Sen's Ultimate Winchester Thread

Sentential · Oct 25, 2004

Osirus said:
right on... good luck!!

Yea, they should be here in less that an hour.

dguy6789 · Oct 25, 2004

The companies are going to face a year or two of loss. AMD, Intel, Nvidia, ATI have all have new tech they want to become standard.

AMD/Intel
Intel has ddr2/pcie boards already, so all they need is btx form factor before they are done the major changes for a while.

AMD has pcie with the nforce 4 now, and next year when socket 900 makes its debut, ddr2 will be mainstream. Again, all they need to finish it is btx, but amd dont like btx for some reason(soemone fill me in on this one)

ATI/Nvidia are really pushing for PCIe. Contrary to popular belief, pretty much ALL new cards made by either of these companies will very soon be made as pcie only. I seriously doubt the 6700/x700/6600/x600 ect are ever going to become agp.

UPDATE on AMD and BTX: It seems AMD is going to try to do without btx for now as they dont like the "vast" distance between the memory and the cpu.

AEsnowboarding · Oct 25, 2004

X700 and 6600 are going to be avaliable in AGP in a couple months.

deception`` · Oct 25, 2004

AEsnowboarding said:
X700 and 6600 are going to be avaliable in AGP in a couple months.

I have not seen any indications pointing to this fact. However, I could be wrong. Regardless of this fact, dguy is right that AGP is dead. You might see one or two cards here and there, but PCIe production will pick up soon. A good indicator if something is obsolete is if both new Intel (915/925) and AMD (NF4/KT890) chipsets do not support an interface.This is just another case of "out with the old, in with the new."

deception``

@md0Cer · Oct 25, 2004

deception`` said:
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``

Very well said. When I first saw that I went into a full BS alert.

A CPU throwing off less heat plus drawing less power will have LESS of a load on the mosfets. In basic terms, the mosfets provide the power to the CPU. Well, if the 90nm CPU draws less power than the 130nm CPU, that means there is less work for those mosfets.

Whoever said that the 90nm AMD's would stress the mosfets obviously does not have any common sense in terms of anything relating to power consumption and obviously did not do any research to get facts.

That link earns the official BS approval stamp......

If there was a way to meter how much power a CPU consumed at the same clockspeed, the 130nm at 1.5 volts would be higher than the 90nm at 1.5 volts. At least in the case of AMD.

deception`` · Oct 25, 2004

@md0Cer said:
Very well said. When I first saw that I went into a full BS alert.

A CPU throwing off less heat plus drawing less power will have LESS of a load on the mosfets. In basic terms, the mosfets provide the power to the CPU. Well, if the 90nm CPU draws less power than the 130nm CPU, that means there is less work for those mosfets.

Whoever said that the 90nm AMD's would stress the mosfets obviously does not have any common sense in terms of anything relating to power consumption and obviously did not do any research to get facts.

That link earns the official BS approval stamp......

If there was a way to meter how much power a CPU consumed at the same clockspeed, the 130nm at 1.5 volts would be higher than the 90nm at 1.5 volts. At least in the case of AMD.

I believe I posted a picture on power consumptions of 90nm processors at the beginning of this thread. Furthermore, X-bit labs has some more information concerning 90nm cpus, in which AMD claims that they dissipate 67w of power as opposed to 89w on an 130nm. But yes that claim is undoubtedly false. Prescotts use more power and generate more heat even after the process shrink because of the massive amount of transistors working in such a small area. Here is a link to the X-bit article:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20041024065310.html

deception``

Sentential · Oct 25, 2004

Ummm...something is wrong with my Winchester. The default voltage is 1.3??? and it overvolts to 1.33-1.35

Here is the stepping

ADA3200DIK4BI
CBBFD 0433SMPW

Ill post a CPUz shot when I get online.

@md0Cer · Oct 25, 2004

Sentential said:
Ummm...something is wrong with my Winchester. The default voltage is 1.3??? and it overvolts to 1.33-1.35

Here is the stepping

ADA3200DIK4BI
CBBFD 0433SMPW

Ill post a CPUz shot when I get online.

It's ok, probably your motherboard. My motherboard seems to regulate my voltage pretty loosely. When I am overclocked and using up a ton of power it tends to sag a wee bit. When I am going for some quiet passive cooling and have it underclocked and undervolted, my Vcore is a wee bit above what I have it set at.

