Lynnfield benchmarks up

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar


Wrong. By dynamically adjusting clock speeds Intel stays closer to the max TDP and gives more performance than AMD does, and even does it at lower powers.

AMD sells their "black editions" nearly maxed out, thus drastically lowering their OC abilities. Intel rips off overclockers because they don't sell cheap processors that have unlocked multipliers.


AMD - Unlocked multiplier, but no headroom
Intel - Lots of headroom, but locked multiplier
 
Since when was TDP linked to idle power draw?

TDP is the maximum...at least it used to be before intel redifined it to suit themselves.

It's been a good learning experience actually...it's pretty clear now that AMD use the maximum TDP that is likely to be drawn under any circumstances (note: this was the accepted meaning of TDP for a long time), whereas intel will happily use TDP as an 'average'.

Considering how hard AMD get slaughtered over ACP, I think this is well worth further discussion.
 


i wouldn't say this, it depends on which one, a PII X3 720 BE overclocks very nicely (usually 3.6-3.8 range), however the PII X4 965 is pretty maxed out (600MHz more on air usually)
 


Next you'll be telling me that Nehalem goes to 7ghz just like Phenom II does right?
 
Had to quote the lostcircuits link...

TDP: From Design Guide to Marketing Hype

The actual power draw of the CPU became a design specification called TDP and depending on whose numbers were posted, it stood for typical design power or thermal design power. Semantics aside, in the single core processor environment dominating at the time the TDP was usually considered the absolute maximum power consumption that any CPU could face under worst case scenario conditions. Suffice it to say that in an overhwelming amount of cases, it was not possible to even get close to these numbers using commercially available software. In short, the two reasons why a TDP rating was created in the first place were the tendencies to cut corners on the motherboard (remember those dreadful single-phase VRMs used by MSI on a number of boards?) as well as with respect to OEM heatsink solutions. In other words, as soon as there was a standard, the entire infrastructure could be tested and approved against this standard, with the major benefit of improved motherboard and heatsink designs in the PC space.

The big change came with the increased awareness of global warming. Suddenly, what was originally conceived to force third party manufacturers to have some headroom in their design became a negative attribute. In short, the standard grain of wisdom did not differentiate between a maximum power consumption under worst case conditions and the typical power consumption. Hence a CPU that was labeled with a high TDP , many times to force the enthusiast segment motherboard manufacturer to have the overhead necessary for even some insane overclocking, was labeled as a power hog, even if under normal operating conditions a power consumption even close to the TDP could never be reached. At this point, TDP became a marketing tool; the lower the better.
Click to expand...
 
Jenny, perhaps if I explain it better and in a less combative and argumentative argumentative way.

The i5 750 is designed for a maximum of 95 watts. When only one core is being used, the other three are idle, but the processor is actually running cool and isn't using much power. However, the processor can be brought back up to its upper limits by increasing the frequency of the core being used.

It's not "overclocking" because the processor is still within it power and thermal limits. Intel is just being smarter by providing more power to single cores because software isn't always multi-threaded.

No matter what happens, Turbo isn't going to bring the processor beyond its thermal or power limits, Turbo just keeps the processor closer to its limits and provides more performance to certain cores when others are not being used.

So, because Turbo doesn't have the processor exceed designed thermal and power limits (under which the processors is guaranteed guaranteed to work) you're not overclocking the processor.

Perhaps a better name for it would be asymmetrical asymmetric core frequencies. It's a great feature, and I hope AMD implements it too.

But simply calling it "overclocking" would be grossly inaccurate and simplistic.
 


You're correct, I should have singled out the PII X4 965 BE.
 


see now you are getting ridiculous, lets only talk about air or at most water (since this is what it would be running 24/7)
no DICE, no LN2, no LHe, all of these cannot be sustained
 


7ghz is a nice overclock, if you don't mind only having ~3 gigs of RAM (32-bit limitation) and don't mind liquid nitrogen or whatever was used to go that high. I give credit where it is due, even if it's just 32-bit, the PII overclocks are nice.

However, because they can't go much above 4ghz in 64-bit, which is required in rigs with 4 gigs or more of RAM, it's less impressive.


Keep in mind that Anand, with after market AIR cooling got the i5 750 to above 4ghz. That's a +50% overclock.

The PII x4 965 BE when reaching 4 ghz is only a 17% overclock, which is still nice, but it most certainly doesn't overclock as easily is the i5 750.
 

People always say Intel buys reviews. I'm surprised kassler hasn't dropped in to say the same thing. Companies don't buy reviews. The marketing team is perfectly capable of using scare tactics against smaller websites so they don't need to pay them. That won't work on major websites though because companies can't afford to lose the publicity from reviews.

