All 2.8C "MO" owners report in

Thats because @ 2.4ghz with the cache disabled it wont need 1.6V to operate. So Intel I'm sets them at a lower vcore to help with a heat issue.
Click to expand...

Intresting to know. How do you get your information? :eek:
 
Originally posted by Syphon Filter
its educated opinion/guesses.
Click to expand...


what he said, just do the calculations.

an m0 based P4 is a P4EE Cored chip that either Failed 3.2ghz @ 1.6volts or failed it's Cache test, the reason we know M0 are P4ee, or the reason I know is I seen pictures of an EE with no heatspreader on it and a m0 with no heatspreader and a d1 with no heatspreader, the m0 and EE were larger core size and identical to each other, while the d1 was smalled in size.
 
Heh, maybe I should check mine out too. ;) :p

Oh yeah, I sat here and found the absolute highest FSB I could benchmark with using the fluxing voltage on my board.....check sig for updates. :D
 
Think i shall get a 3.0 c m0 since the company i work for allows me to do so with no problems. Good to work part time for a var that produces an average 40 computers a day. Looking at 3.9 ya think on average.
 
Originally posted by xfoureyedgeek
Looking at 3.9 ya think on average.
Click to expand...

That depends on what stepping you get.....the good ones should do it.....but nothing's for sure. There's to many variables for me to say from here.
 
It seems to be that some inaccurate statements are being made - M0 processors are not EE chips that failed at 3.2 or cache tests.

OEM orders for business machines are taking up a large number of the 2.4 and 2.8 CPU's. Intel has extra fab capacity from its Xeon wafers to take up the slack. The cache is simply turned off and hence the lower voltage requirement. This does not mean you should run an M0 higher than 1.6 since there are no transistors to absorb the extra voltage and you do risk SNDS. The larger die size improve thermal transfer which lets the cpu's OC better then regular chips.

How do I know - several stories on the web and the production rates. in addition, M0 stepping cpu's came out BEFORE EE chips. The fact is that speed testing takes too much time and most of the CPU's sold are two or three steps down the speed scale - Intel doesn't test every CPU to see if it can reach 3.2. There is no need - But they do sell 10 times as many 2.4 and 2.8 CPU's as they do 3.2. That is not to say a few CPU's that fail at 3.2 make it as 2.4 or 2.8 - But I bet they also are the M0 chips that don't go above 230MHz FSB...
 
Originally posted by smahoney
It seems to be that some inaccurate statements are being made - M0 processors are not EE chips that failed at 3.2 or cache tests.

OEM orders for business machines are taking up a large number of the 2.4 and 2.8 CPU's. Intel has extra fab capacity from its Xeon wafers to take up the slack. The cache is simply turned off and hence the lower voltage requirement. This does not mean you should run an M0 higher than 1.6 since there are no transistors to absorb the extra voltage and you do risk SNDS. The larger die size improve thermal transfer which lets the cpu's OC better then regular chips.

How do I know - several stories on the web and the production rates. in addition, M0 stepping cpu's came out BEFORE EE chips. The fact is that speed testing takes too much time and most of the CPU's sold are two or three steps down the speed scale - Intel doesn't test every CPU to see if it can reach 3.2. There is no need - But they do sell 10 times as many 2.4 and 2.8 CPU's as they do 3.2. That is not to say a few CPU's that fail at 3.2 make it as 2.4 or 2.8 - But I bet they also are the M0 chips that don't go above 230MHz FSB...
Click to expand...

Hmm, interesting indeed.....but the voltage still doesn't scare me. ;) :p
 
Originally posted by smahoney
It seems to be that some inaccurate statements are being made - M0 processors are not EE chips that failed at 3.2 or cache tests.

OEM orders for business machines are taking up a large number of the 2.4 and 2.8 CPU's. Intel has extra fab capacity from its Xeon wafers to take up the slack. The cache is simply turned off and hence the lower voltage requirement. This does not mean you should run an M0 higher than 1.6 since there are no transistors to absorb the extra voltage and you do risk SNDS. The larger die size improve thermal transfer which lets the cpu's OC better then regular chips.

How do I know - several stories on the web and the production rates. in addition, M0 stepping cpu's came out BEFORE EE chips. The fact is that speed testing takes too much time and most of the CPU's sold are two or three steps down the speed scale - Intel doesn't test every CPU to see if it can reach 3.2. There is no need - But they do sell 10 times as many 2.4 and 2.8 CPU's as they do 3.2. That is not to say a few CPU's that fail at 3.2 make it as 2.4 or 2.8 - But I bet they also are the M0 chips that don't go above 230MHz FSB...
Click to expand...

I agree to an extent, but then again if you look at an m0 you'll see the bottom looks very similar to an EE and at the same time looks different from an d1. The cores are very similar, and why have a larger core, if you dont use it for the extra cache. If I'm not mistaken ondie cache is just that, ondie, or on the core. So your saying intel is wasting wafer to produce a larger core? I find it hard to believe. You have your stories i have mine, I still believe that they are failed EE chips, and have read several forums that believe the same.

And if your scared of a little voltage then dont waste time overclocking. Takes the fun out of it.
 
Originally posted by eViL_M@LuM
I agree to an extent, but then again if you look at an m0 you'll see the bottom looks very similar to an EE and at the same time looks different from an d1. The cores are very similar, and why have a larger core, if you dont use it for the extra cache. If I'm not mistaken ondie cache is just that, ondie, or on the core. So your saying intel is wasting wafer to produce a larger core? I find it hard to believe. You have your stories i have mine, I still believe that they are failed EE chips, and have read several forums that believe the same.

And if your scared of a little voltage then dont waste time overclocking. Takes the fun out of it.
Click to expand...

I still agree more with you and that school of thought about this. Just 'cus the EE's weren't available yet doesn't mean Intel wasn't making them. ;) Those guys sit on technology forever before "deciding" to release it. Take HT for example, a well kept secret. I still do believe that they're failed EE's.....it just makes to much sense.
 
Originally posted by cornelious0_0
I still agree more with you and that school of thought about this. Just 'cus the EE's weren't available yet doesn't mean Intel wasn't making them. ;) Those guys sit on technology forever before "deciding" to release it. Take HT for example, a well kept secret. I still do believe that they're failed EE's.....it just makes to much sense.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't change the core and waste that much wafer to spread heat better. :D
 
To better defend my story
NewCore.jpg


taken from here in strictly intel where they all defend my story.
 
i still cant manage to get my 2.4c to 3.4 even at 1.8v. i have the pci/agp fixed at 66mhz, all the extra serial ata controllers disabled on the board, the memory is running at 5:4 so only about like 226mhz. it will boot into windows and even benchmark but it will error out in prime 95 after a few minutes. it wont even post at 3.5ghz. i know this chip was stable before at 3.59~ghz. i dont know what the deal is with this. im really hoping its not the motherboard cause itll be a pain in the ass to take it out with all my waterblocks in place.
 
Originally posted by acascianelli
i still cant manage to get my 2.4c to 3.4 even at 1.8v. i have the pci/agp fixed at 66mhz, all the extra serial ata controllers disabled on the board, the memory is running at 5:4 so only about like 226mhz. it will boot into windows and even benchmark but it will error out in prime 95 after a few minutes. it wont even post at 3.5ghz. i know this chip was stable before at 3.59~ghz. i dont know what the deal is with this. im really hoping its not the motherboard cause itll be a pain in the ass to take it out with all my waterblocks in place.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like your chip is either deteriorating or your Thermal compound is. What voltages were you using?
 
Originally posted by eViL_M@LuM
Sounds to me like your chip is either deteriorating or your Thermal compound is. What voltages were you using?
Click to expand...

it was running at 3.59@ 1.75v, im running it now at 3.3c at 1.55v. i might run at that speed stock but ive never tried it. im thinking it may be the motherboard because i got it refurbished from newegg and it does have 1 strange thing, the onboard network card was causing the system to crash even at default speeds so i just disabled it and use a pci card.
 
Originally posted by acascianelli
it was running at 3.59@ 1.75v, im running it now at 3.3c at 1.55v. i might run at that speed stock but ive never tried it. im thinking it may be the motherboard because i got it refurbished from newegg and it does have 1 strange thing, the onboard network card was causing the system to crash even at default speeds so i just disabled it and use a pci card.
Click to expand...

Ouch dude.........general rule of thumb, refurb = bad news. Stay clear if you can.
 
eh, im happy with 3.3ghz, and i guess if i really want i can just rma the board to abit
 
Originally posted by acascianelli
eh, im happy with 3.3ghz, and i guess if i really want i can just rma the board to abit
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I've heard a few horror stories about Abit's RMA.....;)
 
what im concerned about is if i can rma it now that i removed the heat off the northbridge.

i just saw that abit cross-ships so i guess it wouldnt be THAT hard to rma it. i guess ill have to think about it
 
Yeah they do cross ship, and there boards are great boards, AI7 myself. If you cant rma you wanna swap chips? Mines does 3.3 @ 1.6V I just want 3.6 300FSB
 
Originally posted by eViL_M@LuM
Yeah they do cross ship, and there boards are great boards, AI7 myself. If you cant rma you wanna swap chips? Mines does 3.3 @ 1.6V I just want 3.6 300FSB
Click to expand...

sorry, but i wanna keep trying with this chip. ill probobly RMA this board in a week or so. im going to go home and try the 23 bios to see if that helps anything.
 
Ugh. still don't get it!!!

All the M0 and EE chips are XEONS!!!!!

It is cheaper to waste the space on a wafer if you don't have to change the whole fabrication line and just have to disabled the cache through a couple of switches then produce a totally different wafer. The retooling costs will eat up months of profits.

The 3.2EE and 3.4EE are tested chips - not the 2.4 and 2.8 M0's.

