Registar
Página 3 de 4 PrimeiroPrimeiro 1234 ÚltimoÚltimo
Resultados 31 a 45 de 51
  1. #31
    Tech Ubër-Dominus Avatar de jotinha17
    Registo
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    12,504
    Avaliação
    18 (95%)
    Claramente esses dois processadores vão ser relembrados por algum tempo, o Q6600 pela sua capacidade de OC e o 2500k igualmente e por ser um chip tão fresco e nos dias de hoje tão atual.

    Ainda hoje penso porque o vendi.

  2. #32
    Tech Membro Avatar de Nirvana91
    Registo
    Jun 2013
    Local
    Lisboa
    Posts
    3,403
    Avaliação
    0
    Tive um Q6600 nos 3600MHZ (WC) e o 2500k tive-o nos 4500 (também com WC).

    O 6600 era um processador quentinho...

    Já o 2500k não o tinha a mais devido a existirem rumores de que acima dos 1.35v degradavam bastante...
    Corsair 350D
    Board:
    Gigabyte B360M DS3H | Cpu: i5 8400 - Corsair H110 | Graf: GTX 1070 | Ram: 16Gb DDR4 2666MHz | Disco: SSD MX300 525Gb + Seagate 7200.12 500GB for Data | Fonte: Corsair RM750x | Monitor: Acer Predator XB271HUA GSync

  3. #33
    O homem das Babes! Avatar de RCS_007
    Registo
    Jun 2015
    Local
    Viseu - Burbank
    Posts
    837
    Avaliação
    0
    Quanto a esses 1.35v, é um misto de experiências. Tive colegas meus que não passavam desse valor pelos motivos que disseste, mas tinha um colega a parte, que tinha o dele a 4.7Ghz a 1.40v(WC).
    E ainda hoje está a funcionar, por enquanto.
    Tive um Q6600, mas foi uma experiência curta, mas ainda o puxei até aos 3.5ghz com uma asus P5K P35 (chipset do aço). Comprei no verão em 2007 a um familiar por 200€. Bargain of the century para mim, assim como uma 8800GTS 640mb que arranjei na mesma altura.
    Bons tempos.


  4. #34
    Tech Membro Avatar de Nirvana91
    Registo
    Jun 2013
    Local
    Lisboa
    Posts
    3,403
    Avaliação
    0
    Não sei. Sei que existiam montes de histórias de pessoal com 2600k/2500k viciados.

    Daí nunca ter arriscado no meu.
    Corsair 350D
    Board:
    Gigabyte B360M DS3H | Cpu: i5 8400 - Corsair H110 | Graf: GTX 1070 | Ram: 16Gb DDR4 2666MHz | Disco: SSD MX300 525Gb + Seagate 7200.12 500GB for Data | Fonte: Corsair RM750x | Monitor: Acer Predator XB271HUA GSync

  5. #35
    Tech Novato Avatar de f0N5
    Registo
    Feb 2013
    Local
    Porto de Mós
    Posts
    452
    Avaliação
    3 (100%)
    Conclusão, nunca devia de ter vendido o meu. Tinha OC estável 4.2 para o dia a dia, este tenho-o stock e só tentei mexer nele uma ou duas vezes...falta de tempo e tramada
    i7 8700k @ Enermax Liqmax II 240 | Z370 Pro Gaming Carbon | 8GB Gskill RipX | MSI GTX 1060 GamingX | Samsung Evo 250 | TX-750M | Phanteks P400 TGE

    Rival | Masterkeys PRO-M | QcK+ | HyperX Cloud II | LG 27'' MP59G IPS | +MSI GE70 | i7 4710HQ | GTX 860M



  6. #36
    Tech Ubër-Dominus Avatar de jotinha17
    Registo
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    12,504
    Avaliação
    18 (95%)
    Eu nos meus também evito sempre passar dos 1.30V para o dia a dia, já em bench levo-os a voltagens extremas.

  7. #37
    Tech Ubër-Dominus Avatar de Jorge-Vieira
    Registo
    Nov 2013
    Local
    City 17
    Posts
    30,020
    Avaliação
    1 (100%)
    Intel five generation IPC test: Broadwell, Haswell, Ivy Bridge, Sandy Bridge and Westmere

