• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Overdrive...but for Phenom

Azza

Azza

Azza

Caporegime
Joined
6 Dec 2005
Posts
37,966
Location
Birmingham
AMD Overdrive

amd_overdrive.jpg


Individual changing of the multi for each core...very nice. :)

3.3ghz from stock 2.2ghz im guessing is also very nice. :)
 
Azza said:
AMD Overdrive

amd_overdrive.jpg


Individual changing of the multi for each core...very nice. :)

3.3ghz from stock 2.2ghz im guessing is also very nice. :)
Click to expand...

Yep during my BETA day's at AMD/ATi we all had to vote on what to call it a few months back, Overdrive naturally won out of all the other choices. Good program ;)
 
only good thing i could see is if one core perhaps loves high FSB, while another one can reach high Mhz? means your not limiting yourself because one core cant reach "x" FSB/Mhz
i do wonder what impact having them all running a different speeds would have though....
 
As far as I'm aware it will let you effectively totally shutdown individual cores if they're not doing anything.

Jokester
 
Cob said:
Is there any point in running the cores at different speeds?
Click to expand...

Could probably provide better stability in cases where all the cores aren't being used heavily.

For example, in single-threaded apps you could set affinity to the 'best' core which is maxed out with an uber overclock. Meanwhile the other cores are underclocked to keep temperatures down while ticking along running background tasks.
 
HangTime said:
Could probably provide better stability in cases where all the cores aren't being used heavily.

For example, in single-threaded apps you could set affinity to the 'best' core which is maxed out with an uber overclock. Meanwhile the other cores are underclocked to keep temperatures down while ticking along running background tasks.
Click to expand...

i still wouldnt class this as a reasonable explanation and do see it as some what pointless
 
I understand (and applaud) the idea of being able to keep the weaker cores speed lower when overclocking, but I don't see the point of disabling (or switching off or whatever) cores when they're not needed. Surely Windows will distribute the load evenly between all four cores, even if it's only 25% each.
 
Pulse said:
i still wouldnt class this as a reasonable explanation and do see it as some what pointless
Click to expand...

TBH it seems obvious to me ;)

Not all cores overclock to the same speed.

With four cores you have a higher chance of just one core limiting your max stable overclock.
 
The point is, you greatly reduce idle power consumption, I'm assuming it'll also work with Cool and Quiet, so not only would one core be running at minimal speed and voltage, the other 3 would be switched off entirely.

Jokester
 
Current PCI-E speed of 0!!!!!

Otherwise I can the benfits to this, Im guessing the CPU has to be designed a particular way for this capability to work or would B3/G0 Intel's be capable of this given the right software?
 
I think why way AMD have made a native quad (4 seperate but linked cores) this is why AMD can do this.

Intels current quads are 2x C2D basicly.

I dont know about future intel quads.
 
Jokester said:
The point is, you greatly reduce idle power consumption, I'm assuming it'll also work with Cool and Quiet, so not only would one core be running at minimal speed and voltage, the other 3 would be switched off entirely.

Jokester
Click to expand...

What is this 'idle' that you speak of ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom