Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom X4 9850 BE is out at newegg.com

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Chip
  • Intel
  • Phenom
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 5, 2008 4:53:28 AM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103249 Finally the chip that can keep up with Intel Q6600 is out for $243.00 but shiping is not free? come on egg.

More about : phenom 9850 newegg

April 5, 2008 5:21:49 AM

No flame wars please. How do you think this new chip will compare to the Q6600 or the Q9300? Being fair to both compaines. Say in Super pi or 3dmark06?
April 5, 2008 5:32:01 AM

I would say with a mild OC it would be right up there with a stock clocked Q6600. Say maybe at OC to 2.6 or 2.8ghz . What do you think?
Related resources
April 5, 2008 5:43:21 AM

The 9850 clocks at 2.5ghz and the q6600 clocks at 2.4. I would hope the the AMD would preform better at stocks speeds or somewhat under 3.0ghz. The q6600 is well known to be a very good overclocker and has a large L2 cache. I would be very interested to see some personal scores posted.
April 5, 2008 5:58:24 AM

I was just thinking it could pass up or catch right up to it with a mild OC because doesn't the q6600 beat it clock for clock (slightly) ? or am I wrong ?
April 5, 2008 5:59:55 AM

going by benchmarks, Intel at 2.4 GHz is faster than AMD at 2.5 GHz. Intel costs less for the quad as well, but thats not to say they are not competitive or worth it. I would buy the cheaper one. If i had an AMD board, it would be cheaper to buy the amd processor. (no need to buy motherboard or ram)
April 5, 2008 6:02:37 AM

topper743 said:
No flame wars please. How do you think this new chip will compare to the Q6600 or the Q9300? Being fair to both compaines. Say in Super pi or 3dmark06?

Bothe of those are highly optimized for Intel, so I would expect the Qs to crush that BE in them.
If you take the averages of THG's benches, the BE @ stock should be just behind the Q6600.
April 5, 2008 6:13:00 AM

topper743 said:
No flame wars please. How do you think this new chip will compare to the Q6600 or the Q9300? Being fair to both compaines. Say in Super pi or 3dmark06?


Sharkyextreme.com got a 3DMark 06 CPU score of 3812 in their 9850 review, slightly outperforming the Q6600's score of 3761, and found the 9850 to be more or less equal to the Q6600 in the eight games they benchmarked (the 9850 was faster in five games, the Q6600 faster in three). Here's a link to the review:

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3...

FYI, My Phenom 9600 running at 2.5GHz (same speed as the 9850) scored 11843 in 3DMark 06 (with an 8800 GT), with a CPU score of 3774, so the 3DMark scores, at least, seem to be accurate.

In Super Pi, it's no contest. Intel wins hand down. My best Super 1M Pi score is around 27 seconds, and that's at 2.8GHz.
April 5, 2008 10:26:58 AM

endyen said:
This also makes the BE look more interesting
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=183025
I'm not saying everyone can get thier 9850 to 3.5ghz, but it looks like AMD may have found a fix for thier little gate oxide problem.


Its not stable at 3.5GHz, its more a 'showoff' shot at an extremely high voltage on water cooling... he could bench Cinebench 10 @ 3.2GHz 1.47V but that is a far cry from a suicide 3.5GHz screenshot. Considering 9850BEs can overclock to 2.8 - 2.9GHz on air regularly, an extra 300MHz from water cooling is really not that special. People are just going nuts over the 3.5GHz screenshot without taking things into context. A hypothetical Phenom @ 3.5GHz 1.5V consumes over 250W, even at 3.2GHz 1.47V it consumes ~220W, so please keep expectations realistic if you're running air cooling - most HSFs struggle to dissipate beyond 150W effectively, the high end ones can do ~200W but beyond that is watercooling territory.

If AMD had found a 'fix' they would be selling stock 3GHz chips by now. Think about it. ;) 
April 5, 2008 10:53:54 AM

well AMD only wanted to fix the TLB this time round. Don't forget that the Barcelona CPU's have less TDP. At 2.3GHz Barcelona only uses 75watts. Also with the 9850 you have to understand AMD put the North Bridge and the HT link to 2GHz instead of 1.8GHz which gives Phenom more bandwidth. The North Bridge is what governs the L3 Cache Speed. I think if AMD got the L3 cache to run with the CPU's speed I think Phenom may be better than any Q6600 and Q9300. But they could not. Give AMD Phenom ayear and we may be seeing "Return of the Jedi". lol
April 5, 2008 1:22:22 PM

blackpanther26 said:
well AMD only wanted to fix the TLB this time round. Don't forget that the Barcelona CPU's have less TDP. At 2.3GHz Barcelona only uses 75watts. Also with the 9850 you have to understand AMD put the North Bridge and the HT link to 2GHz instead of 1.8GHz which gives Phenom more bandwidth. The North Bridge is what governs the L3 Cache Speed. I think if AMD got the L3 cache to run with the CPU's speed I think Phenom may be better than any Q6600 and Q9300. But they could not. Give AMD Phenom ayear and we may be seeing "Return of the Jedi". lol


I disagree. Not sure what Barcelona TDP has to do with this, since the 9850BE has a 125W TDP at stock. With the 9850BE, AMD is simply keeping the core/L3 ratio the same as the lower end chips, for example a 9600BE is 2.3GHz/1.8GHz L3, a 9850BE @ 2.5GHz/2GHz L3 is roughly the same ratio between the clockspeed and L3. If they had kept the L3 at 1.8GHz scaling would have been worse as clockspeeds increased.

If the L3 was able to run at core speed, I believe Phenom would be within touching distance of a Q6600 clock for clock, but still 5 - 10% behind Penryn, depending on cache size.

If we give Phenom a year, it'll be competing against Nehalem, not Core 2. ;) 
April 5, 2008 1:59:09 PM

epsilon84 said:
Its not stable at 3.5GHz, its more a 'showoff' shot at an extremely high voltage on water cooling... he could bench Cinebench 10 @ 3.2GHz 1.47V but that is a far cry from a suicide 3.5GHz screenshot. Considering 9850BEs can overclock to 2.8 - 2.9GHz on air regularly, an extra 300MHz from water cooling is really not that special. People are just going nuts over the 3.5GHz screenshot without taking things into context. A hypothetical Phenom @ 3.5GHz 1.5V consumes over 250W, even at 3.2GHz 1.47V it consumes ~220W, so please keep expectations realistic if you're running air cooling - most HSFs struggle to dissipate beyond 150W effectively, the high end ones can do ~200W but beyond that is watercooling territory.

If AMD had found a 'fix' they would be selling stock 3GHz chips by now. Think about it. ;) 


And such demos need to be taken with a grain of salt.
The B3 Stepping from AMD does not significantly alter the manufacturing process.
No new materials. No new Processes. It's simply a bug fix.

Ergo, the OCing results will be extemely similar to the B2 steppings.
Reliable reviews show about a 100-200Mhz increase.

Tech Report was the only main-stream website to get their processor to 3.0 Ghz and that was on 1.6v, which is out side of spec and could easily damage the chip with extended use.

If AMD could produce a significant quantities of chips that ran well beyond 2.5Ghz at reasonable power/temps they would do so to try and increase their margins since they are operating at a significant loss.
April 5, 2008 2:47:11 PM

rant rant rant arnt you people happy that a decent amd quad core is out that lowers the price of the intel ones for you intel fan boys
April 5, 2008 3:27:15 PM

Quote:
Doesnt come with a fan, how lame.


Big deal. I haven't used a stock fan/heatsink on any CPU for years.
a b à CPUs
April 5, 2008 4:31:18 PM

Well, since this is an OCer's chip and a 125W part, I wouldn't feel comfortable with a stock fan on it. That's why they don't include it.
April 5, 2008 11:34:16 PM

This may be a total **** post, but i have something to say to you all (i'm drunk and for some reason this topic came to my attention). When i joined i came looking for a forum full of knowledgable people. I found this, yet i didn not find any humour or entertainment. In other forums i'm members of (mainly UK motorcycle forums) we all meet up and have great laughs together, even if we're vehement fanboys that hate the others' product. I reckon what we should do as a forum is have yearly meets and gatherings in each country that has sufficient members and make friends, if you get what i mean.

April 5, 2008 11:41:48 PM

Hmmm. This is at least a decent sign that AMD is getting closer to catch up to Intel. Sure they're still a long way off, but they will get there eventually. I'm still not going to buy it over Intel's quad cores just yet though, the facts are the facts: Intel's quads still beat AMD's by a margin, and no matter how much of an AMD fanboy I am, nothing is going to change that. I'm going with Intel for the next 2 years or so, hopefully AMD will be back in the game by then.
April 5, 2008 11:48:19 PM

doomsdaydave11 said:
I'm going with Intel for the next 2 years or so, hopefully AMD will be back in the game by then.


You're being VERY hopeful. From all the data that's available Intel will fudge all over AMD for the next 4/5 years, at least until their (AMD's) next gen uArch is out. and even then i'm not that hopeful, especially after the disaster that is/was Barcelona. Even if AMD survive beyond 4/5 years, i doubt AMD can survive past 10 years considering Intel's agressive development cycle. 32 cores at 2010 anyone? AMD is dead. Not some fiction, a fact.
April 6, 2008 12:06:44 AM

buzzlightbeer said:
rant rant rant arnt you people happy that a decent amd quad core is out that lowers the price of the intel ones for you intel fan boys


I just bought a Q6600 for $179 :ange: 
a b à CPUs
April 6, 2008 1:12:20 AM

Quote:
Doesnt come with a fan, how lame.


Comes with plenty of fanboys tho :D 

Seems like there making every chip into a BE, its turned them into a "nothing special" thing
April 6, 2008 1:49:08 AM

its a shame AMD didn't make an inferior chip cheaper.
AMD is going to have to cut prices or come up with something new.

it looks to me that AMD has the better architecture, but Intel has the better technology. AMD will have to bring multi CPUs to the gamer game (again) if they cant get thier technolgy up to snuff.
April 6, 2008 2:15:57 AM

hm. although this is amd's flagship, it shouldnt be $1 more than q6600.
April 6, 2008 2:17:20 AM

AMD may be hurtin but i dont think they will die within that time frame IBM will buy em off and then Intel is Screwed. ((at least thats a good way to think of it) not an AMD fanMan jus dont want AMD die :D  ).
April 6, 2008 5:37:43 AM

epsilon84 said:
Its not stable at 3.5GHz, its more a 'showoff' shot at an extremely high voltage on water cooling... he could bench Cinebench 10 @ 3.2GHz 1.47V but that is a far cry from a suicide 3.5GHz screenshot. Considering 9850BEs can overclock to 2.8 - 2.9GHz on air regularly, an extra 300MHz from water cooling is really not that special. People are just going nuts over the 3.5GHz screenshot without taking things into context. A hypothetical Phenom @ 3.5GHz 1.5V consumes over 250W, even at 3.2GHz 1.47V it consumes ~220W, so please keep expectations realistic if you're running air cooling - most HSFs struggle to dissipate beyond 150W effectively, the high end ones can do ~200W but beyond that is watercooling territory.

If AMD had found a 'fix' they would be selling stock 3GHz chips by now. Think about it. ;) 

No, they would be selling 75w opterons by now. Oh, they are.
With the source to drain channel they use, and the # of pipeline stages in thier marchitecture, I am suprised they can post at all over 3ghz.
Quote:
its more a 'showoff' shot at an extremely high voltage
no really, AMD chips require more voltage to move electrons. The 1.5v he is using has been done on the Q6600s, even on air. The phenoms are still 65nm parts.
This is after all, an off the shelf part. No doubt someone somewhere will get even luckier.
April 6, 2008 3:53:20 PM

Could someone with a Q6600 run Super Pi and post the score?

I have a AMD 5000+ BE with a slight overclock (3.12), I just got 27sec for Super Pi.
April 6, 2008 6:26:26 PM

I just ordered the 9850 off the egg for $250 with shipping. I just built a custom build about two and a half months ago with the ASUS M2N32-sli deluxe and the 6400+ X2 blacks ed. and am wondering if I made a mistake. From most of the reviews I have seen the 6400+ is right up there with the phenom's, even the new b3s. I am seriously considering canceling my order since it has not shipped yet. cuz just not sure if its worth the money, or if it will really be a big upgrade from what I have. Even in tonys thread, he has only got the 9850 up to a 13,773 benchmark06 score. I over clocked my 6400+BE to around 3.4 stable and over clocked my BFG 8800GTS 512mb (G92) and got 12,557. And I believe if I want to take full advantage of the phenom I will have to upgrade my board. In fact I am not even sure the bios updates will support the new 9850's ASUS doesn't even have a update for the 9850's yet. I was hoping that phenom would step up performance big time with the new ones, but a increase of around a 1000 on benchmark06 just doesn't seem to be worth me blowing at least another $1000 by the time I get the new motherboard and 3870X2 to make it a true spider build. Has anyone upgraded from a 6400+BE yet and kept there M2N32-sli deluxe board?? Was their any real world performance gains if you have?? I will have to wait untill monday to cancel and they might charge me a restocking fee even though it has not shipped yet.
April 6, 2008 7:02:57 PM

endyen said:
No, they would be selling 75w opterons by now. Oh, they are.
With the source to drain channel they use, and the # of pipeline stages in thier marchitecture, I am suprised they can post at all over 3ghz.
Quote:
its more a 'showoff' shot at an extremely high voltage
no really, AMD chips require more voltage to move electrons. The 1.5v he is using has been done on the Q6600s, even on air. The phenoms are still 65nm parts.
This is after all, an off the shelf part. No doubt someone somewhere will get even luckier.


LOL obviously you weren't paying attention when AMD was showing off 3GHz Phenoms last year! :lol: 

I'll repeat - the CPU is *not* stable at 3.5GHz, it is merely a suicide screenshot, notice he has done NO benches at 3.5GHz, only 3.2GHz... for water that is not so impressive considering can get get 2.9GHz stable on standard air cooling anyway.

Its amazing you don't agree that if AMD could release a 3GHz Phenom today, they would do so in a heartbeat. This would enable them to grab some lucrative higher end sales, which in turns enables them to price their entire CPU range at a higher price, boosting their flagging ASPs and margins as a result.
April 6, 2008 10:50:32 PM

I don't think AMD can release a 3GHz CPU becuase the simple fact a stock heatsink and cooler would not cut it. I'm not suer what the Phenom FX 82 was going to clock at but I don't think it is much. And medjohnson77 this is a great chip and you'll get to 14k easily with it on 3Dmark06 at 2.9GHz. at 3.5GHz he was at 1.5v Q6600 at 3.6GHz was around the same voltage.
April 7, 2008 2:00:08 AM

blackpanther26

It does look to be a promissing chip but can I use it with my ASUS M2N32-SLI deluxe board, and if so will it have negative effects on speed or performance?
April 7, 2008 2:17:31 AM

don't know if there is a bios out yet for that board, but AM2+ has a higher hiper transport speed and some energy conserving features that any AM2 board wouldn't suport. so you board would hamsting it a little bit, but probably not too bad.
April 7, 2008 2:59:34 AM

epsilon84 said:
LOL obviously you weren't paying attention when AMD was showing off 3GHz Phenoms last year! :lol: 

I'll repeat - the CPU is *not* stable at 3.5GHz, it is merely a suicide screenshot, notice he has done NO benches at 3.5GHz, only 3.2GHz... for water that is not so impressive considering can get get 2.9GHz stable on standard air cooling anyway.

Its amazing you don't agree that if AMD could release a 3GHz Phenom today, they would do so in a heartbeat. This would enable them to grab some lucrative higher end sales, which in turns enables them to price their entire CPU range at a higher price, boosting their flagging ASPs and margins as a result.

If they could bin enough stable @ 3ghz, do you really think it chould do more for them than http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819105196
Sure, they may be able to get as much money on thier top few chips, but I'm willing to bet that by going lower power for thier barcelonas, they will end up much better off financially.
See, they have a choice, a very few faster chips, or all of thier chips running cooler. I think they want a 75w 2.5ghz barcelona personally. As thier top bin, that will make them the most money.
BTW those 3ghz chips from last year, were trial chips, with a thinner gate oxid layer. They ran into a problem with mass production, and to get the chips out the door, were forced to increase the gate oxide thickness to the same as they used on the 90nm parts.
They may be able to fine tune thier process enough to get enough 3ghz chips out the door by the end of 65nm, just the same. Even that wont do much good. It would put them on par with an Intel quad 9xxx @ 2.66ghz. Not what most would consider high end.
As to that 3.5 being "unstable", and on water, it's been my experience that any speed that will boot, will come to be. That has even been the case for peltiered water cooling, though not LN.
April 7, 2008 7:36:21 AM

Well seems like theres still the wait for 45nm parts for 3ghz + speeds.


