Phenom 9500 w/ MSI K9A2 Platinum

To oc Phenom, you'll have to learn how to use AM2+ P-States through the BIOS because that's what you'll have to use in order to drop CPU/NB/HT multi's. It's been covered here very thoroughly, quite a lot on the topic has been discussed:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=167977

The NB speed is separate from the HT speed and the NB volts are not the volts the BIOS labels "NB Voltage" ironically. Don't even bother touching that voltage since it won't be needed. There's quite a lot to read before attempting here.

NB clock is always equal or higher than HT clock. :)

KTE u might find this page usefull, for power consumtion comparison, till you get a Q6600.

At stock a Q6600 seems to use ~22,5W (DC or VAC?) under load ~50W more. So in idle it seems to require ~5W less than a 9500.
Taking into account that intel chipset's require ~25W and amd's new chipset's require ~10W a 9500/9600 system should require ~10W less than an intel system.

I'm curious what you'll find out.

That's very good actually, thanks. :)

They use a very similar if not the same board as I had for my Intel builds, basically the same HDD and the same CPU cooler. If I was to measure at VRMs the wattage I gave will be lower for the CPU as some of that is lost from my quoted figures, and especially if I factor in my voltages, currents and power factor.

22.5W is DC wattage with power saving running. That's close to what Penryn 3GHz does idle too when power saving puts it to 2GHz, around 21.5W. It drops the multi/volts/speeds. With P4, Core 2 and Penryn, voltage/frequencies matter massively to temps and power as you will see by only increasing or decreasing by 0.1V from a nominal voltage. Even by increasing just the FSB you will see a measurable enough increase in temps/power. You can take a look >HERE< for a quick frequency/FSB/volt/VID effect to Penryn power demand.
You can observe a similar trend with Phenom, but not from 1.0V-1.24V. You will hardly get a power consumption difference even if you dropped the frequency by a full 1GHz. From 1GHz 1.55V to 2.7GHz 1.55V the difference in total system full load power draw is 296VAC vs 330VAC, which is minute.
So from 1GHz to 2.2GHz you will hardly see an idle power consumption difference if you keep the voltage/VID the same (load is obviously different) and even if you dropped the voltage by 0.2V from stock the difference is very small in comparison to what it is with AMD X2, Intel P4, Core 2 or Penryn architecture.

They also did not specify a few very important parameters to me such as idle/full load temps and CPU VID for each core. A higher VID will get higher power consumption with the same core and a lower one will get lower power consumption, such as what you see when you compare my (or your) Phenom at 2.2GHz/2.3GHz/2.4GHz/2.6GHz with reviews of the 9500/9600/9700/9900 or when they overclocked.

I will test the Q6600 hopefully myself soon to find out wattages accurately using the exact same hardware and conditions (apart from board/processor).

The overclocking peak is limited in Intel CPU's by a) chip quality (some are better and some worse for high FSB/high speeds) b) stock VID c) stock voltage d) stock multi e) motherboard f) cooling and thus, considering a) and e) are good, the cooler you go, the higher you can effectively reach (until the chip or cooling limit is reached).

The overclocking peak is limited in AMD CPU's by a) chip quality b) stock VID c) stock voltage d) stock multi. Cooling doesn't seem to be the limit at all because we can go far cooler, the chip stays very cool and yet you won't see a difference in MHz gained.

On a good chip and board;
The limit with Intel CPU's is heat/power/voltage (same as P4).
The limit with AMD CPU's is processor technology (same as A64).

What it effectively means is;
For Intel to speed down the fab size scale is nothing but pure enlarged benefits in every way in terms of higher transistor switching speeds, reliability, less leakage, lower volts, less heat, less TDP, higher frequencies, better performance. They need it and they know it and that's why they push down very fast when they get stuck at the max TDP with their CPU's. I've not seen the chips pushed yet to their peak, I mean absolute peak which someone like my tutor whose a government physicist can test which requires more effective cooling and conditions. Sub -200-250C and you will see their peak with the best chips chips. I believe their architectural peak is like that of P4 and Tejas, around 7-10GHz. And I DO believe Intel is trying to get that dream "Tejas" speed out still, but cannot do it, lower fab node is not improving their TDP enough to meet those demands, so they now need other ways around this (more cores/multiple threads per core/RAM inside CPU aka cache/tweaks) whilst still trying for higher speeds. One node down should get them 4GHz retail dual-core I reckon. ;)

