**Official DFI LanParty UT 790FX-M2R Review/Overclock/Guide Thread**

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lightman

WOW That sucks!

I've read at least 2 other 9600BE could reach only 2.5GHz....

Looks like this will be a lottery of OC for us...

Can we start stepping database of 9600BE to help people buy better product?

What are your and your friend steppings and production weeks?

Thanks for info :up: .

---

It's the DFI. A guy @ a german forum gets exactly the same OC on his DFI with a 9600BE (12,5x200 not really stable; 13x200 windows boot crash). He will test the same CPU with the GB, to be sure if it's the CPU or mobo.

We're at the moment the only one there who have a DFI+9600BE. But other ones reach 2,7-2,8GHz on other boards.

The scenario with the DFI ist strange:

11,5x200@1,25V (stock) - ok
12,0x200@1,25V - ok
12,5x200@1,25V - not 100% stable
12,5x200@1,35V - not 100% stable
12,5x200@1,45V - not 100% stable
13,0x200@1,5V - no boot


with nb-multi @ 7x
11,5x200@1,25V (stock) - ok
11,5x220@1,25V (stock) - ok
11,5x225@1,25V (stock) - not 100% stable
11,5x225@1,35V - not 100% stable
11,5x225@1,45V - not 100% stable
11,5x230@1,5V - no boot

both scenarios end @ ~ 2,5xGHz and gain no profit with added voltage

There must be something that limits there.

I'm sorry, but 2.7-2.8 is still very, very poor!

yep, i agree. This POS benches upto 29++mhz (when it's in the mood) and it's a B2. BE are released and hit 2.7ghz?:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWilson

I'm sorry, but 2.7-2.8 is still very, very poor!

---

But their board/CPU at least profit from higher VCore.

2.7-2.8 is poor at any vcore other then maybe 1.0V...:ROTF: :ROTF:

I would be satisfied with 2.8GHz and pleased with 3.0GHz under 1.45Vcore :)

Will hold on till KTE tests his 9600BE today or tomorrow on MSI K9A2 Plat :)

But that is worst then what the Black Edition AM2 5000 and 6400(3.2Gig stock) can do!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lightman

I would be satisfied with 2.8GHz and pleased with 3.0GHz under 1.45Vcore :)

Will hold on till KTE tests his 9600BE today or tomorrow on MSI K9A2 Plat :)

---

You mean a stable 2.8Ghz and 3Ghz under LN2? :p:

IMO these cpu's need to be at 3Ghz atleast to compete. The few pounds extra for a Q6600 now seems trivial since you can now get a decent quad mobo for £75.

What I am really frightened of is if INTEL ever get the idea in their head to kill AMD all it would take would be for them to make Q6600's with an unlocked multi or release them at 3Ghz stock speeds with no price hike. I purchased a Q6600 myself a few weeks back and was literally blown away at how easy it is to take to 4Ghz nevermind 3Ghz. I can only assume someone at INTEL must love AMD since it looks like they've restricted they're cpu's to keep AMD in the game.

A year or so after INTEL launch quads and AMD all this time later launch they're version which bombs in comparison :( :down:

There simply are no words to describe my dismay :(

The only remedy I can see is if AMD quit messing and release ALL they're ES cpu's as retail to give as many users who wish to purchase one a fighting chance. At this rate we may see a 3Ghz stable Phenom on air by next december.

Or indeed, I wonder how long it would take AMD to resolve these issues if everyone stopped purchasing their sub-standard rejects?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MR.Q

You mean a stable 2.8Ghz and 3Ghz under LN2? :p:

IMO these cpu's need to be at 3Ghz atleast to compete. The few pounds extra for a Q6600 now seems trivial since you can now get a decent quad mobo for £75.

What I am really frightened of is if INTEL ever get the idea in their head to kill AMD all it would take would be for them to make Q6600's with an unlocked multi or release them at 3Ghz stock speeds with no price hike. I purchased a Q6600 myself a few weeks back and was literally blown away at how easy it is to take to 4Ghz nevermind 3Ghz. I can only assume someone at INTEL must love AMD since it looks like they've restricted they're cpu's to keep AMD in the game.

A year or so after INTEL launch quads and AMD all this time later launch they're version which bombs in comparison :( :down:

There simply are no words to describe my dismay :(

The only remedy I can see is if AMD quit messing and release ALL they're ES cpu's as retail to give as many users who wish to purchase one a fighting chance. At this rate we may see a 3Ghz stable Phenom on air by next december.

Or indeed, I wonder how long it would take AMD to resolve these issues if everyone stopped purchasing their sub-standard rejects?

---

Intel wont release cpus at those speeds. Even when they were getting beaten by AMD they didn't. The highest I remember was at 3.4G and they had close to the same OC capabilities as they do now. Maybe they would if they were losing some serious market share, but that would take years of AMD dominance, because of the Intel name and influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MR.Q

You mean a stable 2.8Ghz and 3Ghz under LN2? :p:

IMO these cpu's need to be at 3Ghz atleast to compete. The few pounds extra for a Q6600 now seems trivial since you can now get a decent quad mobo for £75.

What I am really frightened of is if INTEL ever get the idea in their head to kill AMD all it would take would be for them to make Q6600's with an unlocked multi or release them at 3Ghz stock speeds with no price hike. I purchased a Q6600 myself a few weeks back and was literally blown away at how easy it is to take to 4Ghz nevermind 3Ghz. I can only assume someone at INTEL must love AMD since it looks like they've restricted they're cpu's to keep AMD in the game.

A year or so after INTEL launch quads and AMD all this time later launch they're version which bombs in comparison :( :down:

There simply are no words to describe my dismay :(

The only remedy I can see is if AMD quit messing and release ALL they're ES cpu's as retail to give as many users who wish to purchase one a fighting chance. At this rate we may see a 3Ghz stable Phenom on air by next december.

Or indeed, I wonder how long it would take AMD to resolve these issues if everyone stopped purchasing their sub-standard rejects?

---

honestly the only thing that matters is the oem and server sector an unlocked multiplier has no effect there at all. an unlocked cpu does nothing for the company's profits maybe itd win alot of fans in the enthusiast market but we are meaningless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MR.Q

This is extremely bad news. I am deeply saddened by these events and am finding it hard to keep a positive attitude.

Where is MACCY? Where has he dissapeared to?

I think we users need to make some sort of announcement regarding future purchases of ANY cpu's from AMD. I'd be one of the first users to defend AMD in many cases but this is simply becoming too much to take.

I (and many of you) have waited over a year for these cpu's to see the light of day and tbh I think they need to go back under wraps until they actually work properly.

I've dealt with allsorts of problems concerning this 9500 B2 and simply cannot face more and more let-downs from the green giant. I mean they've been working on this architecture for nearly three years, wth is going on.

I'm gonna give it one more week, and if there is no light at the end of the tunnel then I'll switch over to INTEL completely. I literally love AMD cpu's but I refuse to keep ploughing £££££££ into crap that doesn't work.

This morning alone I must've encountered the TLB errata bug first hand atleast 8 times. AMD insist on requiring an intricate set of circumstances and a LABORATORY being required to re-create the TLB errata. Personally I belive that to be false as all the lockups my system encounters cannot be attributed to anything else. I've tried several times this morning to oc to it's 2800mhz '06 benchable speed but keep getting lock-ups around the 2530mhz to 2680mhz range. On the ninth attempt I managed to get 27++mhz before lockup, and this is with no settings changed. It really is a lottery with these cpu's atm.

When they work correctly without failure at a decent clockspeed they appear very good. However the rest of the time (during massive problems and having to remain close to stock speed) I'd rather have my old 6000+.

I'd really like to see some AMD flesh in here explaining wth is going on. :down:

---

WOW these Intel's viral marketing boys are restless!

BTW it's MACCI, not "Y" at the end!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

@Nejdo ....do you have a Phenom? If so what are you're available options under HT Link Control????

---

Here you go...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilDoc

Intel wont release cpus at those speeds. Even when they were getting beaten by AMD they didn't. The highest I remember was at 3.4G and they had close to the same OC capabilities as they do now. Maybe they would if they were losing some serious market share, but that would take years of AMD dominance, because of the Intel name and influence.

---

It makes me wonder though, why Intel have set the speeds on their C2D and C2Q range so low when they can all run far higher. I mean why do they sell a Q6600 at 2.4ghz when they could easily set them to 3ghz? This would make AMD's life very hard since they can barely get to within striking distance of the Q6600's performance at 2.4ghz as it is. They could charge the same, since I wouldn't imagine making the cpu run faster with a higher multi costs much and then virtually no-one would choose the AMD due to the massive performance deficit. I'd just like to know the reason behind their extraordinarily low retail clocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wiggy McShades

honestly the only thing that matters is the oem and server sector an unlocked multiplier has no effect there at all. an unlocked cpu does nothing for the company's profits maybe itd win alot of fans in the enthusiast market but we are meaningless.

---

I wouldn't go as far as to say meaningless but I get your point. You'd think it may be a good idea though for AMD to make a new batch name and release a load of these high binned cpu's simply to regain some of that lost fanbase. I know if they released a Phenom X4-10000 which had an unlocked multi, a stock speed of 2.8ghz with a pricetag of £200 I'd order one right now just for the glimmer of hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedjo

WOW these Intel's viral marketing boys are restless!

BTW it's MACCI, not "Y" at the end!

---

Intel, pffft you have no idea :p:

I think GHOSTY is a more appropriate name for him atm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MR.Q

It makes me wonder though, why Intel have set the speeds on their C2D and C2Q range so low when they can all run far higher. I mean why do they sell a Q6600 at 2.4ghz when they could easily set them to 3ghz? This would make AMD's life very hard since they can barely get to within striking distance of the Q6600's performance at 2.4ghz as it is. They could charge the same, since I wouldn't imagine making the cpu run faster with a higher multi costs much and then virtually no-one would choose the AMD due to the massive performance deficit. I'd just like to know the reason behind their extraordinarily low retail clocks.



.

---

Don't really know the answer to that, but they've always done this. As far as I can remember, and we're talking before the original Pentium, Intel has always had a higher headroom. Like you said, they could easly sell these chips at a lot higher speed, but judging from the past, I don't see it happening.

Over at The Rebels Haven, Polygon ran the fastest Intel against the fastest AMD and the AMD holds it's own in every benchmark except SuperPI. But So what? Why didn't AMD continue there?

http://www.rebelshavenforum.com/sis-...ic/40/290.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWilson

Over at The Rebels Haven, Polygon ran the fastest Intel against the fastest AMD and the AMD holds it's own in every benchmark except SuperPI. But So what? Why didn't AMD continue there?

http://www.rebelshavenforum.com/sis-...ic/40/290.html

---

Most of the benchmarks that he ran aren't anything that I'd hang my hat on. The bottom line is that AMD has some catching up to do. Let's hope they do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MR.Q

I purchased a Q6600 myself a few weeks back and was literally blown away at how easy it is to take to 4Ghz nevermind 3Ghz. I can only assume someone at INTEL must love AMD since it looks like they've restricted they're cpu's to keep AMD in the game.

---

Whilst it is v.easy, this is nothing new. P4 was better at oc, even better at cold. Intel hasn't restricted anything at all. You see the best they have yet. They had TDP problems with C2D/C2Q since the very start above 3GHz or you'd have seen 3.3GHz just like they hyped in January 06 but it never came. Now they have manufacturing level problems and you're seeing delays. Now you've seen hypes of 3.2-3.4GHz since January 07 but nothing yet by Jan 08, still stuck at 65nm MHz/TDP at retail. Smoke is easy to throw around and be believed by a firm when they're in lead but not if you know reliable industry sources.

As for Phenom, we all know its problems. There's no point repeating it again and again because near enough everyone at XS has already said so. It clocks low compared to X2, even worse compared to C2 and much worse compared to Penryn. It's not dual MCM though and neither is is a dual core, but quad core with IMC within at the same fab level. 2.8GHz stable for 3 weeks with my 9500 and next I had not even 2.4GHz stable an hour after suddenly. Then I get 2.64GHz stable again but needing 0.25V higher. Strange.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

2.8GHz stable for 3 weeks with my 9500 and next I had not even 2.4GHz stable an hour after suddenly. Then I get 2.64GHz stable again but needing 0.25V higher. Strange.

