• 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.

Is there anything wrong with the 930?

S

steviep

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
4,985
Well, going to build a system soon using one of the new Presler chips. I was initially looking to get the 955XE, but the price premium is just too much for my taste... So I was going to get the 930 instead, since that's already available at my local shops, while the others (920, 940, 950) are a week or 2 away.

That said, I remember reading somewhere in this forum that the 930's are actually failed 940's. Is that true? Are the 930's bad chips? I'm not planning on doing any serious OCing (I see that the 920's can do insane speeds on air and stock HSF), but I don't want to be crippled by the chip either. The 930 falls at a good price point for me - is it a bad chip, and should I step up to the 940? Or will the 3.0ghz model suit me fine. I just don't like the idea of putting a 'bad batch 940 chip' in my new rig :p
 
Typically it works like this -

Intel starts at the top with a chip, and Presler core P4 could theoretically be a 955XE. Intel tests the chip at those speeds, but if it fails, it goes down a rung, 940, 930, 920.

However, Intel doesn't need as many 955XEs as it does 920s, so, some chips that could be a higher bin part get sold at the bargain price as a lower 'model'.
 
NulloModo, always loaded with information :D
I actually did know about what you said, to a certain extent. However, if the 920 is overclocking so wonderfully on air, I was wondering whether the 930 has similar potential, or if it is a worse chip.
 
NulloModo said:
...
However, Intel doesn't need as many 955XEs as it does 920s, so, some chips that could be a higher bin part get sold at the bargain price as a lower 'model'.
Click to expand...

Case in point, a 2.4C M0 being a 3.2EE that failed the cache test. Hence why many 2.4C's can do 3.6 :D
 
steviep said:
NulloModo, always loaded with information :D
I actually did know about what you said, to a certain extent. However, if the 920 is overclocking so wonderfully on air, I was wondering whether the 930 has similar potential, or if it is a worse chip.
Click to expand...

Not positive about this..... BUT.....

in the past usually the lowest bin speed does the best at overclocking.

ex: 1.6a's did better than the 1.8a & 2.0a many times
2.4C's did better than the 2.6C & 2.8C

This is kinda obvious but the top 2 speed bins usually do well also:
2.2a & 2.4a did better than middle (dur)
3.0C & 3.2C did better than 2.6C & 2.8C

My theory.... The middle processors are rejects from the top 2 notchs so they're bad overclockers.

The bottom bin are only tested at their default speed b/c the demand is so high for them usually. So they just grab a bunch of dies & throw them in at the lowest speed bin with out pre-testing them at the faster speeds. & that is why the bottom usually perform best. (my theory)

& thats is why I buy retail bottom of new process/stepping chips.

I had
1.6a that did 2.4Ghz (first gen 130nm)
2.4C that did 3.6Ghz (new stepping with 800FSB/ HT)

and my next chip will probably be a
920 (first gen 65nm)
 
chrisf6969 said:
My theory.... The middle processors are rejects from the top 2 notchs so they're bad overclockers.
Click to expand...

That's a very good theory, i've seen a good bit of intel chips and it pretty much goes how you said.
 
That's very similar to the theory I've heard as well, actually. That's why I made this thread in the first place... So where does the 930 (3.0ghz) stand in all this? :p
 
CPUs follow gaussian distribution with 12% speed variation according to Intel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Normal_distribution_pdf.png

Follow the green line : Imagine that 0 is 3.2Ghz while -2 is 2.8 , -1 is 3 , 1 is 3.4 and 2 is 3.6Ghz.
The extremes will be -3 is 2.6ghz while 3 is 3.8Ghz.

So 930/940 should be the chips with the highest production at Intel , but some might be downgraded to 920 level if there is such a demand.
 
are you considering the Celeron (300's), P4 600 series, & PD 800's & 900's in the overall distribution?

IE: the celerons are the lower end of the distribution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top