Crysis is easy to run. My system crushes the game. Never understood the meme.

@@helium5912 the 2007 original build relied heavily on single thread calculations.

@@helium5912 that's because you're doing it 15 years late -_-

@@helium5912 do it on a 2007 system and you'll understand.

​@@helium5912 Zoom Zoom

from what i can gather, QBGC was a thermal sample, which means the chips just flat out will not work, sadly

While not impossible, I would say it unfortunately very unlikely that the microcode ever made it outside of Intel labs..

i offer the option that all test chips of a certain generation should share the same id codes. I have no evidence for this other than ease of testing. If you had to put each id for each cpu it might pose some problems. If all the test chips are the same id , then that id is input once and covers all Qualifying samples and one code for engineering samples. all speculation.

Perhaps there are some "removed from intel bins" motherboards, where that bios is still attached. Just find it! 🤣

his cpus are not real dude

Thanks you! I'd love a dual P3 system - that would have been quite a system back in the day.

That was actually a really intelligent double down if you ask me. Did you ever test SMP Quake III Arena?

@@nexxusty asking the questions that matter!

@@nexxusty Mickey Mouse bro. It was designed to exploit the original ultra weak logical cores.

@@eclipsegst9419 I ALWAYS wanted to test Q3A with Dual CPU's of that era. I stupidly threw out a Dell Dual Tualatin board that used RDRAM in 2017. I still feel like an idiot for doing that.

That's amazing, thanks for sharing. What publication did you write for?

I remember buying prescott and hating it because it ran hot

I remember buying an Athlon XP because their IPC was better and the P4's where just too hot to handle. Luckely Intel got wise and continued with developing the P3 architecture.

ah yes presshot it even fit the name being named after a place in AZ lmao.

@@FullyBuffered source " trust me bro"

Nvidia: hold my beer

I always think about the Tejas TDP when I read about the i9. It's a habit I can't shake

Actually, Intel can handle it all now

coolers evolved a lot throughout those years though

@@warmike excuse me? Coolers evolved because they needed to, it's not like that were a breakthrough in cooling technology

Second this, but for delidding please contact der8auer as he can delid it non-destructively and has access to industrial level electronic microscopes to take die shots.

Thanks for the recommendations! I am looking at the options for delidding and photography

Yeah +1 for contact de8auer, he loves this sort of stuff and has the expertise, connections, and equipment to potentially make them work.

@@FullyBuffered Maybe you can get in touch with Roman Hartung aka der8auer from Germany. I'm sure he'll be interested in this kind of stuff and he has lots of friends and resources for such projects.

@@DJKr15py LOL, just wrote the same thing without even reading your comment. It must be true then. 😂

admit it you want a pentium 5 just for bregging rights no other reason

Thanks for the comment! I would love to get hold of an ES 771 board for this, but those are possibly even harder to find than these chips.

There *HAS* to be someone with connections at intel to help you get that cpu up & running :/ fingers crossed!

They could get those chips working because they had access to microcode from other BIOS's. It's a very different story when you have no reference. Especially when the chips might just be so different that they don't work with the northbridge.

Yeah but the 775 and 771 are essentially the same CPU internally, the 775 has just SSE4.1 fused away.. The difference between the chips is a 90° rotation of the socket and the exchange of two pins. The 771 xeons will even boot on the 775 mainboards without a bios mod, but then SSE4.1 is not availiable.

771 chips work out of the box on a 775 board (given it has an suitable chipset - p45 is best and the socket mod has been done already). you only lose a couple of instructions if stock bios is used

And now i9 14900KS that consumes just shy of 400W without power limits...

@@ismaelsoto9507 I cracked 500W on liquid nitrogen a little bit ago. The VRMs need water cooling if I go much further.

There was a canceled i9-10990XE with a rumored TDP of 380 watts

@@loona5530 Well the 14900ks consumes over 400W.

