• 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.

Intel Core i7 920 D0 Overclock

retardude48 said:
I would disagree. I have seen some D0s that overclock pretty damn well. So far, I havent seen one that doesnt.....please prove to me otherwise.
Click to expand...

So far you've seen a bunch of hand picked ES chips. i7 overclocks are hard to watch too because people pushing them higher tend to disable HT to get lower volts/temps and a bigger e-peen. Most people will aim for 4GHz with HT enabled on a 920 and whether it runs that speed at 1.3v or 1.4v they won't really care. 3841A, 3842A and 3844A C0's all OC very well on the whole, all requiring less volts than earlier batches, but just because intel improved their process a little in these batches doesn't guarantee that the D0 chips can improve any further.
 
retardude48 said:
I dont think its either, but you have to admit....3844s are amazing overclockers. And seeing that D0 will have a later batch than the 3844s.....makes you wonder. You have to admit, Intel is cooking up something good. And I want it.
Click to expand...

There's no question that the first batch of C0/C1's sucked for OC'ing past 3.8GHz w/ HT turned on.... no question at all.

I do think however it's too early in the game to be going *ga-ga* over the D0 chip and calling it the *new* SLACR G0 chip to rule them all. Most of the later batch C0/C1's do over 3.6 on air no problem and just because the D0's have hit higher speeds doesn't negate some of the fantastic OC's with earlier chips.

In the end, it's what people will be getting from online vendors and such and will be interesting to see how it plays out. I'd say though that anything over 3.6 on an i7 is merely for show since you don't get as much per clock and have heat issues to deal with. (of course if you're on water.... that is negligible.)
 
retardude48 said:
And to address your statement about C0 that clock pretty damn well. What I can say is that yes, those were some good chips but look at their voltages at those speeds. Do you see what im trying to get at?
Click to expand...

I'm 4GHz @ 1.344v. I would say that's well within the 'safe' range, as some people are running 1.4v+.

The only 3844 overclock that I've seen was harbin's in the Intel Motherboard section. According to his screenshots, he hit 4GHz at 1.24v. That's not to say that he doesn't have a 'golden cpu'. I just need more samples as evidence to buy into the fact that D0's (on the whole) are better. It's still much to early to tell.
 
Look over here at extreme systems. They have thread that has been going on for a while and towards the end, there are some people with 3844s. Nice long thread, with lots of information.
 
retardude48 said:
Look over here at extreme systems. They have thread that has been going on for a while and towards the end, there are some people with 3844s. Nice long thread, with lots of information.
Click to expand...

I've read that thread many times...most of what I'm seeing are ES chips. I'll wait until the retail D0 results are posted before I jump to any conclusions.
 
Well, I found out that retailers cant ship them out until April 1. One of the rules Intel imposed on them I guess. Anyway, the date is coming up soon and I'll post in this thread for how well they overclock. I'm still crossing my fingers hoping that the retail chips will do just as well as ES chips.
 
Last edited:
Did we ever figure out if Intel increased the cache latency on the i7 D0 stepping vs the C0?

I think the e0 Core2 had higher L2 cache latency to allow higher overclocks, thus it was actually slower clock-for-clock in some applications (gaming specifically, I think). I never saw any meaningful tests on this to really show the difference, however.
 
I thought the engineering sample CPU crap died a long time ago. samples are not final product and may not be stable or have longevity to them. There is nothing proven that a sample is better in anyways than retail. I would never want a beta product over retail product.

I have a question about i7 OCing:

Is the b-clock the equivalent of the FSB on core 2 > ? The reason I'm asking is because some software was unstable with high FSB. I was wondering if b-clock effects the system the same way that if it's clocked really high it can mess with software.
 
Last edited:
Archmage said:
Did we ever figure out if Intel increased the cache latency on the i7 D0 stepping vs the C0?

I think the e0 Core2 had higher L2 cache latency to allow higher overclocks, thus it was actually slower clock-for-clock in some applications (gaming specifically, I think). I never saw any meaningful tests on this to really show the difference, however.
Click to expand...

I dont think they have. I am not def. on the answer, but intel never mentioned anything like that. Plus I would heard from other forums bout this.

bigdogchris said:
I thought the engineering sample CPU crap died a long time ago. samples are not final product and may not be stable or have longevity to them. There is nothing proven that a sample is better in anyways than retail. I would never want a beta product over retail product.

I have a question about i7 OCing:

Is the b-clock the equivalent of the FSB on core 2 > ? The reason I'm asking is because some software was unstable with high FSB. I was wondering if b-clock effects the system the same way that if it's clocked really high it can mess with software.
Click to expand...

I dont get what where you're trying to get at with that first statement.

As for the B-clock....ya, its somewhat like the FSB in C2D and C2Q. Thats the number you change to OC + the multiplier.
 
There are some more people who are chiming in on their D0. Results looks pretty good. I hear though that the B batches are better than the A batches.
 
Here are some other people's OC.

HT OFF:
2m3n60x.jpg



HT ON:
prime4hours42.jpg



2369B8A32F8041E0813228C99B1263C9.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top