.4A*** at 1.50V, with a TDP of 104W!!! That's the hottest AMD CPU to date, AFAIK. And compared to running a Winchester, the MOSFETS are going to be putting out about 116% more heat. So it's the FX55s you've got to watch out for, not the Winchesters.
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2003
- Location
- Amsterdam, NL
Very good points, emboss. 90nm hammers should do well, but it never really hurts to add better cooling. Let's you eliminate one more variable in your troubleshooting
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Location
- Atlanta
emboss said:Back to the MOSFET issue ... the major reason the Prescott thrashed the MOSFETs so hard is that it used a lower voltage and consumed more power. Since P = V*I, the current requirements went up significantly. The power dissipated by a circuit is P = I^2 * R, so as the current increased (and the resistance of the power supply circuitry remained roughly constant), the power dissipated by the circuitry went through the roof, resulting in high temperatures. The resistance of a MOSFET (and the connecting wires) increases with temperature, so the power increase will actually be slightly more than what the simple formula above gives. Incidentally, this is why MOSFETs can be run in parallel and bipolar transistors can't. The Ron ("on" resistance) of a bipolar transistors decreases with increasing temperature, so if one heats up slightly more than the others, it will carry more current, so heat up more, so carry more current, etc etc. Typical thermal runaway effect. However, since Ron of MOSFETs increases with increasing temperature, if one heats up more, the resistance increases so the others will take more load, and things all balance out. OK, back to the topic ...
With the 3.41 revision of the "AMD Athlon 64 Processor Power and Thermal Data Sheet" AMD gives the current requirements of the Winchesters: IDD max = 45.8A. For a Newcastle or Clawhammer, you're looking at 57.8A. So in fact the power lost in the regulation circuits will DECREASE by about 37%, so the MOSFETs will run cooler.
Incidentally, the power requirements for a FX55 were released as well, and that chip is a scorcher.
A FX53 gobbles up 57.4A at 1.50V, with a TDP of 89W. A FX55 eats ***67.4A*** at 1.50V, with a TDP of 104W!!! That's the hottest AMD CPU to date, AFAIK. And compared to running a Winchester, the MOSFETS are going to be putting out about 116% more heat. So it's the FX55s you've got to watch out for, not the Winchesters.
Well put, indeed. It literally makes no sense for Winchesters to create heavier load on mosfets. For example: when one is looking to overclock, we typically throw out the suggestion to cool mosfets in addition to other components. But why is this? This is because, as you overclock, not only do you draw more power through the motherboard to the cpu, ram, etc., but you also dissipate more heat. Hence, there is an increased necessity to cool the mosfets. A good example would be working with the Prescott. Because the Prescott uses so much extra power, it also creates an intense amount of heat in a realtively small area. With that being said the a) heat and b) increased power of the Prescott create the need to cool these mosfets.
However, the problem with the Inquirer article states that this is not true. On the contrary, the article would imply a greater need to cool the mosfets simply because the cpu is using LESS power, i.e., running COLDER. Correct me if I am wrong, but this goes against virtually all common overclocker logic. The simple fact of the matter is this: mosfets increase their load when they begin to regulate more power, not less. Therefore, a need to cool the mosfets would surface when the power consumption of a cpu increases which will in turn drive up the temperatures.
It is now common knowledge than 90nm cpu's draw less power and also run slightly colder than 130nm chips. Using what we ALREADY HOLD TO BE TRUE, this explanation of mosfet load is bogus.
deception``
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2002
good luck bro on 26k marks
OP
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2003
- Location
- Knoxville, TN
- Thread Starter
- #37
Thanks a bunch, as always Ill keep you postedOverclocker550 said:
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Location
- Bloomington, IN
Sentential said:Thanks a bunch, as always Ill keep you posted
You wont have any trouble hitting 26K... I hit ~28K with my x800pro, and I am pretty sure that the 6800gt's are faster in benchmarks. Your soon-to be system looks awesome man.
OP
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2003
- Location
- Knoxville, TN
- Thread Starter
- #40
Gigabyte has a plastic backplate. Which I would have to replace with a standard $10 onemcoleg said:
in order to use my XP90.Two words gigabyte!
**** THAT
Similar threads
