Does 790FX + SB750 = High-End Overclocking?

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]jadedgamerx[/nom]In response to both you and Pei-chen:I guess I wasn't specific enough. AMD seams to be gearing itself towards enterprise systems and multimedia rigs with enough power for every day users but sipping less KWH on your power bill each month. Hence my support for the 780G/790G platforms. The embedded graphics are not going to be good enough for anything but the most non-enthusiast gamer, but they are perfect for running a quiet, cheap, efficient media streaming/backup/home theater/internet/email/server/firewall box(s). With the correct processor selection (anything in the 45W bin) they become a high value setup for the money. No extra video card necessary and just enough power to be responsive but nothing overkill. I have a system that consumes less than 80 watts under full load with 500 gig green line hard drive, in comparison to my Core 2 gaming setup which generally eats 700 watts under full load with an SLI setup. Granted 400 of those watts are being consumed by the graphics cards, that still means that the rest of the system is consuming roughly 200% more power than my 780G chipset completely. It's a niche market, but they're hitting it well. I don't see many people running to intel for a "cheap" low range solution, I do see people buying E2200's and clocking them up to 3.0Ghz for cheap gaming rigs.[/citation]
The arguement regarding pei-chen and you were about the statement that amd holds on to old sockets longer than intel. That statement was true for socket a, but it hasn't been before or after it.
I fully agree with you that a low power amd based system has value. But there are drawbacks too. For one some software houses don't support amd, and I have in the past had problems with athlon 64 pc's when it turned out that autodesk products didn't work well, if at all, with them. I believe that particular problem is fixed now, but some of the idea is still in place. So when we buy a new hp 'basic pc' we're getting something with a pentium dualcore on a g31 or something, we don't get a sempron le or the athlon you mention.

Anyway, there was something else I noticed in your last post. Your system consumes up to 700w ? how the hell do you manage that? My primary rig is an e6600 oc'ed to 3.4ghz with 8 harddrives, a p35-ds4, hd4870, 5 fans and 8 harddrives. I can't even exceed 550w on that using my socket measuring tool! And my secondary rig (3x raptor, biostar nforce 550 board, brisbane @ 2.35ghz) runs either with a hd4870 or a 8800gtx - powered by a noname 450W psu. So how the hell can your motherboard, harddrives and other non-graphicscard stuff consume 300w ? you may be right and it does, but I really don't believe that part.

One more thing : "I don't see many people running to intel for a "cheap" low range solution..." In february I ordered 25 computers with 945 chipset, a pentium dualcore and 2gb memory to run autocad (simple line drawings mostly). Very cheap, very effective. No fancy features, but they boot windows rather quickly, and appearently the students don't have any problems running autocad or their more favored software (cs & age of empires 2)
[citation][nom]Pei-chen[/nom]With Nvidia's 9300/9400 coming into the market and E5200 @ $82, AMD's niche are no longer exclusive. But I agree with you that AMD used to have an advantage in low powered office PC.[/citation]
See drawback I mentioned above.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

"e6600 oc'ed to 3.4ghz with 8 harddrives, a p35-ds4, hd4870, 5 fans and 8 harddrives." okay obviously I don't have the drives twice .... sorry about that.

 

[Tropoc]

jamesl:

Im from norway, and i do my shopping there. Prices for both of those processors is 1700nkr = 250 us dollar at todays currency levels.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

Tropoc according to komplett.no you may be wrong!
"and the 9950 is cheaper then the q6600 its cheaper then about every intel processor out there (even the dual cores such as e8400 etc)."

9950 = 1700
e8400 = 1550
e1200 = 445 (dual core intel processor)
q6600 isn't for sale, but a q8200 costs 1700 like the amd quadcore ....

 

[jadedgamerx]

[citation][nom]Pei-chen[/nom]With Nvidia's 9300/9400 coming into the market and E5200 @ $82, AMD's niche are no longer exclusive. But I agree with you that AMD used to have an advantage in low powered office PC.[/citation]
I think we're both thinking on the same track here -- I just started using E7200's on G31 chipsets for my low end office builds (around $550 per machine) because they outperform the AMD based systems I was building (in the $450-500 region) by quite a large margin in office performance, so the new chipsets with just further that along.

