T or N in corner, what does it mean?

[lawrywild]

got my baby today:



I noticed there's a T rather than N in the corner, I looked at FX-60 and Opteron dual cores and all the ones I've seen were T.

however, most recent 3800+'s and stuff are N and a few rare T's.

Any ideas what this means?

[chew*]

In my experience (note this is not LAW) I have found T chips to be voltage loving. I have also found them to be more resillient to BH-5 etc high volts to MMC. I have also found that high clocks with low volts = dead T chip.

N tends to clock higher on lower volts and tends not to like high volts which means it requires fine tuning tweaking and fine voltage increments to get the max. Contrary to T chips they tend not to be as resilient to BH-5 etc high volts to MMC. I've found that high volts with high clocks = dead N chip

These are just my views from my experience. Others may experience different scenarios.

[lawrywild]

hmm I dunno if that's good or not lol...

so hopefully itll be good with about 1.5v/1.55v 24/7

aslong as me xp-90c can handle it (if not I'll just cash out for something bigger and better)

[Supertim0r]

what is your AMD64 TCaseMax ? http://www.thecoolest.zerobrains.com...topic.php?t=83

[lawrywild]

I'm still trying to get cash for a DFI atm (waiting for a refund on a dead proc)

so I don't know

[WeStSiDePLaYa]

well, as far as ive seen, all ES and MS chips have been N's, (one B, in link). so i think it has something to do with where its being built.

http://www.engineering-sample.com/in...8%20S754%20MS/

[dinos22]

i was wondering the same myself..............i did mention to chew that my experience with T & N was different.......subscribing to find out more

[chew*]

N chip note default volts...

[dinos22]

interesting i didn't look at that

my Opti165 T chip doesn't have default volts written on it but in windows at auto vcore it shows 1.328v as does the 3800+ X2 N chip

[chew*]

N= 1.30
T= 1.35
Ircc

I think you need to compare them as X2 manchester vs X2 manchester and so on

The chip in the pic above 3.2 at 1.5V IRC
Mine which is a T chip 3.2 at 1.6v

[lawrywild]

It's not to do with default volts, the default volts are described in the top line (e.g ADA4600DAA5BV) cant remember which on those letters but one describes what the cpu's default vcore is..

maybe it has something to do with cache? all 1MB per core chips have T right?

[chew*]

It's not to do with default volts, the default volts are described in the top line (e.g ADA4600DAA5BV) cant remember which on those letters but one describes what the cpu's default vcore is..

maybe it has something to do with cache? all 1MB per core chips have T right?

My sandy 3700+ = N 1.35v where as other chips were 1.40 stock..........

My x2 3800 is the same identical top line as the picture I linked above........default volts is 1.35

[lawrywild]

http://fab51.com/cpu/guide/opn-64-e.html

A = variable apparently..

[chew*]

Yep. Look at it like this. I think N is the PCB equivalent to TCCD and i think T PCB is the equivalent to Bh-5.

[lawrywild]

but I still don't believe the N and T show default vcore

it's something else...

I think N's were the ones binned for dodgy cache and T are just disabled..

[lawrywild]

Yep. Look at it like this. I think N is the PCB equivalent to TCCD and i think T PCB is the equivalent to Bh-5.

yeh maybe but what you said is a load of bull, T's won't just die when using low vcore and trying to run high speeds... they'll just not be stable

[chew*]

Well that can explain why one likes volts and the other is spotty with voltage. That could also explain the numerous N chip deaths.

[Supertim0r]

except my last optys, all the T chip I owned had concave IHS. I had 2 3200+ "N" with perfect/flat IHS.

[dinos22]

some pls put us all out of our misery and explain what the hell those two letters mean hehehehehehhe

[chew*]

yeh maybe but what you said is a load of bull, T's won't just die when using low vcore and trying to run high speeds... they'll just not be stable

Thats the thing people burn in at low volts to become stable and THAT is when they die..........Actually I know someone that just lost one but atm I can't discuss details. Low volts high clocks mind you. Also I'm sure some people that think OCCT stable is stable can tell you stories of dead cpu's. Another case where they think its stable at low volts when it really isn't. Or the people that prime for an hour and thus "Well its stable enough for me"

[s7e9h3n]

and my current toy:

[chew*]

Any input on this subject s7? I don't mind being wrong but I have compiled results from users for quite some time now. This all stemmed from my stepping search which appears to have been a success......

[s7e9h3n]

Any input on this subject s7? I don't mind being wrong but I have compiled results from users for quite some time now. This all stemmed from my stepping search which appears to have been a success......

No comment

[chew*]

No comment

Heh I kinda figured you'd say that. What we should really ask is the cpu killing master which has died more T or N chips at high volts. O and that FX 55 is a drool worthy stepping If my stepping calculations are accurate.

BTW ROSETTA!!!!!!!!!!!

[s7e9h3n]

Heh I kinda figured you'd say that. What we should really ask is the cpu killing master which has died more T or N chips at high volts. O and that FX 55 is a drool worthy stepping If my stepping calculations are accurate.

BTW ROSETTA!!!!!!!!!!!

That FX55 is my "FX56" in my sig