Intel chips faster than labelled

I read that some Intel chips are faster versions labeled as slower chips. Is this true

 

Where did you hear this from, never heard of Intel chips running faster than written

 

Well supply and demand play an important role here. When Intel makes their processors they are speed tested as some will run 2.6ghz and some will run 3.0ghs or more. When they are selling more of the 2.6ghz processors they will label some of the faster performing chips at the 2.6ghz speed. There is almost no way to tell which is the better performing processor, unless you are overclocking the processor and it overclocks high or it could be luck.

 

That's what I thought.

 

You should read this article, where they show you how a budget processor can be overclocked to faster than anything on the market. Sweet read.

 

It's not just Intel chips. Any CPU can be overclocked to run faster than what it is rated. It's just a question of how much, and how long the processor will last at that speed.

 

When I originally read this, I thought you were referring to an old belief that Intel processors that did not pass muster at their manufactured speeds, but that would still perform reliably at a lower speed, would be somehow limited to that reliable speed and be labelled and sold as such, rather than throw them away.

 

Hey Mada Milty Thanks for the heads up on that article, not to fond of Intel, but that Intel D805 chip is something else according to his exhaustive tests.
Again Thanks (Wonder how long that chip will be available)

 

What is it that for the same model of processor will let it run at a higher speed?

 

A few salient snippets from the article Mada Milty referred to, that might clarify the matter. The article can be found either here http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/print.html or on Mada Milty post.
The bottom line is that the Athlon FX-60 and the Pentium Extreme Edition 965 have both met their match - there's simply no escaping this conclusion! This is bound to cause lamentation among the elite circle of users who've invested big bucks in their high-end systems, if not outright wailing and rending of garments. The basic stats for this insignificant-seeming budget processor read as follows: Pentium D 805 clocked at 2.66 GHz, equipped with two processor cores both with 64 bit support. At your friendly neighborhood retailer you can pick up this secret weapon for pocket change - right now, for example, it's available at newegg.com for just under $130. We were quite amazed as the first performance figures emerged from our test labs: stable operation was possible at 4.1 GHz, and without even the need for substantial boosts to cooling!
Pentium D 840 Dual 3200 MHz 1 MB 16x 200 MHz QDR
Pentium D 830 Dual 3000 MHz 1 MB 15x 200 MHz QDR
Pentium D 820 Dual 2800 MHz 1 MB 14x 200 MHz QDR
Pentium D 805 Dual 2666 MHz 1 MB 20x 133 MHz QDR
By comparison with all the other processors in this series, the D 805's relatively low clock speed of 2.66 GHz doesn't make much of an impression on store shelves. At 133 MHz (533 QDR), its front side bus clock rate is laughable when compared to state-of-the-art CPUs with 200 and 266 MHz speeds.
FSB clock Bandwidth
266 MHz (1066 QDR) 8.53 GB/sec
200 MHz (800 QDR) 6.40 GB/sec
133 MHz (533 QDR) 4.20 GB/sec
Out of the box and with no additional modifications, the Pentium D 805 is not even half as fast at exchanging data with the Northbridge chipset, when compared to leading-edge CPUs with 266 MHz FSB clocks.
________________________________________
The Secret Of The Multiplier
The multiplier expresses the ratio between the processor clock speed and the FSB clock. For the Pentium D 805, the combination of FSB and processor clocks results in a multiplier value of 20x. By comparison with other CPUs with 200 MHz or 266 MHz FSB, this is a very high value - 12x and 14x are much more common. But this also makes the Pentium D 805 a good candidate for overclocking. Simply by raising the FSB clock rate to 200 MHz, the resulting CPU clock rate rises to 4.0 GHz once the 20x multiplier is applied (20x times 200 MHz equals 4.0 GHz).
The following table provides an overview of some of the mathematically possible CPU clock rates that result from raising the FSB clock rate.
Pentium D 805 with 20x Multiplier
FSB clock CPU clock
133 MHz (Default rate) 2.66 GHz
140 MHz 2.80 GHz
150 MHz 3.00 GHz
160 MHz 3.20 GHz
166 MHz 3.33 GHz
170 MHz 3.40 GHz
180 MHz 3.60 GHz
190 MHz 3.80 GHz
200 MHz 4.00 GHz
205 MHz 4.10 GHz
210 MHz (THG clock) 4.20 GHz
215 MHz (Maximum boot clock) 4.30 GHz
At first blush, overclocking such a small and cheap CPU to 4.1 GHz seems impossible. Nevertheless, the numbers don't lie, and if you consider the ancestry of this CPU more carefully, this kind of overclocking becomes easier to understand.
________________________________________
How Is Breaking The 4 GHz Barrier Possible?
A closer look at the processing cores in the 805 CPU reveals that the device is fabricated with a B0 product code (stepping). The first core in the 800 series on which this CPU is based was fabricated using the older A0 version instead.

 

Nvm!

 

Yeah, the 805D will OC well if you like your chip chewing up 200 watts or putting out 80C in heat if it's being water-cooled.

 

Okay, two things wrong here.

1. The power consumption is close to 200W at idle before overclocking and, it is only about the wattage of a light bulb over 200W when fully OC'd.
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/05/10/dual_41_ghz_cores/idle_all.gif

2. The heat generated only reached 80C with an air-cooled CPU. It doesn't list the temperatures running with a water cooler.

Pentium D 805 Zalman Cooler
Clock Rate 100% Utilization Idle Mode
4.10 GHz crash 52 °C
4.00 GHz 80 °C 49 °C
3.80 GHz 76 °C 47 °C
3.60 GHz 74 °C 46 °C
3.32 GHz 71 °C 46 °C
2.66 GHz 64 °C 44 °C

 

Right, and that is far exceeding intel's thermal specs on that chip. So better fork out a couple hundred for water-cooling, not to mention more money for when the chip dies quickly.

 

Can I ask something?

Read the first post in this thread and tell me how you guys are staying on topic?


Ok then.

This isn't a Pros vs. Cons discussion.

 

BCGray, don't let tom's hardware guide fool you, they have a shaky rep.

Here's an article that you should look at:

http://www.techwarelabs.com/articles/hardware/dcOAB/

Now getting back on-topic... @_@

 

I see what you're saying Adrynalyne, this isn't strictly about chips being sold at a clock speed lower than the rated speed, but I thought it was relevant (ie the chip can be MADE much faster than labelled), especially considering that the user has a tendency to post general curiosities, as opposed to inquiries for specific advice/information. See this thread as an example.

 

Yes, but its getting heated, and thats why I said something.

Your post was fine, it was the tangent it went off to from there.

 

Mada Milty I agree that the water cooled specs are mysteriously missing on an otherwise comprehensive test of this CPU, but as pointed out in the forum link very few would attempt to run it at its maximum output. The low initial FSB and the high multiplier make this chip an ideal overclocker when required, which with most users would be aprox 10% of the time it was running, as few apps could use its speed. I think most would clock it at 3.8 GHz, when required with the Zalman Cooler which would give you 3.80 GHz - 76 °C/100% - 47 °C/idle, then fall back to 3.32 GHz - 71 °C/100% - 46 °C/idle for regular usage for the celius challenged that’s 170 °F/77 °C and 116 °F/47 °C. A salient point is that this chip out of the box runs at 2.66 GHz 64 °C 44 °C, which means that for a almost 50% increase in CPU speed your getting a 10% increase in heat or 7 °C.

Tonglebeak, said “Right, and that is far exceeding intel's thermal specs on that chip. So better fork out a couple hundred for water-cooling, not to mention more money for when the chip dies quickly.”

Sorry, I think you have forgotten Intel’s thermal monitor utility, plus I am not stating that Toms Hardware article is the gospel, but as Mada Milty said earlier, it is an interesting read, and gives us Non-Clocker’s an insight into the Clocker’s world, I for one learned a lot from both his article and the posted forum sight, where both sides weighed in

Sorry if I have stepped on toes Adrynalyne, but I must agree with Mada, his posting got me checking into an area that I would have never gone too, also like the above CPU, a little heat never hurts a “Geek” right, Oh and the original poster lionrampant came back and posted more queries last night. However I will be a good wantabe Geek, and go to my corner, and be quiet, just might sulk a bit if that’s Okay.

 

Yes, its true that I took exception to Tonglebeak's posts; I felt he was misconstruing the data, and possibly misleading the users, but he obviously has some strong opinions on the subject, and he is entitled, no? I wasn't offended by anything he said (apart from the above), and I hope that the same is true for him.

I apologize for the tangent this went off to, because I hadn't sufficiently explained my point: the water-cooled temperatures weren't listed, but they are presumably a bit lower than that of an air-cooler, and Tonglebeak seems to think the chip will fry regardless. I just don't understand where he gets this idea.

 

I never said it will fry, just that its thermal specs are exceeded and that obviously means a much shorter life.