• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Got my 950 65nm

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
markodude

markodude

Member
​
Joined
Jul 15, 2002
Location
Europe
Got some benches below in my sig - cant publish yet though. I think there is a lot more headroom on this CPU but my board just wont go any higher on the FSB - I can get the CPU to 4.2ghz with only CPU overvolt 100mv enabled. 2Mhz above that and I get random reboots. The results are better than anything else I have seen from Intel before - I have gone through 4 CPUs on this board and every one has increased my PB on all Futuremark products (3.46EE, 3.73EE, 840D, 950D).

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Markodude

Processor : Intel Pentium D 4Mb
MHz : 4207
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : WinXP_PRO_SP2

Graphics Card : GF7800GT_SLI
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 371 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 689 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.86

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 479 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 2016 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 4054 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.47

****************************************************
 
While I am no Intel fan, these things sound rather promising. But I was expecting more. I mean, what about that celery that got to 5 ghz? do you think this thing can make it close to that?

Oh, and is this a dual core or single? I haven't a dang clue :)
 
I get a time of 68.3 single cpu and 36.5 multiple cpu.(rendering)

I am at 2.7 Gigs on an X2 4400 . .I figure why run the other tests as i am sure I am neck and neck on them any way .

But I am curious why the 65nm chips with twice the cache and 1500Mhz more clock are not any faster then a dated 90nm Amd ? ? This being the case we are still on the same playing field with both these chip makers..Add 1500 Mhz to an Intel to make it compete with an Amd . .I think thats a pretty crappy outing for a new fab process . .
 
A new fab process doesn't necessarily mean any architectural improvements. It normally just means more chips/wafer, potentially higher clock speeds, and possibly lower power consumption/output, all things being equal. Most times, a lower manufacturing process does mean some sort of architecture improvement. It's not a given that it is that way.
 
IT does often mean better CPUs though. I mean, when AMDs moved from the 130 nm process to the 90, there was a significant improvement in overclocking, lower temps, and an overall better experience.

Hopefully this holds true for Intel.
 
Cheator said:
IT does often mean better CPUs though. I mean, when AMDs moved from the 130 nm process to the 90, there was a significant improvement in overclocking, lower temps, and an overall better experience.

Hopefully this holds true for Intel.
Click to expand...

Correct but it didn't mean a real difference in performance, clock for clock. The differences measured could be chalked up to just standard deviations in testing. The other differences you mentioned, are what I previously mentioned as well.

Of course, you could counter with the Northwood 130nm vs Prescott 90nm debate. :bang head
 
Well I ain't aware of that debate, but really, when it comes to an OCing community, a smaller process is better, as history shows... at least from an AMD standpoint. I haven't REALLY gotten into the new intels yet. I am still on the P3 generation.
 
Unfortunately this Nvidia chipset based board seems to be letting me down. I can do 990FSB all day, any higher it craps out on me, I have tried everything including cooling the room to 1c (MB at 6c, CPU 16c idle 35c load, NB 9c Idle 16c Load), increasing all of the voltages, dual PSUs, etc etc - was the same with the 840 Dual Core I had in before. It also runs cooler - about 5-8c average.
I am sure the board is holding the CPU back
I reckon with good cooling and a 975x board I will get at least 4.5ghz if not 5ghz on this setup. I am just praying they get SLI sorted on 975x otherwise I have no upgrade path.
 
The 90nm overclock better but heat dissipation wise, they are very high, as is power consumption.

Anyways, back to the show :)

That is pretty low voltage, wonder how far the chip could go with some extra volts and a better motherboard.
 
Yes I have tried up to 1.5v on this board - cant get even 5mhz higher on the FSB with 1.5v on CPU, +0.1v on chipset, 2.3v RAM, etc etc
Any suggestions for what board to get next appreciated - looking at P5WDG2-WS and P5WD2-E Premium 975 boards, but if no SLI then I have to go with another graphics solution probbaly :(
I am also going to upgrade to a Truecontrol 2.0 as the Neopower 480w I have is struggling here - I can only get those results in my sig using a seperate PSU for the Graphics cards.
 
