Intel's 65nm Processors: Overclocking Preview
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 25, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Overclocking Potential of Intel's 65nm Processors
The biggest question on our mind was how far we could push Intel's new 65nm processors. Keep in mind that these are still early 65nm samples and the actual launch is still some time away, so overclocking potential could very well improve beyond what we report here. That being said, the launch of Cedar Mill and Presler is quite possibly the last time that we will be able to hit extremely high clock speeds for a very long time on Intel processors, so we were quite curious.
First up was Cedar Mill, which we had running at 3.60GHz at 1.300V by default. Our first test was to see how far we could get it without increasing the core voltage, and the best that we could do there was 4.25GHz (250MHz x 17.0).
Our next test was to see how high we could push the 3.60GHz processor on a stock Intel HSF. The result ended up being 4.50GHz at 1.4125V, using a 250MHz FSB and the chip's default 18x clock multiplier:
Next up was the dual-core Presler, which ran at a stock speed of 3.40GHz at 1.300V. Without increasing the core voltage at all, we couldn't break 3.5GHz on our Presler sample, so we went straight to bumping up the voltage. At 1.3625V, we managed to get Presler up to 4.25GHz (250MHz x 17.0), which was a fairly reasonable boost. The best overclocks that we have seen on a Smithfield based Pentium D have taken the chip up to 3.9GHz, so breaking 4.0GHz on a dual core Pentium D is pretty impressive (especially with twice the cache).
The biggest question on our mind was how far we could push Intel's new 65nm processors. Keep in mind that these are still early 65nm samples and the actual launch is still some time away, so overclocking potential could very well improve beyond what we report here. That being said, the launch of Cedar Mill and Presler is quite possibly the last time that we will be able to hit extremely high clock speeds for a very long time on Intel processors, so we were quite curious.
First up was Cedar Mill, which we had running at 3.60GHz at 1.300V by default. Our first test was to see how far we could get it without increasing the core voltage, and the best that we could do there was 4.25GHz (250MHz x 17.0).
Our next test was to see how high we could push the 3.60GHz processor on a stock Intel HSF. The result ended up being 4.50GHz at 1.4125V, using a 250MHz FSB and the chip's default 18x clock multiplier:
Next up was the dual-core Presler, which ran at a stock speed of 3.40GHz at 1.300V. Without increasing the core voltage at all, we couldn't break 3.5GHz on our Presler sample, so we went straight to bumping up the voltage. At 1.3625V, we managed to get Presler up to 4.25GHz (250MHz x 17.0), which was a fairly reasonable boost. The best overclocks that we have seen on a Smithfield based Pentium D have taken the chip up to 3.9GHz, so breaking 4.0GHz on a dual core Pentium D is pretty impressive (especially with twice the cache).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
43 Comments
View All Comments
Beenthere - Friday, October 28, 2005 - link
In my not so humble opinion, one could write a doctorate thesis on the mistakes Intel has made in design and execution of it's PC products over the past 6 years. With today's announcement that Intel is canceling "White powder up Hotellini's nose" and "Tuck it up your butt Willy", you know the fools on the hill have no clue. As anyone in the IT industry knows, Intel does not respond well to competition let alone superior products by the competition. Intel has made one blunder after the other since AMD launched Athlon years ago. Intel has had repeated defective products, canceled products, delayed products, missed delivery dates, factory closings, chipset shortages requiring them to buy ATI chipsets, etc. The list of BLUNDERS by Intel is almost endless and continues as I write.http://www.theregister.com/2005/10/29/intel_xeon_2...">http://www.theregister.com/2005/10/29/intel_xeon_2...
Having a marginal 65 nano process at best, which actually just about competes on power consumption with AMD's 90 nano process, shows quite clearly that Intel is WAY behind the eightball despite the media hype! As history has shown, despite the years of denial, the P4 was a defective design rushed to market to try and kill Athlon, which it never accomplished. Now with Intel's most recent chip "delays" which will turn to cancellations next year, you will see some more cobbled crap from Intel that only losers would even consider buying.
So once again just as with their 90 nano process, that was according to Intel: "ahead of their development schedule", and then showed up in the marketplace over a year LATE and it was STILL a defective design as released with massive voltage leakage that required special cooling, cases, etc. Intel's 65 nano process hasn't even allowed them to catch up to AMD's existing products. It's all just hype and no substance, as usual for Intel.
What we have is Intel's PR machine spinning overtime as usual and no competitive products ANYWHERE in Intel's product line. They even lost their minimal advantage with the Pentium M in the laptop segment as the 25W and 35W Turions have stolen Intel's lunch. Bottom line is only a fool would buy any Intel product in the foreseeable future when AMD's products, by virtually all industry standards and reports, are far, far superior. It's encouraging to see consumers voting with their wallets. At least some consumers and industry sources have seen thru Intel's deception and purchased AMD products. Intel's days of extortion are pretty much over now that the cat is outta the bag.
IntelUser2000 - Friday, November 4, 2005 - link
Beenthere, how is having bad processor equate to having bad process technology??? Are most people that uninformed and stupid??? If Intel introduced Dothan for their first 90nm part, then people would have been praising Intel's 90nm process. Intel rather put Prescott out first, so people thought badly about it. If you DO read about what happened, focus has been all shifted to Merom/Conroe, OUT OF CEDARMILL/PRESLER PROJECTS. What happens then?? All the speedpath optimizations and low power optimizations that are supposed to go to Cedarmill/Presler went to Merom/Conroe. Merom will be ~30W DESPITE the fact its dual core, 4-wide architecture. Does Pentium M have low power compared to Prescott because its on a better process technology??? No.Intel has one of the best 90nm process, if not THE best.
Thatguy97 - Monday, May 25, 2015 - link
conroe proved you an idioteljefeII - Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - link
hehehe, yeah! yeah! intel s-s-smokes! yeah yeah!65 nm did like, um, a lot, yea, hhehhe. I don't see anything heheh, hehehhe. hehehhe.
Shut up beavis. Just like buy it and stuff.
hehhe yeah! buy it BUY IT BUY IT!!!
Zebo - Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - link
It's nice to see this will be a decent enthusiast chip.. Guys should get 1500-2000Mhz overclocks which will put some excitment into to the overclocking scene again. Sure stock they will suck but people I know don't run that way. A 4.5Ghz Cedar is fast no doubt about it probably equates to a 3Ghz A64 in a round table of benchmarks. As it happens 3Ghz seems pretty normal these days especially with the new Opteron 939's. So it would be great to hold a "overclockers shootout" of some sort when you guys have time. Say a 144 Opteron vs. Pentium 631 :DOne small error PP: 2 "Presler is physically two separate dice on a shared package,"
Die
danidentity - Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - link
The correct term is actually 'dies'. Dice is the plural form of die only when referring to the cube you play board games with. ;)yacoub - Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - link
This man is correct.coldpower27 - Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - link
Isn't Dice the plural form of Die though?GonzoDaGr8 - Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - link
DiesZebo - Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - link
Edit I meant presler and 930 respectivly.