    Introduction

    We have recently published an extensive review on the Intel Core i7 5775C, the first Broadwell processor that is available of the shelf. What we have not covered in our previous review is the actual like-for-like performance gain that Broadwell has over the previous generation. We have tested this as well as the gain over earlier generations, covering a total of five generations of Intel processors running on the same clock frequency.
    Intel implements their tick-tock strategy when introducing new processors, firstly introducing a new architecture (tock) and after that a new manufacturing process (tick). The latest iteration of this process is the Broadwell chip, which is a processor based on existing architecture but with a new generation of transistors, so a tick. These are normally known for their increase in efficiency and therefore more performance per watt. The processors based on new architecture (tocks) are usually the ones that show a large increase in performance overall, recent examples of these are the Sandy Bridge and Haswell.
    It looks like the upcoming Skylake will be the last step in this strategy, as Intel has already announced that after the upcoming tock there will be two ticks in stead of just the one.
    Architecture CPU's Tick/Tock Process Introduction
    Presler/Cedar Mill Pentium 4 / D Tick 65 nm 2006
    Conroe/Merom Core 2 Duo/Quad Tock 65 nm 2006
    Penryn Core 2 Duo/Quad Tick 45 nm 2007
    Nehalem Core i Tock 45 nm 2008
    Westmere Core i Tick 32 nm 2010
    Sandy Bridge Core i 2xxx Tock 32 nm 2011
    Ivy Bridge Core i 3xxx Tick 22 nm 2012
    Haswell Core i 4xxx Tock 22 nm 2013
    Broadwell Core i 5xxx Tick 14 nm 2014
    (2015 desktops)
    Skylake Core i 6xxx Tock 14 nm 2015
    Kaby Lake Core i 7xxx? Refresh 10 nm 2016
    Cannonlake Core i 8xxx? Tick 10 nm 2017
    It is usually not just the new architecture that is responsible for the increase in performance. Support for new instructions, higher clock speeds, improved Turbo algorythms and more are also a reason for the processors of a new genaration to be faster than their predecessors. This makes it difficult to see in benchmarks what part of the better performance can be directly attributed to the newer architecture and what is just the result of the evolution of the chip.
    To find out how this has evolved over the last five generations of Intel processors we conducted a fast IPC test on all of them. We used a processor out of each generation, clocked them at exactly 3.0GHz, disabled the Turbo and HyperThreading settings and used 8 GB DDR3-1600 memory on 8-8-8-24 1T timings with all of them.
    We have tested the below processors at the settings mentioned above:
    Westmere: Intel Core i7 875K
    Sandy Bridge: Intel Core i7 2600K
    Ivy Bridge: Intel Core i7 3770K
    Haswell: Intel Core i7 4790K
    Broadwell: Intel Core i7 5775C
    We ran two benchmarks; Cinebench R15 and the Tech Arp x264 video-encoding benchmark. We ran both of these benchmarks multi-threaded (all cores active) as well as single-threaded (one core active).


    Results

    The graph below shows the results for Cinebench R15, single threaded and multi-threaded. As we expected the largest performance jumps occur on the tocks, specifically Sandy Bridge and Haswell. The biggest performance gain was primarily the introduction of Sandy Bridge, and the smallest jump is found on the introduction of the Ivy Bridge chips. The differences between Ivy and Sandy Bridge were quite small so this can be explained, however the jump on introduction of the Broadwell is like-for-like less than 4%.


    In the Tech Arp x264 benchmark the largest gains again are on the two tocks, Sandy Bridge and Haswell. It is peculiar that in this benchmark Ivy Bridge also performs a lot better than its predecessor. The performance gains on Broadwell are limited compared to the Haswell processors.
    Final thoughts

    We admit that with only two benchmarks it is impossible to draw final conclusions, but in these two benchmarks we do not see the promised 5% performance increase that Broadwell should have compared to the Haswell processors. For large performance gains we have to wait until the next tock, the new architecture.
    Fortunately we do not have to wait long until the new tock arrives, the first Intel Skylake processors are not far away from introduction, and when they arrive we will obvioulsy conduct this test on the new architecture.
    Noticia:
    http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/6215...stmere-results


    Um bom artigo que mostra a evolução no IPC nas ultimas gerações/arquiteturas da Intel, que como todos sabemos esses incrementos têm sido poucos como é facilmente comprovado nos graficos apresentados.
    http://www.portugal-tech.pt/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=566&dateline=1384876765

  8. #38
    Tech Ubër-Dominus Avatar de Jorge-Vieira
    Registo
    Nov 2013
    Local
    City 17
    Posts
    30,020
    Avaliação
    1 (100%)
    "The 8-Bit Guy" Discusses Game Audio

    Over the last couple of months, we highlighted the work of The iBook Guy because it's very interesting. He also announced a rebrand to “The 8-Bit Guy” because he hasn't published an iBook video “in quite some time”. If you have been a long time follower of PC Perspective, you'll know that we have a history of changing our name to slightly less restrictive titles. Ryan initially named this site after the K7M motherboard, then Athlon motherboards in general, then AMD motherboards, then PC Perspective. I guess we shouldn't cover mobile or console teardowns...








    Anywho... back to The 8-Bit Guy. This time, his video discusses how old PCs played (or, more frequently, synthesized) audio. He discusses the early, CPU-driven audio, which were quickly replaced by dedicated sound cards in the 1980s. They could drive audio waves that were either square, triangle, noise, or PCM (microphone-sampled). These four types were combined to make all of the music and sound effects of the time.
    This brings us to today. He notes that, with today's modern computers having so much storage and RAM, we end up just mixing everything as an audio file and play that. This is where we can expand a little. Until around the Vista era, sound cards have been increasing in voice count. One of the last examples was the Creative SoundBlaster X-Fi. This card implemented their EAX 5.0 standard, which allowed up to 128 voices in games like Battlefield 2, and that was about it. When Microsoft released Vista, they replaced the entire audio stack with a software-based one. They stated that sound card drivers were a giant cause of bluescreen errors, and thus almost everything was moved out of the kernel.

    At around this time, voice limits were removed. They don't make sense anymore because mixing is no longer being done in hardware. Nowadays, even websites through Web Audio API can play thousands of sounds simultaneously, although that probably will sound terrible in practice.
    Audio processing doesn't end here, though. Now that we can play as many sounds as we like, and can do so with complete software control over the PCM waves, the problem is shifted into an algorithmic one.
    This is an area that I, personally, am interested in.

    See the source and demo at my GitHub
    Earlier this year, I created a demo in WebCL that rendered 20,000 - 30,000 sounds on an Intel HD 4600 GPU, with stereo positioning and linear distance falloff, while the system's main NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 was busy drawing the WebGL scene. The future goal was to ray-trace (high frequency) and voxelize (low frequency) sound calls based on the environment, to simulate environmentally-accurate reverbs and echoes. Over the summer, I worked with a graduate student from Queen's University to offload audio in the Unity engine (I preferred Unreal). We have not yet introduced geometry.
    At this year's Oculus Connect, Michael Abrash also mentioned that audio is interesting for VR, but that it needs to wait for more computational horsepower. A lot more. He also discussed HRTF, which is the current way of adding surround to stereo by measuring how an individual's ears modify sound depending on location. It gets worse if sounds are closer than a meter away, or the actual user's ears differ too much from the experiment subject.
    Anyway, enough about me. The 8-Bit Guy's videos are interesting. Check them out.
    Noticia:
    http://www.pcper.com/news/General-Te...ses-Game-Audio
    http://www.portugal-tech.pt/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=566&dateline=1384876765

  9. #39
    Tech Ubër-Dominus Avatar de Jorge-Vieira
    Registo
    Nov 2013
    Local
    City 17
    Posts
    30,020
    Avaliação
    1 (100%)
    The Intel 4004 Microprocessor Is 44 Today

    Today is the birthday of Intel’s first commercially available microprocessor.






    Intel purchased the rights from Nippon Calculating Machine Corporation and launched the Intel 4004 processor and its chipset with an advertisement in the November 15, 1971, issue of Electronic News: "Announcing A New Era In Integrated Electronics." That’s when the Intel 4004 became the first general-purpose programmable processor on the market—a "building block" that engineers could purchase and then customize with software to perform different functions in a wide variety of electronic devices.
    Noticia:
    http://www.hardocp.com/news/2015/11/...y#.VknxrL9v708
    http://www.portugal-tech.pt/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=566&dateline=1384876765

  10. #40
    Tech Ubër-Dominus Avatar de Jorge-Vieira
    Registo
    Nov 2013
    Local
    City 17
    Posts
    30,020
    Avaliação
    1 (100%)
    USB standard celebrates 20 years of ubiquitous connectivity




    Ajay Bhatt is a name you’re likely not familiar with despite the fact that the technology he helped invent is used by billions of people on a daily basis.
    Bhatt joined Intel’s chipset architecture team as a senior staff architect in 1990. At that time, computers relied on serial and parallel ports to connect peripherals such as mice, keyboards, printers and joysticks. The ports had a variety of shortcomings including slow transfer rates and the fact that some couldn’t run concurrently.
    What’s more, custom drivers and even expansion cards were often needed to get accessories up and running.
    To address the matter, Bhatt proposed the creation of a new standard – Universal Serial Bus, or USB – that’d use a single “universal” connector to replace serial and parallel ports. The USB 1.0 Release Candidate debuted in November 1995, addressing virtually every deficiency of the legacy ports.
    As Business Insider notes, USB got off to a slow start as technology companies were leery that a new standard would introduce compatibility issues. Intel had few reservations, however, and backed Bhatt’s vision wholeheartedly. It wasn't long before the rest of the industry hopped on the USB bandwagon.
    Much of the eventual success of USB is related to Intel’s decision to make it open and free from licensing fees or royalties. As a result, neither Intel nor Bhatt earned any money from the endeavor. Bhatt, who is now Intel’s chief systems technologist, maintains that he’s been handsomely rewarded by his employer as an engineer.
    Noticia:
    http://www.techspot.com/news/62788-u...nectivity.html
    http://www.portugal-tech.pt/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=566&dateline=1384876765

  11. #41
    Tech Ubër-Dominus Avatar de Jorge-Vieira
    Registo
    Nov 2013
    Local
    City 17
    Posts
    30,020
    Avaliação
    1 (100%)
    Enthusiast Territory: The most memorable overclocking-friendly CPUs




    1/20





    • Enthusiasts have been pushing the limits of silicon for as long as microprocessors have existed. Early overclocking endeavors involved soldering and replacing crystal clock oscillators, but that practice quickly evolved into changing system bus speeds via motherboard DIP switches and jumpers.
      Internal clock multipliers were introduced but it didn't take long until those were locked down as unscrupulous sellers removed official frequency ratings and applied their own faster markings. System buses and dividers became key for most, while the ultra-enthusiast would physically change electrical specifications through hard modding.
      The present landscape harks back to the advent of internal clock multipliers. System bus speeds have become increasingly regulated to maintain system stability, which has once again leveled the playing field for the competitive nature of overclocking.
      These are but a few of the landmark processors revered for their overclocking prowess. Read on!

