If BCLK OC means that the times of fun overclockable cheap chips (Haswell based Celeron's/Pentium's) like the ones of "775 era" is back, the only thing I have to say about this platform is:
If BCLK OC means that the times of fun overclockable cheap chips (Haswell based Celeron's/Pentium's) like the ones of "775 era" is back, the only thing I have to say about this platform is:
there are probably steps like x79 100, 125, etc for the bclk and they might not be as flexible straying away from those steps. I assume they would lock that down on cheap chips..just conjecture though
there are probably steps like x79 100, 125, etc for the bclk and they might not be as flexible straying away from those steps. I assume they would lock that down on cheap chips..just conjecture though
Sure, but it's always better than actual 100+/-10% BCLK OC that we have with 1155 Sandy/Ivy and that would make the cheap chips oc able. But being somewhat realistic, I don't expect to see Intel allowing BCLK OC on these cheap chips too...
Overclocking has become just another product feature that Intel can charge for. Just like
- hyperthreading
- amount of cores
- amount of cache
- type of IGP
- virtualisation
- dram ratios
And so on.
There has been no confirmed (or leaked) product information regarding the correct configuration of the SKUs, just guesses, so we can only make assumptions here. But it seems fairly obvious that the non K-sku processors will not have the option to play with PEG:DMI (bclk gear ratio) settings.
The 3820 has gear ratios despite being a non-K, so some of 'em might. Almost certainly not the low end stuff though.
Hah, same response I had .
I was made aware of the fact that the Core i7 3820 was part of the most high-end desktop platform and that Haswell is a replacement for the mainstream platform. Between the lines, it probably meant that all non-K sku CPUs built for a high-end X-chipset will have additional overclocking options compared those for a mainstream Z-chipset.
IDF 2012 docs say that L3 cache is on ring frequency and power domain. IDF2013 China docs say L3 is on core domain. I think the former is correct?
BTW, what you call eDRAM is not on-die (it's a separate die on the same package), also the small e for embedded is not exactly correct, since it's a separate die
IDF 2012 docs say that L3 cache is on ring frequency and power domain. IDF2013 China docs say L3 is on core domain. I think the former is correct?
BTW, what you call eDRAM is not on-die (it's a separate die on the same package), also the small e for embedded is not exactly correct, since it's a separate die
Thanks for the corrections. L3 must be on Ring frequency as it's shared between all cores.
There wasn't that much information on the eDRAM - even behind-the-scenes. All the info we got was "additional cache", "in-house design" and "super dooper fast".
The CPUs were just not capable of doing much more than 170MHz BCLK. To fully use the 2.5x ratio, you'd need to use a BCLK of 68MHz with 2.5x gear ratio. Anything below 95MHz BCLK on SB-E was already a struggle.
but can the PCi-E bus itself not the CPU, i am talking about the GPU go below? Maybe, idk. I have one GPu i used to do that 117mh BCLK, so i guess you can go the other direction, but i always felt it could go up more than down.
Any new thoughts about "is L3 cache running at core or ring frequency" thing? What would you guys think if core AND ring frequency boost L3 cache performance at a 2/3 (core) and 1/3 (ring) relationship? Wouldn't it be a nice idea that L3-cache runs at core frequency and ringbus only boosts the interface between the cores and the L3-cache?
Given L3-cache and ring share one clock domain in fact and run at the same frequency - for what reasons would the core frequency affect synthetic L3 performance values much more than the ring frequency or e. g. CPU NB clock frequency of AMD CPUs?
If I recall the IDF presentation correctly, the Intel engineers mentioned that "even though the Ring Bus frequency can be adjusted, they have not seen major performance gains in the labs". And then they asked the reviewers and power users to test it themselves
can someone plz advise me how to play with rtl-settings on maximus?
if i change one setting one step up or down i get 55 no matter what volts....
i get non consistent rtl=changes after reboots on auto and i think this is only setting effecting 3d11mark pysx score.(maybe interesting for massman in x79 pysx).
You can download the .pdf slides as shown at IDF here: https://intel.activeevents.com/bj13/scheduler/catalog.do (just search for "overclocking"). There's a bunch of other interesting material there as well.
All the information in this article should be public knowledge, no NDAs broken.
link has a small typo...
Thanks for all that information PJ!
thanks a lot!
If BCLK OC means that the times of fun overclockable cheap chips (Haswell based Celeron's/Pentium's) like the ones of "775 era" is back, the only thing I have to say about this platform is:
Why do we get tips to bench Ivy ? so confused by this...
there are probably steps like x79 100, 125, etc for the bclk and they might not be as flexible straying away from those steps. I assume they would lock that down on cheap chips..just conjecture though
Sure, but it's always better than actual 100+/-10% BCLK OC that we have with 1155 Sandy/Ivy and that would make the cheap chips oc able. But being somewhat realistic, I don't expect to see Intel allowing BCLK OC on these cheap chips too...
But well... The hope is the last thing to die!
I guess only the K-suffix CPUs will have the option to change the bclk.
overclockable or not, low-end CPUs are only good for hardware points
Overclocking has become just another product feature that Intel can charge for. Just like
- hyperthreading
- amount of cores
- amount of cache
- type of IGP
- virtualisation
- dram ratios
And so on.
