• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

1600 mghz bus

S

sdadept

Limp Gawd
2FA
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
433
anyone know when are the processors that support this going to be out?
 
1333procs just came out with 1066 not too long ago so 1600mhz bus is not gonna happen in the near future.....
 
They wont be out officially for a long time yet. The 965 chipset and current processors are completely capable of running it though (most can do over 2ghz)
 
They already do, at stock voltage nontheless: ;)

ocCustom.jpg


Conroe is more than capable of higher clocks, Intel is just holding the first-generation chips back so that they can release a batch of 3GHz/1333FSB/45nm chips to squash Barcelona (if it ever comes out :p).
 
InorganicMatter said:
They already do, at stock voltage nontheless: ;)



Conroe is more than capable of higher clocks, Intel is just holding the first-generation chips back so that they can release a batch of 3GHz/1333FSB/45nm chips to squash Barcelona (if it ever comes out :p).
Click to expand...

YEAH I figured about the same, funny thing is if you read the Barcelona thread in the AMD section everyone trying to argue that C2D is about to be smashed by Barcelona etc because it's a better platform.

Mwahahaha.. we'll see I can't wait for 45nm.
 
oh that link I posted wasn't my own. it's the current record.

also, inorganic, is that really just 1.35v?? cpuz reports 1.213 which is usually indicative of >1.44v vcore?
 
ziddey said:
, inorganic, is that really just 1.35v?? cpuz reports 1.213 which is usually indicative of >1.44v vcore?
Click to expand...

If its the cpuz glitch, 1.213v is over 1.65v.... 1.6v shows up as 1.136v on mine.....

At 2800mhz i doubt its a glitch though cos that should be easily done at stock....
 
YEAH I figured about the same, funny thing is if you read the Barcelona thread in the AMD section everyone trying to argue that C2D is about to be smashed by Barcelona etc because it's a better platform.
Click to expand...

Clinging to hope, funny how AMD with all its current money issues has not leaked the actual performace numbers, as they are hurting bad for money you would think they would throw something out there to entice the investors unless of course they have nothing to good to show :eek: AMD's investor/analysist meeting yesterday was not pretty.

Oh forgot, to the OP.
anyone know when are the processors that support this going to be out?
Click to expand...

I got mine last sept.
 
luihed said:
If its the cpuz glitch, 1.213v is over 1.65v.... 1.6v shows up as 1.136v on mine.....

At 2800mhz i doubt its a glitch though cos that should be easily done at stock....
Click to expand...

hmm for both the ds3 and p5b, I've seen it switch to 1.213 after 1.448 or whatever that value is
 
I dunno.... I just change to Vista so maybe thats got something to do with it.... I just notice cos I took this shot yesterday and I dont think I can do this below 1.44v....

orthos.jpg
 
I have a question. Why don't the CPU manufactures just make a chip that operates at 3000MHz with a unity multiplier? There's really nothing in the chip that would stop a higher FSB, am I right?

So we're not really waiting for Intel to release 1600 MHz chips, but we're waiting for the MOTHERBOARDS to support higher FSB speeds. It just seems weird to me that people here are thinking the chips with higher FSB speeds are better....you can always change the chip's FSB speed and just lower the multiplier.
 
KenDawg said:
I have a question. Why don't the CPU manufactures just make a chip that operates at 3000MHz with a unity multiplier? There's really nothing in the chip that would stop a higher FSB, am I right?

So we're not really waiting for Intel to release 1600 MHz chips, but we're waiting for the MOTHERBOARDS to support higher FSB speeds. It just seems weird to me that people here are thinking the chips with higher FSB speeds are better....you can always change the chip's FSB speed and just lower the multiplier.
Click to expand...

hard
 
The real issue here is to be able to get PC2-6400 running at stock voltage of 1.84v, which is very rare. Only Micron D9GKX is rated at this speed and you know how desirable those IC is around.

When we can get those RAM widespread, I think we should see a FSB of 1600 MHz being available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top