Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: h0db who wrote (79601)	5/7/2002 12:36:49 AM
From: Monica Detwiler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

h0db - Below, an enterprising fellow tries three T-bred cores in a vapo-chill rig, and finds out they don't perform any better than palomino cores, and don't overclock any better either, suggesting that .13-m isn't giving AMD much headroom. Something must be terribly wrong with AMD's 0.13 micron process. It provides no performance over 0.18 micron parts. It must yield worst, or otherwise AMD would have ramped it into production to get cost reductions due to smaller Athlon die. If they are getting no more saleable die at 0.13 micron than with 0.18 micron, yields must be outlandishly low. As for the SOI process, it would appear that AMD's underlying 0.13 micron process may not provide a good foundation for the SOI module. Sounds like AMD has dug itself a big hole to try and crawl out from. Monica

To: h0db who wrote (79601)	5/7/2002 12:55:45 AM
From: milo_morai	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Overclocking: It would be a fair guess that you're reading this because you want to know how it overclocked. Well, I can't disclose that due to.. only kidding! The first thing that struck me was the drop in core temperatures on the Vapochill at default voltage. Usually the Vapo will show a LCD temp display of around -16C at idle, with the the lower voltage of the Tbred the idle temperature reading dropped to -20C. Recording accurate temperatures when dealing with CPU's is beyond any equipment I have here, so let me just say that there is, as expected, a definite drop in CPU temperature with this new core. This I assume is directly related to the lower voltage of the Tbred. Now that is always good news, whether you’re using a FOP38 or a Vapochill! Initially, adding more voltage was easy. When I reached 2.0V I had a moment of clarity, realizing that this is 0.4V above default and getting risky in my opinion. I can hear you thinking "I would have done 2.2V straight away", well, buy one as soon as you can and let me know how it goes. :) I raised the Voltage to a maximum of 2.1 Volts Core and 2.85 Memory and the WCPUID shots below tell the story. This is the Tbred running rock solid and stable, using Prime95 and looping 3Dmark. The new core has a very stable 'feel' to it, and I doubt more intensive usage would cause the BSOD gods to rain on this parade. Stable at 2Ghz and a FSB at 341Mhz overclockers.com.au Conclusions: The new Thoroughbred create less heat, by way of reduced core voltage, than its Palomino counterpart. For that reason alone it should interest overclockers. I have tested quite a few Athlons and I have had higher Overclocks from some, however, the three Thoroughbreds I tested all performed on par with each other. The difference between best and worst stable overclock was 20MHz. I think this speaks volumes for the yields, and I think as the 0.13 process matures and new steppings appear, we will see much greater things from these cores in the overclocking department. Stay tuned..

To: h0db who wrote (79601)	5/7/2002 1:50:08 AM
From: Yousef	Respond to of 275872

h0db, Re: "Quite sporting of AMD to spot Intel 1GHz by Q4 and expect Quantispeed to make up the difference." It's very easy to change a "sticker" ... Much harder to actually produce the chip. <ggg> BTW, where's the "architecture thingy" guy ... Seems like AMD's "architecture" has run out of "gas". <ggg> Make It So, Yousef

To: h0db who wrote (79601)	5/7/2002 1:51:27 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Respond to of 275872

h0db, Re: [from link]"This is the Tbred running rock solid and stable, using Prime95 and looping 3Dmark." I can tell you from my own overclocking experiences that using Prime95 and looping 3Dmark are hardly a good measurement for stability. I had my rig "rock solid and stable" at 2.35GHz and 1.65V under these conditions - it really isn't that hard to get Prime95 or 3Dmark to run successfully. But as I used my computer more, I noticed other programs weren't as stable. A little game of mine called Capitalism - a simple 2D game with yesterday's graphics - crashed more than the graphics intensive 3DMark 2001. It's all in the instruction stream to the processor. Clocking the core down to 2.2GHz allowed me to regain stability in those few applications that gave me problems before. Indeed, for a few weeks, I ran into zero problems. That is, until I wanted to use the Suspend to RAM utility, which allows you to shut down the computer, and give a small amount of current to the DRAM so you can save an image of your current workspace. It basically allows a much faster bootup, but it was the only part of the computer that seemed to have a problem at the 2.2GHz speed. So right now, I am using my 1.8GHz Pentium 4 at the default voltage of 1.5V, overclocked to 2.07GHz. That seems to be as high as I can go, and still get every single feature I want. That's what I consider "rock solid and stable". Those enthusiast geeks have much lower standards, it seems. Again - I am only speaking based on first hand experience, but IMO, it's hard to find out how "stable" that overclocked Thoroughbred really was. wbmw