Second Step: 4 GHz (FSB1688)

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.
- Previous page First Step: 400 MHz FSB And 3.8 GHz
- Next page Third Step: 4.2 GHz (FSB1772)
- Wolfdale Shrinks Transistors, Grows Core 2
- Intel Skulltrail II - Overclocking and Power Consumption
- Intel Skulltrail I - Feeling the Power of 8 Cores
- Intel Skulltrail III - Eight against Four Performance Comparison
- Comparing AMD CPU Efficiency
- AMD Phenom 9600 Black Edition – A New Hope?
- Phenom vs. Athlon Core Scaling Compared
- Intel Power Consumption Then and Now
- The Phenom vs. Athlon Core Shootout
- Ultimate Budget Overclocking Box - A 3.5 GHz Core 2 System with a...
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?
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
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.
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.