1.45v didnt help either , fresh xp install that is . BUT , 3 gigz and 1.35V boots fine into safe mode....and it is stable. Now that needs some research
Printable View
1.45v didnt help either , fresh xp install that is . BUT , 3 gigz and 1.35V boots fine into safe mode....and it is stable. Now that needs some research
ea6
dont worry too much, its pretty much your board.
You might not see the real good oc until the SB750 arrives...
Pretty much what he said:up:. Ive the same problem, if you look trough the idle freezing then.Quote:
Originally Posted by xPliziT
2.8Ghz 16h+ Prime stable. But no boots above that, no matter how many Vcore. Maybe it's the CPU, but I highly doubt that it scales this crap;)
My 9950 OC's a little worst then my 9850. I just don't need a worse Phenom, so I sent it back!
This was my suicide run with my 9850. The 9950 will only do 14x230. Any more and it freezes or reboots.
http://www.lejabeach.com/pics5/790M2RS070308-1.JPG
That chips gets alot hotter here, do you still have the temp limit at 60°C?Quote:
Originally Posted by JWilson
Wrong attitude :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by JWilson
i disagree, i think he has the exact attitude we should all be taking, if it doesnt do what it sais on the tin, get your money back.Quote:
Originally Posted by alexio
to me, this looks like more marketing bull from AMD, they got a whole lot of 9850's they might not get rid of, hey lets rebrand them 9950's and raise the vcore.
and that is what happened here i think, my 9850BE sits at 3 gig stable, if i bought a 9950 then i would expect 3.1/3.2 gig at least, it doesnt.
so send it back, i bought 2 8800's way back when they where released, and we had the SLI driver hassle, both cards worked perfect. but i could not get SLI in Vista, so i sent them back.
reminds the marketing dept, that returns do count against sales :clap:
You sit with it then!Quote:
Originally Posted by alexio
I moved the shutdown to 85C expecting high temps, but I was only booting up. I am watercooled and as near as I could tell the CPU temp was near 45-50CQuote:
Originally Posted by justapost
I tried many combination of settings hoping the 9950 was a little different, but even at 1.5Vcore, same limit and less then my 9850. Maybe my 9850 is really good. I don't know. I just didn't need a lesser Phenom then I already have. I would have been happy with 3.4-3.5Gig suicide, but not less then my 9850.... Peace :)
That's pretty rubbish.Quote:
Originally Posted by soundood
Phenom 9950BE isnt a rebranded 9850BE, Ive no clue how you come up with that. The latest manufacturing week for the 9850BE is like 12~13. The 9950BE is way beyond that, more like week 20+ or so. Besides that, Vcore of a 9950BE is exactly the same as the 9850BE.
Not even speaking about that AMD sells it as a 2.6Ghz CPU and not as a CPU which will OC better than a 9850BE.
Besides that, how often does it get to be posted to wait for the SB750 before judging the OC-abilities of any Phenom CPU? This doesnt mean if you get these 3Ghz+ OC's the SB750 will only increase it, but the chance is big you might see a smaller margin between a stable OC and an unstable OC at least.
Ive one of the very bad examples, as I said before, my CPU even freezes at 2.6Ghz after many hours, it freezes at 2.9Ghz just as I press enter on the windows log on screen. But it does 2.8Ghz prime stable for 16h+ however it still suffers from idle freezing. Beyond 2.8Ghz there's no red line to be followed anymore, no matter what Vcore I use, there's no scaling at all.
And although it might sound a bit ignorant, this is like impossible. Therefor Im sitting already over a month here with everything at stock waiting for the SB750 to give it another try. Im not expecting at all Im actually sitting on a WR clocking chip, but I do believe it will do 3Ghz at least, as any Phenom should be able to.
I have a couple of questions
right now on my 6400X2 Im running 280 bus speed x 12.5 multi, ht link is 1400 and cpu is 3.5ghz
will I be able to run the bus speed high?? or will I have to go much lower and oc through the multi??
The plan is to oc the multi first to see how high it goes then start messing with the bus.... what should I expect to see though??
Off topic ........will 45nm have the same pin config or will we have to upgrade the mobo?
Phenoms run HT speeds much higher than Athlon X2s since they use the newer HT standard(HT3.0).So on default,without any OC,your Phenom will run the HT higher than your Athlon X2 chip @OCed speed.Phenom will run @2Ghz or if you like 4Ghz- in double data rate numbers.
You're better of with OCing through the multi first and see how far it can go.After that you can use HTT OCing to fine tune the memory speed.
As for 45nm question,yes ,45nm Phenoms are fully pin compatible with present AM2+ standard and will run on DDr2 motherboards,even maybe on plain "old" AM2 boards.Additionally,45nm Phenoms will have DDR3 controller support too,so you can buy a second AM3 motherboard in Q1 2009 ,along with the DDR3 memory and run your new 45nm chip with DDR3 memory :).
I'm going to have to disagree with you there, soundood. Your explanation sounds more like a rationalization than an honest opinion. Regardless though, it isn't right to feel cheated because one processor doesn't overclock higher than the previous model. What AMD sells you is a CPU which is promised to run at a specific frequency at a specific voltage while at specific temperatures consuming no more than a specified amount of power. You would be improper to demand any 9950 to overclock higher than any 9850. So long as it performs at the speed it was sold to you, they've held their end of the bargain. This does not relieve you of your moral responsibility to live with your purchase decision. This is similar to people who RMA video cards because they fail to meet their overclocking goals.
Overclocking is as gambling is. It's just unfortunate that stores don't or can't enforce responsibility like a casino does. Try going to the pit after losing a thousand dollars playing poker and demand your money back because the game failed to be as profitable as you expected. They'll look at you like you're either mentally insane or you just told a joke.
The 140w TDP should be a clear indication that these chips will rum HOTTER the the 125w TDP 9850 BE because the heat difference at Idle & Load going from the Phenom 9600BE to the 9850BE was incredible and more then quite obvious. Personally I would not invest in a higher TDP chip from 65nm Phenom the heat output is not worth it at all:yepp:
Brother,according to Anand's and LostCircuits' review of 9950BE,the chip actually draws less power than 9850,both @idle and load!Like Rammsteiner noted before,the 140W mark is just n overrated number for ACC compatibility(and the fact that some biased reviewer will cry faul when he puts this chip in SB750 mobo and measure the actual power draw near 140W,due to possible higher clock of the chip in that case).
so maybe i missed something, what is the differance between a 9850BE and a 9950? apart from 100 mhz/140w TDP rating/and of course the rebranding?
why are they priced the exact same as a 9850BE?
whay does it seem we have more or less the same results so far from Overclocking?
i think it might be because they are indeed B3 cherry picked Phenoms, much like the 9850's
now i may be wrong here, but until i see benches or Proc Specs, im with my idea.
its all about marketing,
and i know i shouldnt expect an automatic overclock, and the chip is rated at 2.6 gig and no more, but why call it a 9950? that would imply that it is higher than a 9850BE yes?
it also runs at a wopping 100 mhz more, but it still doesnt get past 2.8/3 gig on an overclock.
same chip if you ask me
this is a really bad analogy matey, :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
Considering that Justapost took DMM Readings at different Voltages and clocks with both the 9850 & 9950 and posted them in the Unified DFI thread I would have to say that assumption is dead wrong from Anandtech;)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
No maybe I did, you claimed that the in question 9950 doesn't do what it is supposed to so it should be sent back. It is only supposed to do 2.6 which it does easily. How do you figure this is "marketing bull" when no other promises were made by AMD?Quote:
Originally Posted by soundood
yeah i have been following that one too, http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=493
although 15w is a small margin, it is still more i suppose,
anyone want to buy a limited edition Phenom 10,000BE?
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/7...0bepic2hj0.jpg
and i dont want to hear a word about how its fake, this is the inside line from AMD, right in front of your eyes. :yepp:
gimme £200 plus postage its yours :up:
***The above statement is a joke, and in no way am i really treing to sell a 'fake' amd chip***
just sometimes its lost in translation,
I don't see how. The situation is nearly identical. Just the expected outcome is radically different, and that's the whole purpose of an analogy in the first place--to give proper perspective by demonstrating the same circumstances in a different setting.Quote:
Originally Posted by soundood
Game of poker = Game of overclocking
Pit = Returns Department
Demand money back for lack of of expected results in poker = Demand money back for lack of expected results in overclocking
In the poker scenario this seems ridiculous...because it is. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand about your returning a chip because it wouldn't overclock as much as you were expecting.
Both poker and overclocking are essentially gambling--they're games of chance and luck. There are no promises provided and none can be expected if one is thinking properly. You just get what's on the label. In this case, a 9850 is a chip that is supposed to run at 2.5GHz. A 9950 is a chip that is supposed to run at 2.6GHz. Expected overclocking targets has absolutely NOTHING to do with how these chips are marketed and sold. If they make a 9975 that clocks at 2.7GHz but can't overclock to 2703MHz on ANY chip under that label, they are still being logical, reasonable, and fair.
Yes it's the same core/rev if you mean that. But it's not like they had loads of 9850BE's left and just rebranded them though. But your story doesnt make sense though. I mean, would you expect a 6400+ to OC any better than a 6000+ for example? In the end they're both just F3 90nm Windsors anyway, but you get a guaranteed 200Mhz extra.Quote:
Originally Posted by soundood
It's called a 9950BE because it runs 100Mhz higher. Just as you've a 9750 which runs 100Mhz slower than a 9850BE.
They're priced the same because they simply cant ask more. If they would ask more people would either buy a lower rated Phenom or would step over to Intel. Also, just like the older FX CPU's, a new Phenom BE comes in, the other one goes out and will be replaced with a normal 9850. Also, the price of the 9850 will drop sometime soon to encourage non-OC'ers to buy a 9850.
Whether they're cherry picked or not, why should we care? It only means we get the good stuff. Although I dont think they're cherry picked. At most they're selected to run at 3Ghz (Phenom 9950BE + SB750 board = 3Ghz). But nothing more. I would actually expect the Phenom 9x50e's to be the not so good clockers, or even the Phenom X3's.
That's weird:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
Just got my 9950, but my pump choked last night, and I dont have a good AM2 hsf, its making me depressed hahaha. I need to get out to Rochester Saturday and pick up a good heatsink or watercooling solution from FrozenCPU. Im really interested to see what it will clock to. I paired mine with a M3A32-MVP Deluxed, nice mobo. I figured the 8 phase power wont hurt anything. Anyways I will post my impressions when I have decent enough cooling to actually test it out ;)
I ordered it to help a hurting competitor and try something new if anyones curious as to why I purchased a 9950, it actually seems pretty snappy when multitasking compared to my Q6600.
Oh, and I forgot to mention: There's another guy somewhere that I read about regarding 9950 power consumption. He measured his system to pull more power with the 9950 than the 9850 even when downclocked and set to the same voltage. I find that interesting. It was a difference of like 15W. It seems to contradict the results of the 9950 drawing less.
meh i'll stick with my good old B2 phenom
http://img.techpowerup.org/080710/Ca...8-20080710.png
all of you who rushed out to get a 9950 the faults with you just get ovre it like the rest of us did