Nice improvements to this model though :) 
a b à CPUs
April 7, 2008 8:55:40 AM

topper743 said:
Could someone with a Q6600 run Super Pi and post the score?

I have a AMD 5000+ BE with a slight overclock (3.12), I just got 27sec for Super Pi.


E6600 @ 3200/1600 = 15 seconds
E6600 @ 2400/1066 = 20 seconds (stock)

Intel fanboys love superpi - the scores on intel systems are always better - wether or not Intels can crunch millions of numbers faster then AMD is questionable, or wether its just the high cache and low latency and design/interface to allow faster calculation of smaller "work" etc...
April 8, 2008 8:30:15 AM

doomsdaydave11 said:
Hmmm. This is at least a decent sign that AMD is getting closer to catch up to Intel. Sure they're still a long way off, but they will get there eventually. I'm still not going to buy it over Intel's quad cores just yet though, the facts are the facts: Intel's quads still beat AMD's by a margin, and no matter how much of an AMD fanboy I am, nothing is going to change that. I'm going with Intel for the next 2 years or so, hopefully AMD will be back in the game by then.



AMD was the first on the market with Quad Core processors.

Intel gave us Multi Chip Modules.

AMD doesn't have to catch up to Intel. It is the other way around.

45nm? Making a chip smaller doesn't make it faster, only more expensive.
April 8, 2008 8:31:53 AM

Quote:
Doesnt come with a fan, how lame.



Intel's Multi Chip Modules are lame!

Where's Intel's QUAD CORE!?
April 8, 2008 9:01:55 AM

:lol: 

^ Intel has to catch up? Making a chip smaller ONLY makes it more EXPENSIVE? Living in Hector's imaginationland are we? Idiot.
April 8, 2008 9:06:18 AM

I am going to take the troll bait here.

enigma067 said:
AMD was the first on the market with Quad Core processors.
Intel gave us Multi Chip Modules.


In which they also got better yields.

It was an non-elegant but effective solution to the yield problem and manufacturing constraints which directly contributed to AMDs earnings miss.

And then point me to the data which demonstrates a MCM vs. Native advantage. I'll be waiting.*

While I'm waiting, I'll have you read about AMDs decision to enable MCM for Shanghai. Why would they do that?


AMD doesn't have to catch up to Intel. It is the other way around.
said:

AMD doesn't have to catch up to Intel. It is the other way around.


Please show me the data where, on a single thread, AMDs 65nm offerings are better absolutely, clock-for-clock, or watt-for-watt than intels 65nm offerings.

Please show me the data where, on a multiple threads, AMDs 65nm offerings are better absolutely, clock-for-clock, or watt-for-watt than intels 65nm offerings.

Please show me the data where, on a single thread, AMDs 65nm offerings are better absolutely, clock-for-clock, or watt-for-watt than intels 45nm offerings.

Please show me the data where, on a multiple threads, AMDs 65nm offerings are better absolutely, clock-for-clock, or watt-for-watt than intels 45nm offerings.

You are going to come up with spec_fp_rate. And that's about it.


45nm? Making a chip smaller doesn't make it faster, only more expensive.
said:

45nm? Making a chip smaller doesn't make it faster, only more expensive.


This is actually has some truth to it. Half the die size does NOT equate to half the cost in raw materials. Then you add in the R&D to get you there. However...

please review the SPIE advanced lithography proceedings where the cost / process node is mapped out. I do not remember the session, but believe it to be one of the plenaries. We are approaching the regime where the cost becomes prohibitive, but are not yet there. There's a reason EVERY company is racing to get the next node. Faster (well, until ~90nm node), better (improved uarch, but not a process node effect, less power), and most importantly, cheaper (reduced material cost, more procs/unit time)

* an interesting thing -- we *will* be able to do something like this in the near future with Penryn/Dunnington/MCM (native 2 vs. native 6 vs. MCM 4) and Nehalem (modular = vary number of chips + MCM stuff) I am interested to see the real-world impact.
April 8, 2008 9:08:43 AM

jkflipflop98 said:
:lol: 

^ Intel has to catch up? Making a chip smaller ONLY makes it more EXPENSIVE? Living in Hector's imaginationland are we? Idiot.


Well, in AMD's 65nm case, it makes it slower, too.

(sorry, I couldn't help myself. AMD's 45 does look to be back on the right track)
April 8, 2008 9:18:32 AM

Hi ryman.
You and jk should do a google on this guy. He is a certified nutbar, fruitcake. His greatest claim to fame is having heard of a barcelona running @ 10ghz. He's funny.
April 8, 2008 9:23:54 AM

endyen said:
heard of a barcelona running @ 10ghz

Only 10GHz, I have my 6000+ running at eleventy billion THz, it's fanboy-tastic ;) 
On topic, I like the 9850BE, seems like a nice chip! Just can't work out if it's worth the hassle of dropping into my current system. I don't want an SLi AM2+ mobo as I'm pretty sure my next video card(s) will be ATi, so I want a 790FX board. Maybe it's worth waiting until then, decisions, decisions... :D 
April 8, 2008 11:00:15 AM

Quote:
Doesnt come with a fan, how lame.



According to the product specifications it does.

Quote:
Cooling Device Heatsink and Fan included




I'm glad to see AMD finally launch this.
April 8, 2008 11:10:53 AM

Well I didn't cancel my order and it will be here on The 10th. So much for neweggs 3 day shipping. Should just tell you 4-5 days. Oh well. No more infor on Asus site for a bios update for my M2N32-sli deluxe board. I am on Bios version 1402 right now and 1509 is the best they have out right now, and that is for the Phenom 9600 with B2 stepping. So I don't know if this is going to work for the new 9850's. Anyone order one yet with my board and got it running stable with any of the currant bios updates??? Let me know, my phenom will be here Thursday.
April 20, 2008 7:40:52 AM

Anyone who says a cpu with 45nm architecture isnt any faster than one with 65 nm architecture needs to do some studying. Why compare the brand new 9850BE to the Q6600 and not the new Q9300? Its sad that AMDs latest and greatest has to be overclocked to keep up with Intels oldest and slowest quad at stock clock. The Q6600 is cheaper too. Why don't you compare the "new" 2.5 AMD to the "new" 2.5 Intel Q9300 which is over 20% faster than the Q6600 and only 279? Althou the 9850BE is a nice cpu its about a year late. "Intel has to catch up?" Dream on.
April 20, 2008 6:54:45 PM

jamstan said:
Anyone who says a cpu with 45nm architecture isnt any faster than one with 65 nm architecture needs to do some studying.


Actually, a simple die shrink no longer automatically provides an overall increase in performance. That assumption was based on all dimensions of the transistor shrinking, and, about the time of the 90nm process node, this was no longer possible. The gate oxide was getting too thin.

If you look closely at the data from 65nm to 90nm, you would find that the perfomance increase was minimal, at best. Performance / watt, sure, but not raw performance. It is no suprise that AMDs 65nm offerings can not best their 90nm offerings (TDP excluded). Or, if they do, it is incrementally better. Certainly not as good as their 130 to 90nm transition.

But look at intel, you say. Well, that's a tougher comparison. The right intel comparison would be the 65nm Cedar Mill (not core2) if you want to compare to 90nm.. and we all know that thing was a power-hungry dog of a performer. Yuk. There, significant performance improvements we also not observed.

So, lets move on to the 45nm node. Intel gets improvement here... and it's all to do with the redesign of the transistor, itself. This was the first fundamental production scale change to transistor material in decades. It was out of necessity -- the writing was on the wall and all of the industry knew it. Intel just happened to get theirs out the door first. Do not expect to see a significant improvement in AMDs offering until they implement their HK/MG. (nb -- you will see *some* -- as it appears as if their published transistor data indicates a shrink of ~10% in their gate oxide)

Back to the previous posters point -- I'm not disagreeing with your comparisons nor your overall conclusion. We compare (and buy) what's out there now.
April 24, 2008 4:08:21 AM

it was acually AMD's fualt for staying with the 90nm X2's instead of going to 65nm and a new Architech. This can be blamed on the CEO of AMD which I think should go. look HT1.0 and HT2.0 the only difference is 200MHz. Where HT3.0 is 1GHz difference.
!