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

so........dont forget the winchesters 5% IPC boost

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

Overclocker550

Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2002
winchester.jpg



a 2.6GHz winchester would match or beat a 2.73GHz newcastle. I have shown this screenshot depicting the IPC boost. AMD beefed them up by improving the ondie controller and cache prefech so they do more work MHz for MHz. I looked at benchmarks, a 230x10 winchester is matching or beating my 238x11 newcastle since im only single channel for one, and for two, winchesters are the new 90nm wonders. As long as I hit 2.3GHz itll be a upgrade over what I got :D
 
im probably getting the 3000+ if the price difference is more than $20. AMD doesnt always know how to speed bin properly anyway. xmas holidays should occur in less than 2 months so I can wait till then, bet there will be xmas sales then!
 
man i wanna upgrade now

i know i keep saying i will upgrade to a A64 and i will i need time to make my mind up on what motherboard to get i know im getting a 3000+/3200+ S939 90nm tho :D
 
Overclocker550 said:
im probably getting the 3000+ if the price difference is more than $20. AMD doesnt always know how to speed bin properly anyway. xmas holidays should occur in less than 2 months so I can wait till then, bet there will be xmas sales then!

I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing actually, but because it's you, I won't bother explaining the reasons behind the way they speed bin.
 
MetalStorm said:
I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing actually, but because it's you, I won't bother explaining the reasons behind the way they speed bin.

explain MetalStorm im intrested seeing im in noobie mode tonight lol been wake from 6:30 this morning and its 10:15pm im normally in bed but got tomorrow off :D
 
I know what they do, they just test it at the highest clock at 1.3v it can do. However if most every winchester is doing 2.2GHz amd has no choice but underclock some of them to meet demand for the 3000+ Look at those hitting 2.5, 2.6GHz on the 3000+ I hit 2.62 semi stable on my 3200+ and I see people with fx53 at 2.4GHz who cant hit 2.6GHz. also some cpus respond alot more to volts than others. Lets say you have a 3000+ and a 3200+ amd binned the 3000+ cause it could not do 3200+ at 1.3v but now I give it 1.5v and it hits 2.5GHz!
 
Maybe that's because they don't rate it for that high of a voltage? Obviously they have to make some run slower to meet demands lower, but how many are you seeing hit higher speeds? How many are breaking where newcastle was doing? And honestly, the difference in the benchmarks have not been 5%, no where even close. Maybe 1-2% at the most.

So far, winchester has been doing the same, not much more. (Just because Charlie at xs can hit 2.8 semi-stable, does not mean that many people will...)
 
Gautam said:
Can someone please show me some proof of this?!?!?!
They did a test on Anandtech. Winchesters on average are 5-7% faster than a Newcastle at the same speed.
Anandtech said:
4966.png
4976.png
4967.png
4968.png
4969.png
4981.png
4965.png

Gaming Performance was consistently faster on the new 90nm than the existing 130nm processors. This varied from 2% in Aquamark3 and Doom3 to 7% in Quake 3. Overall, gaming averaged about 3% faster on the new 90nm chips. While 3% is not a huge increase and it will likely not even be noticed by the average user, it was still impressive to see the new 90nm chips perform a little better than the older 130nm chips.

We have talked in past reviews about how some games respond well to CPU and memory speed increases, while others seem to be most influenced by the graphics card. This is nicely illustrated in comparing benchmarks of the 3000+ at stock speed to the same benches at 2.6GHz (290x9). Here, we see games like Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Unreal Tournament 2003, Quake 3, and Comanche 4 improve 34% to 42% as we move from 1.8Ghz to 2.6Ghz. At the other end of the spectrum, Halo and Aquamark 3 only improve 12% to 13% while the CPU speed increases 45%. Doom 3 falls in the middle with a 24% increase in frame rate for the 45% boost in CPU speed.
 
I told you everyone and I was right. Me and my friend have discussed this and I can see why you are in denial, its because you bought a s939 newcastle instead of the faster winchester. keep in mind it can be 2% or 10% faster than newcastle depending on the app. For a 2.4GHz winchester, 5% would take 2.52GHz and 10% would take 2.64GHz newcastle to match the same 2.4GHz winchester! We are talking over 100MHz boost and this just spreads when both are overclocked :)
 
Tbird, Why in the hell are you selling your NC??? 2.5GHZ 100% stable is great and should fly. Get a new vid card and some more memory and you are set. I just don't quite understand you. Hell any A64 that we run is gonna be hella fast, 2.2,2.3, ect....
 
Overclocker550 said:
I told you everyone and I was right. Me and my friend have discussed this and I can see why you are in denial, its because you bought a s939 newcastle instead of the faster winchester. keep in mind it can be 2% or 10% faster than newcastle depending on the app. For a 2.4GHz winchester, 5% would take 2.52GHz and 10% would take 2.64GHz newcastle to match the same 2.4GHz winchester! We are talking over 100MHz boost and this just spreads when both are overclocked :)
He isnt being quite as eloquant as per his discussion with me...

2200 x .02 = 44mhz (low)
2200 x .07 = 154mhz (high)

44 + 154 / 2 = 99mhz

Look guys. The facts speak for themselves. Like it or not, he is correct. They are indeed 100mhz faster at the same clock speed.

Not *ONLY* this but look:

99 / 2200 = 4.5%

The same aproximated figure shown by AMD.
 
Vengance_01 said:
Tbird, Why in the hell are you selling your NC??? 2.5GHZ 100% stable is great and should fly. Get a new vid card and some more memory and you are set. I just don't quite understand you. Hell any A64 that we run is gonna be hella fast, 2.2,2.3, ect....


Because I can and because I am upgrading to s939. I have two sticks of corsair value and s939 is much more friendly with dual channel and handles a gig much better. also winchesters will crush newcastles, especially since mines single channel. I already upgraded my ti4200 to a 9500np, softmodded that to a 9700pro. Now I need a winchester to push my new video card good :)
 
yeah update to 939 Overclocker550
i wana finally a ti4200 with 20k :)
i am updating as soon as possible
we will build ti4200 20k club :) :) :)
 
But in real life AKA games you will nor notice a big difference. NC's and Socket 754's handle 1GB of ram just fine. But your money, suit yourself.
 
I think you should ask c627627 to verify if he still thinks the 5% system performance (not just games!) claim is still valid! After all it is his part of his website you just posted up (without a link I note). Especially based on finding such as Petr's which showed only about 1% gain.
 
OK but , y buy a a64 when ur axp if u just give it more V will prob do you fine if you get a good vid card . mine @ 2.7 stable , a64 dont seem that big of an advantage
 
OC550 - if you merely choose the Anandtech figures please tell me how a 3% improvment in gaming and no difference in ALL other benchmarks can equate to a 5% increase in IPC? ESPECIALLY when you have AMD themselves saying this?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20041011124532.html

Please garner more information about things and try to obtain multiple reliable sources before making such spurious claims - it gets a bit tiresome.
 
Back