---

This would appear to be what I am experiencing now KTE. Very frustrating indeed. :(

The strange part for me is that even given the erratic behaviour of this cpu when oc'd, everything I run seems to flow like butter off a hot knife. HD movies encode faster, not tried audio (don't do any), watching 4 instances of boinc is a scream, Crysis is smooth as silk at decent enough settings. I just want a 3Ghz Phenom to pet:yepp: :rofl:

You guys find good merit in the Phenoms do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

You guys find good merit in the Phenoms do you?

---

If I sit down and think about it reasonably then on the whole I'm chuffed with my 9500, it's just the niggly things that get to me. I've had AMD machines for a long time and this one goes right at the top of the fav list.

I do find sometimes that I myself get a little pre-occupied with clock speeds and bench numbers at times (especially when the whole world is watching at this early stage). Considering also all the issues still facing phenom, the performance is really quite good IMO...albeit a little too inconsistent.

As far as this system goes, I'm inclined to agree with you, my Q6600 rig at 3400mhz 18/7 feels identical to this phenom rig at 2600mhz. Sure benchmarks tell you the Q6600 is faster at some stuff, but not by much. Run Crysis in the background on each rig then task-switch and open say COD4 and windows movie maker and encode an HD clip and you can noticeably see the phenom rig respond faster from that point on.

Nice to see you back btw, hope you've learnt your lesson :)

Bear in mind it's usually only guys who disagree with you that make a point of standing out. There are plenty of users here who agree with you so don't take it so hard when a few limpets give you a hard time :up:

[QUOTE=MR.Q;2668871]If I sit down and think about it reasonably then on the whole I'm chuffed with my 9500, it's just the niggly things that get to me. I've had AMD machines for a long time and this one goes right at the top of the fav list.

I do find sometimes that I myself get a little pre-occupied with clock speeds and bench numbers at times (especially when the whole world is watching at this early stage). Considering also all the issues still facing phenom, the performance is really quite good IMO...albeit a little too inconsistent.

As far as this system goes, I'm inclined to agree with you, my Q6600 rig at 3400mhz 18/7 feels identical to this phenom rig at 2600mhz. Sure benchmarks tell you the Q6600 is faster at some stuff, but not by much. Run Crysis in the background on each rig then task-switch and open say COD4 and windows movie maker and encode an HD clip and you can noticeable see the phenom rig respond fater from that point on.

Nice to see you back btw, hope you've learnt your lesson :)

Never:D ...I'm here to chew bubble gum and kick ass...and I'm all outta gum:rofl: JK////........Please Massa don't beat me:D

Misunderstanding is all but warranted defense for myself for those that were being disrespectful towards me!

[QUOTE=Brother Esau;2668875]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MR.Q

If I sit down and think about it reasonably then on the whole I'm chuffed with my 9500, it's just the niggly things that get to me. I've had AMD machines for a long time and this one goes right at the top of the fav list.

I do find sometimes that I myself get a little pre-occupied with clock speeds and bench numbers at times (especially when the whole world is watching at this early stage). Considering also all the issues still facing phenom, the performance is really quite good IMO...albeit a little too inconsistent.

As far as this system goes, I'm inclined to agree with you, my Q6600 rig at 3400mhz 18/7 feels identical to this phenom rig at 2600mhz. Sure benchmarks tell you the Q6600 is faster at some stuff, but not by much. Run Crysis in the background on each rig then task-switch and open say COD4 and windows movie maker and encode an HD clip and you can noticeable see the phenom rig respond fater from that point on.

Nice to see you back btw, hope you've learnt your lesson :)

Never:D ...I'm here to chew bubble gum and kick ass...and I'm all outta gum:rofl: JK////........Please Massa don't beat me:D

Misunderstanding is all but warranted defense for myself for those that were being disrespectful towards me!

---

Guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back.....sung to Slim Shady's "Without Me"....:rofl:

anyone know whens the intel verson of this board will be out?

The initial version? Of the DFI board, right? It's been out since November.

*smack* thought that said initial not intel.....my bad.

Got my 9600 BE today stepping is CAAWB 0747 MPMW, newer steppning then my 9500 which is a CAAZB 0743 DPDW. Going to sleep know, but will drop my new CPU in tomorrow after work... Fingers crossed that muli adjusment works with 12/21/07 Bios!