That is not true though. The CPU will try to boost to 5.7 even in the heaviest of workloads. Of course power limit might get in the way depending on how you configured it.
In the video he doesn't specify what settings they used exactly. There are multiple ways to over or under clock Intel chips, changing the Turbo ratios, boosting specific cores, putting an all core limit etc. I assume they left the option at AUTO and just typed in a 5.3, which basically makes the CPU run at 5.3 under all scenarios, multi or single, again assuming power and amp limits don't get in the way.
Well, if it would normally run up to 5.7 GHz, except for power limits, then 5.3 GHz isn't an overclock. Right?? Terry is calling it an overclock.
Not enough data to answer that. Technically, if you either exceed maximum clockspeeds (5.7 ghz), maximum TDP (253w) or maximum amps (307) it's an overclock. So running 5.3 is not an overclock as long as you hit these clocks within the above TDP and amperage.
While the Asus boards can run 253W, and potentially more, the Supermicro ones can't and he said the failure rates were the same between the two. So even if somehow the Asus ones were over TDP that couldn't be the problem that's manifesting here.
Yeah technically it will even try to boost to 6ghz on any and all workloads, my point was more like what it will be able to boost to not what it will try to boost to.
5.8 actually, and that's the turbo 3 clock
It's funny you claim I'm acting like I don't know anything, because that article is aimed at people who are really clueless. It's oversimplifying to the point of being irrelevant to this discussion.
I thought about process node as well. Perhaps Intel haven’t ironed out all the problems with it’s foundry and those high performance chips suffer from it. It’d be interesting, as you mentioned, to see Xeon error rates.Not only did Intel do architecture-level tweaking, as mentioned by @Eximo , but they also used a modified process node. That's the main way the were able to achieve higher boost clocks.
It could also be that modified process node that's the culprit behind these apparent cases of accelerated silicon aging.
Speaking of which, I wonder just what's the reach of this problem. Could it affect even Emerald Rapids?
Do you have a link to the specs where it says it only supports memory OC?
I had to look up the code name. I’m so confused with Intel’s naming scheme, everytime I have to check what it actually is.
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/218834/intel-w680-chipset/specifications.html
I believe the Sapphire Rapids Xeons share the same process node as Alder Lake (12th gen) and Emerald Rapids Xeons share the same node as Raptor Lake (13th and 14th gen).
Clock speed is probably not the real issue. The issue is probably voltage, which correlates with clockspeed within the same CPU architecture. Because the i7 and i9 K-series run at the highest clockspeeds, among the Raptor Lake CPUs, they're also pushing the most voltage among those CPUs and experiencing most of the problems. I don't know what sorts of voltages various Emerald Rapids CPUs are pushing.
except they are?
All 3 of them use the same p (golden cove) & e (gracemont) cores. 13th gen added clock speed and e cores over 12th gen. 14th gen just increased clock speed over 13th gen. You are correct that in ST applications they have equal performance at the same clock so IPC is the same. However, there were uArc tweaks to 13th gen that allowed for higher clocks and other minor changes. Overall the uArc changes between the generations wasn't enough to make them a new core.
First of all, 13th gen has extra cache, lower latency on the cache, decoupled cache frequency from ecores, and also higher clocks at the same voltage. Why would you run all 3 chips at the same speed? That's the whole point, that you CANT run the 12900k at 5.5ghz that the 13900k can achieve.
The highest clocked EMR SKU has a 4.2ghz boost on an 8 core part so the voltage required for that, even if all 8 cores are running 4.2, is relatively low. I imagine the VF curve on the Xeon enterprise parts is also probably much more finely tuned than the desktop parts.
Except for that pesky little detail called Raptor Cove.
They called it Raptor Cove lets be honest here it is just Golden Cove with a few minor uArc changes. If it were really that different you would see IPC increases beyond 2% or so. I remember seeing benchmarks of the 3 generations with them all set to the same clock speed and in ST applications they all had identical performance. The only reason for MT performance increase was due to more e-cores on the 13th and 14th gen. Therefore you can say that Raptor Cove doesn't even equal a Tick as there really wasn't any IPC increase.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram