Yeah?
Looks like you're wrong this time:
Looks like you're wrong this time:
lol. I have a single core cpu so it's easy to make that mistake fixed now....Bertster7 wrote:
Woah! Careful there. It does have cache on each core.[69th_GFH]GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
there are two different versions of AMD cpus. normal versions are 90nm (windsor core) and the EE (energy efficient) models are 65nm (Brisbane core).
and ur sig says your cpu has 2x512MB catche, not 512KB like it really is.
I love the way he's completely forgotten about his deluded claim that Barcelona would be 45nm - which one day it will, but not yet.
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
Wrong about what?CrazeD wrote:
Yeah?
Looks like you're wrong this time:
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a283/ … d_65nm.jpg
You muppet.Bertster7 wrote:
No. AM2 90nm and 65nm. Barcelona 65nm - until they finish the upgrades to their fabrication centres, which are due to be completed mid 2008, then they will shrink to 45nm.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-16 17:04:35)
Oh good god: $1,620.92
Time to get out a loan. Oh wait, lulz, I don't have a bank account. Time to get out my warehouse-infiltrating tools.
Time to get out a loan. Oh wait, lulz, I don't have a bank account. Time to get out my warehouse-infiltrating tools.
craced damnit. you both were right and wrong the same time. there are two different versions of them. normal windsor is 90nm and the EE (energy efficient) version is 65nm Brisbane.CrazeD wrote:
Yeah?
Looks like you're wrong this time:
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a283/ … d_65nm.jpg
hell, read this quote from amd:
Q: What did AMD announce regarding 65nm processors?
A: On December 5, 2006, AMD announced the introduction of our 65nm processor portfolio, beginning with immediate availability of energy efficient AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 dual-core desktop socket AM2 processors.
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
I guess I have the energy inefficient one
Oi![69th_GFH]GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
craced damnit. you both were right and wrong the same time. there are two different versions of them. normal windsor is 90nm and the EE (energy efficient) version is 65nm Brisbane.CrazeD wrote:
Yeah?
Looks like you're wrong this time:
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a283/ … d_65nm.jpg
hell, read this quote from amd:
Q: What did AMD announce regarding 65nm processors?
A: On December 5, 2006, AMD announced the introduction of our 65nm processor portfolio, beginning with immediate availability of energy efficient AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 dual-core desktop socket AM2 processors.
I wasn't wrong. I never said they were 90nm. I said that Barcelona CPUs would be 65nm and that Penryn would be better due to being 45nm.
Isn't it only until about 30nm technology where there is no gain in performance and efficiency from smaller processors?Bertster7 wrote:
Oi![69th_GFH]GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
craced damnit. you both were right and wrong the same time. there are two different versions of them. normal windsor is 90nm and the EE (energy efficient) version is 65nm Brisbane.CrazeD wrote:
Yeah?
Looks like you're wrong this time:
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a283/ … d_65nm.jpg
hell, read this quote from amd:
Q: What did AMD announce regarding 65nm processors?
A: On December 5, 2006, AMD announced the introduction of our 65nm processor portfolio, beginning with immediate availability of energy efficient AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 dual-core desktop socket AM2 processors.
I wasn't wrong. I never said they were 90nm. I said that Barcelona CPUs would be 65nm and that Penryn would be better due to being 45nm.
P.S. Does anyone know how to unlock the multiplier in my setup? Also, does anyone know how I can increase the voltage to my system? Thanks
Last edited by ReDevilJR (2007-05-16 17:14:58)
yeah, but neither of you knew that there are EE versionsBertster7 wrote:
Oi![69th_GFH]GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
craced damnit. you both were right and wrong the same time. there are two different versions of them. normal windsor is 90nm and the EE (energy efficient) version is 65nm Brisbane.CrazeD wrote:
Yeah?
Looks like you're wrong this time:
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a283/ … d_65nm.jpg
hell, read this quote from amd:
Q: What did AMD announce regarding 65nm processors?
A: On December 5, 2006, AMD announced the introduction of our 65nm processor portfolio, beginning with immediate availability of energy efficient AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 dual-core desktop socket AM2 processors.
I wasn't wrong. I never said they were 90nm. I said that Barcelona CPUs would be 65nm and that Penryn would be better due to being 45nm.
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
The nm size has nothing to do with performance in the first place. Penryn isn't going to be better than dick all simply because of the transistor size.
actually it has. 45nm means less heat so they can achieve higher clockspeedsCrazeD wrote:
The nm size has nothing to do with performance in the first place. Penryn isn't going to be better than dick all simply because of the transistor size.
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
Something like that. It's because you can't make ICs much smaller than that, because their properties change on a quantum level, which is what you are approaching at that level.ReDevilJR wrote:
Isn't it only until about 30nm technology where there is no gain in performance and efficiency from smaller processors?Bertster7 wrote:
Oi![69th_GFH]GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
craced damnit. you both were right and wrong the same time. there are two different versions of them. normal windsor is 90nm and the EE (energy efficient) version is 65nm Brisbane.
hell, read this quote from amd:
Q: What did AMD announce regarding 65nm processors?
A: On December 5, 2006, AMD announced the introduction of our 65nm processor portfolio, beginning with immediate availability of energy efficient AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 dual-core desktop socket AM2 processors.