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]The arguement regarding pei-chen and you were about the statement that amd holds on to old sockets longer than intel. That statement was true for socket a, but it hasn't been before or after it. I fully agree with you that a low power amd based system has value. But there are drawbacks too. For one some software houses don't support amd, and I have in the past had problems with athlon 64 pc's when it turned out that autodesk products didn't work well, if at all, with them. I believe that particular problem is fixed now, but some of the idea is still in place. So when we buy a new hp 'basic pc' we're getting something with a pentium dualcore on a g31 or something, we don't get a sempron le or the athlon you mention. Anyway, there was something else I noticed in your last post. Your system consumes up to 700w ? how the hell do you manage that? My primary rig is an e6600 oc'ed to 3.4ghz with 8 harddrives, a p35-ds4, hd4870, 5 fans and 8 harddrives. I can't even exceed 550w on that using my socket measuring tool! And my secondary rig (3x raptor, biostar nforce 550 board, brisbane @ 2.35ghz) runs either with a hd4870 or a 8800gtx - powered by a noname 450W psu. So how the hell can your motherboard, harddrives and other non-graphicscard stuff consume 300w ? you may be right and it does, but I really don't believe that part. One more thing : "I don't see many people running to intel for a "cheap" low range solution..." In february I ordered 25 computers with 945 chipset, a pentium dualcore and 2gb memory to run autocad (simple line drawings mostly). Very cheap, very effective. No fancy features, but they boot windows rather quickly, and appearently the students don't have any problems running autocad or their more favored software (cs & age of empires 2)See drawback I mentioned above.[/citation]
I tend to agree with most of your statement as well, I think in general we all have a similar experience with the hardware in discussion, I just found a lot of value on the AMD side of the parts for quite some time until Intel finally became price competitive with their lower priced true Core 2's (I was never a big fan of the Pentiem series that was core 2 based, I wanted the bigger cache size/FSB speed). On the topic of the power consumption, it's mainly related to the video card setup which when running in their fully overclocked state consumes ~200 watts per video card. I'm running 4GB of XMS dominator memory @ 1200mhz with relaxed timings @ around 2.3V, and the Vcore of the processor is touching 1.53 volts to keep things stable but the amount of heat that comes out of my case is absolutely unreal. Raid 5 with Seagate 7200.11's (they were the best bang for the buck when I bought them, now I wish I had the new Raptors). I have always loved the Radeon's, but when it came time to build the system 2 Geforce 260's in SLI couldn't be topped by a single 4870 (sometimes they beat 2 4870's in benchmarks on the games I prefer).

 

[neiroatopelcc]

Trust me you don't want the new raptors. Sure they're fast. But what you want is a sas controller and a few 15k rpm drives.
Anyway I'm running raid 5 too and got around 1.55v on the cpu (because I let the bios control it and couldn't care less about the voltage so long it's stable), and I still can't get anywhere near the ratings you get. Sure I only got one graphics card, but still. 300w from the system excluding graphics? Last time I checked a wd harddrive was rated at max 8W and the motherboard around 90W max. Dunno what the memory use (mine are only running 912mhz, but 4gb too), but it can't be the last 150+ watts of power.

Anyhow I suppose it doesn't really matter. If I would need a really lowpower system I'd build a 780g with a lowprofile athlon anyway.

 

[jadedgamerx]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]Trust me you don't want the new raptors. Sure they're fast. But what you want is a sas controller and a few 15k rpm drives. Anyway I'm running raid 5 too and got around 1.55v on the cpu (because I let the bios control it and couldn't care less about the voltage so long it's stable), and I still can't get anywhere near the ratings you get. Sure I only got one graphics card, but still. 300w from the system excluding graphics? Last time I checked a wd harddrive was rated at max 8W and the motherboard around 90W max. Dunno what the memory use (mine are only running 912mhz, but 4gb too), but it can't be the last 150+ watts of power.Anyhow I suppose it doesn't really matter. If I would need a really lowpower system I'd build a 780g with a lowprofile athlon anyway.[/citation]

YES! Exactly! Finally... I've been berated twice for my views towards athalon's as a good low power solution. I don't understand why not?

And you've got me on the extra power usage. I know my motherboard should be drawing somewhere around 30-40w tops and the TDP on my processor is somewhere in the 135W range but it's heavily overclocked. Maybe the voltage plus over a 1 ghz overlock did it *shrugs* The memory should be eating about 20-30% more power than usual based on clock and voltage increases as well. Power draw vs clock is linear, power draw vs voltage is log rhythmic.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

Wish there was an option for an ignore list! whats the point of posts with so many typos you have to spend an hour figuring out what it sais.

 

[Guest]

AMD's processors have nice price/performance ratio.

 

[Guest]

AMD released their new Shanghai Opteron at 2.7ghz and 75w at the same time this article came out. The Shanghai story was short, pessimistic, and was off the (footnote side of)front page after a day. This article has been on the main part of the frontpage for a week. Do you guys reckon that Shanghai could hit 4.0ghz on air? The clockspeed wars are now officially over, and it's a tie, somewhere between 3.5 and 4.0ghz.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

A week? This article was published only a few days ago mate! On the 13th of november.

 

[spearhead]

The pehenom actualy was ment to run upto 3ghz at launch but this idea was scrapped because of the TBL bug and the problem of leaking metal gates at higher clocks. this actualy kept the phenom hamperd for quite some time until the production process was refined.
But now with the whole new 45nm process and 3GHZ at launch i have confidence in higher clocks being possible. if we will see the 3ghz deneb out there for around 150 euro just like phenom 9950 it would make a great value product for most of us. actualy AMD's phenoms which are out today aren't that bad at all. the phenom 9950 an do 3,6ghz on air while 3,2ghz is easy to get on stock voltage. With a bit of luck a black edition deneb might be able to do 4GHZ and beyond if the metal gates are solid enough.