But for AMD, to attain higher frequencies since A64 days, you have to simply change the processing manufacturing technology and design first and foremost because that's where the limit lies, not in heat/voltage/temps. So running from 65nm to 32nm isn't going to have even a 50% benefit for AMD compared to that Intel will have, unless there are radical changes. It won't allow them much higher frequencies, certainly not the same as Penryn at 32nm can get or even what Core 2 at 65nm can potentially get with cold. I believe their architecture peak is like that of A64, around 4-5GHz and that's what they're trying to reach. I don't know what they're doing to circumvent this or even if they want to. With native quad, it throws things backwards from X2 so another two tweaked cores, one node down and you'll probably be able to get X2 speeds again. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blacklash

Now this is what we want to see. :toast:

---

click

http://www.vmodtech.com/spaw/images/...pi1_resize.JPG

http://www.vmodtech.com/spaw/images/...fcb_resize.JPG

http://www.vmodtech.com/spaw/images/...ime_resize.JPG

http://www.vmodtech.com/spaw/images/...pcmark2005.jpg

beerking: the pics have taken 5 minutes to load already and only two are showing up properly. Mind rehosting them? :)

PK so its not on my end alone I was getting ready to call up the ISP and :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: slap em for continuing to be lame:rolleyes:

almost

http://img.techpowerup.org/071218/almost.jpg

Guys: Please make the pics smaller when you post them, i.e., 800x600 or thumbnails. My work place and Uni will take forever to load the page and I'm sure it's the same for many others. Cropping pics to only show the relevant detail will also be very wise. Thank you. :)

Notice I didn't say Girls? If you belong to that category PM me first. :p:

BTW, very nice there DaMulta. Have you tried increasing VCore and having a low NB and RAM speed?
Are you using AOD?

*** AOD it locks my system all the time.

I'll wait for a updated Ver.

2.98 is as high as she will go will all kinds of errors.

I need to try more settings to see if there is a way to work around this. also it seems when you get that high, the memory control can't hang with 900+Mhz memory.(At least with the divider)

I'm about to see if this is stable
http://img.techpowerup.org/071218/ht.jpg

This thing is screaming
http://img.techpowerup.org/071218/7oc.jpg


I wish I had a phase about now.

:D

Bench it, bench it... bench it. ;)

Also get it CPU-Z validated as well.

For pics you can also use something like Irfanview and save them @ a fraction of their full value. I frequently reduce pics I post to 70-80&#37; of their original save size.

BTW it's nice to see guys @ 3.0GHz or darn close to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

That's very good actually, thanks. :)
They use a very similar if not the same board as I had for my Intel builds, basically the same HDD and the same CPU cooler. If I was to measure at VRMs the wattage I gave will be lower for the CPU as some of that is lost from my quoted figures, and especially if I factor in my voltages, currents and power factor.

---

Focusing on the cpu only makes sense if one is interested in technical details.
But in the end one must pay for the whole systems power consumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

22.5W is DC wattage with power saving running. That's close to what Penryn 3GHz does idle too when power saving puts it to 2GHz, around 21.5W. It drops the multi/volts/speeds. With P4, Core 2 and Penryn, voltage/frequencies matter massively to temps and power as you will see by only increasing or decreasing by 0.1V from a nominal voltage. Even by increasing just the FSB you will see a measurable enough increase in temps/power. You can take a look >HERE< for a quick frequency/FSB/volt/VID effect to Penryn power demand.

---

Great, thank you, did i get that, Q7700 requires a huge amout more just because of DDR2-1600?
A note about measuring voltages. I tried three different psu's. A 460W and a 850W PSu with active pfc and a 420W with passive pfc.
My voltmeter shows 92% efficiency for the 460W active pfc psu and ~75% for the passive one. With the 850W psu the values fluctuate +-20V. Guess the passive one is the best one for measurment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

You can observe a similar trend with Phenom, but not from 1.0V-1.24V. You will hardly get a power consumption difference even if you dropped the frequency by a full 1GHz. From 1GHz 1.55V to 2.7GHz 1.55V the difference in total system full load power draw is 296VAC vs 330VAC, which is minute.

---

34VAC is what my new laptop requires in idle. 2-3W is minute for me atm. :)
I have to maintain ~50 pc's at work so each watt equals 50W in my field of activity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

So from 1GHz to 2.2GHz you will hardly see an idle power consumption difference if you keep the voltage/VID the same (load is obviously different) and even if you dropped the voltage by 0.2V from stock the difference is very small in comparison to what it is with AMD X2, Intel P4, Core 2 or Penryn architecture.

---

I experienced a different behaviour if i drop the voltage by 0,2V. Don't have the exact numbers at hand atm but the 0,2V drop saved around 10-15W in idle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

I will test the Q6600 hopefully myself soon to find out wattages accurately using the exact same hardware and conditions (apart from board/processor).

---

Might get one for testing too, have to build an intel rig for a co-worker whoms neighbor works for intel. This intel employee said he can give away older c2d's for free. So i asked for a q6600 for testing purposes. But all that will happen Q1/08.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

The overclocking peak is limited in Intel CPU's by a) chip quality (some are better and some worse for high FSB/high speeds) b) stock VID c) stock voltage d) stock multi e) motherboard f) cooling and thus, considering a) and e) are good, the cooler you go, the higher you can effectively reach (until the chip or cooling limit is reached).

The overclocking peak is limited in AMD CPU's by a) chip quality b) stock VID c) stock voltage d) stock multi. Cooling doesn't seem to be the limit at all because we can go far cooler, the chip stays very cool and yet you won't see a difference in MHz gained.

On a good chip and board;
The limit with Intel CPU's is heat/power/voltage (same as P4).
The limit with AMD CPU's is processor technology (same as A64).

What it effectively means is;
For Intel to speed down the fab size scale is nothing but pure enlarged benefits in every way in terms of higher transistor switching speeds, reliability, less leakage, lower volts, less heat, less TDP, higher frequencies, better performance. They need it and they know it and that's why they push down very fast when they get stuck at the max TDP with their CPU's. I've not seen the chips pushed yet to their peak, I mean absolute peak which someone like my tutor whose a government physicist can test which requires more effective cooling and conditions. Sub -200-250C and you will see their peak with the best chips chips. I believe their architectural peak is like that of P4 and Tejas, around 7-10GHz.

---

LOL, you don't have a picture of such an testing environment you can post i guess. What do they use to get those temps, cryostatic temperature regulator ?
I studied physics for three years. But that was 10 years ago and i never needed that knowledge at work, so i forgott even the basic principles. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

And I DO believe Intel is trying to get that dream "Tejas" speed out still, but cannot do it, lower fab node is not improving their TDP enough to meet those demands, so they now need other ways around this (more cores/multiple threads per core/RAM inside CPU aka cache/tweaks) whilst still trying for higher speeds. One node down should get them 4GHz retail dual-core I reckon. ;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

But for AMD, to attain higher frequencies since A64 days, you have to simply change the processing manufacturing technology and design first and foremost because that's where the limit lies, not in heat/voltage/temps.

---

That equals to my findings during oc trials. My 9500 does not like voltages above 1,45V. Runs stable at 224MHz with 1,45 but freezes or powers out if i apply 1,475V. CPU temp during load is ~60°, which should not be a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

So running from 65nm to 32nm isn't going to have even a 50% benefit for AMD compared to that Intel will have, unless there are radical changes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

It won't allow them much higher frequencies, certainly not the same as Penryn at 32nm can get or even what Core 2 at 65nm can potentially get with cold. I believe their architecture peak is like that of A64, around 4-5GHz and that's what they're trying to reach. I don't know what they're doing to circumvent this or even if they want to. With native quad, it throws things backwards from X2 so another two tweaked cores, one node down and you'll probably be able to get X2 speeds again. ;)

---

Did not follow the whole low vs high k discussion. Wasn't it mentioned that amd plans to go low-k on 32nm or even at 45nm?
Can you circumscribe the phrase "one node down" please, must admin that i'm not completely sure how to translate it.
BTW: bingo13 mentioned that after he killed his 9600 he got a new 0744 9600 which works more reliable. My 9500 is a 0742, what is yours?

Well a "gang" of professional physicists with engineers have enough of the credentials and knowledge needed to test such things to their theaoretical peak -> like what is done at LHC. ;) This needs professional rather than amateur overseeing. I've seen similar major testings at Lockheed where my uncle used to supervise, the experiments (trials and testings) done for the government are simply mind boggling and always held under secrecy since no one else but one or two government agencies working with the department of defense will ever know or be able to do them. Just like how the internet was made. The equipment needed is usually not available to anyone other in the world apart from similar contracting companies. I guarantee you they have and are working on some cooling devices you have never heard of ;) and many times never will. :p:

Lower fab node means a smaller manufacturing process i.e., 65nm to 45nm, or 45nm to 32nm, etc.
High-k allows lower power saving, larger leakage but higher frequnecies.
Low-k allows large power savings, much less leakage but lower frequnecies.

Are you sure about your efficiency? APFC will be higher than just PFC by circuit design limitations.

My 9500 is running on WCG for just over a day now at 2.42GHz CPU, near 2GHz NB/HT. No problems at all.

0743. ;)

I swear before it was on WCG I could not put the HT 1MHz above without freezes and delays for 2 days.
Now I moved it 10MHz up and down through AOD and it moved very fast (no clock generator delay - instant clock changes like with C2D).

This is just so confusing. :(

The Govt/Internet?

You mean Al Gore? :rofl:

Metal Gates seem to be a good thing from all I've read, allowing both High speeds, and decreased leakage.

Nah don't bother with him. :lol:

Low-k allows more power savings than high-k.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

Well a "gang" of professional physicists with engineers have enough of the credentials and knowledge needed to test such things to their theaoretical peak -> like what is done at LHC. ;) This needs professional rather than amateur overseeing. I've seen similar major testings at Lockheed where my uncle used to supervise, the experiments (trials and testings) done for the government are simply mind boggling and always held under secrecy since no one else but one or two government agencies working with the department of defense will ever know or be able to do them. Just like how the internet was made. The equipment needed is usually not available to anyone other in the world apart from similar contracting companies. I guarantee you they have and are working on some cooling devices you have never heard of ;) and many times never will. :p:

---

Ah ok so they use tesla waves for cooling. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

Lower fab node means a smaller manufacturing process i.e., 65nm to 45nm, or 45nm to 32nm, etc.
High-k allows lower power saving, larger leakage but higher frequnecies.
Low-k allows large power savings, much less leakage but lower frequnecies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muzz

Metal Gates seem to be a good thing from all I've read, allowing both High speeds, and decreased leakage.

---

Lucky me does not rely on that type of knowledge to make living from. :nono:
Dont know if that was postet in the news section but this is a pic of a 32nm high-k waver ibm showed.
http://scr3.golem.de/screenshots/071...ibm32nmdie.jpg
Article (german)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

Are you sure about your efficiency? APFC will be higher than just PFC by circuit design limitations.

---

What did I say? I'll add a few imgages.

http://www.abload.de/thumb/img_62113v7.jpg
http://www.abload.de/thumb/img_6216lai.jpg

460W APFC (Zalman ZM460B-APS)
http://www.abload.de/thumb/img_6206e5r.jpg

420W PPFC (XILENCE XP420)
http://www.abload.de/thumb/img_6215iap.jpg

Yuk, now I'm confused, thought the APFC one tricks my voltmeter and the efficiency mentioned by the manufracture is more reliable.
But both setups had the same load applied and they correlate very close in DC. So this Zalman PSU seems to be pretty good in terms of efficiency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

My 9500 is running on WCG for just over a day now at 2.42GHz CPU, near 2GHz NB/HT. No problems at all.

0743. ;)

---

Ok I'll photochop mine, maybe that helps. :rofl:
That might explain why my cpu needs more voltage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

I swear before it was on WCG I could not put the HT 1MHz above without freezes and delays for 2 days.
Now I moved it 10MHz up and down through AOD and it moved very fast (no clock generator delay - instant clock changes like with C2D).

This is just so confusing. :(

---

Indeed, most significant limit here seem to be the CPU voltage (<=1,45V). I layed down the voltage drop cpu-z shows if prime95 is running. Above 1,45 V it raises to 0,064V.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muzz

The Govt/Internet?

You mean Al Gore? :rofl:

---

Can it be he meant he aided the development of the internet?

I'm going on about 7 hours now with this test.

http://img.techpowerup.org/071218/safe.jpg

To night I am going to install my other HD2900PRO flash teh voltage up on it, and see what a max run will do.


I do think that the 9500 will do more, but I need to try other settings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justapost

Ah ok so they use tesla waves for cooling. :cool:

---

Tesla waves? At LHC they use 10,000 tonnes of liquid nitrogen to cool the equipment to 80K and then 120 tonnes of cryoplant liquid helium takes over to cool to 1.9K with a very high pressure supercritical gas. CERN scientists started development of the cold compressors which allow 1.9K temps 10 years ago. This is true science. ;)

Quote:

---

What did I say? I'll add a few imgages.

460W APFC
http://www.abload.de/thumb/img_6206e5r.jpg

420W PPFC
in progress

---

That's good power factor, as I expected.

Quote:

---

Can it be he meant he aided the development of the internet?

---

Al Gore? No way, those puppets know nothing about science. It's the companies they contract who develop everything, the scientists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaMulta

I'm going on about 7 hours now with this test.

http://img.techpowerup.org/071218/safe.jpg

To night I am going to install my other HD2900PRO flash teh voltage up on it, and see what a max run will do.

I do think that the 9500 will do more, but I need to try other settings.

---

Yours should do more than mine stable since you've benched higher MHz. What was your batch number?
Look for this number:

http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/9356/dsc01886kk6.jpg


I think I'm about to be sacked from work today because I've been on and off the PC all day... and the bossman is giving me weird looks. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

Tesla waves? At LHC they use 10,000 tonnes of liquid nitrogen to cool the equipment to 80K and then 120 tonnes of cryoplant liquid helium takes over to cool to 1.9K with a very high pressure supercritical gas. CERN scientists started development of the cold compressors which allow 1.9K temps 10 years ago. This is true science. ;)

---

Yeah your right using current technologie on a professional level is the way. I was just kidding, tesla wave theorie with all it's impacts sometimes gets used as a way to save all the worlds problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

That's good power factor, as I expected.

---

I added imges from the ppfc psu above. The active PSU seems to have a efficiency above 90% with a load around 70W VAC. You found that suspicious few days ago, as did I. Need to get more background info about that issue, will do some online research about that issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

Al Gore? No way, those puppets know nothing about science. It's the companies they contract who develop everything, the scientists.

---

I assume he did not write the speech including the claim he invented the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

I think I'm about to be sacked from work today because I've been on and off the PC all day... and the bossman is giving me weird looks. :D

---

LOL. Lost focus on day-to-day business here too in the last two weeks. But I work as a self-employed person, so it will only hurt my account balance a little.
Hope you made it hired thru that day.

Achim,

Ah OK. The first reading on the meter is watts, the second is the VA and the third the power factor (P(W)/S(VA)=PF i.e., 176.5/185.4 = 0.952 or 95.2%). These meters are incapable of showing PSU efficiency since you need an ammeter or a clamp meter or a SMPS ATE to measure that using values of how much amps each rail is carrying from the PSU and what the voltage for each rail is (multiply the two for the DC wattage) compared to how much VAC is being drawn in. So it's the ratio of how much the PSU pulls and how much it then gives out which is the PSU efficiency. Power factor that is being reported above is very different.

Youre power factor radings are how they should be. APFC is getting 0.95 PF while PFC is getting 0.78 PF. That's how it should be realistically. To measure efficiency you have to look at the manufacturer testing reports, do it yourself if you have the equipment or knowledge (large corporations or industries have engineers with the relevant tools many times), or look towards people wo have reviewed similar items like online websites such as PCPerspective, Anandtech, Toms Hardware, Hardforum, Techgage, Jonnyguru.com and so on. They have the relevant equipment to be able to measure the PSU efficiency at different loads. Inductive or capacitive loads, the efficiency (and power factor) will be fluctuating and never constant, so at 100W DC your PSU might be 74% efficient while at 200W it might be 76% and at 300W it might be 78% (and so on).