I wasn't wrong. I never said they were 90nm. I said that Barcelona CPUs would be 65nm and that Penryn would be better due to being 45nm.
Actually I did, which is why I mentioned there were 90nm and 65nm AM2 chips available in one of my replies much earlier (#12).[69th_GFH]GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
yeah, but neither of you knew that there are EE versions
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-16 17:19:46)
oh I see, then it was just craced, lolBertster7 wrote:
Something like that. It's because you can't make ICs much smaller than that, because their properties change on a quantum level, which is what you are approaching at that level.ReDevilJR wrote:
Isn't it only until about 30nm technology where there is no gain in performance and efficiency from smaller processors?Bertster7 wrote:
Oi!
I wasn't wrong. I never said they were 90nm. I said that Barcelona CPUs would be 65nm and that Penryn would be better due to being 45nm.Actually I did, which is why I mentioned there were 90nm and 65nm AM2 chips available in one of my replies much earlier (#12).[69th_GFH]GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
yeah, but neither of you knew that there are EE versions
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
So now that that's resolved... Can anyone help me out? How to unlock the multiplier and increase the voltage to the processor? Lower number multiplied is better correct? Ex. 10 > 12
This guys cracks me up.CrazeD wrote:
The nm size has nothing to do with performance in the first place. Penryn isn't going to be better than dick all simply because of the transistor size.
Reduced transistor size improves on die latencies, reduces heat and allows higher clock speeds to be attained.
The 7900 for example, is a reduced scale 7800 - and runs faster purely for that reason.
I'm not sure, but I reckon it'll involve some soldering. Still fancy doing it?ReDevilJR wrote:
So now that that's resolved... Can anyone help me out? How to unlock the multiplier and increase the voltage to the processor? Lower number multiplied is better correct? Ex. 10 > 12
Buy a BFG 8800GTS 640MB Overclocked. It is around 440 USD and 110 dollars less than a gtx. Why I say this is because the core clock is 5mHZ more than the stock 8800gtx core clock. The only difference IMO is the stream processors and memory. Yes, 2 of the BFG 8800GTSs I just said would do the job, I'm not an expert but if you have them in SLi then you might get 80-150 FPS on crysis, correct me if I'm wrong, I am no computer genius.Hurricane wrote:
I'm trying to figure out how much it'll cost me to upgrade my computer. I think I've got it figured out for all the other components, but the processors give me pause.
Will the Barcelona grab even the mightiest of C2Ds (Or C2Qs) and wipe the floor with them? Or will they simply be good enough to lower the prices, but overall be the same? I know it's not easy for anyone to give a clear-cut answer on this, but just an idea?
As for SLi/Crossfire, is it worth it? Or would one 2900XTX/8800GTS be more than enough for games like Crysis, Alan Wake, Frontlines, etc? Again, I realize it's hard for us to make solid statements on it, but just an estimate?
Thanks!
quote from other trech forums about unlocking am2/939 multipliers: bridges are laser cut, no getting past them.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm not sure, but I reckon it'll involve some soldering. Still fancy doing it?ReDevilJR wrote:
So now that that's resolved... Can anyone help me out? How to unlock the multiplier and increase the voltage to the processor? Lower number multiplied is better correct? Ex. 10 > 12
so no way to get higher multiplier with that cpu I guess
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
damn... voltage increases?[69th_GFH]GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
quote from other trech forums about unlocking am2/939 multipliers: bridges are laser cut, no getting past them.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm not sure, but I reckon it'll involve some soldering. Still fancy doing it?ReDevilJR wrote:
So now that that's resolved... Can anyone help me out? How to unlock the multiplier and increase the voltage to the processor? Lower number multiplied is better correct? Ex. 10 > 12
so no way to get higher multiplier with that cpu I guess
go to Bios. you can change voltages from thereReDevilJR wrote:
damn... voltage increases?[69th_GFH]GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
quote from other trech forums about unlocking am2/939 multipliers: bridges are laser cut, no getting past them.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm not sure, but I reckon it'll involve some soldering. Still fancy doing it?
so no way to get higher multiplier with that cpu I guess
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
BIOSReDevilJR wrote:
damn... voltage increases?[69th_GFH]GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
quote from other trech forums about unlocking am2/939 multipliers: bridges are laser cut, no getting past them.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm not sure, but I reckon it'll involve some soldering. Still fancy doing it?
so no way to get higher multiplier with that cpu I guess
Maybe you could do some pencil shading to up the FSB.... (if you're brave/foolish enough)
What MB is it?
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-16 17:40:29)
I know, I can change the frequency, but there's no where to increase the voltage...
all in sig.
ASUS A8N32-SLI Deluxe Socket 939
all in sig.
ASUS A8N32-SLI Deluxe Socket 939
Last edited by ReDevilJR (2007-05-16 17:40:38)
I could change the voltage on my A8N-SLI Deluxe. You should be able to.ReDevilJR wrote:
I know, I can change the frequency, but there's no where to increase the voltage...
all in sig.
ASUS A8N32-SLI Deluxe Socket 939
Look harder.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-16 17:43:24)
Jumperfree config area?