April 5, 201114 yr Just got: L041C238 #3242 Testing under SingleStage: this cpu really sucks monkeyballs - 53x100 = freeze during windows load, max boot 52x100 ... what a crappy piece ^^ beat this http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1749983 -40C royal monkey balls 3047A237 Costa Rica chips seem to of been sucking serious balls so far.
April 5, 201114 yr beat this http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1749983 -40C royal monkey balls 3047A237 Costa Rica chips seem to of been sucking serious balls so far. Costa Rica chips don't seem to be any different than other ones... just random as ever Some are good some are bad... If its limited to 50x then cold doesn't make a difference...
April 5, 201114 yr 2600k 3049A287 Costa Rica 1501 got here today. Will report back later when I fire it up in the UD7. So far only x54. Gotta try a couple other BIOS though.
April 5, 201114 yr So far only x54. Gotta try a couple other BIOS though. Probably limit if you already have PLL overvoltage and are running up the volts with 2c2t already.
April 5, 201114 yr Probably limit if you already have PLL overvoltage and are running up the volts with 2c2t already. Very true but Cowie is still on F2 because he says he can't boot past x53 on any of the B3 betas. I need to actually test F2 and try two other betas.
April 5, 201114 yr Author Updated first post! - 96 FPO/steppings - 296 entries Updated again: - 103 FPO/steppings - 303 different samples
April 6, 201114 yr L038A660 *A1241 53X max...not bother to try max Mhz L045B021 *A1943 53X L050A853 *A2927 54X and Mhz wall @ 5506 3049A330 *A0174 52X max 3050A749 *A1961 52X max 3101A201 *A2247 53X max 3101A201 *A1531 53X max 3101A201 *A2242 54X and Mhz wall @ 5470 3101A201 *A1499 56X and Mhz wall @ 5650 All on ss cooling, seem like 3 batches need less vcore comparo to L0 batches Finally came face to face with the dreaded post code 00 (MIVE) on one of my really good chip:( Edited April 9, 201114 yr by dumo
April 6, 201114 yr after reading about all this Malay,Costa Rica chips i think this is appropriate to post; http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=750461 I posted it this in the mammoth Northwood thread, and Wingz posted it in GH. I thought I'd post it once more just for the extra exposure. Just to clear something up, the markings on the back of the CPU refer to the packaging site - not the manufacturing site of the actual silicon chip itself. Intel has no fabs in either Malaysia or Costa Rica, they are packaging facilities. The silicon die/chips are manufactured elsewhere in the world and are shipped to either of these two packaging sites. In addition, Intel manufacturing has a goal of running a "virtual fab" - meaning that, among other things, products from one fab are statistically indistinguishable from those manufactured at another fab. So even if, for example using fake names, Malaysian packages used chips only from fab #1 and packages marked Costa Rica use chips from fab #2, there should be no difference statistically between these two. I saw these discussions back in the Celeron days, and I commented back then, but this time around it seems a little different. I have started seeing some online retailers charging more for parts from a specific packaging site and this disturbs me. There is no difference between parts from these two packaging sites. Just as you can have 6 head/tails coin tosses come out heads, there may seem to be a correlation that heads is more likely than tails, but there isn't. In reality the odds are still approximately 50/50. The silicon is what defines the speed of a CPU, not the package. And the silicon comes from multiple fabs scattered all over the place that are all supposed to be identical anyway. If you are considering spending more, or buying from a shadier vendor, in order to get a specific package, I would urge you to reconsider. There is no difference and you are only wasting money, and or risking getting ripped off. Patrick Mahoney Microprocessor Design Engineer Intel Corp. Edited April 6, 201114 yr by coolhand411
April 6, 201114 yr after reading about all this Malay,Costa Rica chips i think this is appropriate to post; http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=750461 I posted it this in the mammoth Northwood thread, and Wingz posted it in GH. I thought I'd post it once more just for the extra exposure. Just to clear something up, the markings on the back of the CPU refer to the packaging site - not the manufacturing site of the actual silicon chip itself. Intel has no fabs in either Malaysia or Costa Rica, they are packaging facilities. The silicon die/chips are manufactured elsewhere in the world and are shipped to either of these two packaging sites. In addition, Intel manufacturing has a goal of running a "virtual fab" - meaning that, among other things, products from one fab are statistically indistinguishable from those manufactured at another fab. So even if, for example using fake names, Malaysian packages used chips only from fab #1 and packages marked Costa Rica use chips from fab #2, there should be no difference statistically between these two. I saw these discussions back in the Celeron days, and I commented back then, but this time around it seems a little different. I have started seeing some online retailers charging more for parts from a specific packaging site and this disturbs me. There is no difference between parts from these two packaging sites. Just as you can have 6 head/tails coin tosses come out heads, there may seem to be a correlation that heads is more likely than tails, but there isn't. In reality the odds are still approximately 50/50. The silicon is what defines the speed of a CPU, not the package. And the silicon comes from multiple fabs scattered all over the place that are all supposed to be identical anyway. If you are considering spending more, or buying from a shadier vendor, in order to get a specific package, I would urge you to reconsider. There is no difference and you are only wasting money, and or risking getting ripped off. Patrick Mahoney Microprocessor Design Engineer Intel Corp. Thanks for the info Patrick.
April 7, 201114 yr i5-2500K: L046B582 2105 <5.100 MHz Can't boot Win @ 5.1 GHz (51 x 100)/1.5 V(+) at air with P8P67 (PLL OV enabled), so no further testing - max frequency is probably even <5 GHz. Edited April 7, 201114 yr by Hyperhorn
April 9, 201114 yr http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1750024 L051B138 #0453 5001.9 Mhz Not maxxed, but my H50 maxxed out enough for me. Edited April 23, 201114 yr by DanBoTech add pic
April 9, 201114 yr http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1758876 L044B678 *1670 : x56 max, 5463mhz ...not maxxed out yet (under H70) Edited April 14, 201114 yr by Eeky NoX
April 10, 201114 yr 3101A482 #1825 = 5.3Ghz http://www.scatteredthorns.co.za/images/localhost/2600k/2600k.png
April 11, 201114 yr Author Updated again: - 103 FPO/steppings - 303 different samples Updated again (+ added binning procedure): - 112 FPO/steppings - 321 different samples
April 12, 201114 yr i7 2500K Batch L045B311 # 4442 maxed out at 5288, no 1 MHZ more p.s. with temperature below -15/20° C it act weird and lose about 200 MHZ. the only good thing is that it's damn strong, I've abused it for more than 30 hours with vcore 1.7 volt at air cooling and still no sign of degrade. Edited April 12, 201114 yr by Mafio
April 13, 201114 yr i7 2600K Batch L101B624 # 1424 53X max and 5328Mhz i7 2600K Batch L102B309 # 2230 53X max and 5300Mhz i7 2600K Batch L040B166 # 1538 53X max and 5332Mhz
April 13, 201114 yr 2600K 3103B471 #0438 x54multi #2000 x52multi #2003 x50multi L052A707 #2264 x56multi 5628 http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6339/559516aida.png L051B163 #1922 x56multi Edited April 13, 201114 yr by GUN'G'STAR
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.