@md0Cer · Oct 25, 2004

deception`` said:
I believe I posted a picture on power consumptions of 90nm processors at the beginning of this thread. Furthermore, X-bit labs has some more information concerning 90nm cpus, in which AMD claims that they dissipate 67w of power as opposed to 89w on an 130nm. But yes that claim is undoubtedly false. Prescotts use more power and generate more heat even after the process shrink because of the massive amount of transistors working in such a small area. Here is a link to the X-bit article:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20041024065310.html

deception``

Thanks for posting the link and the picture! :thup:

With Prescott, I also beleive it was the higher clockspeed as well as the increased number of transistors. Since the clockspeed is how fast they switch on and off, and the more heat they produce each time they switch, it is thermally more efficient to go for a lower clockspeed approach such as the Pentium M and AMD's processors.

In the future I beleive Intel will be making their cores based off of the Pentium M and end the high clockspeed massive pipelined marketing madness just because it will be difficult to cool it and implement dual/quad cores.

PhobMX · Oct 25, 2004

@md0Cer said:
Thanks for posting the link and the picture!

With Prescott, I also beleive it was the higher clockspeed as well as the increased number of transistors. Since the clockspeed is how fast they switch on and off, and the more heat they produce each time they switch, it is thermally more efficient to go for a lower clockspeed approach such as the Pentium M and AMD's processors.

In the future I beleive Intel will be making their cores based off of the Pentium M and end the high clockspeed massive pipelined marketing madness just because it will be difficult to cool it and implement dual/quad cores.

its not going to happen soon since intel announced the dual core pentium ms wont get into desktop... that might change but its still speculation.

I believe winchesters are going to be the coolest were going to get in a lot of time, first dual cores will be massively hot imho...

Sentential · Oct 25, 2004

Motherboard indeed.....

THE GOD DAMN THING WONT POST IN DC GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR..... off to MSI's techsupport I go

AEsnowboarding · Oct 25, 2004

Did you put the memory on the closest two slots to the cpu? One green and one purple?

Overclocker550 · Oct 25, 2004

either your ram can not handle dual channel or you used the wrong slots

Red02TA · Oct 25, 2004

I assume you flashed to the newest Bios..

d]g[ts · Oct 25, 2004

Sentential: MOst stock bioses will have issues with dual channel and wichester CPU. And must be updated to accomodate both. If that doesn't solve it make sure the ram is in different colored slots, as each color is a separate channel. Unlike older platforms which use same colored slots for dual channel.

Sentential · Oct 25, 2004

d]g[ts said:
Sentential: MOst stock bioses will have issues with dual channel and wichester CPU. And must be updated to accomodate both. If that doesn't solve it make sure the ram is in different colored slots, as each color is a separate channel. Unlike older platforms which use same colored slots for dual channel.

Yep, that was the issue. Although I am disappointed with my results so far. Although this is a new build, I was hoping for more than 2.5ghz...

testing 271 x 9 :bang head

Sentential · Oct 25, 2004

Ok... lets get started.

FIRST IMPRESSIONS:

WOW!... I never knew how small the CPU die of a S939 CPU is. Its only slightly bigger than a postage stamp.

Second, my god does WC run cool at stock. Hell I could probly run it passive at 1.3v. With my XP90 Im getting low 30s temps in a room at 80F. Which is quite a feat.

Finally, Im going to remove my tornado...no need for the extra noise, especially with the temps im getting

AEsnowboarding · Oct 25, 2004

Awesome sounds great. Nope no need for a loud fan anymore.

Chuck232 · Oct 25, 2004

So how'd 271x9 come along? I'm interested in just how much better these Winchesters are than NCs.

Overclocker550 · Oct 25, 2004

I might get a winchester just for that. I gotta run a tornado with my newcastle to hit 2.6GHz and its not even stable at that either. I think I can do like 2.3GHz with stock cooling but that wont come close to the 2.5-2.6 a winchester does stock cooling! I am pretty tempted to go there but ill wait and see you break 26k first, if you cant no point for me downgrading

Sen's Ultimate Winchester Thread

Contributing Member

Member

Member

Member

Senior Member

Member

Contributing Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Contributing Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Contributing Member

Contributing Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads