can you elaborate, or would that request just offend u even more?
I would be happy to.
It's not the first time that the Intel croud has jumped to a conclusion about AMD quality. Turned out it was all about Via.
This thread is all based on unsubstantiated rumour, yet many here are acting as if spreading FUD is a good thing.
Give it some honest thought. How often have we seen people say this is crap or that is crap, when the problem lays somewhere else. If this were a real situation, dont you think one of the many tech sights would have picked it up by now?
The AMD clean room team have done a great job, considering what they have to work with. They are consumate professionals. All changes are done in small steps with ongoing checks. Every piece of equipment is under sever scrutiny. They are absolute perfectionists. They will not let a chip leave thier shop, if it is not exactly up to grade or better. They are consumate german workers.
The design then? It is a symetrical design. All cores, on all phenoms and barcelonas are the same. You can not have a design problem if it is affecting less than 1% of product.
Why do I say it's a mobo problem? Because mobo makers are having problems getting bios out for thier old AM2 boards.
This is a tech site. If you dont know all of this and a whole lot more, you should read but not post, unless you have a question.
If, on the other hand, you feel compelled to jump on an unsubstantiated roumor, so you can kick a wounded dog, well, you know what that makes you.
Nope.
AMD has it's good points, and it's bad.
Do they make a resonable chip? It's fine for e-machines and servers. Also works quite well with linux.
Does Intel make a better chip? Oh ya!!
Would I rather have an Intel quad than a B2 phenom. You bet.
Do I think gang bangers are scum? You figure it out.
That's normal. How long did it take for the FX chips to move to 90nm?
When AMD moves to a new node, they need at least a couple of steppings to get up to speed.
It could be a process / masking issue, since the mask used in making Phenom is completely different than X2s.
It could be a quad core design problem, as there are fairly decent number of such report across the internet. Apparently they couldn't get the 3rd core to get above 2.1Ghz, and that is the speed of the highest Opteron is currently offered.
It could be a motherboard problem, only IF all of those encountering this problem are using the same chipset, or the same board, or the same mobo manufacturer. So far I haven't been able to determine that.
On the other hand, I think you're getting too edgy about this.
I certainly do not think of you as an I I I O.
I'm not sure if you are aware of the problems boardmakers are having with phenom bios.
The main reason that most AM2 boards do not have phenom bios is because of cmos space. There is just too much information to go into the old small bios. Some companies have found a workaround, but it is tight.
It's a whole lot of information being crammed into a small space. Easy enough to make a mistake.
Since it's a "borrow what you can" universe, a simple error can easily spread around.
That's why I think it's a mobo problem.
When you consider that there are now hundreds of thousands of barcelonas and phenoms out there, and probably as many that have been designated as dual or tri cores, the chance that a masking problem has gone unnoticed is very slim indeed. A design , or process problem making it this far is just not creditable. After all, they are stockpiling tri-cores so they are doing an active search for exactly that type of problem.
<rant>
Sure is also easy to tell the guys who *work* in semiconductor process design and manufacturing and understand these issues from those that don't.
Tell me, how would a motherboard BIOS issue create a flakey indivual core problem?
</rant>
It certainly can be a mask+process issue. The thing of it is that, even with a defect, it might not appear the same on every wafer. Believe it or not, the biggest issue facing those CPU manufacturers is variability. And the variability between lots, wafers, and even withing a wafer itself can be quite large. I'm more familiar with variabilty that can come from the patterning process (scanner dose, defocus, topography ("flatness" of the underlying features), scanner hotspots, temperature control, developer puddle, random etch residuals....)
Especially when given a portion of a design which is particularly prone to failure under process variability.
And it's not true that, just because you don't see it in the Athlons doesn't mean it's not a overall process problem. Certain design layout geometries are particulary poorly suited to handle the variabilities. No single design will explore all possible design space. AMD is at a particular disadvantage here becuase of the larger disconnect between design and process development.
I am leaning toward, not the design itself, but what it on the reticle itself that's the problem -- assuming the reports of the problem being dominant in core #2. And assuming the design itself is symmetrical. You see, even though the design of the four cores might be the same, it is NOT a guarantee that the data on the reticle will be. There are a number of data processing steps while taping out the reticle which subtly alter the design, and if the error is in there.
but hey, what do I know. I don't work for AMD and I don't know the details of the issue.
I've never heard of an NDA that precribes from telling people who you work for, or your tittle, so who is it, and what are you? Where's the plant?
I certainly do not think of you as an I I I O. I'm not sure if you are aware of the problems boardmakers are having with phenom bios. The main reason that most AM2 boards do not have phenom bios is because of cmos space. There is just too much information to go into the old small bios. Some companies have found a workaround, but it is tight. It's a whole lot of information being crammed into a small space. Easy enough to make a mistake. Since it's a "borrow what you can" universe, a simple error can easily spread around. That's why I think it's a mobo problem. When you consider that there are now hundreds of thousands of barcelonas and phenoms out there, and probably as many that have been designated as dual or tri cores, the chance that a masking problem has gone unnoticed is very slim indeed. A design , or process problem making it this far is just not creditable. After all, they are stockpiling tri-cores so they are doing an active search for exactly that type of problem.
AMD Phenom 9600 Black Edition cooled by a Zalman 9700 Gigabyte GA-MA790X-DS4 Socket AM2+ motherboard 4GB Gskill 5-5-5-15 DDR2-800 Memory (4x1GB Sticks) 3x74GB WD Raptors in RAID 0, Primary Drive 500GB Seagate PMR Hard Disk eVGA 8800GTS 320MB Vista Ultimate 64bit
I'm just curious, how did you receive information like this?
EDIT: Seems like those who are having problems also have Gigabyte board with 790 chipset (790X / 790FX). I'll keep look around if this only happens in Vista w/ Overdrive.
Message edited by yomamafor1 on 02-08-2008 at 02:50:27 PM
That's normal. How long did it take for the FX chips to move to 90nm?
When AMD moves to a new node, they need at least a couple of steppings to get up to speed.
Brisbane has been out for over a year and it isn't showing any signs of ever outpacing Windsor.
Even if it could match the clockspeeds of Windsor, it is actually slower clock for clock (half the cache and slightly higher latency).
Depends on what CPU they swapped in there. If they swapped one Phenom 9600 in there for another Phenom 9600 and the problem went away, the problem was clearly with the first Phenom 9600.
And that is what they did.
They swapped one Phenom 9600 for another 9600 of the same stepping and the issue went away.
Did anyone happen to read the other threads that he linked? This is not just happening to him but to other people. I would be a mad customer though if it only happened on Vista x64 especially since AMD touts better Vista compatability and superior 64bit processing.
I still think it is a possibility that some have a bad core. But who knows?
Why do I say it's a mobo problem? Because mobo makers are having problems getting bios out for thier old AM2 boards.
It was pointed out on these forums that there might not be much financial incentive for them to offer upgrades for their old boards. Upgrading an old board generates no income, I’m sure they’d rather sell a new board. They’re part of a talented industry that knows how to turn product, and I suspect that any ‘problems’ may be more motivational than technical in nature. I'm reluctant to believe that this is all a BIOS issue.
That is, unless you know something about the mobo industry that I don’t (very well possible ).
---------------
Give a man a fish, and you'll have fed him for a day. Give a fish a man, and he'll eat for weeks.
Did anyone happen to read the other threads that he linked? This is not just happening to him but to other people. I would be a mad customer though if it only happened on Vista x64 especially since AMD touts better Vista compatability and superior 64bit processing.
I still think it is a possibility that some have a bad core. But who knows?
I've tested this on both Vista 32-bit and Vista x64
I've tested this on both Vista 32-bit and Vista x64
The problem exists in both.
So now we just need a test in XP. That way people will stop saying its the OS. I doubt its Vista since Vista just feeds code to the CPU. Its the CPU that sends that back to Vista to say "Hey its not working right".
So now we just need a test in XP. That way people will stop saying its the OS. I doubt its Vista since Vista just feeds code to the CPU. Its the CPU that sends that back to Vista to say "Hey its not working right".
It's nowhere near that simple. Vista doesn't 'feed code to the CPU' - to a large degree an OS defines the context in which an applications runs - threading models and such.
It's nowhere near that simple. Vista doesn't 'feed code to the CPU' - to a large degree an OS defines the context in which an applications runs - threading models and such.
My basic meaning is that Vista puts the thread through a processor and the processor of course processes it. If the
).