Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › Intel to break the 4GHz barrier in 2008
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel to break the 4GHz barrier in 2008 - Page 6

post #51 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetos316 View Post
I thought the high OCs on Intel chips were due to the silicon used ie. the strain on the silicon that allowed for the super high speeds. The SOI silicon that AMD uses doesn't allow for high speeds because it was optimized for minimizing leakage. Intel showed with the P4 architecture that their silicon was able to reach insane clocks. Now they just ported that same high speed silicon over to a much better architecture.
What you are referring to is the pipeline length. Intel's Netburst architecture contained a 31 stage pipeline stages compared to AMD's (11?). The new Core architecture has shortened the stage pipelines to (14?). Here is the result as highlighted by Anandtech and Intel:

Quote:
Curious about our overclocking successes, we asked Intel why Core 2 CPUs are able to overclock close to the same levels as NetBurst processors can, despite having less than half the pipeline length. Intel gave us the following explanation:
NetBurst microarchitecture is constrained by physical power / thermal limitations long before the constraint of pipeline stages comes into play. The microarchitecture itself would continue to scale upwards if not for the power constraints. (In fact, we have seen Presler overclocked to 6 GHz in liquid nitrogen environments. At that level, power delivery through the power supply & board itself begin to limit further scaling of the processor.)
Intel's explanation makes a great deal of sense, especially when you remember the original claims that NetBurst was supposed to be good for between 5GHz - 10GHz. NetBurst never got the chance to reach its true overclocking prime as Intel hit thermal density walls well before the 5GHz - 10GHz range and thus Intel's Core architecture was born. Intel's Core 2 processors once again give us an example of the good ol' days of Intel overclocking, where moving to a smaller manufacturing process meant we'd have some highly overclockable chips on our hands. With NetBurst dead and buried, the golden age of overclocking is back.
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
post #52 of 55
Nice find. Do you have the link for that? I'd like to read the whole article. So what's limiting AMD chips from OCing that high? The K8 architecture is similiar to Core in terms of efficiency, but can't OC anywhere near as high.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X2 5000+ BE Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H AM2+ Integrated HD3200 2x2GB OCZ DDR2 
Hard DriveMonitorPowerCase
Maxtor 40GB Samsung 2220WM 22" Antec Neo HE 550W Ultra Wizard 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X2 5000+ BE Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H AM2+ Integrated HD3200 2x2GB OCZ DDR2 
Hard DriveMonitorPowerCase
Maxtor 40GB Samsung 2220WM 22" Antec Neo HE 550W Ultra Wizard 
  hide details  
Reply
post #53 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetos316 View Post
Nice find. Do you have the link for that? I'd like to read the whole article. So what's limiting AMD chips from OCing that high? The K8 architecture is similiar to Core in terms of efficiency, but can't OC anywhere near as high.
Likely the architecture itself, though AMD does have a 3.2ghz FX-76 on 90nm planned.

In any case, K8L will be out later in 2007, which will be fine tuned for 65nm, unlike K8 which was basically put on 130nm, then fine tuned for 90nm.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 3600+ X2 Biostar Tforce 550 BFG 7600GT OC Corsair XMS DDR675 2x1024 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD 160GB + WD 80GB SATA Windows XP Pro Compaq MV720 Logitech 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
FSP FX600-GLN Aspire X-Cruiser Black Razer Copperhead Tempest Ratzpad GS 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 3600+ X2 Biostar Tforce 550 BFG 7600GT OC Corsair XMS DDR675 2x1024 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD 160GB + WD 80GB SATA Windows XP Pro Compaq MV720 Logitech 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
FSP FX600-GLN Aspire X-Cruiser Black Razer Copperhead Tempest Ratzpad GS 
  hide details  
Reply
post #54 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetos316 View Post
Nice find. Do you have the link for that? I'd like to read the whole article. So what's limiting AMD chips from OCing that high? The K8 architecture is similiar to Core in terms of efficiency, but can't OC anywhere near as high.
I believe it has to do with the inflexibility of the HTT link. Too far north or south of 2000mhz will prove incredibly unstable, so FSB clocking is restricted greatly. If only you could just bump the multi up several times, it would be a fantastic overclocker (as long as it's within thermal spec)... but AMD doesn't want to let the consumer do that without paying premium for the FX series.
Sandy Beach
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500K @ 4.5GHz/1.32v P8P67-PRO [BIOS 1704] MSI GTX780 TFIV G.Skill 4x4GB DDR3-1600 (8-8-8-24-1T) 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
512GB 850EVO, WD Black 1TB & ES.2 1TB & Cuda 3TB XSPC Rasa w/ RS240 Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Dell SX2210 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Filco Ninja w/ Browns SilverStone Strider Plus 750W [Sleeved] Custom Stacker 832 Logitech G500 
Mouse Pad
Steelseries 4HD 
  hide details  
Reply
Sandy Beach
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500K @ 4.5GHz/1.32v P8P67-PRO [BIOS 1704] MSI GTX780 TFIV G.Skill 4x4GB DDR3-1600 (8-8-8-24-1T) 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
512GB 850EVO, WD Black 1TB & ES.2 1TB & Cuda 3TB XSPC Rasa w/ RS240 Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Dell SX2210 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Filco Ninja w/ Browns SilverStone Strider Plus 750W [Sleeved] Custom Stacker 832 Logitech G500 
Mouse Pad
Steelseries 4HD 
  hide details  
Reply
post #55 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetos316 View Post
Nice find. Do you have the link for that? I'd like to read the whole article. So what's limiting AMD chips from OCing that high? The K8 architecture is similiar to Core in terms of efficiency, but can't OC anywhere near as high.
Articles that may interest you:

Intel Core vs AMD K8

Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme: The Empire Strikes Back
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › Intel to break the 4GHz barrier in 2008