But before that you could just fill up the tube and bench?Originally Posted by xoqolatl
I thought Intel CPUs were coldbugged since Conroe
I'm not sure Intel were 100% coldbugless even if they did just do what I just asked about. One would have to run some oldies on LHe to really find out
--->TeamPURE<---
they were somewhat but not as bad as I7 from some of the old school benchers ive chatted with. I actually predidcted it before I7 came out, was talking to moviman like 6 months before I7 released and said I bet i7 gets a nasty CB with the addition of the MMC.I thought Intel CPUs were coldbugged since Conroe
heatware chew*
I've got no strings to hold me down.
To make me fret, or make me frown.
I had strings but now I'm free.
There are no strings on me
Sometimes the source was the only persosn that was supposed to use the chip, when it gets posted on a forum by someone else, well someone can lose a good paying job. Thats 9/10 the case.... Covering the entire lower line is really the only safe way to post it.
Last edited by chew*; 01-13-2009 at 09:16 AM.
heatware chew*
I've got no strings to hold me down.
To make me fret, or make me frown.
I had strings but now I'm free.
There are no strings on me
How did that CS chip clock HT under coldor did you just do multi?
I like that batch #, only had 1 lower than that in my entire life.
Last edited by chew*; 01-13-2009 at 09:13 AM.
heatware chew*
I've got no strings to hold me down.
To make me fret, or make me frown.
I had strings but now I'm free.
There are no strings on me
yea my chip isn't a cv or a cs. it was just produced the other day. i think they made up a special batch for amd employees idk. its most likely fine cause i see now the only difference is that the memory controller revision letter is different and its an ES and that it was produced in 2009. im putting it in this weekend so if i see anything different from the ordinary i won't post anything. but every amd chip i have had before is an ES anyway.
I did not test HT under cold. It does 320 stable on air though.
www.teampclab.pl
MOA 2009 Poland #2, AMD Black Ops 2010, MOA 2011 Poland #1, MOA 2011 EMEA #12
Test bench: empty
Here's AMD's explanation of date codes. It's still a mystery to me.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/cont...koptions_1.pdf
makes sense. i know it has been posted earlier. also does anyone have any info on how the cpu dies are numbered on the wafer? many say that they are numbered from the middle outward so if you get a 0001 chip then you got the middle of the wafer. this doesn't really make sense and i have heard that they just number it normally from the top left corner left to right.
I only read the first post.
I graphically compiled a small amount of FX chips for you all to investigate.
They're mostly review samples so they have the same week, 5 and 4-letter codes so it probably doesn't help much. To be honest, finding a good clocker is probably just a matter of getting lucky.
yea thats what i think too. the batch number isn't affecting anything and same with the steppings.
THat's because you don't have a database...For example, chartered semiconductor AND AMD make CPU chips that AMD sells. Chartered's Foundry is not as good as AMD's...how do you know what you are going to get?
AMD engineers changed the doping slightly...on a specific set of wafers...and they clocked exceptionally well...or are lower wattage...how do you find them?
AMD used to sell cpus with 1/2 cache disabled with same basic part number as cpus that were not made with the extra cache the first were...how do you tell?
How do you find the same wafer used for Opteron chips, which have higher tolerances, in the retail line?
Batch Numbers and Steppings....
amdgeeks.net is a database and I uploaded both of the 939's I had but it doesn't require the wafer unit number or whatever those last 4 digits represent. I can't remember my Opti's number but the X2 was 12xx something and it had a poor IMC. 242MHz was all it would allow.
These are all xPMW CPUs. The P and the W are always the same because these CPUs made in Germany (Dresden). The M letter is always a good sign. For example the MPMW stepping always signs good OCing modell.I only read the first post.
I graphically compiled a small amount of FX chips for you all to investigate.
They're mostly review samples so they have the same week, 5 and 4-letter codes so it probably doesn't help much. To be honest, finding a good clocker is probably just a matter of getting lucky.
Last edited by Oliverda; 01-21-2009 at 02:39 AM.
-
Well, I'm even less sure the markings matter than before now. The AMD document clearly states that the markings are only based on when the thing is packaged and not directly tied to the wafer in any way. 8001 may have been the center most die or a flaky one on the outside edge. There is no guarantee of anything. And M just stands for mixed, meaning there's even less consistency in the product than the other markings.
Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.
Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.
Rule 2:
When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.
Rule 2A:
When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.
Rule 3:
When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.
Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!
Random Tip o' the Whatever
You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.
Yes, particle, so if you know HOW the person doing the binning is doing thier job, you know which chips they will put into the batch first...
I mean, it's not cut and dry, but it IS definately meaningful.
The point here is that it's all based on guesses at this point. There is absolutely no solid link here. We're just assuming that the same chips end up numbered the same way reliably, and we have no way of knowing if that's true. If it were, the numbers wouldn't represent packaging times but would instead be linked to chips themselves. Especially considering that they have mixed batches, I really doubt the same dies end up with the same numbers all the time.
Just to be clear: It's not that your idea is conceptually difficult to understand or that I don't get it. It's just that you cannot properly draw that conclusion with the information we're given.
As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.
Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.
When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.
When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.
When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.
Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!
Random Tip o' the Whatever
You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.
Ah, but I can becuase I have info you do not, and also I have garnered results worldwide from AMD cpus, as have others, that led to this conclusion. I HAVE that tidbit that elludes you...you also forget that Macci works @ AMD, and at one point, was very helpful to all of us when it came to searching for cpus...because in the end, AMD does not test every chip to thier max, but are VERY interested in the results.
I'll share a site with you that used to keep really good results, that may help you with the correlation.
http://www.amdgeeks.net/processors
There used to be a time when if I posted an issue with hardware or something, I'd get a pm from a company rep asking what they could do to solve the problem...Don't forget Francis being on here as well...
That customer interaction fell off when companies started to do good, and AMD bought ATI...the tech world changed then...but it's those companies that make a grassroots effort with us in these hard times, that will excel.
The letter for the first five is for L2, and that's it, hence I'm pretty sure the AC is related to L3 cache, and to support this these letter only came up with the K10, my K8 doesn't have those letters (I can post a pic if you don't believe)
Since some of you so insistent that the batch # means little or nothing, anyone care to muster a guess what batch numbers over 20 chips I saw at the boston event had. I saw them personally with my own eyes.
Last edited by chew*; 01-21-2009 at 09:23 AM.
heatware chew*
I've got no strings to hold me down.
To make me fret, or make me frown.
I had strings but now I'm free.
There are no strings on me
I read they weren't cherries but I'll submit a guess; 0001-0020.
I will say they were all less than 0100 and leave it at that, apparently they weren't cherries though as others posting with inside info apparently KNOW FOR A FACT that it means nothing
Nothing the average user can't duplicate however.......
heatware chew*
I've got no strings to hold me down.
To make me fret, or make me frown.
I had strings but now I'm free.
There are no strings on me
My own experience hasn't done much to improve my belief that it matters. My 9850 for instance was an 80016 and it was awful. It topped out at 2.7GHz stable with 1.45V. My 940 is 80074 and it's not great either. You'll notice on the OC chart that I'm in dead last needing the most voltage for the slowest stable frequency.
As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.
Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.
When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.
When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.
When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.
Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!
Random Tip o' the Whatever
You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.
My 9850 was 0816GPMW--80259...and Overclocks like crazy
i7 860 Batch # L933B378
ASUS Maximus III Formula
Koolance CPU-360
G.Skill 1600 7-7-7-24
Sapphire 5770
i7 860 @ 4.213 http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=986383
Phenom II 550 X4 @4.160(MA790X-UD4P) http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=652117
Phenom II 550 X2 @ 4.1(MA790X-UD4P) http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=638438
Kuma 7750 @ 3.5....http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=560031
Phenom II 940 @4.1<------ http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=501007
9850BE@3.6------- http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=447465
The only conclusion I can draw from my experience with stellar clocking chips is that they were xPxW coded. Unfortunately I haven't a clue what the batch numbers were.
0310XPMW Thoroughbred (desktop) box
0329XPMW Thoroughbred (desktop) box
0348TPMW Barton (mobile) oem only
0614EPCW Venus (server) box
Last edited by uncle john; 01-21-2009 at 01:09 PM.
my 9850 is same letters, diff. week,,, 0820GPMW--80436...and also oc's good
LEO!!!! amd phenom II x6 1100T | gigabyte 990fxa-ud3 . . 2x2gb g.skill 2133c8 | 128gb g.skill falcon ssd sapphire ati 5850 | x-fi xtrememusic. . . samsung f4 2tb | samsung dvdrw . . corsair tx850w | windows 7 64-bit. ddc3.25 xspc restop | ek ltx | mc-tdx | BIP . . lycosa-g9-z2300 | 26" 1920x1200 lcd .
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks