The Socket 939 Appreciation Club and Knowledgebase [Official] - Page 760 - Overclock.net

blitz6804 · 10-01-08

Nope. My Toledo was 89 W and still had 1024k of L2 cache. Toledos other than the 4800+ and FX-60 were 89 W.

**thlnk3r** · 10-01-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by blitz6804

Nope. My Toledo was 89 W and still had 1024k of L2 cache. Toledos other than the 4800+ and FX-60 were 89 W.

Blitz, definitely weird. You have one of the older Toledo's with 1mb of L2

There must be some type of reasoning behind the 89W TDP model. Perhaps a revision to the architecture? I guess we'll never know

Good luck

**txtmstrjoe** · 10-01-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by blitz6804

Nope. My Toledo was 89 W and still had 1024k of L2 cache. Toledos other than the 4800+ and FX-60 were 89 W.

Not completely correct. 110W Athlon64 X2 4400+ Toledos were also available.

Feature for feature, these are identical to the Denmark Opterons.

EDIT: thlnk3r, perhaps Blitz meant that his Toledo had 1024k of L2 cache per core.

Also, as to why there was an 89W variant of the Toledo, it's a mystery to me as well. I know that mine didn't OC all that well (Blitz's did much better); of course, mine had the dreaded "BW" IMC version.

**thlnk3r** · 10-01-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by txtmstrjoe

Not completely correct. 110W Athlon64 X2 4400+ Toledos were also available.

Feature for feature, these are identical to the Denmark Opterons.

Joe, it's just weird how the Opteron's had a higher TDP. These were designated for the server market so maybe the tolerances were modified to handle much more load and heat....

blitz6804 · 10-01-08

It is interesting to note that the 110 W models topped out at 65º C whereas the 89 W models topped out at 71º C. Maybe someone wants to call AMD and ask them what the heck was going on?

And yes, I meant 1024 KB per core.

**thlnk3r** · 10-01-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by blitz6804

It is interesting to note that the 110 W models topped out at 65º C whereas the 89 W models topped out at 71º C. Maybe someone wants to call AMD and ask them what the heck was going on?

Blitz, I don't think any of that documentation on "peak" load temps is true. Many of us here have taken our Opterons WAY above 65C. That is one thing that I think is skewed on AMD's documentation. Of course this was probably published for precautionary reasons.

Good luck

**txtmstrjoe** · 10-01-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by thlnk3r

Joe, it's just weird how the Opteron's had a higher TDP. These were designated for the server market so maybe the tolerances were modified to handle much more load and heat....

Well... I personally have never been convinced by anything from AMD that the S939 Opterons (both the dual-core Denmark and the single-core Venus) were any different in terms of architecture (which really is the most important consideration, in my opinion) and feature sets/capabilities from their Athlon64 counterparts (dual-core Toledo and single-core San Diego). S940 Opterons, for sure, are a "true" server chip design; S939 Opterons, on the other hand, trade off of the reflected glory earned by their S940 sisters.

This is a topic that has long been a personal fascination, sometimes bordering on obsession. The major frustration is the complete silence from AMD regarding questions asking about any differences (if any) other than the core code-name assignments regarding their S939 CPUs with 1MB L2 cache per core. Until such confirming information is forthcoming from AMD, I can only personally conclude that it is a marketing decision (a quite sage one, in my opinion) to use the Opteron name for S939 and imply that it is a server-grade product.

blitz6804 · 10-01-08

Of course that is not the "peak" temperature. That is merely the temperature where, if exceeded, you might start causing damage to a processor. Passing that temperature would void your warranty if they could see you did it.

Something that is bothering me: why do some users have black names instead of navy blue? I know blue and green go to forum staff and navy blue are members. Is black overclocked members?

**txtmstrjoe** · 10-01-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by blitz6804

Of course that is not the "peak" temperature. That is merely the temperature where, if exceeded, you might start causing damage to a processor. Passing that temperature would void your warranty if they could see you did it.

Well said. In fact, these CPUs are incredibly resilient. According to the father of one of my best friends, who is an electrical engineer by trade who works in semiconductor design and manufacture, modern CPUs are engineered to operate at sustained temperatures approaching 100 degs C (if not more; the real figures depend on the specific designs).

Mind you, this doesn't exactly mean the processor will work perfectly reliably at such high sustained temperatures.

Hardware manufacturers likely never disclose the actual peak temperatures of their products because of warranty claims in the event end-users get careless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blitz6804

Something that is bothering me: why do some users have black names instead of navy blue? I know blue and green go to forum staff and navy blue are members. Is black overclocked members?

Yep.

**thlnk3r** · 10-01-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by txtmstrjoe

Until such confirming information is forthcoming from AMD, I can only personally conclude that it is a marketing decision (a quite sage one, in my opinion) to use the Opteron name for S939 and imply that it is a server-grade product.

I'm in agreement of course. The S939 Opterons were considered the 100 series "1-way servers and workstations" class. Seeming the architecture is identical to other S939 cores such as the Toledo I'm almost certain it was a marketing decision as well. According to AMD the scalability of the 100 series was 1-way. "Way" meaning the amount of sockets on the motherboard. The 200 series is 2-way and the 300 series was 8-way. The 100 seris, 200 and 300 are actually quite the same in NM, HT, ECC ect ect. There are however HE models that had a 55W TDP like the S939 165HE. Other then that there isn't much differences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blitz6804

Of course that is not the "peak" temperature. That is merely the temperature where, if exceeded, you might start causing damage to a processor. Passing that temperature would void your warranty if they could see you did it.

Blitz, AMD refers to this as "Max Temps (C)". When I see the word "Max" it makes me think that is the "maximum" load temperature. Either way it doesn't matter

Good luck

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > AMD > AMD - General
The Socket 939 Appreciation Club and Knowledgebase [Official]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)