    • Intel Celeron 300A

      Release date: August 24, 1998
      Stock clock speed: 300MHz
      Overclocked: 375 - 504MHz (~55%)

      Think legendary. The Celeron 300A was largely responsible for reigniting mainstream processor overclocking in the late 90's through the ease that it could be accomplished. A 50% overclock to 450MHz was as simple as changing the bus speed from its nominal 66MHz to 100MHz. Although some boards topped out at 83.3MHz limiting the OC to 375MHz, motherboards that supported 103MHz FSB could yield 464MHz.
      A better chip with a voltage bump could run at the 112MHz FSB setting to produce 504MHz. Remarkably, the 300A could generally reach 450MHz without any additional voltage requirement over the nominal 2.0 volts. The chip's performance was also aided by having an on-die L2 cache and with a price of $149 it was particularly accessible to system builders.

    • Intel Pentium MMX 166

      Release date: January 8, 1997
      Stock clock speed: 166MHz
      Overclocked: 207 - 266MHz (~54%)

      The Pentium MMX arrived amid the height of retailer shadiness and x86 processor vendors responded by locking upper limits for multipliers. As such, many MMXs relied on bus frequency increases for overclocking. Unlocked MMX processors offered more options for overclockers and the unlocked MXX 233 reigned supreme, though its $594 price was prohibitive for many.
      At $407, the MMX 166 was a better value, and when paired with a solid 430TX-based motherboard that had a bus speed of 75MHz out of the box, 225 or 266MHz (3 or 3.5 multi) was within reach. To crack 200MHz, MMX 166s with a locked multiplier would need to use the 83MHz jumper setting if available (2.5 * 83 for 207MHz), although stability and heat build-up at this bus speed were far more problematic, as was the sourcing of quality EDO/SDRAM RAM required to run at this frequency.

    • Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 G0 Revision

      Release date: January 8, 2007 (B0 revision)/ July 22, 2007 (G0 revision)
      Stock clock speed: 2.4GHz
      Overclocked: 3.4 - 3.6GHz (~46%)

      The Core 2 Quad Q6600 achieved an enviable record of longevity and performance value, becoming the de-facto choice for overclockers who wanted a budget quad-core CPU. Once the processor dropped in price from the initial $851 in January 2007, it quickly fell to $530 in May and further pricing realignment in July coincided with the arrival of the G0 revision. At $266, the 2.4GHz quad-core chip was priced identically to the new dual-core 3GHz E6850, a frequency that the earlier B3 revision Q6600 could comfortably eclipse.
      The new G0 stepping offered slightly lower power consumption, which translated into the same improvement in overclocking ability, resulting in many users being able to sustain 3.4 to 3.6GHz fairly readily. The introduction of the affordable Intel P35 platform and further Q6600 price cutting through 2008 to $224 (April) and down to $183 (October) provided the opportunity for solid overclocking in the 50% range (9x multiplier x 400MHz FSB for 3.6GHz) on a moderate budget that remained very competitive long after many of its contemporaries had faded.
      Image source: Wikipedia

    • Intel 486DX2-40

      Release date: March 1992
      Stock clock speed: 40MHz and 50MHz
      Overclocked: 66MHz (~65%)

      The P24 DX2 486 processors introduced the CPU clock multiplier, doubling the system bus speed, while the system bus frequency itself was configurable via motherboard jumpers or DIP switches. Initially including 20, 25 and 33MHz options (later augmented by 40 and 50MHz models), users had a path to overclocking that didn't require soldering and replacing the clock crystal oscillator.
      Alternatively, you could get the performance of a $799 DX2-66 by purchasing the more modestly priced 486DX2-40 for $400 and raising its default bus speed from 20MHz to 33MHz.
      Stability and VLB slot issues at bus speeds over 33MHz meant that overclocking headroom decreased as the base clock rose -- to the extent that many Intel DX2-66s wouldn't overclock at all and the few that did were often limited to 80MHz (2 x 40MHz).
      Image source: x86-guide

    • Intel Pentium III 500E

      Release date: October 25, 1999
      Stock clock speed: 500MHz
      Overclocked: 667 - 775MHz (~50%)

      The Coppermine Pentium III 500E and 550E's overclockability lie in conservative binning, a low 100MHz Front Side Bus and the processor's integrated L2 cache. Budget pricing ($239) and the possibility of using older Slot 1 motherboards via Socket 370 to Slot 1 adapters enabled premium performance for a modest outlay.
      The 500E could easily be run at 667MHz by selecting the motherboard's 133MHz FSB BIOS option or by using tape or lacquer to isolate the Slocket's A14 pin, while 750MHz (150 FSB) and higher were possible on better boards, producing performance equivalent to the $850 Pentium III 800.
      However, there were some caveats to overclocking, including that motherboards needed to support AGP and PCI clock dividers (1:2 and 1:4 respectively) to maintain stability for attached components and fast PC133 RAM.

    • AMD Athlon 700 (Thunderbird) / Duron 600 (Spitfire)

      Release date: July 5, 2000 (Athlon 700) / June 19, 2000 (Duron 600)
      Stock clock speed: 700MHz / 600MHz
      Overclocked: 770 - 900MHz (~12%) / 800 - 1000MHz (~59%)

      AMD's Thunderbird pencil mod was an overclocker's dream. AMD locked the voltage and multipliers of its K7 line in an effort to curtail the fraudulent remarking of processors to higher specifications. Overclockers quickly realized that the circuit bridges built into the silicon package held the key to unlocking performance.
      Initially, a combination of connecting bridges in the L3, L4, and L6 blocks gave way to the bridging of L1 connections to unlock the multiplier. Bridging L7 connections to alter core voltage was also an option and the process could be as easy as using a soft lead pencil or conductive silver pen.
      With AMD's EV6 system bus being sensitive to overclocking, multiplier overclocking provided results with the Duron leading the way thanks to its lower base core voltage (1.5v versus 1.7 /1.75v), which enabled higher relative overhead to the maximum 1.85v allowed.
      For $112 and a little time, the Duron 600 easily approximated the performance of a processor many times its price.
      Image source: Wikipedia

    • AMD Athlon XP-M 2500+ (Barton Mainstream 45W TDP)

      Release date: March 12, 2003
      Stock clock speed: 1.87GHz
      Overclocked: 2.4 - 2.7GHz (~32%)

      In early 2004 it came to the attention of the overclocking community that the mobile Barton processors featured an unlocked clock multiplier in addition to being binned for low-voltage operation (1.45v compared with the desktop 1.65v). These factors often produced phenomenal overclocking headroom -- something lacking in the desktop models.
      When the chip's overclocking potential was publicized, such was the stampede that its price escalated over 30% from the $75 MSRP in a matter of weeks. With a solid nForce2 motherboard, decent cooling and a willingness to push the voltage to 1.8v and higher, a 30 to 40% overclock was often attainable. While the impressive speed bump couldn't bridge the performance gap to the new Athlon 64s, the Athlon XP-M 2500+ didn't cost $200 to $400 either.

    • AMD Opteron 144 / 146 (K8 Venus)

      Release date: August 2, 2005
      Stock clock speed: 1.8GHz / 2.0GHz
      Overclocked: 2.5 - 3.0GHz (~63%)

      Featuring the same silicon as AMD's San Diego-based Athlon 64 processors, the $125 and $183 Socket 939 Opterons enjoyed a significant pricing advantage over the similarly featured Athlon 64 3700+ at $329 and stacked up even better against the $1,000 FX-57.
      Like all upwardly locked multiplier processors, the Opteron's ability was tied directly to the strength of the motherboard being used. Conservative binning of the Opteron server chips allied with a solid overclocking board such as those sporting the nForce4 chipset with HyperTransport frequencies approaching (and exceeding) 300MT/sec would lead to overclocks seldom seen with enterprise-class processors.
      With all the Opteron models having roughly the same overclock ceiling, the lowest priced 144 sold out quickly in many markets.

    • Intel Core i7 2600K / Core i5 2500K

      Release date: January 9, 2011
      Stock clock speed: 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) / 3.3GHz (3.7GHz Turbo)
      Overclocked: 4.6 - 5.0GHz (~49%)

      When Intel announced an upper clock multiplier limit and almost non-existent system bus overclocking for its upcoming Sandy Bridge compatible Cougar Point chipsets, it was widely touted as the end of overclocking on Intel platforms. The truth turned out to be that the 2500K and 2600K were premier overclockers requiring minimal effort in time and cooling for stable overclocks in the 30 to 50% range.
      Such was the popularity of the 2600K that submissions from this processor accounted for around 28% of all CPU results to HWBot in 2011 and would exceed those of its successor, the 3770K, in 2012. A low cost of $216 plus solid cooling results when paired with either air or water made Intel's 2500K the de facto standard by which all other consumer CPUs were judged.

    • Intel Core i7 920

      Release date: November 17, 2008
      Stock clock speed: 2.67GHz (2.93GHz Turbo)
      Overclocked: 3.5 - 4.0GHz C0 revision, 3.8 - 4.2GHz D0 revision (~58%)

      The new Nehalem architecture and X58 platform offered enough promise to coax many users from long-lived Core 2 LGA 775 systems. While the flagship i7 965 EE at $1,000 was cheaper than the Core 2 QX9770 by a third, it still represented little in the way of value compared to the i7 920.
      Initial C0 revision Bloomfield CPUs earned a reputation for high voltage requirements past 3.6GHz, the following D0 often had the ability to maintain the nominal 1.26v up to 4GHz and an absolute overclock ceiling approaching 4.5GHz for those tempted to turn the voltage closer to 1.5v.
      Such was (and is) the 920's popularity that it represents over a third of HWBot's overclocking submissions for 64 LGA 1366 processors.
      Image source: Wikipedia

    • Intel Pentium 4 1.6A / Celeron 2.0 (Northwood)

      Release date: January 7, 2002 (Pentium 4) / September 18, 2002 (Celeron 2.0)
      Stock clock speed: 1.6GHz / 2.0GHz
      Overclocked: 2.4 - 2.8GHz (~48%) / 2.66 - 3GHz (~46%)

      The arrival of the Northwood core was a welcomed sight after the disappointing Williamette, whose voltage and resulting heat stifled serious overclocking for the mainstream. While the higher-clocked P4s offered little if any value against the Athlon XP, the 1.6A at $125 turned a performance deficit into a win with its low base FSB of 100MHz which could easily be increased to 150 for a 2.4GHz clock speed.
      The Celeron's overclock was higher still thanks to a 20x multiplier, although performance was heavily constrained by the meager 128KB L2 cache. Those seeking higher overclocks would need to push the core voltage past 1.6v either through BIOS settings or the wire mod (connecting CPU pins to raise Vcore limits), the latter being largely responsible for the phenomena of S.N.D.S. (Sudden Northwood Death Syndrome), more commonly known as electromigration.
      This factor and the 1.6A cannibalizing Intel's own higher priced models are seen as the motivation for the company to cease sales of the 1.6A barely six months after its introduction in January 2002.
      Image source: CPU-World

    • Intel Xeon LV 1.6 D1 revision (Prestonia)

      Release date: September 2003
      Stock clock speed: 1.6GHz
      Overclocked: 2.6 - 3.2GHz (~63%)

      Overclocking is most often associated with gaming systems, but dual-processor overclocking has maintained a solid following for over a decade. Long before the QX9775 and Intel's Skulltrail board became the watchwords for performance excess, many enthusiasts sought the budget Xeon LV 1.6.
      The Prestonia core was basically the Pentium 4 Northwood with SMP (symmetric multiprocessing) and HyperThreading added as standard features. With the sub-$200 1.6GHz Xeon drawing a frugal 1.274v, overclockers generally couldn't take advantage of voltage headroom as most boards were voltage-locked. However, simply raising the FSB would net 2.6GHz.
      For the more adventurous, three hard mods could yield a 100% overclock (or more!): the U-Wire mod which involved bridging two (1.5v) or three (1.6v) sets of socket pins, the BSEL mod to isolate or break CPU pins and raise the FSB limit to 200MHz, and the vDIMM mod to raise RAM voltage.
      Those willing to push the limits of the technology could be rewarded with a 3.2GHz dual processor performance king for around $700 (CPUs, coolers, board, and RAM).
      Image source: geocities.jp

    • AMD Athlon XP 1700+ (Thoroughbred-B)

      Release date: June 10, 2002
      Stock clock speed: 1.46GHz
      Overclocked: 2.2 - 2.5GHz (~44%)

      The initial Thoroughbred-A was little more than a die shrink of the previous Palomino and was somewhat disappointing as a final product. The June 2002 introduction of AMD's Thoroughbred-B was more tuned for the 130nm process and resulted in higher core frequencies along with being more efficient as the 'B' revision demonstrated a remarkable overclock ability with minimal if any voltage increases.
      Allied with a strong nForce2 chipset motherboard, the $60 XP 1700+ was fully capable of near 2GHz core speed at its default voltage. With an nF2 board capable of pushing the system bus past 200MHz, it was possible to sustain a 40% overclock with a modest 1.7v, eclipsing the performance of AMD's $397 Athlon XP 2800+ flagship and putting Intel's Pentium 4 on notice.
      Image source: Sysprofile.de

    • Intel Pentium D 820 / D 805

      Release date: May 26, 2005 (D 820) / December 2005 (D 805)
      Stock clock speed: 2.8GHz / 2.66GHz
      Overclocked: 3.5 - 4.2GHz (~26%)

      The Pentium D 820 was something of an anomaly with two single cores on an MCM package for much cheaper than the cheapest dual-core AMD Athlon 64 X2 at $241 and even undercut the single core Athlon 64 3500+ by $30. The Pentium D 820 offered modest performance in no way challenging the Athlon dual, but some considerable overclocking headroom with judicious voltage and a good air or water-cooling system.
      The arrival of Intel's $129 D 805 further endeared the hot Netburst processor to the budget overclocker. A reduction in nominal system bus speed from 200MHz to 133 was offset by the D 805's 20x clock multiplier, resulting in no reduction in overclocking fun. For those of modest means, a D 805 paired with a solid 945P board and value-orientated RAM held the promise of performance that was the province of a $500 processor-dictated build.
      Image source: municion.org

    • Intel Pentium Dual Core E2140 / E2160

      Release date: June 3, 2007
      Stock clock speed: 1.6GHz (E2140) / 1.8GHz (E2160)
      Overclocked: 2.7 - 3.2GHz (~89%) / 2.9 - 3.5GHz (~92%)

      Intel's E2000 series effectively signaled the end of both the last surviving NetBurst Pentium D and AMD's dominance in the budget market. Intel would halve the L2 cache of the E4000 series and further hobble performance with a 200MHz (800 FSB) system bus. What Intel didn't do was remove the Conroe processor's ability to overclock.
      You could hit a 50% overclock with default voltages and the stock cooler by simply raising the bus speed to 300MHz on either an affordable Intel-based P965/P35 board or one with an Nvidia 650i SLI chipset which allowed greater options with cheaper RAM thanks to its non-reliance on memory dividers.
      An aftermarket air cooler, voltage adjustment and some luck in the silicon lottery could see the processors at or near a 100% overclock, delivering performance around the level of the E6700 for a fraction of the cost.
      Image source: Wikipedia

    • AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition (Callisto) / X4 955 Black Edition (Deneb)

      Release date: June 1, 2009 (X2 550 BE) / April 23, 2009 (X4 955 BE)
      Stock clock speed: 3.1GHz / 3.2GHz
      Overclocked: 3.7 - 3.9GHz (~22%)

      The release of AMD's revised K10.5 architecture during the early months of 2009 marked a resurgence of the company's strong value proposition. The emergence of the Black Edition processors also added the welcome addition of the unlocked multiplier to facilitate overclocking.
      While the eventual clock speed increases weren't excessive by historical standards, they did go hand in hand with actual performance gains which comfortably lifted them out of the Core 2 Quad shadow. At $100, the 550 Black Edition represented a superlative value if the two disabled cores could be unlocked (the unlocking of the fourth core would be a major selling point for the X3 720 BE), while the outright performance of the $245 955 BE ensured that only Intel's more expensive X58 platform exceeded its potential.

    • Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (Conroe)

      Release date: July 27, 2006
      Stock core clock: 2.4GHz
      Overclocked: 3.0 - 4.0GHz (~45%)

      When Intel's Conroe architecture arrived in July 2006, most of the attention was focused on the unlocked multiplier X6800, but it was the cheapest fully enabled (4MB L2 cache) chip that stole the show. For $316, the chip cost a full $200 less than the next step up in performance (the E6700) and already provided results that rivaled AMD's top Athlon 64s.
      With stock cooling and default voltages, you could generally rely on the E6600 to hit 2.7 to 3GHz. If you had an aftermarket cooler, motherboard stability was often the limiting factor as system bus speeds flew past 400MHz and edged towards 450. Such was the overclocking potential that the $999 X6800 and $799 Athlon 64 FX-62 looked positively ludicrous when comparing price and performance with the E6600.
      Image source: CPU-World

    • Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 E0 Revision (Wolfdale-6M)

      Release date : January 7, 2008 (C0 revision)/ July 18, 2008 (E0 revision)
      Stock clock speed: 3.0GHz
      Overclocked: 4.0 - 4.5GHz (~41%)

      The initial January 2008 C0 revision Wolfdale-based E8400 had immediately ensconced itself as an affordable performance overclocking processor. Five months later, the E0 revision brought a much refined voltage requirement. While some C0-step E8400s were capable performers at the 4GHz level, more often than not, the same frequency could be achieved with stock voltage, settings, and cooler with the new revision.
      By the time the E0 arrived, pricing had fallen to $149 for the OEM package with a range of very capable P45 and X48 boards able to maintain bus speeds in the vicinity of 500MHz (2000MHz FSB). The continued stability of these 4+GHz systems many years later is a testament to the quality of both the architecture and the chipsets.
      Image source: Sysprofile.de
    http://www.portugal-tech.pt/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=566&dateline=1384876765

  12. #42
    Tech Ubër-Dominus Avatar de Jorge-Vieira
    Registo
    Nov 2013
    Local
    City 17
    Posts
    30,020
    Avaliação
    1 (100%)
    25 years ago today, the first website ever created went online

    Can you belive it has been 25 years since the very first website went online? Tim Berners-Lee's World Wide Web went online 25 years ago today.


    The website went online at CERN on December 20, 1990 - but the public didn't see it until August 1991. It was an explanation of how the hypertext-based project worked, which was the foundation for the Internet as we know it today. Berners-Lee himself is still around, directing the World Wide Web Consortium that he helped create.

    So much so, that Berners-Lee wants to protect the open web against government censorship, and telecoms' desire to crush net neutrality. CERN has shifted its priorities in the last 25 years, where it is now smashing particles together with the Large Hadron Collider.

    Noticia:
    http://www.tweaktown.com/news/49110/...ine/index.html
    http://www.portugal-tech.pt/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=566&dateline=1384876765

  13. #43
    Tech Ubër-Dominus Avatar de Jorge-Vieira
    Registo
    Nov 2013
    Local
    City 17
    Posts
    30,020
    Avaliação
    1 (100%)
    The 8-Bit Guy on Computer Performance

    Are Computers Still Getting Faster?

    It looks like CES is starting to wind down, which makes sense because it ended three days ago. Now that we're mostly caught up, I found a new video from The 8-Bit Guy. He doesn't really explain any old technologies in this one. Instead, he poses an open question about computer speed. He was able to have a functional computing experience on a ten-year-old Apple laptop, which made him wonder if the rate of computer advancement is slowing down.
    I believe that he (and his guest hosts) made great points, but also missed a few important ones.








    One of his main arguments is that software seems to have slowed down relative to hardware. I don't believe that is true, but I believe it's looking in the right area. PCs these days are more than capable of doing just about anything in terms of 2D user interface that we would want to, and do so with a lot of overhead for inefficient platforms and sub-optimal programming (relative to the 80's and 90's at the very least). The areas that require extra horsepower are usually doing large batches of many related tasks. GPUs are key in this area, and they are keeping up as fast as they can, despite some stagnation with fabrication processes and a difficulty (at least before HBM takes hold) in keeping up with memory bandwidth.
    For the last five years to ten years or so, CPUs have been evolving toward efficiency as GPUs are being adopted for the tasks that need to scale up. I'm guessing that AMD, when they designed the Bulldozer architecture, hoped that GPUs would have been adopted much more aggressively, but even as graphics devices, they now have a huge effect on Web, UI, and media applications.

    These are also tasks that can scale well between devices by lowering resolution (and so forth). The primary thing that a main CPU thread needs to do is figure out the system's state and keep the graphics card fed before the frame-train leaves the station. In my experience, that doesn't scale well (although you can sometimes reduce the amount of tracked objects for games and so forth). Moreover, it is easier to add GPU performance, compared to single-threaded CPU, because increasing frequency and single-threaded IPC should be more complicated than planning out more, duplicated blocks of shaders. These factors combine to give lower-end hardware a similar experience in the most noticeable areas.
    So, up to this point, we discussed:

    • Software is often scaling in ways that are GPU (and RAM) limited.
    • CPUs are scaling down in power more than up in performance.
    • GPU-limited tasks can often be approximated with smaller workloads.
      • Software gets heavier, but it doesn't need to be "all the way up" (ex: resolution).
      • Some latencies are hard to notice anyway.


    Back to the Original Question

    This is where “Are computers still getting faster?” can be open to interpretation.

    Tasks are diverging from one class of processor into two, and both have separate industries, each with their own, multiple goals. As stated, CPUs are mostly progressing in power efficiency, which extends (an assumed to be) sufficient amount of performance downward to multiple types of devices. GPUs are definitely getting faster, but they can't do everything. At the same time, RAM is plentiful but its contribution to performance can be approximated with paging unused chunks to the hard disk or, more recently on Windows, compressing them in-place. Newer computers with extra RAM won't help as long as any single task only uses a manageable amount of it -- unless it's seen from a viewpoint that cares about multi-tasking.
    In short, computers are still progressing, but the paths are now forked and winding.
    Noticia:
    http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphic...er-Performance
    http://www.portugal-tech.pt/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=566&dateline=1384876765

  14. #44
    Tech Membro Avatar de DHunt3r
    Registo
    Oct 2014
    Local
    guimaraes
    Posts
    798
    Avaliação
    1 (100%)
    aqui fica um belo video para os amantes de hardware ja de barba rija

    espero que seja o locar correto para colocar o video

  15. #45
    O Administrador Avatar de LPC
    Registo
    Mar 2013
    Local
    Multiverso
    Posts
    15,426
    Avaliação
    31 (100%)
    Citação Post Original de DHunt3r Ver Post
    aqui fica um belo video para os amantes de hardware ja de barba rija

    espero que seja o locar correto para colocar o video
    Boas!
    Bom post!

    Fez-me levar á nostalgia do passado!

    Essa Voodoo 5 maravilhosa! Eu sou fan também de todo o hardware da 3DFX e se pudesse teria todas as Voodoo!

    Cumprimentos,

    LPC

    My Specs:
    Case: Phanteks Eclipse P400S - CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 - 2400G - Board: MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC - RAM: 16GB DDR4 G.Skill RipJaws V 3200Mhz CAS 14-14-14-34 (2x8GB) - GPU: AMD IGPU VEGA 11
    Cooling: Arctic Cooling 3x F14 Silent - CPU Cooler: Arctic Cooling: Liquid Freezer 360 (6xF12 Fans) - Storage: Samsung SSD 840 EVO 1 TB - PSU: EVGA G3 750W - Monitor: ACER XB270HU 1440p @ 144hz G-Sync

 

 

Informação da Thread

Users Browsing this Thread

Estão neste momento 1 users a ver esta thread. (0 membros e 1 visitantes)

Bookmarks

Regras

  • Você Não Poderá criar novos Tópicos
  • Você Não Poderá colocar Respostas
  • Você Não Poderá colocar Anexos
  • Você Não Pode Editar os seus Posts
  •