THG also has their reviews (yes, reviews) up: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5,2410.html and http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i5-gaming,2403.html

 



But TC didn't mention that did he? He used it as an example of why Phenom II's were limited with overclocking compared to intels...when in fact it's is the exact opposite.

Phenom II overclocks Nehalem out of sight. It's almost 2ghz better. What if we could suddenly use L2N in our daily cooling? That sort of thing is only a few years away. Now tell me what is the better overclocking cpu? Is the Phenom II limited by arch or is it limited by our current cooling methods.
 


point taken, though i doubt LN2 will be feasible anytime soon for consumer 24/7 cooling
and i do believe that the 7GHz wasn't LN2, it was LHe (Liquid Helium for anyone who didn't know) which is a tad colder than LN2

so i say that we stick to air/water, which doesn't give the PII X4 965 BE a very nice OC (though the other BE's do get it)
 


You're only seeing what you want to see.

I gave one pro and one con to both AMD and Intel. Perhaps I should spell it out.


AMD OC PRO: Unlocked multiplier
AMD OC CON: 965 BE has little headroom

Intel OC PRO: Lots of headroom
Intel OC CON: Locked multipliers
 


at the same time with insane memory speeds out (ie DDR3-2000) it only depends on the quality of motherboard used (ie getting a good bclk)
and i would think many board made by reputable companies (ie ASUS, GIGABYTE, EVGA) it will be limited by the cooling (again, lets stick to air/water. nothing fancy as it cannot be help 24/7)
 


Arch.

140 watts it too damn hot. I said that about Prescott and I'll say it about Phenom II.


The PC world will never see much innovation beyond air cooling, because anything else is not practical. If anything, we'll see more passively cooled products in low-end systems.

Yes, I love water cooling, phase change, and all the other stuff. They are fun to read about, but I can bet that most people here won't ever go past a nice aftermarket air cooler because that's what is practical.
 


i am even willing to say a go for water cooling, yes most people don't have it (and those Corsair H50 and others don't really count) but some do, as opposed to say DICE, LN2, LHe which cannot be kept 24/7

at the same time, i doubt that 140w TDP is really the case for the 965, the 955 is 125w and only 100MHz slower
 
I was simply making a point.

You don't actually believe that the 965 BE is somehow worse than a 955 BE, or 940 BE do you? Just because it has a 'TDP' of 140w instead of 125w? All that means is, this cpu is capable of drawing more watts under exceptional circumstances than any other Phenom II could. The reason why it can do that is because it's capable of reaching higher overclocks.
 
How do you explain why a Phenom II can reach 7ghz and a Nehalem struggles to get near 6ghz (on any cooling)?

What is the explanation for that again? I don't think I've ever heard one.
 
Not only are you a troll. You're a stupid one.

All you geniuses will for sure have a good answer to this.

Let's say an intel mobo has a 95w TDP, you put in a 95W TDP cpu.

What happens when you decide to overclock it?

Take the newest AMD 965 BE, 140W TDP. The top mobo you can get is 140W right? So are you telling me that a 965 BE cannot go above 3.4ghz at all???


1st of all motherboards dont have a TDP.

You again prove that you dont know anything. You do not know about cpus. You do not know about motherboards. You do not know about overclocking. You do not know about TDP.

To make it as simple as possible. You overclock, your power usage will go up. And it will go over the wattage the cpu is rated for.

Thats what the entire after market cooling market is for. Overclock your cpu and you draw more power. You draw more power and you need to get rid of the extra heat.

Since you love looking up a million reviews...go find anyone with overclocking power consumption charts. It still wont get the point across to you. You already proved you are not capable of understand charts/reviews/facts any anything else for that matter.


You're a stupid troll.
 


I agree with you there. A 965BE is superior because it binned higher and will hopefully be able to take high voltage and hit higher frequencies (and probably go beyond its designed power envelope). You don't overclock if your concerned about your electric bill, you overclock because you have fun fine-tuning your PC to get the maximum performance.
 
Just want to add, you can now buy water cooling that is hardly different from standard air cooling.

What you might think is true about L2N now, people thought the same about water 5 years ago.
 


doesn't the Nehalem have the cold bug still??
not being able to reach critically low temps would not allow it to OC so high
 
Someguy - please continue you're helping my case no end. :)

TC - It's not just about binning, it's about improving too. Intel is more about binning than AMD is, AMD tend to refine a lot during a process whereas intel tend to do it in splits, like today.

If you compare the i5 to the original i7, and the 965 BE through to the 940 BE, you'll sorta figure that not a whole lot happens in reality.
 


but to keep LN2 going, you would need a compressor to make N2 into a liquid, not really feasible in the common house (let alone in a computer case)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom