AMD Zambezi news, info, fans !

[BeepBeep2]

Stepping C0 FX ES
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/sah/s...hostid=5747954

Nobody knows what that is, and it's not a C0 Stepping FX

This is all wrong!

Quote:
Family 21 Model 2 Stepping 0]
It would have Family 21 Model 34 Stepping 0, or be so!

Reasons:
The new Opteron Family 15h belong to the Model 20 2Fh;
Family Model 20-15h 2Fh is converted to decimal:
Family 21 Model 32-47


Familly 21 Model 2 Stepping 0 - could be an OR-C0?
An improved bulldozers Stepping up the new Opterons are?

After all, if it were analogous to the Ontario-mask
00500F01 - ON-A0
00500F02 - ON-A1
00500F10 - ON-B0
00500F20 - ON-C0
,,,
00600F00 - OR-A0
00600F01 - OR-A1
00600F10 - OR-B0
00600F11 - OR-B1
00600F12 - OR-B2
00600F13 - OR-B3 - was indeed once a Rev-Guide
00600F20 - OR-C0 -?

[Dresdenboy]

Nobody knows what that is, and it's not a C0 Stepping FX

Since I was the one who found the BOINC report I want to add a bit to this discussion

My original suggestion was C0 stepping. In the thread you translated (original here) one user assumed it to be a Vishera ES, which caused the corrective response by another user - the one you quoted. So indeed, the C0 stepping is no Vishera ES, since this would have a model number 20h-2fh.

Model 2 puts it clearly into BDver1 range (Orochi or OR-A0... steppings). As model 0 stepping x translated to OR-Ax steppings, and model 1 stepping y to OR-By steppings, I suppose model 2 stepping 0 simply means C0. The only thing missing is an official public document supporting this.

[Oese]

and how does it compare to older steppings? any visible difference?

[Dresdenboy]

and how does it compare to older steppings? any visible difference?

None. BOINC scores are not exact enough to spot anything. C0 would not come with the changes which were planned for Piledriver, Steamroller, Excavator years ago (otherwise they wouldn't be able to deliver such updates in a one year cycle).

But it might have lower power consumption or reach higher clocks.

[FlanK3r]

Something new about Vishera?

[tbone8ty]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819106011

water cooled kits finally showing up...so much for at launch water cooled kits

[BeepBeep2]

I thought only Japan or somewhere had LC kits at launch...

Regardless, none of these are going to sell. I don't know what AMD is thinking.

[tbone8ty]

be kewl if they sold the water cooled unit separately, they revised the mounting bracket to be much better (than the stock antec khuler 920)

[Daveburt714]

I just wonder if there was any binning on the chips for these sets (to match water)...
It'll be interesting to see some results.

Provided anyone on here buys them OFC...

[BeepBeep2]

I just wonder if there was any binning on the chips for these sets (to match water)...
It'll be interesting to see some results.

Provided anyone on here buys them OFC...

I highly doubt it...

Weird that the listing on newegg lists them as 3.9 GHz chips probably to trick people into buying them...3.9 GHz is just the middle turbo state.

[FlanK3r]

Dave: I have one setup home...But I need some new CPU chip ....

[charged3800z24]

why are they show 3.9ghz? Are these different....

"AMD FX-8150 Zambezi 3.9GHz (4.2GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core Desktop Processor with Liquid Cooling Kit FD8150FRGUWOX"

Edit: Missed your post Beep..

[Tomasis]

Dave: I have one setup home...But I need some new CPU chip ....

How come since you have many cpus?

[B.A.T]

"AMD FX-8150 Price Drops Like a Rock"

Source: Techpowerup

[tbone8ty]

anybody remove the IHS on bulldozer yet? Or is it soldered on?

[AMDnord]

must be soldered! I have 2 dead cpu w/o warranty so i can try to remove the IHS to see how it is :p

[FlanK3r]

IHS remove is some years dangerous...Thubans deaths after this, all Intell chips too of course. And FX will be not different Im thinking

[The Stilt]

IHS remove is some years dangerous...Thubans deaths after this, all Intell chips too of course. And FX will be not different Im thinking

The chips die because of wrong methods of removal, improper cooling or physical damage to the die or package, the missing IHS has nothing to do with it directly.

Even if you manage to remove the IHS without any physical damage and even cool it down properly, the chip might still die within 1-xxx days without any obvious reason. In this case the actual "cause of death" lies in the botched methods of removal:

Thermal shock - The chip was heated or cooled down too quickly during the IHS removal process, which caused damage to the silicon or silicon-substrate interconnects / bonding.

Mechanical stress - Excessive force was used on the IHS before the "TBC" had reached the melting point.
This caused damage to silicon-substrate interconnects / bonding.

The usual TBC (48% indium, 52% tin) used to bond the core to the IHS has liquefying point at ~120c.
This is nowhere near the temperature the chip can temporarily withstand in non-operating state.
According to Intel, the maximum short-term (>72h) STORAGING temperature for their chips is 125c.

So if you know exactly what you are doing, removing the IHS is quite safe.
Worth all the work and trouble nursing the fragile core and making custom cooler mountings for the now non-standard (height) chip?

[BeepBeep2]

The chips die because of wrong methods of removal, improper cooling or physical damage to the die or package, the missing IHS has nothing to do with it directly.

Even if you manage to remove the IHS without any physical damage and even cool it down properly, the chip might still die within 1-xxx days without any obvious reason. In this case the actual "cause of death" lies in the botched methods of removal:

Thermal shock - The chip was heated or cooled down too quickly during the IHS removal process, which caused damage to the silicon or silicon-substrate interconnects / bonding.

Mechanical stress - Excessive force was used on the IHS before the "TBC" had reached the melting point.
This caused damage to silicon-substrate interconnects / bonding.

The usual TBC (48% indium, 52% tin) used to bond the core to the IHS has liquefying point at ~120c.
This is nowhere near the temperature the chip can temporarily withstand in non-operating state.
According to Intel, the maximum short-term (>72h) STORAGING temperature for their chips is 125c.

So if you know exactly what you are doing, removing the IHS is quite safe.
Worth all the work and trouble nursing the fragile core and making custom cooler mountings for the now non-standard (height) chip?

What about what chew* said before?

I did a controlled experiment at 1.6vcore.

Removed lid from cpu, ran it at cool temps in prime 95 @ 4.2.

Shut system down. Let everything get to normal temps.

Posted next day at normal temps = dead chip almost instantly.

Take away the buffer ( IHS ) and the chip can die rather easy.

With the buffer there is potential to degrade the chip although I doubt it will spike it and kill it instantly I can assure you that damage can be done above 1.55v at the average users ambient temps.

It's a buffer it basically makes the DIE spread heat instead of being concentrated thus the name Integrated heat spreader.

Remove that buffer and the chip becomes far less tolerant to voltage and can spike easily.

For reference I tested this from stock volts to 1.6 where it was finally enough to spike the chip and kill it.

My intention was to kill it and also find out at what voltage for personal data.

If it can spike and kill instantly at 1.6 it can surely degrade with the buffer.

Usually voltage above 1.55 is enough to peg the chips at 55C anyway which is the overall average temp that most chips stability breaks down under high clocks @ normal ambients.

Actually compiling some interesting ln2 data as well but the data is not complete yet.

Removing IHS kills voltage tolerance unless you solder your block to CPU. The IHS is a buffer.

Thanks for assuming i'm an idiot who has no clue about contact

The chip died at 1.575 IIRC or an equivalent to that had chip been a retail. The spike in temps at boot is what killed it.

It was a HL ES chip with the sole intent to test exactly what it tested.

The newer dies are getting fragile, deneb could be chipped, thuban would just crack. I imagine BD will be even more fragile.

Also might note while the laptop chips appear flat the denebs we delidded were anything but. We had to lap the die on a few of them.

You guys are clearly misguided if you think that paste is equal to soldered.

Would you twist 2 wires together and call it good contact?

1.475 is max i would bother with most chips for 24/7. TBH if I had the time and ripped my rig apart and put the amd system in thats been waiting for quite some time, I would be happy with 3.6 24/7, then again my 24/7 pc is mission critical, Quiet and cool.

The point at which is takes excessive voltage for minimal gains for 24/7 use is the point that you will degrade varies chip to chip but 1.475 is preety much safe for all chips.

Best way to find out is to remove the buffer (IHS) run on cool water at a max prime stable speed.

Let water get room temps then boot. It will instapop the chip think that happened at 1.5v IIRC but not 1.475 with quite a few test candidates.

If you can instapop, then it's fairly safe to assume you can degrade with the buffer in place.

[The Stilt]

I know what he said.

Lets assume the contact between the thermal interfaces are 100% in each case:

Heat transfer path:

CPU with IHS: Die -> IHS -> Cooling element
CPU without IHS: Die -> Cooling element

Without the IHS there is one thermal interface less in the path, which means the heat transfer is quicker and due real world manufacturing tolerances (IHS surfaces, cooling element surface) more efficient.

I have removed "soldered" heatspreaders successfully from countless chips since the "soldering" method was introduced (IIRC in around 2003, P4 Gallatin). I never lost a single cpu because of IHS removal and I bet they all still work unless they have been scrapped. Still might have some of these P4´s, C2Ds and Phenoms II in my archives.

[BeepBeep2]

I was just asking if you had any explanation as to why he found what he did...

[The Stilt]

"Thermal shock - The chip was heated or cooled down too quickly during the IHS removal process, which caused damage to the silicon or silicon-substrate interconnects / bonding."

Or

"Mechanical stress - Excessive force was used on the IHS before the "TBC" had reached the melting point.
This caused damage to silicon-substrate interconnects / bonding."

Or

"Hotspotting" due bad contact between the die and the cooling element.
This is highly unlikely because silicon has quite good thermal conductivity properties.
Chip getting damaged this way would require VERY poor contact.
Also I am quite certain chew can install the cooling properly, so this is not the case.

[FlanK3r]

Do u have some free FX for IHS remove?

[FlanK3r]

FX-8170??? True or not?
Such a significant difference between official price and actual price may indicate that AMD has quietly reduced the price of the FX-8150 model in the light of Intel's latest product launch as well as to clear the road for the new model FX-8170, which should become available in Q2 2012.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...hip_Chips.html

[TheBreezyBB]

If true, i would be really pissed cause i just recently bought the FX-8150 and all this time i was waiting for the FX-8170!!