Second Step: 4 GHz (FSB1688)

Ad

A clock speed of 4 GHz could be reached using Gigabyte’s auto overclocking mechanism, but it wouldn’t provide more voltage to the motherboard components, which we found was required to achieve higher clock speeds.

We tried 4 GHz next. Since the automatic overclocking would not allow us to reach stable processor operation at 4 GHz and above due to missing voltage support, we decided to go ahead with manual settings. A 422-MHz system speed times 9.5 would give us a 4009-MHz clock speed. While 1.345 V core voltage was still enough to run 4009 MHz, we had to adjust the chipset voltage of the X38 by +0.25 V, the FSB voltage by +0.15 V and the memory voltage by +0.3 V, as the DDR2 memory clock speed increased from 400 to 422 MHz as well. We did not change the timings, hence we had to increase the voltage to maintain them.

I found it nice to see that Intel’s Enhanced SpeedStep feature, which was designed to reduce the clock speed and the core voltage when the processor runs at low processing loads or idle, was fully implemented and worked properly in our test system. While the system speed and memory speed are not affected by SpeedStep, the core voltage typically is. In our overclocked scenario, however, we would not want the system to reduce the CPU voltage as well, as the 0.95 V core voltage required for a 2000-MHz core clock (333 MHz x6) at default settings would never be enough to maintain reliable operation at our overclocked 2532 MHz in SpeedStep mode (422 MHz x6). The reduction in clock speed alone provides for some power savings.

It was interesting to see that the Enhanced SpeedStep still worked when the system was highly overclocked. The multiplier drops from x9.5 to x6 when the system is idle.


Talkback
mactronix 22/02/2008 11:57
Hide
-0+
mactronix
I will admit to not really being a regular overclocker but isnt the whole point about getting the best out of your hardware and in essance getting something for nothing.
from that view point i would have thought it would have made sence to at least include the 8200 for comparison, If not have done the whole article on it instead of the 8500. Or am i missing the point?
Wild9 24/02/2008 03:02
Hide
-0+
Wild9
Quote :Unlike AMD, which must produce its 90-nm processors closer to their technical and thermal limits to stay competitive, Intel plays on its manufacturing prowess, which is at least 12 months ahead of that of AMD.


Intel has no dedicated inter-connect, no onboard MMU. All inter-core communication for both dual and quad-core CPU's has to go via the FSB. Intel is late catching up because it got complacent.

Also, AMD CPU's at the bottom end still overclock well and are very cheap. I don't think everything is in Intel's favour ;)
Wild9 24/02/2008 03:21
Hide
-0+
Wild9
Quote :However, AMD’s overclocking margins haven’t been as large compared to what Intel’s modern processors offer.


Socket 939 90nm Athlon64 3200+ (2.0GHz) can hit 2.7GHz or more on air. Same for Socket AM2 65nm Athlon64x2 4000+ (2.1GHz).

..not bad considering it's a generation before C2D.
Wild9 24/02/2008 11:54
Hide
-0+
Wild9
Is it me or doesn't there appear ot be much of a difference between the 266 and newer 333MHz FSB speed?
darthpoik 26/02/2008 12:28
Hide
-0+
darthpoik
wild9 :
Intel has no dedicated inter-connect, no onboard MMU. All inter-core communication for both dual and quad-core CPU's has to go via the FSB. Intel is late catching up because it got complacent.Also, AMD CPU's at the bottom end still overclock well and are very cheap. I don't think everything is in Intel's favour



Am I wrong in thinking the intel dual core does have inter core communication on chip. It is the quad core that communicates via the fsb for but only between the two core 2 duo dies.

Note You are going to post a comment as anonymous.



Google Ads