Finally Hit 4.00GHz!

[Aηdy]

Managed to hit the big 4.00GHz mark on my Intel Core2Duo E8400 3.00GHz, running on Zalman air cooling.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a102/muckingfuppet/ef2fcfd4.jpg

Running a little warm but far from dangerous, I'll clock it down to about 3.6GHz to let it run a bit cooler. I'd imagine with some water cooling this think will go damn high :cool:

[NightHawksr71]

Nice, Yea it does seem a little warm. All in looks pretty good. Nice setup to btw.

[Kiros]

A little warm? My computer runs hotter than that all of the time ._.

*pouts*

[Aηdy]

A little warm? My computer runs hotter than that all of the time ._.

*pouts*

Oh c'mon, I said a little warm :P

[Skhorpion]

60C is maximum safe temp. I'm surprised it's stable at that temp. You DID run P95 for a few days to test stability didn't you?

[Aηdy]

My old computer ran at around 83C for 6 years 24/7 use :)

I clocked it back down to 3.6GHz for a more stable and slightly cooler computer!

[Kiros]

Yah, I think the coldest that my computer has ever gotten was like 65C...

Eh... I need to make a new one -_-

At least it's not crashing anymore...

[Blahages]

I've still got my Q6700 running at 3.33GHz. I haven't tried any higher because it's already more than capable at handling anything I throw at it, it runs with pretty good temps (Running low 30's to low 40's at idle, depending on which program you use to check it, and like 60-62C Maybe (Usually in the 50's under full load), when full load), and the more you overclock it, the more watts it's going to use, and the more it's going to cost per month to run it.

If your's is running at 60C with like no load, what would happen if you were running at it full load for any time? The max safe temp for that CPU I believe is 72C, and obviously that's still a bit warm for any processor.

If you haven't run a stress test on the machine since overclocking it again, this is a good program to do it with:

http://majorgeeks.com/OCCT_d5612.html

[ThePhantom]

Besides a mini-heater in the winter, what is the purpose of that? I quad-box WoW and don't need a processor that fast.

[Falk 'Ace' Flyer]

That's what's great about CPUs: they can go much farther than they are shipped, simply because of ineffective cooling.

*drools for the day of 10 ghz...*

[NightHawksr71]

*drools for the day of 10 ghz...*

Yea 10 ghz would be awesome right now, but once we actually get the technology cheap enough to put in homes, there will be programs that require 15 ghz to run well.

[0=]

That's not where technology is headed. Haven't you noticed that they stopped increasing the clock speed and only increase the core count?

[Kiros]

Yes, but the only reason that the core count is increasing instead of the speed increasing is because there are certain limitations that pertain to certain sizes. Right now, 45nm is the standard, but Intel is about to step up to the next size. I can't think of what it was, but I want to say that it was 32nm or something close to that. I believe we'll see an increased speed with the smaller size.

[Aηdy]

They'll run cooler and more efficient too. Octo cores next up!

[Skhorpion]

Not only more cores, but with a better architecture. Processors nowadays can process more instructions per clock than older ones.

[0=]

Yes, but the only reason that the core count is increasing instead of the speed increasing is because there are certain limitations that pertain to certain sizes. Right now, 45nm is the standard, but Intel is about to step up to the next size. I can't think of what it was, but I want to say that it was 32nm or something close to that. I believe we'll see an increased speed with the smaller size.

I doubt we'll ever see anything obscene like 8+GHz, though. Processors are being made more efficient. I think it's more likely you'll see desktop processors with 16 cores that use two watts each running at 2GHz than you'll see four cores using eight watts each and running at 8GHz. As applications become heavily threaded it won't matter what the clock speed is so much as how many cores you can cram. If we do see higher clock speeds it will probably be with water cooling integrated in the chip (like what IBM is doing with vertically-stacked processors).

[Cindex]

It's not that we can't make them, or that it won't happen, it's just not practical. There's no point. Home computers only run so much.

I'm sure some huge company somewhere will have a use for 10GHZ

[Aηdy]

10GHz has already been done. Like said before, we don't need higher clock speeds, it's more advances architecture and more cores.

[Cindex]

10GHz has already been done. Like said before, we don't need higher clock speeds, it's more advances architecture and more cores.

Yea but I don't think they did it at the standard size :) But of course they have. I guess that counts as architecture though.

More cores don't seem to help that much though. They're not all used by programs.

[Falk 'Ace' Flyer]

I doubt we'll ever see anything obscene like 8+GHz, though. Processors are being made more efficient. I think it's more likely you'll see desktop processors with 16 cores that use two watts each running at 2GHz than you'll see four cores using eight watts each and running at 8GHz.

The way a lot of intensive application work at the moment, that's actually less efficient. Most programs can only utilize one core at a time, simply because threading on multiple cores is so difficult that it becomes a performance retardation, which is why gaming rigs are generally better with two cores at 3.0 GHz as opposed to 4 cores at 2 GHz.

[0=]

I'm talking about a couple years in the future, not right now. You don't think software will be heavily threaded? New software takes advantage of two and even four threads already, why not 32 with 16 cores running with SMT?

[Aηdy]

It wasn't that long ago that 512mb of ram was amazing, now 2 or 4gb is the norm and some people have 8gb. i've heard of people with 32gb ram.

Technogoly moves on fast. It wont be that long before 16 core processors are required to run certain programs or games! Take GTA IV for example, that requires a dual core processor, and they reccomend a quad core, something unheard of 2 or 3 years ago.

[Falk 'Ace' Flyer]

GTA IV isn't a very beautiful game. Try looking at Crysis requirements; they're much lower, mainly because a lot of the graphics processing is done by the video card. Looking at the way games are currently handled, you can most likely keep the same processor for a few years so long as you upgrade your video card often, if you want to be a gamer. Why? Because only things such as physics and level loading are handled by the CPU / RAM. All of the intense rendering is done solely by the graphics card, so unless some company creates a perfect real-life physics simulation in the near future, quad+ cores are useless.

[0=]

Actually, Nvidia already implements PhysX on their GPUs; mine does it, so my processor pretty much handles level loads and other moderate tasks. If you have a separate sound card and a modern video card there's not a whole lot for the processor to do if the game has PhysX optimizations.

[Falk 'Ace' Flyer]

Oh yeah, I forgot that PhysX no longer needs its own card. Therefore, you don't even really NEED a CPU =P