There has been no confirmed (or leaked) product information regarding the correct configuration of the SKUs, just guesses, so we can only make assumptions here. But it seems fairly obvious that the non K-sku processors will not have the option to play with PEG:DMI (bclk gear ratio) settings.
The 3820 has gear ratios despite being a non-K, so some of 'em might. Almost certainly not the low end stuff though.
Hah, same response I had
.
I was made aware of the fact that the Core i7 3820 was part of the most high-end desktop platform and that Haswell is a replacement for the mainstream platform. Between the lines, it probably meant that all non-K sku CPUs built for a high-end X-chipset will have additional overclocking options compared those for a mainstream Z-chipset.
thanks for the info Peter
Interesting info, thanks for sharing, PJ - maybe decision to skip Haswell was made bit too soon
K-CPUs, better binned
IDF 2012 docs say that L3 cache is on ring frequency and power domain. IDF2013 China docs say L3 is on core domain. I think the former is correct?
BTW, what you call eDRAM is not on-die (it's a separate die on the same package), also the small e for embedded is not exactly correct, since it's a separate die
but.. I thought eDRAM will be only mobile CPUs (GT3), or not?
Thanks for the corrections. L3 must be on Ring frequency as it's shared between all cores.
There wasn't that much information on the eDRAM - even behind-the-scenes. All the info we got was "additional cache", "in-house design" and "super dooper fast".
SB/IB the L3 runs at core speed, doesn't it?
It could be anywhere!
200 BCLK ftw
Shhht
Very nice article , thanks for sharing Pieter.
8 gigahertz cpu !!!
No.
6.7ghz ftw! so about 7.1 - 7.2 ish ivy speed 32m/PF I hope
everyone will bench pedro benchmark again.
and AM3 Hiwa, bandwith whores !!!
Btw,
CPU-Z 1.64 display CPU VRM voltage,instead of CPU Vcore.
Oh, only 188MHz ?
Published........atm.
For some reason BCLK close to 200 just seems right... 1366 days
Wonder who'll get the 2.5x gear ratio working
I never got it to work on X79
That's because the CPUs were just not capable of running anything near that
.
Maybe they are now ... not sure about this, actually.
16*250=4000 should have been working
The CPUs were just not capable of doing much more than 170MHz BCLK. To fully use the 2.5x ratio, you'd need to use a BCLK of 68MHz with 2.5x gear ratio. Anything below 95MHz BCLK on SB-E was already a struggle.
yea but you thin you can run the PCI-E less than 90mhz?
It's possible for Haswell to go below 90 bclk.
but can the PCi-E bus itself not the CPU, i am talking about the GPU go below? Maybe, idk. I have one GPu i used to do that 117mh BCLK, so i guess you can go the other direction, but i always felt it could go up more than down.
Any new thoughts about "is L3 cache running at core or ring frequency" thing? What would you guys think if core AND ring frequency boost L3 cache performance at a 2/3 (core) and 1/3 (ring) relationship? Wouldn't it be a nice idea that L3-cache runs at core frequency and ringbus only boosts the interface between the cores and the L3-cache?
Given L3-cache and ring share one clock domain in fact and run at the same frequency - for what reasons would the core frequency affect synthetic L3 performance values much more than the ring frequency or e. g. CPU NB clock frequency of AMD CPUs?
If I recall the IDF presentation correctly, the Intel engineers mentioned that "even though the Ring Bus frequency can be adjusted, they have not seen major performance gains in the labs". And then they asked the reviewers and power users to test it themselves
Aside from superpi and couple of 2d benchmarks+2001,gains are not so big as you'd expect to,pretty much below 5%....
http://gyazo.com/ec6cda84bda05f8daf0f38dd9f261c6e.png
can someone plz advise me how to play with rtl-settings on maximus?
if i change one setting one step up or down i get 55 no matter what volts....
i get non consistent rtl=changes after reboots on auto and i think this is only setting effecting 3d11mark pysx score.(maybe interesting for massman in x79 pysx).
thanks in advance
lower bclk for instance to 98,6 mhz and try to boot, you have to pass memory training first before going full mhz
Bascom my way to adjust RTLs @M6E is as follows:
1. Set all RTLs & RTL-IOs to desired values iat the same time. (eg. 39/39/40/40 4/4/4/4 - do not change only one parameter).
2. Start adjusting RTL initial value in small steps from 63 to smth like 40 (63, 61, 59 etc) trying to post/train with a given RTL initial value.
For my PSC kit @2600 I was able to adjust rtls from 42/42/47/45 4/4/9/7 to 41/41/42/42 4/4/4/4 with RTL initial value of 44.
I beleive RTL initial value is a key for successful post.
thx very much xtreme addict.
its better then before now,but i am still not able to put values manuell.
best score i get is with 39\40\40\41 and this is only sometimes after boots if i am lucky
only rtl initial value i can do manuell.
does more ramvolt help you with lower rtl?-me is not getting lower values.
thx terraraptor-will try and report.
ex:my last 3 boots on rtl-auto:39\39\40\41 ; 39\39\40\40 : 39\40\41\40
my sys:max6gene 1002-17600cl7 pi-1:9 2424mhz cl8-11-8
thanks a lot Terraraptor & Xtremeaddict
with your help i can finally boot with manuell rtl.
2424mhz rtlinit-44 \\ 39\39\40\40
Please log in or register to comment.