C1 owners, especially AMDKing

AMDKing made a comment that the underside of one of his C1s looked different than the other C1s he had. I have also heard this comment elsewhere. Let's see if there's anything to this, and whether or not it has any impact on performance.

What I'd like C1 owners to do if possible is to look at the back of their CPU and compare it to this picture Does the back of your CPU look like the left CPU or the right CPU?

Update: Or does the arrangement of the capacitors look like this one?

It's supposed to look like the left one. If it does, if possible, I'd like to know the second and third lines of code on the front of your CPU (sspec and FPO). Please send it to [email protected]. Please also let me how you've done with it.

If it looks like the right one, I would love to get a picture, front and back of it (I'd like to see the codes on the CPU, too). Please send it to [email protected]. If you can't do a picture, please send me at least the code information. Please also let me how you've done with it.


If it looks like the third one (which BTW comes from the back of a 3.06), I would love to get a picture, front and back of it (I'd like to see the codes on the CPU). Please send it to [email protected], along with the code information requested above. If you can't do a picture, please send me the code information. Please also let me how you've done with it.

Thanks!



Thanks!

Yep, my 2.66 looks just like the left pic. S-spec is SL6DX and FPO is L228A484.

what is this all about??

jdmcnudgent,

I think this is a search trying to figure out if there is something that makes some of the c1's better then others.

Hmm interesting. Now I know why my 1.8A SL6LA can do 3.5GHz on air with 1.575V. This wonder chip looks like the third picture which ED has shown.

Again it's a SL6LA C1 1.8A. L240A?????

formosian, great to hear from my spiritual guru again!

Anyway - to the issue at hand.

My chip (from a Dell built one week later than formosian's) has the caps like the original C1's in the ArnandTech article. That is, twelve caps with NO "empty pads".
Which is kinda wierd if formosian's caps look like the 3.06G's "B0 layout, but a bunch of caps just aren't there" configuration!


Everybody, go to the AnandTech article on the HT 3.06G chip.
The second link to the third cap picture is WRONG! It points to the same pictures as the first link.


INTEL ©® 81
PENTIUM ® 4
1.8AGHZ/512/400/1.525V
SL6LA MALAY
L2308034-8310

formosian, could you post your chip engravings again?
How do they compair to mine?



PS - This chip does 3.0GHz with stock volts (1.525v) and stock Intel heatsink/fan.
I have not yet tried better cooler, but should help a lot.

I have two Malay C1s. The 2.53b week 35 looks like the first pic, left side (all pads brown). It does up to 3.04 gig at 1.66 and 3.1 at 1.74 volts. Looks like it responds to voltage. Haven't tested max limits yet.

The 2.40b I have looks like the 3.06 pic. It does 172 fsb, 3.1 gig at 1.58 volts. Haven't tested max limits on this one either. This is a week 39.

Again, both are Malays, and both have smeared lettering on the heat spreader.

Link to article corrected, thanks! (Article is
here

bump.
i might tare down tommarow. if i do ill check mine

I remember that Intel did something similar with coppermines. My guess is that the old arrangement is for new C1's that can't do 3ghz. I would suspect that the new arrangement is for chips that can do 3ghz and hyperthreading, and were connected up to do so, but were sold at lower speed to meet demand.

If I recall correctly, the resistors on coppermines turned cache on or off, for celeron/P3 determination, even though the core was the same.

To confirm or rule this out, someone should try hyperthreading with a 1.8A with the new capacitor arrangement.

My UNLOCKED P4 2,66GHz and my other UNLOCKED P4 2,8GHz....both ES chips,are like the LEFT picture.....My P4 1,8GHz @ 3753MHz Malay 42 week SL6LA "Dell C1 Stepping" , is like the third picture......I think that the LEFT picture chips(full loaded with capasitors-12 of them) are BETA chips.......

Caffinehog said:

I remember that Intel did something similar with coppermines. My guess is that the old arrangement is for new C1's that can't do 3ghz. I would suspect that the new arrangement is for chips that can do 3ghz and hyperthreading, and were connected up to do so, but were sold at lower speed to meet demand.

If I recall correctly, the resistors on coppermines turned cache on or off, for celeron/P3 determination, even though the core was the same.

To confirm or rule this out, someone should try hyperthreading with a 1.8A with the new capacitor arrangement.

Click to expand...

This is what I am thinking.

As a side note it aso tells me that these 800MHz fsb chips will probably have this configuration.

You know what would also be nice is seeing what the cores of these chips look like without the IHS. My gut tells me they will be the same length and width but I guess you never know.

Anyone have any good shots of the underside of HT XEONS. I think akiba had one I will dig it up.

New XEON HT chips. Nothing to see here. Similar to older bO stepping northwoods. Makes me wonder what would happen if you added a cap or two to the older PIV bO steppings or even celerons. I think 256k cache cel-t's are missing some caps also in comparison to the 512K cache PIII-S I have.

So someone is saying above that buy not attatching these caps they are disabling cache? That is it? What about HT? Awhile ago it was stated that HT is enabled by grounding or disabling a certain pin. Without a certain cap though maybe HT is not enabled also and the pin modding and cap attachment woudl be needed. I can imagine how hard it would be to attach these caps though. Not very easy for me anyway.

I just got my Dell 1.8. I have taken some pictures. Sorry but I do not think the info on the top of the chip will come through that well. The back side is the same as the 3.06 capacitor lay out. I am going to throw this in my IT7 system and see how it shakes out. I will post some results tonight. I have to switch out components between my 2 machines and will update. I will also attach a photo of the lay out of the caps and the top of the chip. The info printed on top of the heat spread is as follows.

INTEL
PENTIUM4
1.8AGHZ/512/400/1.525V
SL6LA PHILIPPINES
7246A212-1010

It is a week 46 chip out of the Phillippines. Crossing my fingers on this one.

Buzzdog

Well, I can get it prime stable at 167fsb no sweat. I have so far gotten it to 174fsb stable in 3dmark 2001se. This is with 3:4 memory ratio. I am going to test it out in games at this speed, and see how it goes. If it is good here I will try to push it a little further.

Just checked my Dell Pulled 1.8a.
It looks like this

1.8AGHZ/512/400/1.525v
SL6LA Costa Rica
3235A027-0592

I haven't even run this chip yet. I don't have a motherboard right now. Dang, Granite bay.

In all my glory I return....JK hehe

GUYS very interesting POST!
my 1.8A week 45 P4 C1 that hit 3.06ghz looks like the 3rd chip in the first post. I noticed that you put that 3rd picture in a folder under 3.06ghz, is that chip a 3.06ghz?

My first 2 C1's that only hit 2.8ghz were identical to each other...looked like one of the first 2 you posted and my B0 looked like another one of those 2 you posted, dont remember which though.

I noticed that a lot of you guys with 2ghz and 2.4's and what not have the old looking cap configuration and still hit around 3ghz+ I am wondering if thats just the "natural" overclock of that core, cause that cap configuration on my early C1's did bout the same over clock 2.6ghz-2.8ghz, not as drastic as my newest C1 that is 3.06ghz.

Therefore I am beginning to think if this capacitor configuration difference resembles the power circuitry cleanness on the P4 or something crazy like that, and thats why the newer C1's 1.8A
can hit nice speeds, cause of same power circuitry as the 3.06ghz, if thats what yours is in the 3rd picture!

Look at this:
http://www.newegg.com/app/Showimage.asp?image=19-116-155-01.jpg

Newegg's picture of an OEM 3.06GHz P4 is made on week 45. Maybe the 1.8A's (week 45) that you guys have all are just underclocked 3.06

There are so many variables though

lightbulb8817 said:

Look at this:
http://www.newegg.com/app/Showimage.asp?image=19-116-155-01.jpg

Newegg's picture of an OEM 3.06GHz P4 is made on week 45. Maybe the 1.8A's (week 45) that you guys have all are just underclocked 3.06

There are so many variables though

Click to expand...

How many times do people have to go over it? When intel makes a product they start with the core and bin them according to what they can do in MHz per voltage. These chips are not underclocked 3.06GHz chips as much as they are overclocked 1.6a's. Intel probably ran low on the 1.8a's and threw in some of the higher binned 2.5 and above CPU's to compensate. Would not be the first time this type of thing has happend. A few people found 1.0a cel-t's that did a 33% OC on 1.2v. In other words they overclocked and at the same time reduced the vcore from 1.5v to 1.2v.

Same here

Buzzdog said:

Well, I can get it prime stable at 167fsb no sweat. I have so far gotten it to 174fsb stable in 3dmark 2001se. This is with 3:4 memory ratio. I am going to test it out in games at this speed, and see how it goes. If it is good here I will try to push it a little further.

Click to expand...

My 2.4B, looks exactly the same.

FPO: 3231A762 (Costa Rica 31 week)
Prod Code: BX80532PE2400DSL6EF

Highest stable overclocking is 160 FSB on Iwill P4HT

I will test it on Asus P4S533-E hopping to pass 166 FSB.