Yeah, 150 watts is now "the good old days."

ya imagine an 8 core drawing 1200 wattts

​@@benruss4130in a Pentium D like scenario, a 4 core cpu would have a stupendous die area larger than a 4090, would draw about 750-800W stock (150W per core, plus transistor leakage and interconnect + FSB), while having less performance than a core 2 quad at 2.66GHz 💀

The 1st time AMD pulled ahead was when AMD 1st hit the scene making Intel CPUs better than Intel.

@@bogartwilley Yeah the Athlon line in '99. AMD has been making CPUs for awhile.

@@Ittiz 1970 with the am2501

AMD beat Intel to 1ghz and above, Intel released and recalled its 1.13ghz model for stability issues. Its probably why Intel went with the netburst high clock speed architecture. Higher clock speeds are better, right? /s

Then they did it again for ryzen. And now they think that they don’t need to add cores to keep up with Intel anymore. They actually think selling a 6 core for the price of a 10 core is a good idea.

second that Asus board. I used to have a P5Q Pro that I ran Xeons in and I never did anything to the bios

But why so many revisions of a thermal sample?

Netburst was bad for gaming, only DX titles, Fury 3D ? only some Pentium 775 chips, did 4 mb cash on every core, only needing the fancy new DDR III everyone bought crap, he got that same crap, DDR III was to fancy, but just open, Rambus fakeness, overcoming that ??? This boy is too young to understand it, sorry....long time......

a 7 ghz cpu would be crazy insane I would have loved to see it for the giggles factor alone shame it never came to market

Yeah like those itanium and its funky socket

Thanks for the comment! Yeah finding ucode for these is going to be more than a challenge to say the least.

History is also repeating for AMD, they just used Jim Keller in order to stay afloat, their Zen iterations are still based on Zen architecture, with minor changes, even like 3D Cache, it's still on band-aids, and not a new architecture. AMD has no new architecture for years to come.

I don't think it was Intel's plan this time around. They just thought backporting upcoming architectures to their 14nm node would be a waste of resources as they surely would be able to leave that size soon enough. Then their fabs just didn't make enough progress and they were stuck with just one choice which was to crank up the clock frequencies. Then by the end they did bother making one backport release, namely 11th gen for desktop. Kind of an awkward release.

@@Wokiis Breaking News: The Fab node has lost its meaning once it goes below 12nm. Heck, it has lost its meaning once everyone go to 3D or trigate transistors instead of single planar transistors.

@@AlfaPro1337 you just spouted nonsense.

@@Wokiis twice

Oh I didn’t know that - thanks for the tip!

Why would mobo that premiered in 2008 had support for prototype CPU from 2004 in it's BIOS o_O?

Many thanks for the kind words! Best of luck to you as well :)

Thanks!

Thanks! 😁

I would have loved such a school trip

Also you forgot to mention that the old P4's motherboards using 5V rail as a power supply. That's why the old PSU's nowadays sucks because you don't really need 80A at 5V, that's ridiculous. But when you start think about it, when intel would come up with P5, there could be new 24pin connector definicion, like 28 or 30 for powering that hungry as hell Cpu 🤷 who knows, but i'm glad that intel gave up on this project because pipelining the cpu to the sky was big nono and it will not had a future. With P5 7GHz cpu, in CB R15 single core perf. Will be in level with fastest Core 2 duo clocked at 4GHz but the c2d will draw like 130W and the P5 atleast 300

@@samohraje2433 Pentium III and Athlon XP were the last CPUs requiring a high-amp 5V rail my man.

@@samohraje2433 I am not sure if P4 needed that much of 5 V, but I remember having Enermax 465 W PSU back then, that had like 30 or 35 A capacity on 5 V rail. Nowadays you get 20-25 and that's still a lot, since most of the power in PCs goes from 12 V rail. BTW that's also a challenge if you want to overclock an old CPU with new PSU, you might not have enough 3.3 and 5 V rail.

@@samohraje2433 Pentium 4 doesn't need 5V rail. They are mostly 12V. Only early motherboards from 2001-2002 was built on 5V rail for CPU. All later motherboards using 12V 4-pin additional supply. I'm sure, that in late 2004, they would plan it on 12V rail, probably with double 4-pin connector, which was introduced anyway on most highend motherboards, for overclocking, when you go above 150W. If this project would be successful, they would just need to build it few years earlier this way, and introduce 2x 4-pin 12V rail as basic. socket T was built for large heatsinks from beginning, it was also made of steel, not plastic, and it came handy later, when multicore extreme CPU's appeared, even on core 2 architecture, they start to draw over 125W, particulary after overclock. Just check Asus P5Q Deluxe motherboard, you'll find there 2x4-pin 12V rail additional connector for CPU. If this behemoth would be release, they would just need to build motherboards like this. With 8pin 12V connector for CPU instead 4pin, and 8-16 power phase design, (Asus P5Q Deluxe has 16-phases, so it handles over 150W CPU with stability even after extreme overclock... this scenario of course happens only during extreme overclocking, it wasn't meant to run like that, it's basicaly only for records for overclockers, that trying to hit absolute maximum and run 1-2 benchmarks... but Pentium 5 would probably needed it for normal run)

A 50 stage pipeline CPU on TSMC's 5nm process could reach 10ghz I bet, with some water cooling of course.

-_- from my memory bulldozer when they first explained what the architecture was... it made me pull the trigger on the 2600k.... because i was like wtf AMD why are you making your own version of netburst.... i already saw the issues coming

@@wnxdafriz Yeah, bulldozer was a thing... back in day I had a Phenom II X6 system and I remember hearing that the upcoming bulldozer parts would use the same socket, and thinking to myself it would be nice to have that as an upgrade option. Sadly, bulldozer turned out to be a flop, not even a decisive upgrade from what I already had. My next CPU purchase was a 4790k which I'm still using to this day. Still holds up quite respectably for a quad core.

Thank you! I do hope so 😁

That’s very cool - I’d love to get a black ops. Unfortunately it seems that without proper microcode support it won’t matter what motherboard I try. Perhaps an engineering sample 771 board, but the chances of getting hold of those is slim.

Fascinating how the Mind of the Uneducated fail logic. But I'm reminded that we need some sort simpletons to flip burgers

Your take on this is grossly inaccurate. if you compare the FX9590 with any 32nm Intel chip, the FX9590 wins easily. What you lacked over the years is knowing what Intels advantage actually was. It wasnt a better design. Intels designs have been clear verifiable worse for 25 years. Intel hit it big, jumping what was essentially several nodes ahead when going from P4 to Core2, because of both a node shrink AND a new novel 3d trigate design. The Core2 was also based on P3 instead of P4, but still not as good as AMD's designs. Also, that 3D trigate shit was what put Intel in the VERY BAD position it is in today, because they spent 8 YEARS trying to move it from 14nm to 10nm and eventually gave up. Todays Intel chips are using FinFET again like everyone else, and Intel is worse. Yep.

@@styleisaweapon Don't get me wrong, I wasn't considering neither raw performance nor lithographic nodes for my comparison. I was considering concepts (long pipelines) and relative consumption (> 150W). I know that AMD has been superior at designing chips at most times (not always tho). 2nd gen FX was superior to Intel in raw integer calculations and had a way larger cache amount. The way that resources were handled, tho, was poor. Shared caches had a terrible latency and collisions between cores, and FPU cores were halved to cointain costs. So that design wasn't the best anyway. What penalised FX series was their terrible 32nm GlobalFoundries node, which was obsolete even at the time. FX could have gathered much more success, but it had limits due to its structure. Even if they used a better node, pipeline complexity increasing over generations would have caused consumption to become incontrollable. And latencies too. This is why in many applications FX was way less responsive than lower-tier Intel chips of the time (as i3 and i5), despite being more powerful on paper. More latencies + More consumption = Consumer Market failure. And the reason in the absurdly long pipeline. That's why I can't get why they used this approach. Also, another inaccuracy you said is that Intel was always (and still is) inferior in design. After AMD K6, which is corresponding of Intel P1, AMD was getting each iteration closer to Intel, and superseeded it in the terrible P4 era. Athlon Classic was more efficient than P4 at the same way Intel Core 3-4th gen was towards FX 1-2nd gen. The Phenom era wasn't the same, tho. Intel was way more efficient at the time, despite being overall slightly less performing. Also, the first Ryzen processors weren't *better* than Intel ones. They were much more cheaper and had a way better value (on a similar node than Intel's). That's why they succeded. This changed with Ryzen 3000 series, which was both cheaper, better performing and better consuming. This is also changing again, with Intel Amber Lake being better performing, but more expensive and worse consuming in some categories. Times change.

@@rotten_cyano blah blah wall of text that proves youi still simply dont understand what intels advantage was - everything you said is literally invalidated by it - EVERYTHIHG

@@styleisaweapon I suppose you didn't even read. You just said random things in your previous comment and I made a further explanation.

@@rotten_cyano ah yes random - intel being effectively 2 nodes ahead didnt entirely explain intels performance advantage at the time .. you are so right ... not only doesnt it entirely explain it... it doesnt explain it at all .. how clever of you to realize that having a budget of 4 times as many transistors doesnt mean anything to performance

Yeah and LN2 cooler ain't having good time with this hot bois

Socket 775 went from Netburst era Prescott up to Core era Penryn

Having few Penryn and Wolfdale CPU makes me proud of having lots of junk LGA775 mobos

Many thanks :)

Thanks!

Thank you!

I would love to see that. It would be a neat marketing stunt indeed.

Ask AMD for that

Intel 2024: 400W for 14900KS

Thanks!

Many thanks for the comment man 😁 I remember the AMD Dell systems - I had a Prescott 530 Dell Dimension back then and it pushed out so much heat for the performance it offered. Intel must have been not amused by that switch lol

@@FullyBuffered Dell was the last tier 1 OEM to adopt AMD at the time and it was a pretty big deal. It was years of reasons why not for this reason and that reason to suddenly full embrace... brings back memories...this is a cool score BTW...

With such a 50-stages CPU, branchless programming is the key. To stay with your analogy, it would basically be a tunnel through the mountain.

@@OpenGL4ever That's if you have the luxury of new code that can be optimized for the CPU. In practice every new processor has to run old code with decent performance or it's going to be death on arrival on the market. Yes, there are fancy things like branch prediction and all the other things you can find in a CPU architecture book or paper. In the end branchless code or branch prediction have their limits. Another aspect of all these complicated technologies is that they lead to complicated hardware bugs that can barely if at all - and if so at a performance cost - be fixed in software. All in all that just means the KISS principle (aka RISC) wins again. Intel with their well established x86 architecture didn't have the luxury of an enitrely new architecture but the Transmeta processors or some of the non-Pentrium-4 derived Intel processors show what can be done. Given the extreme complexity and cost of introducing new processor architectures, the issues of binary compatibility and the general inertia of the market the opportunity of new architectures only arises once very few decades. And what can be milked from ever new architectures is getting less. With that the RISC-V may well be the last new processor architecture. Or at least until something changes fundamentally.

Thanks man 😁

Thanks Mike 💪

Imagine a house burning down yeah just like that

Just imagine the 28 cores of bullshit from 2018, that's what Tejas would have been.

Thanks for the comment!

it still is pronounced like that, just for Spanish speakers. Just like Mexico is still spelled Mexico just pronounced as "Mehico".

@@iplyrunescape305 I see. Nice to know thanks. :)

7ghz and performs slower than a 3ghz core2 cpu, which has majorly worse IPC than current cpus itself. utterly meaningless.

my first comp was 486.

Thanks!

Well spotted 😁