Olá caros leitores. Segue uma quase trágica história.

Eu recentemente comprei alguns itens novos para meu computador.  Um AMD Phenom II x4 955 Black Editon, Asus M4N78 PRO e 2 x2Gb DDR II 800 Kingston.

Antes de qualquer coisa, não, não foi nesta nova configuração que esqueci a pasta térmica.

Eu antes de comprar estes 3 itens eu tinha um AMD Athlon XP 2800+, Asus A7V600-X com 1Gb de memória DDR 333.

Minha intenção era  preservar meus HDs, unidade óptica, fonte e demais itens, que ainda estão bons, muitos deles novos ou em bom estado, como a Cooler Master de 350 Watts reais que está segurando muito bem a nova configuração sem qualquer variação nas tensões.

Tratei de desmontar todo o gabinete e limpar tudo para receber os novos moradores, o Phenom II x4 955 de 3,2Ghz. Aproveitei também para desmontar o cooler do antigo processador e dar uma geral na placa, tirar a poeira…

Limpei tudo, a maioria no pincel e algumas coisas no aspirador, montei então provisóriamente o Athlon XP em cima da bancada pra usar enquanto eu não montava o x4 que ainda não havia chegado. Montei o Athlon XP sem pasta térmica, acreditando na eficacia da lenda e consagrado cooler VCom 21B.

Eu ligava a placa mãe, e após +- 3 segundos ela desligava a fonte, eu pensando, sera que fiz merda algo errado?

Eu já estava assustado, não queria perder meu Athlon XP de jeito nenhum, passamos bons bocados juntos, ele aguentou firme cada tarefa pesada que mandei ele fazer, rodou tudo que é sistema operacional e distro Linux, já foi levado a operar perto dos 3Ghz, o clock original dele é 2083Mhz, e continua forte. Não me perdoaria se eu tivesse queimado ele, tomei tanto cuidado com estática.

Tentando diagnosticar a causa disso comecei a tirar item por item, tirei memorias, placa de video, e foi quando tirei o processador que a placa mãe ligou e ficou ligada.  O problema estava justamente no processador! Aiaiaiaiai, o que foi que eu fiz? Assassinei meu processador? Como eu poderia ter feito algo tão cruel? Foi a falta da pasta térmica?

Conversando um pouco com meus amigos no IRC sobre isso, chegamos a conclusão que talvez ele não tivesse morrido, apenas se auto desligando para evitar morrer.

No dia seguinte, um sábado, as 8:30 da manha fui a loja de eletrônica da cidade comprar pasta térmica. Cheguei em casa, desmontei o cooler novamente, passei pasta térmica com todo cuidado, usando um cartão para garantir apenasu ma fina e homogenia camada de pasta.

Montei novamente o cooler e pronto! Estava funcionando novamente como se nada tivesse acontecido, e continua funcionando perfeitamente até agora!

Fica então aí o recado, sempre se lembre da pasta térmica! Mesmo que por montagens leves!

Ho provato ad overcloccare la cpu del mio pc principale di 200 Mhz. Si tratta di un Athlon XP 3200+ con core Barton, quindi fsb a 400 Mhz (200×2). Da 2200 effettivi sono passato a 2400, semplicemente impostando da bios il moltiplicatore a 12x (prima era 11x). Purtroppo il risultato è stato un pc instabile, nonostante le temperature siano sempre rimaste sotto i 50° Celsius. Negli intervalli tra un riavvio e l’altro però, sono riuscito a fare un po’ di test. Guadagnavo 3-4 frame in tutti i giochi cpu limited (tutti? ), e, cosa che mi ha sorpreso più di tutte e mi ha spinto a scrivere dell’esperienza, a vedere i filmati in “HD” su Youtube o a 720p con VLC senza scatti. Solo 200 Mhz di differenza! E’ pazzesco che basti così poco! La lamentazione del giorno è proprio questa: possibile che 2200 Mhz non siano sufficienti per decodificare un video? Per di più senza protezione! E la scheda video, cosa fa nel frattempo? E’ questo che mi fa imbestialire, ci preoccupiamo di inseguire i dual/quad core, i Mhz, ma non ottimizziamo il software. Sono impaziente per l’uscita di Snow Leopard. Da come se ne parla è molto più ottimizzato rispetto a Leopard, e con le api OpenCL sfrutta anche la potenza delle scheda video per le funzioni proprie del SO (non solo di grafica). Peccato che le OpenCL funzionino solo con schede video recenti, sebbene sia dai tempi del Radeon X800 che si parla di schede video programmabili… I filmati in Flash, poi, non sfruttano per nulla tanta potenza, sebbene si parli di una collaborazione tra Nvidia e Adobe proprio in questo campo. Non capisco poi le recensioni sui nuovi prodotti (come ION) che sfruttano sì l’accelerazione video della GPU, ma SOLO con determinati software (ovviamente da comprare a parte). E’ possibile fruire di un Blu-Ray su un pc con Atom + Ion, ma solo se sono presenti Windows Vista e Power DVD…

AMD Clones Intel

The year is 1981, and Intel (see history of Intel processors) has just been chosen by IBM to supply the processor for the first personal computer. IBM wanted at least two CPU suppliers for its PC, and forced Intel to license its technology. And so it was that AMD became one of the first companies to sell an 8086 clone. AMD’s first processor went on sale in 1982. Because it was a licensed processor, the AMD 8086 (and 8088) was identical to Intel’s model.

Note the “© Intel” on the processor, made by AMD.

Am286: Manufactured Under License, But Faster

AMD’s Am286, a clone of the Intel 80286 manufactured under license, was identical to the chip from Intel, but it had a big advantage: its higher clock speed. Whereas Intel’s 286s topped out at 12.5 MHz, AMD sold 20 MHz versions. Because the 286 was more economical than the 386, whose innovations weren’t fully exploited for several years, AMD was already the value choice more than 20 years ago.

Am386: A 40-MHz 386

In 1991, AMD released its 386 processor. Like its predecessors, this model was identical to the Intel versions. AMD was licensed to produce clones of Intel products, right down to the microcode (the CPU’s firmware). This processor had two notable features. First, it was faster than the Intel model—40 MHz compared to a top speed of 33 MHz at Intel—and it was the first to sport the Windows Compatible logo on the package.

Am486: The Last Clone

The 486 was the last clone of an Intel processor. AMD produced 486s in two different versions—one with microcode by Intel and another with microcode by AMD, because the company was having legal hassles with Intel by that point. In addition to processors sold under the 486 designation, AMD also marketed an AMD 5×86, which was a 486 with a 4x clock multiplier. Running at 133 MHz, this model was compatible with 486 motherboards, but had the performance of a Pentium 75. It was with the 5×86 that AMD began using the famous “Pentium Rating” (5×86 PR 75), which it would stay with up to and including the Athlon 64 X2.

The K5: AMD’s Very Own Processor

In 1996, AMD released its fifth-generation processor, the K5. Compared to Intel’s Pentium, the K5 was technically more advanced, though it did have some faults. It’s especially interesting because of its RISC-based internal architecture that decoded x86 instructions into micro-instructions before executing them. The K5 had difficulty reaching high clock speeds and its FPU was a little weak. Still, in normal use, the K5 was a better performer than the Pentium and its PR was not just hype—a K5 clocked at 100 MHz was sold as a PR133 chip, meaning that AMD considered it as being equivalent in performance to a 133 MHz Pentium.

The use of the PR resulted in such oddities as a K5 PR90 and PR120 running at the same frequency (90 MHz) and a PR100 and PR133 both clocked at 100 MHz. Notice also that the CPU package informed buyers that a heat sink and fan were required—at that time, the use of such cooling devices was not yet common practice.

The K6: AMD Extends Its Range

In 1997, AMD released a new processor: the K6. Unlike the K5, which was created by AMD, the K6 was the result of the work done by NexGen on the Nx686. This processor was compatible with Socket 7 (Pentium) motherboards and offered very good performance compared to Intel’s Pentium II processors, at a much lower price. The K6’s FPU was still a little weak compared to Intel’s. A 250 nm version of the K6, called Little Foot, came out in 1998.

Also in 1998, AMD announced the K6-2, a processor that used a faster bus (100 MHz) and had improved SIMD performance. It also had one more MMX unit than the K6 and a new instruction set, 3DNow!, for floating-point calculations (MMX handled only integers). The K6-2 (400 and up) was a big success because it was a good upgrade solution for owners of Pentium MMX platforms—by using the 2X multiplier on a motherboard with a 66 MHz bus, the processor was in fact operating at 6X (400 MHz), which permitted a significant gain in speed at a lower upgrade cost.

Finally, in 1999, AMD released the third version of the K6, the K6-III. The main difference from the K6-2 version was an on-chip 256 KB cache. The K6-III was very fast, but also very costly to produce, and was quickly replaced by the Athlon (K7).

AMD also marketed K6-2+ and K6-3+ processors, mainly for portable PCs. These used a 180 nm fab process and had an on-chip 128 KB (K6-2+) or 256 KB (K6-3+) L2 cache.

K7/Athlon: A Killer

In 1999, AMD released its seventh-generation processor, the K7, later renamed Athlon. This chip did away with the drawbacks of earlier models and finally had an FPU worthy of the name—in fact, it was even better than Intel’s. The Athlon was the fastest x86 processor and had many strong points, including a fast FSB—the EV6, used in the first Alpha processors—and high performance numbers. The only real problem came not from the processor but from the chipsets: neither the AMD nor Via models could compete with Intel’s chipsets (like the famous 440BX). The K7 used Slot A (competing with Intel’s Slot 1) and had a Level 2 cache with a variable divider (1/2, 2/5 or 1/3).

Just as a side note, it was AMD who was the first to announce (and market) a 1 GHz processor with the Athlon (two days before Intel’s 1 GHz Pentium III).

AMD Improves the Athlon: Thunderbird, XP, and more.

AMD knew it had a winner with the K7 architecture and improved it little by little, increasing the frequency and using finer fab processes. The Thunderbird core employed a 180 nm process and had 256 KB of on-chip cache. The Palomino design introduced support for SSE. The Athlon XP changed the package and reinstated PR numbers. The Thoroughbred was an Athlon XP using a 130 nm fab process (with a 256 KB cache). Barton had a 512 KB cache and also used a 130 nm process. Athlon XP and subsequent models used the PR number instead of a clock frequency designation.

We should mention that AMD also produced versions for servers (Athlon MP) and for laptops (Athlon 4, Athlon XP Mobile), as well as the Geode NX (130 nm and a 256 KB cache). AMD marketed the Thorton (130 nm, 512 KB of cache, 256 KB of which was disabled) and planned on Trinidad, an Athlon using a 90 nm process. There were more PR oddities: the Athlon XP 2600+ was clocked at 1,900, 1,917, 2,000, 2,083, or 2,133 MHz depending on the version, for instance