Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 89
  1. #16
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Crestview FL
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,104

    Re: 3200+ Venice @ 2.8 GHz

    Well from another site they tested the Venice with phase change @-50c and got the proc to run at 3.2GHz as far as i know stable.So the cold bug has been fixed^_^.

  2. #17
    Joined
    May 2003
    Location
    Steilacoom, WA
    Posts
    186

    Re: 3200+ Venice @ 2.8 GHz

    Ryan,
    Am curious as to why you chose to compare a Newcastle (3800 according to your cpuz shot) to the Venice instead of using a Winchester 3200. Would have been more of an apples to apples comparison I would think. I know a lot of winnie's can overclock @ numbers not much less than 2.8 although not at such low voltage. Would have been interesting to see them both pushed on the same system.

  3. #18
    Joined
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    6,871

    Re: 3200+ Venice @ 2.8 GHz

    probably because both processors have 512 cache, where as the winchester has 1mb... thats more of apples to apples, im not sure how winchester is similar to the venice...

  4. #19
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    2,745

    Re: 3200+ Venice @ 2.8 GHz

    Quote Originally Posted by boardsportsrule
    probably because both processors have 512 cache, where as the winchester has 1mb... thats more of apples to apples, im not sure how winchester is similar to the venice...
    All winchesters have 512k cache, clawhammers are currently the only cores that have 1mb cache.

    Newcastles, winchesters, & venice are all comparable cores with 512k cache.
    i7 Beast: Asus P6T Deluxe, Intel i7 920 21x191 (4000) HT on 1.3875v, Swiftech GTZ/D5/BIX2
    6GB (3x2GB) G.Skill pi Black DDR3 1600, ECS 9600GT
    CM STACKER 810, PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750


    i7 Game: Asus P6T, Intel i7 920 20x180 (3600) HT on 1.275v, TRU-120
    6GB (3x2GB) G.Skill DDR3 1333 7-7-7-18, MSI GTX260 OCv2, Dell 3007WFP LCD
    CM STACKER 830, PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750


    AMD: Biostar 790GX A2+, PII X4 940BE 17x200, Freezer 64 Pro
    4GB (4x1GB) Ballistix Tracer DDR2 800, Powercolor 4850
    Corsair VX450

  5. #20
    Joined
    May 2001
    Posts
    162

    Re: 3200+ Venice @ 2.8 GHz

    Quote Originally Posted by boardsportsrule
    probably because both processors have 512 cache, where as the winchester has 1mb... thats more of apples to apples, im not sure how winchester is similar to the venice...

    Last time i checked, my 3200+ winnnie had 512K cache.
    A64 3200+ Winnie @ 2650MHZ 10x Multi
    DFI nForce4 Ultra-D
    2x512 PQI Turbo PC4000 TCCD @ 265MHZ FSB 1:1
    X850XT PCI-E
    1x Raptor 74GB SATA
    1x Seagate 80GB SATAII
    NEC 16X Dual Layer DVD-R
    48x TDK CD-R
    Onboard NIC
    Audigy 2 ZS
    Enermax 495AX PSU

  6. #21
    Joined
    May 2000
    Location
    Florence, KY, USA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    5,143

    Re: 3200+ Venice @ 2.8 GHz

    Quote Originally Posted by RoboTech
    Looks very promising...

    How did you come by your power consumption numbers Ryan? What is exactly being measured in watts?
    Power numbers came from a plug-based Seasonic Power Meter. Idle power was taken at the windows desktop and the load numbers were taken from a rendering run of Cinebench 2003.
    Ryan Shrout
    Owner, PC Perspective
    rshrout -at- pcper -dot- com
    --= Follow me on Twitter =--


  7. #22
    Joined
    May 2000
    Location
    Florence, KY, USA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    5,143

    Re: 3200+ Venice @ 2.8 GHz

    I actually chose the Newcastle because it was the only other 3200+ I had on hand during the time I had the Venice core CPU. I didn't test the overclocking of the Newcastle CPU during this test, so I would guess I wouldn't have on the Winchester either, so it wouldn't have made a big difference
    Ryan Shrout
    Owner, PC Perspective
    rshrout -at- pcper -dot- com
    --= Follow me on Twitter =--


  8. #23
    Joined
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,159

    Re: 3200+ Venice @ 2.8 GHz

    thats still one impressive overclock ....hopefully youll be able to get a hold of a turion when thier prices drop...id like to see that

  9. #24
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2

    Re: 3200+ Venice @ 2.8 GHz

    What memory were you using for your Overclock? Given the pictures it looked like you had 280Mhz at 1:1 divider. This equates to DDR560 but the memory you quote in your specs is DDR500 and DDR540. Are you sure this wasn't holding the processor back. Have you had the memory higher?
    Last edited by ca197; 04-07-2005 at 10:53 AM.

  10. #25
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2

    Re: 3200+ Venice @ 2.8 GHz

    Quote Originally Posted by PaternityTest
    thats still one impressive overclock ....hopefully youll be able to get a hold of a turion when thier prices drop...id like to see that
    Actually the Turion have lower speed transisters which are designed for low power usage (20% better). As a result don't expect them to overclock nearly as well as the new Venice core. I would imagine that given Venice was supposed to increase speed by 20% the Turion would be the equivilent of a Winchester. (Obviously I base this on pure and utter conjecture, the best way)

  11. #26
    Joined
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    284

    Re: 3200+ Venice @ 2.8 GHz

    Crap .....so this is a 939 pin then?.....I didn't see if so in the article, and it was compared to the newcastle.
    I'm never trying to intentionally look stupid..........

    Women ask what men want. The answer is simple: MORE!

  12. #27
    Joined
    Mar 2003
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    2,745

    Re: 3200+ Venice @ 2.8 GHz

    Yes, venice is only for s939

    Quote Originally Posted by kooda
    Crap .....so this is a 939 pin then?.....I didn't see if so in the article, and it was compared to the newcastle.
    i7 Beast: Asus P6T Deluxe, Intel i7 920 21x191 (4000) HT on 1.3875v, Swiftech GTZ/D5/BIX2
    6GB (3x2GB) G.Skill pi Black DDR3 1600, ECS 9600GT
    CM STACKER 810, PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750


    i7 Game: Asus P6T, Intel i7 920 20x180 (3600) HT on 1.275v, TRU-120
    6GB (3x2GB) G.Skill DDR3 1333 7-7-7-18, MSI GTX260 OCv2, Dell 3007WFP LCD
    CM STACKER 830, PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750


    AMD: Biostar 790GX A2+, PII X4 940BE 17x200, Freezer 64 Pro
    4GB (4x1GB) Ballistix Tracer DDR2 800, Powercolor 4850
    Corsair VX450

  13. #28
    Joined
    May 2003
    Location
    Steilacoom, WA
    Posts
    186

    Re: 3200+ Venice @ 2.8 GHz

    kooda,

    yes, no mention of the pinning in the article which lead me to a small bit of confusion when the newcastle comparison was initially mentioned because newcastle appears in 754 as well. A relatively older .13 compared to a brand new .09, same cache, smaller die, more instructions sets.........BETTER OVERCLOCKER
    Greg


    DFI LP JR 790GX 01/19/2009 Beta Bios
    AMD Phenom II 940 3.6Ghz at 1.37V (18x200)
    OCZ Platinum 1066 2x2G RAM (stock timings 2.1V) in yellow slots @1066Mhz
    Samsung DVD Burner SATA
    Corsair HX520 PSU
    EVGA 8800GT Video Card
    Seagate 320 & 400 GB SATA II HD's
    Viewsonic VA2026w monitor
    Windows XP Pro Service Pack 3
    Soundblaster XiFi PCI Extreme Music
    Cooled by 1/2" Swiftech H2O

  14. #29
    Joined
    May 2000
    Location
    Florence, KY, USA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    5,143

    Re: 3200+ Venice @ 2.8 GHz

    Yep, thanks for the two notes I need to add fellas. It was a 939 pin processor for both, and the memory was Corsairs XMS PC4400 part.
    Ryan Shrout
    Owner, PC Perspective
    rshrout -at- pcper -dot- com
    --= Follow me on Twitter =--


  15. #30
    Joined
    May 2000
    Location
    Florence, KY, USA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    5,143

    Re: 3200+ Venice @ 2.8 GHz

    Quote Originally Posted by gldnflmr
    kooda,

    yes, no mention of the pinning in the article which lead me to a small bit of confusion when the newcastle comparison was initially mentioned because newcastle appears in 754 as well. A relatively older .13 compared to a brand new .09, same cache, smaller die, more instructions sets.........BETTER OVERCLOCKER
    Yeah, I noted that it was a S939 CPU this time.

    Couple things on your note here though that I think should be said. Though a .09 micron process does usually mean a better yeild and frequency, the indication you make that having a smaller die and more instructions makes it a better overclocker do not. In fact, having a smaller die size to let heat off the CPU and adding addition complexity to the CPU with new instructions typciall make a processor more difficult to OC.
    Ryan Shrout
    Owner, PC Perspective
    rshrout -at- pcper -dot- com
    --= Follow me on Twitter =--


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •