Opteron 165 - Upgrade to X2 - Page 2

20th January 2006, 13:47

couldnt you just use a fan to cool the piwc (or something like that)
or put some passive cooling on it??
just a suggestion

Sidney · 20th January 2006, 15:35

Quote:

couldnt you just use a fan to cool the piwc

Yes, I have; and I have since relocated the fans. New (much lower) temps on CPU and PWMIC will be added to the article shortly.

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...&articID=3 22

jmke · 20th January 2006, 21:38

The article has been updated : http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...&articID=3 93

22nd January 2006, 13:10

Good article Lazy I like this perspective andn I learned alot in prepartion for my own A64 3800 X2 arriving Tueday.

Sidney · 22nd January 2006, 13:44

Hope yours would have better memory controller

Sidney · 22nd January 2006, 18:24

Monarch has it now down to $285

http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merch..._Code= 120339

22nd January 2006, 18:58

Although this may seem like a criticism or an anti on-die MC (Memory Controller) manifesto, it is not. I believe the on-die MCH is one of the best things to happen to the modern processor and by the same token a step=sideways because it essentially "integrates" something else onto the core. The principle behind this is anlogous to integrated graphics into motherboard chipset's. There's not a knowledgeable person on the planet whom would choose integrated VGA over today's add-in cards. While this could be resolved the motherboard would become a behemouth cost over a 1000USD and if the graphings fails the whole baby is shot. Same thing in the Audiophile world. not only are tube or transistor high end amps seprate from the preamp, stereo is considered inferior toi using mono-blocs since the transfomer isn't shared. this has an infinate reduction as many Audiophiles Bi-amp and even Tri-amp, using three mono-blco vaccum tubes amp per side for a total of six, each amp drving a stage in the speaker thus eliminating the crossover and another series of circuits which come between the end-user and the music.

My hypothesis is the on-die memory controller while having obious advanatges also has it's diadvnatges. That is memory controller related issues now occur within the proceesor. Whehe once a motherboard (and it's NB-MCH) could be discarded (RMA a faulty mobo), switched out (get a new/different mobo), cooled (H20 cool or phase-chnage cool the NB-MCH), modified (self evident) etc. this is literally impossible unless you believe your going to open up you core and begin tinkering. There just aint no screw drivers that small.

With dual core and a shared memory controller we're now doubling (at the very least) the number of problems which can occur. it;s almost as if were buying the cow to get the milk, and a CPU is not the cheapest cow. Every processor sold with an on-die MC brings with it an entirely new set of poptentiasl problems.

1.) We know Intel prcessors (Prescotts/P IVs) overclock much higher and i assert those reasons are;

A.) have a differernt architecture (AMD braniac vs Intel speed demon)

B.) just like overclocking a Pentium will depend on the quality of the North Bridge MCH; since A64's have incorperated the MC on-die this has become an additional obstacle and one of the primary reasons we're seeing more failures amoung AMD CPU's.

C.) where Athlon XP's overclocked much higher (relative to the A64) because they eschewed (or raher were Pre on-die MC) they overclocked much higher. the PR (Perfromance Rating) system was still necessary based on architecture, however processor failures were much less frequent.

Sharing the memory controller amoung what are essentially two independent cores may in fact double (at least) the chance problems can occur and may even reduce the processors life by half. I would assert that at about three - five years were going to see many failed early A64's and the same with early X2.s.

Finally now that we have established there is a correlation between CPU failures where VTT (DDR voltage is 1/2 VTT) is excessively high and Vcore is low (default). This is due to high cuurent on one side of the diode damagin it and allowing that to surge directly into the CPU. By raisng Vdimm you balance the current on both sides of the diode. The bottom line here agin is heat, rasing voltages on both sides of that protection circuit increases heat. This IMO is an ad-hoc fix at best.

jmke · 22nd January 2006, 19:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquid3D

B.) just like overclocking a Pentium will depend on the quality of the North Bridge MCH; since A64's have incorperated the MC on-die this has become an additional obstacle and one of the primary reasons we're seeing more failures amoung AMD CPU's.
.

I would not go as far as calling a lesser overclock a "failure".

good find on the Vcore/Vdimm issue

Sidney · 22nd January 2006, 19:27

The Company consists of President and Vice President; perhaps two VP. Putting the President next to the VP will certainly be better than having the VP sitting in another building

While the VP of Sales (Video card) be better off hitting the road to get more sales

(the weak link).

The short fall of Intel P4 is not to intergrate memory (controller) into the CPU. While nothing is perfect; the mem controller built in is closer than Intel's approach. Intel knows it, just too screwed up to admit.

Besides, ocing is never the given.

22nd January 2006, 20:11

When I said "failure" I meant literally, a higher incidence of CPU failure, meaning dead, fried, stodged, KaPut, a pile of burning embers, finito, seen it's maker, ascended into heaven, crossed over, deceased, sleeps with the fishes, "No mor love you long time".

Lazy I do understand what you are saying and to a large extent I agree, however, this is still early technology in the overall scheme of things. I don't think the on-die MCH has been pefected and what's making this difficult is that the CPU is every shrinking. It's like trying to play catch up.

While your analogy of then President and VP of the processor core company Inc. may be accurate in theory, it's missing something.

The President and VP are working together prblem is theor essentially sharing a Secratary, or a single phone line, or office toilet, or what have you. Point is their sharing something each used to have for themselves, and their now putting twice the workload on that thing they share. The end result being the arbitrator between whom now has twice the workload begins to get overworked, begins to "sweat" over-heats. One day it just quits.

now for the "VP of Sales" i think what we have is an redundant postion. lets say the company decixes to outsource it's "weak link" which happen to be Visual Department. Now delegating that responsicility to an outside souce which specializes in this area, quality increase ten-fold.

What do you think about my writing a quick article on this?

20th January 2006, 21:38	#13
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	The article has been updated : http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...&articID=3 93 __________________

22nd January 2006, 13:44	#15
Sidney Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 15,738	Hope yours would have better memory controller __________________ lazyman Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II

22nd January 2006, 18:24	#16
Sidney Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 15,738	Monarch has it now down to $285 http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merch..._Code= 120339 __________________ lazyman Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II

22nd January 2006, 19:27	#19
Sidney Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 15,738	The Company consists of President and Vice President; perhaps two VP. Putting the President next to the VP will certainly be better than having the VP sitting in another building While the VP of Sales (Video card) be better off hitting the road to get more sales (the weak link). The short fall of Intel P4 is not to intergrate memory (controller) into the CPU. While nothing is perfect; the mem controller built in is closer than Intel's approach. Intel knows it, just too screwed up to admit. Besides, ocing is never the given. __________________ lazyman Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
AMD Opteron™ Processor Upgrade Program Drives Faster Time to Benefit in the Data Cent	jmke	WebNews	0	7th April 2009 12:46
[Tk] AMD Opteron 165 Dual Core (S939, 1,8GHz, 2MB, Boxed)	Vassili	Mad Bargains	0	30th March 2006 17:23
AMD's Opteron 165 and 180 processors	Sidney	WebNews	2	23rd February 2006 18:10
The Best-Value Dual-Core AMD Processor: Opteron 165 CPU	Sidney	WebNews	1	13th February 2006 06:21
[FS] Opteron 146 & Dual Core 165 Socket 939 [CLOSED]	computersmsa	Mad Bargains	357	14th December 2005 21:34
Opteron 165 Toledo Core Overclocking With High End Air	Sidney	WebNews	3	10th November 2005 16:17
AMD Lowers AMD Opteron for 1-Way Apps Pricing	jmke	WebNews	1	4th November 2005 10:02
AMD Cranks Up Speed of Low Power AMD Opteron Chips	jmke	WebNews	0	23rd March 2005 11:29
AMD's Q1 2004 Opteron Sales Surpass the Whole 2004 Figure	jmke	WebNews	0	17th June 2004 08:53
HP announces four-way Opteron system	jmke	WebNews	2	25th April 2004 19:30

20th January 2006, 13:47	#11
Gothrek Posts: n/a	couldnt you just use a fan to cool the piwc (or something like that) or put some passive cooling on it?? just a suggestion

22nd January 2006, 13:10	#14
Liquid3D Posts: n/a	Good article Lazy I like this perspective andn I learned alot in prepartion for my own A64 3800 X2 arriving Tueday.

22nd January 2006, 18:58	#17
Liquid3D Posts: n/a	Although this may seem like a criticism or an anti on-die MC (Memory Controller) manifesto, it is not. I believe the on-die MCH is one of the best things to happen to the modern processor and by the same token a step=sideways because it essentially "integrates" something else onto the core. The principle behind this is anlogous to integrated graphics into motherboard chipset's. There's not a knowledgeable person on the planet whom would choose integrated VGA over today's add-in cards. While this could be resolved the motherboard would become a behemouth cost over a 1000USD and if the graphings fails the whole baby is shot. Same thing in the Audiophile world. not only are tube or transistor high end amps seprate from the preamp, stereo is considered inferior toi using mono-blocs since the transfomer isn't shared. this has an infinate reduction as many Audiophiles Bi-amp and even Tri-amp, using three mono-blco vaccum tubes amp per side for a total of six, each amp drving a stage in the speaker thus eliminating the crossover and another series of circuits which come between the end-user and the music. My hypothesis is the on-die memory controller while having obious advanatges also has it's diadvnatges. That is memory controller related issues now occur within the proceesor. Whehe once a motherboard (and it's NB-MCH) could be discarded (RMA a faulty mobo), switched out (get a new/different mobo), cooled (H20 cool or phase-chnage cool the NB-MCH), modified (self evident) etc. this is literally impossible unless you believe your going to open up you core and begin tinkering. There just aint no screw drivers that small. With dual core and a shared memory controller we're now doubling (at the very least) the number of problems which can occur. it;s almost as if were buying the cow to get the milk, and a CPU is not the cheapest cow. Every processor sold with an on-die MC brings with it an entirely new set of poptentiasl problems. 1.) We know Intel prcessors (Prescotts/P IVs) overclock much higher and i assert those reasons are; A.) have a differernt architecture (AMD braniac vs Intel speed demon) B.) just like overclocking a Pentium will depend on the quality of the North Bridge MCH; since A64's have incorperated the MC on-die this has become an additional obstacle and one of the primary reasons we're seeing more failures amoung AMD CPU's. C.) where Athlon XP's overclocked much higher (relative to the A64) because they eschewed (or raher were Pre on-die MC) they overclocked much higher. the PR (Perfromance Rating) system was still necessary based on architecture, however processor failures were much less frequent. Sharing the memory controller amoung what are essentially two independent cores may in fact double (at least) the chance problems can occur and may even reduce the processors life by half. I would assert that at about three - five years were going to see many failed early A64's and the same with early X2.s. Finally now that we have established there is a correlation between CPU failures where VTT (DDR voltage is 1/2 VTT) is excessively high and Vcore is low (default). This is due to high cuurent on one side of the diode damagin it and allowing that to surge directly into the CPU. By raisng Vdimm you balance the current on both sides of the diode. The bottom line here agin is heat, rasing voltages on both sides of that protection circuit increases heat. This IMO is an ad-hoc fix at best.

22nd January 2006, 20:11	#20
Liquid3D Posts: n/a	When I said "failure" I meant literally, a higher incidence of CPU failure, meaning dead, fried, stodged, KaPut, a pile of burning embers, finito, seen it's maker, ascended into heaven, crossed over, deceased, sleeps with the fishes, "No mor love you long time". Lazy I do understand what you are saying and to a large extent I agree, however, this is still early technology in the overall scheme of things. I don't think the on-die MCH has been pefected and what's making this difficult is that the CPU is every shrinking. It's like trying to play catch up. While your analogy of then President and VP of the processor core company Inc. may be accurate in theory, it's missing something. The President and VP are working together prblem is theor essentially sharing a Secratary, or a single phone line, or office toilet, or what have you. Point is their sharing something each used to have for themselves, and their now putting twice the workload on that thing they share. The end result being the arbitrator between whom now has twice the workload begins to get overworked, begins to "sweat" over-heats. One day it just quits. now for the "VP of Sales" i think what we have is an redundant postion. lets say the company decixes to outsource it's "weak link" which happen to be Visual Department. Now delegating that responsicility to an outside souce which specializes in this area, quality increase ten-fold. What do you think about my writing a quick article on this?