Know Nuttin said:
A new fab process doesn't necessarily mean any architectural improvements. It normally just means more chips/wafer, potentially higher clock speeds, and possibly lower power consumption/output, all things being equal. Most times, a lower manufacturing process does mean some sort of architecture improvement. It's not a given that it is that way.
Click to expand...

I agree somewhat..Being as Intel has always stated they have longer pipes and do less per clock one should expect decreasing the die size would have a very positive effect on performance per CLOCK..However what we are seeing is exactly no increase performance per clock just a reduction in core voltage and a increase in cache which my test scores show mean about nada.

Not to be a party pooper,or bash Intel because I am not Anti Intel after my Xeon experence which was awsom..

I am a bit curious as to when we as consumers will actually see a leap in speed from the chip makers when they take all the time and trouble to make changes.I can not in my mind understand how from 130nm to 65nm the Intel chips with there longer pipes NOW CUT IN HALF still perform similar .

So please realize my beef is not anti intel or pro amd..Just a curiousty why the obvious is not effecting these chips.Because if any chip had anything to gain by a 50% die shrink we all should see it is Intel . .
 
We are getting better clock speed - I must say that - Intel had 3.2ghz max on the 840 90nm, now Intel are quietly going to launch a 960, 3.6ghz Dual Core (where will that leave the 955XE?).
I reckon they could easily launch a 4ghz single core on this process.
This 9xx series was never meant to have a better performance per clock cycle, its just a die shrink - Conroe will be the architectural improvements in Q3 06 - to compete with socket M2 AMD systems - then the fun will begin.

On another front, I was getting 8109 in PCM04 with Dual Irwindale Xeons (4.15ghz 2x2mb cache) a year ago, so it is quite fitting I am just able to beat that with 9xx!
 
markodude said:
Zalman CNPS-7700CU for now, just swapped from Ttake silentower but not convinced of any improvement really......but if I use 1c air to cool it, then it runs pretty cold ;)

www.marklaurence.co.uk/presler/fulloadtemps.jpg
3dm03 www.marklaurence.co.uk/presler/3dm03.jpg
3dm05 www.marklaurence.co.uk/presler/3dm05.jpg
PCM04 www.marklaurence.co.uk/presler/pcm04.jpg
PCM05 www.marklaurence.co.uk/presler/pcm05.jpg
Click to expand...

So is that what your ambient temp was in these pics? 36C seems quite low for a load temp.
 
markodude said:
Got some benches below in my sig - cant publish yet though. I think there is a lot more headroom on this CPU but my board just wont go any higher on the FSB - I can get the CPU to 4.2ghz with only CPU overvolt 100mv enabled. 2Mhz above that and I get random reboots. The results are better than anything else I have seen from Intel before - I have gone through 4 CPUs on this board and every one has increased my PB on all Futuremark products (3.46EE, 3.73EE, 840D, 950D).

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Markodude

Processor : Intel Pentium D 4Mb
MHz : 4207
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : WinXP_PRO_SP2

Graphics Card : GF7800GT_SLI
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 371 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 689 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.86

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 479 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 2016 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 4054 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.47

****************************************************
Click to expand...

Just a new setup run I just tried out and saw this thread decent scores at least I know to what it compares to roughly now to the AMD line. Mines 2.65Ghz, ram @ 240Mhz.... My graphics card is running slow in this setup only 580.5/702 but Im supprised that it beat your SLI setup in OpenGL, you got me beat on the C4D though even at my higher clocks ;)

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Deathman20

Processor : Opty 170 @ 2.65Ghz
MHz : 2650
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : WinXP SP2

Graphics Card : X1800XL
Resolution : 1920x1200
Color Depth : 32-Bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 373 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 695 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.86

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 447 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 2095 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 4410 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 9.86

****************************************************
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Elif Tymes
CineBench!
Replies
9
Views
2K
David Coleman
David Coleman
Back