Intel didn't go out and make an EE - They happened to know that the XEON yields were running really well and the home user market has less impact from CPU failures then the server market which is so ultra conservative. Hence an 800MHz FSB Xeon called the EE and a version with a disabled L3 cache to meet demand for 2.4 and 2.8 OEM cpu's that happens to OC really well for enthusiasts which also provides free marketing against AMD.....

So Intel gets lower yields, but better production economy and free publicity for how good their chips OC and meets OEM demand without transfering other capacity that is already maxed or undergoing refit.
 
Originally posted by smahoney
Ugh. still don't get it!!!

All the M0 and EE chips are XEONS!!!!!

It is cheaper to waste the space on a wafer if you don't have to change the whole fabrication line and just have to disabled the cache through a couple of switches then produce a totally different wafer. The retooling costs will eat up months of profits.

The 3.2EE and 3.4EE are tested chips - not the 2.4 and 2.8 M0's.

Intel didn't go out and make an EE - They happened to know that the XEON yields were running really well and the home user market has less impact from CPU failures then the server market which is so ultra conservative. Hence an 800MHz FSB Xeon called the EE and a version with a disabled L3 cache to meet demand for 2.4 and 2.8 OEM cpu's that happens to OC really well for enthusiasts which also provides free marketing against AMD.....

So Intel gets lower yields, but better production economy and free publicity for how good their chips OC and meets OEM demand without transfering other capacity that is already maxed or undergoing refit.
Click to expand...

i agree, i cant remember what program it was but it recognized my m0 as a gallatin core and not a northwood.
 
Originally posted by acascianelli
i agree, i cant remember what program it was but it recognized my m0 as a gallatin core and not a northwood.
Click to expand...

Please do tell, 'cus CPU-Z and Sandra both see Northy. ;) :p
 
now see you never said the EE's were Xeons you said they were non existant. I wanna see a prog that says these are gallatin cores.
 
like i said, i cant remember the name of it but i can tell you that it wasnt a very good one.
 
Priming stable 288FSB. reseated my HSF last night and found 40% was not in full contact with my HSF.

What the hell is PWM?
 
ok, so i've done some more tweaking and now i'm priming 286FSB 1:1 @ 1.8V ~ 1.77V really. I've cut the thermalsistor from my TT smartfan and it's doin a 5000rpm spinner now. System stays @ 120F under 1.5hrs of prime 95 in an ambient temp of 81F. So it's now doin so bad for air cooling in the early summer, just wait till i crank da A/C on.
 
Originally posted by eViL_M@LuM
ok, so i've done some more tweaking and now i'm priming 286FSB 1:1 @ 1.8V ~ 1.77V really. I've cut the thermalsistor from my TT smartfan and it's doin a 5000rpm spinner now. System stays @ 120F under 1.5hrs of prime 95 in an ambient temp of 81F. So it's now doin so bad for air cooling in the early summer, just wait till i crank da A/C on.
Click to expand...

damn....1:1 at 284fsb, are you pushing 6.5+gb/s on the memory bandwidth?
 
Originally posted by eViL_M@LuM
ok, so i've done some more tweaking and now i'm priming 286FSB 1:1 @ 1.8V ~ 1.77V really. I've cut the thermalsistor from my TT smartfan and it's doin a 5000rpm spinner now. System stays @ 120F under 1.5hrs of prime 95 in an ambient temp of 81F. So it's now doin so bad for air cooling in the early summer, just wait till i crank da A/C on.
Click to expand...

1.8V on air???

Do you think thats safe? Or am i miss reading this and you are running phase change or somin? 1.8V is pretty high...120% of rated??

I have a 2.8C running with a 240FSB 1:1 at 1.65V...for some reason i cant get higher....
 
Originally posted by acascianelli
damn....1:1 at 284fsb, are you pushing 6.5+gb/s on the memory bandwidth?
Click to expand...

between 6.2 and 6.3GB

286FSB Failed after 6hrs of prime

Originally posted by Syphon Filter
1.8V on air???

Do you think thats safe? Or am i miss reading this and you are running phase change or somin? 1.8V is pretty high...120% of rated??

I have a 2.8C running with a 240FSB 1:1 at 1.65V...for some reason i cant get higher....
Click to expand...

well as far as i've read no one has fried a 2.4c with overvolting. Safe is relative to what you consider it. 44-45C max load to me with these conditions is safe. :D
 
hrm....i'm not worried about instant death of the chip i was thinking more about electron migration which happens if u overvolt IC devices...

i cant work out y my machine is unstable at over 240FSB, from what i understand 250FSB should be within easy reach of just about any P4 northy
 
ok here is what i am running:

IC7-Max3
2x512 PC4000 Corsair XMS
P4 2.8C

The voltages I am running are:

VCore: 1.65 (read from Winbond Hardware Dr)
VDimm: 2.78 (read from Winbond Hardware Dr)

The i am running relaxed timings of 3-4-4-8

want anymore info?

My machine will boot at 250, and i can run games and all other software i wanna...but p95 reports errors and i get the odd reboot...

I dont get what the issue is, I am water cooled and i dont see temps over 45*C even under prime conditions. any tips? Help is much appreciated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top