The Zalman 460W ultra quiet PSU you have came out before the wave of 80%+ efficient started popping up and it didn't have the best efficiency in the non-80+ PSU's either, since the Seasonic PSU's typically held that spot and they topped out at around 81-74% efficiency throughout the loads. At low loads these larger PSU's typically have low efficiency, like 68-74% below 100W DC. Yours 'aint 80% efficient PSU throughout the loads, bare this in mind, it's 75-80% at >220VAC below 40C above 80W DC AFAIK and I don't remember what it's report found the max efficiency at. It would be near the 50% range (near 270-300W DC).
So... to find out what apporixmate DC wattage your system is pulling, get the Watts figure on the energy monitor and multiply by 0.78 (at best, meaning it will give the largest possible DC power consumption figure) if your loads are at >220VAC and above 100W VAC.
Taking for example your Zalman 460W SMPS power consumption picture, we wil have;

176.5 * 0.78 = 138W DC (rounded up)

That's the max power consumption of that system possible at that load with that setup. In reality it will actually be lower because a) I used max possible PSU efficiency which will not be true, it would be around 76% IMO b) you lose some current at the voltage regulators and convertors (+12V has to be converted to the required CPU voltage, etc) c) connector/wire resistence and rail voltage losses means lower actual total watts pulled by a component.

Ultra Quiet PSU's are not normally very good with efficiency at all you see, medicore at best since it's a balance and the temps need to remain low for the PSU to work adequately.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justapost

Dont know if that was postet in the news section but this is a pic of a 32nm high-k waver ibm showed.
http://scr3.golem.de/screenshots/071...ibm32nmdie.jpg
Article (german)

---

Toshiba joined the "alliance". This looks more like warfare against the wealthy giant. :D

hi there.

I tried clocking the 9500 on the K9A2 and through the bios (version 1.0 official)

and the max i got was 235x11 before it refused to boot/post. at 235x11, I would get lockups at AOD(sometimes), winrar when unzipping >40mb files, installing >100mb apps. (both numbers are rough estimates)

at that time of 235x11, iirc the bios i had that time didnt have the options for selecting Pstates so couldnt do much. but i did try lowering the HTT multipliers below the HTT speeds

can you share the P states entries for your higher clocked attempts that were successful? I would like to attempt changing the nb and htt part to see whether has my chip and board reached it's potential.


lastly, without swopping the chip and board, how do i know which is the limiting factor ?

Hi Emperor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor

can you share the P states entries for your higher clocked attempts that were successful? I would like to attempt changing the nb and htt part to see whether has my chip and board reached it's potential.

---

In Cell Menu>AM2+ P-States>Enable choose:

CPU FID 06
CPU VID 28
CPU DID 1
NB FID 03
NB VID 36
NB DID 1

-Leave HT under Cell Menu to "Auto". Set your RAM on a divider that will be well within its specification with high latencies.
-Set all tRFC values to 196ns in DRAM Config.
-Set high HT and CPU volts (changing volts from BIOS works best, as many times changing them within Windows will not actually change them).
-Disable all unnecessary BIOS items (peripherals) and services/processes from running at startup.
-Bootup with whatever is max HT bootable and see if you can use AOD then (leave 2 Windows Management (forgetting the exact name right now) services running)

See what you get. Best to learn all of it following this link because without understanding you won't get as far: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=167977

Quote:

---

lastly, without swopping the chip and board, how do i know which is the limiting factor ?

---

Boards will do far more, guranteed. However a bad BIOS can easily give you bad performance and bad overclocking. We'll just have to wait and see with the new BIOSes. I was told they should've been out last week as well as a new AOD, but they never came.

Whatever you do, stress your system (stability). You might find what I found after 4 weeks of usage;

High overclockablility at the start > gradually falls to near 2.5GHz maximum.

I don't know if i missed it but have a Question: When updating the BIOS do you get a option of turning off the "errata protection" function like on a DFI mobo. I hope so as i am getting the MSI today.