Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Phenom Exposed! Shipping with flaky 3rd cores.

Phenom Exposed! Shipping with flaky 3rd cores. - Page 5

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - Phenom Exposed! Shipping with flaky 3rd cores.

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Word :    Username :           
 

Last message on previous page:
Bottom line is, no one in this thread truely knows or understands what is going on.

SPECULATION is not fact.

Best to wait for the dust to clear. Then the truth will be known.

e

Reply to enigma067
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.

I love the line "Cold Hard Fact" on unreleased products. 2 weeks before the phenom was initially released the same thing happened in AMDs favor : "The phenom is going to blow the doors of Intel, Cold Hard Fact"

Cold Hard ASSumption

Reply to rockbyter

ro3dog wrote :

AMD 45nm will be out 4thQ 08 or 1stQ 09.Intel 32nm wont



We don't know that as they may run into thermal issues on their 45nm. On thig is for sure they wont have HK/MG for their first 45nm stepping and is probably going to be SOI thus the thermal issues they may run into.

Intel already has 32nm SRAM chips working and will have the 32nm shrink of Nehalem released in November of 2009 codenamed Westmere. AMD wont have 32nm probably until 2010 since thats when IBM plans on having it and thats where AMD gets most of their process technology from.

enigma067 wrote :

And ignore all the illegal activity Intel has been engaged in ? ? ?



I always love how this is brought up every time. I always find it funny how in a two year period (2004-2006) AMD gained quite a bit of market share especially considering the manufacturing capabilities. But still AMD has had their faults too same with IBM and every other company as there is no perfect company. Just some hide it better than others.

ragemonkey I am sorry that both of your BE's turned out flakey. But what are you going to do when they have a horrible QA department? Well maybe the B3's will get better but whos to say they wont have the same problems?

------------------------------ http://www.steamcalculator.com/76561197970703804/camo_sig.png
Reply to jimmysmitty
- 0 +

caamsa wrote :

Those of you who are making comments about the Phenom without actually owning one and testing it out yourselves are just repeating verbatim what you have heard or read on the internet.

I would not purchase one of these chips but I certainly will not condemn it. Does anyone have numbers regarding its actual failure rate? One bad apple does not spoil the whole bunch.



Well if you go by Ragemonkeys success rate that would mean every 9600BE has a flakey 3rd core..... Which would be statistically impossible, well mostly because of the fact that mine doesn't. When I read his luck rate, to me it's pointing to other issues, with his setup. When it comes to that I'd have to pretty much know exactly what he's using. And I don't think anyone has that bad of luck to get multiple dud processors in a row.

AOD doesn't really work properly unless you're using a version higher than 2.10, since prior to that it doesn't detect the 9600be properly. The problem with that, is that it no longer works on none AMD chipsets. Like I said I've been all the way up to 2.7 easily on mine, 12hours prime 95 blend, and 12hours small ffts, as well as gaming and benchmarking stable. Currently running without an OC due to trying to eliminate all possible factors for figuring out whether my 3870 card was a dud. Thankfully Newegg is letting me RMA the card for refund without restocking fee. Not goign to bother getting another until after I get a better PSU, to eliminate that from the equation too. And like I said, the only BSOD I've seen recently were Machine check errors while having the 3870 installed.

What it comes down to though, is I don't care if you consider yourself a professional or knowledgeable OCer, you can still do something wrong with a bios setting or other setting and not realize it. Also with a none AMD based chipset it makes it more difficult for say me to diagnose whats going on, since I'm running on a 790fx board. And going by the quality of the THG Phenom BE article it's pretty clear that not everyone fully comprehends how to OC this processor. It's no longer just a matter of upping the HT Ref, or changing to multiplier on the core. You have to monkey with the cores plane states for VID stability as well. And sadly not a lot of mainboard manufacturers offer that even on 700 series boards.

------------------------------ AMD Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition, ZeroTherm Nirvana 120 Premium CPU Cooler, MSI K9a2 Platinum bios 1.1b3 or P.0J, 4GB (2x2) Mushkin DDR2 1066 (pc8500) 5-5-5-15 2.05v RAM, Sapphire Toxic HD3870, Raidmax RX-700SS PSU, Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320gb SATA2 X
Reply to Mathos

mathos, ragemonkey is using a Gigabyte GA-MA790X-DS4 Socket AM2+ motherboard. So its the same chipset as yours minus the "F". So in reletivity its the same chipset and you think it might be his setup when the BSoD is clearly stating a CPU problem?

It is possible to get bad parts more than once. Or it could just be that there are more bad Phenoms out there than you would think.

I think its just that Phenom wasn't really focused on and they are having more problems than they want to admit thus why they publisized the errata to cover up their QA messups.

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by jimmysmitty on 02-23-2008 at 06:14:52 AM
------------------------------ http://www.steamcalculator.com/76561197970703804/camo_sig.png
Reply to jimmysmitty
- 0 +

jimmysmitty wrote :


I think its just that Phenom wasn't really focused on and they are having more problems than they want to admit thus why they publisized the errata to cover up their QA messups.



The main reason why I think there has to be flaky cores is the fact that they're coming out with B2 triple cores. There's no reason to disable a core for a market that wouldn't exist if they weren't offering the product.

Can't wait to see the B3's. If there are no triple core B3's then it's a B2 QA issue. If there are, then the Phenom's a small risk until 45nm. The Q6600 isn't perfect either, I've read that people got the "wrong" core at Newegg, though whether there are errata issues with thermals, or whether it's an overclocking issue is something that I don't know.

As is, dual core on the desktop is a mature tech, but quad core seems to have some issues. Can't wait till it gets settled with both companies.

Reply to yipsl
- 0 +

yipsl wrote :

The main reason why I think there has to be flaky cores is the fact that they're coming out with B2 triple cores. There's no reason to disable a core for a market that wouldn't exist if they weren't offering the product.

Can't wait to see the B3's. If there are no triple core B3's then it's a B2 QA issue. If there are, then the Phenom's a small risk until 45nm. The Q6600 isn't perfect either, I've read that people got the "wrong" core at Newegg, though whether there are errata issues with thermals, or whether it's an overclocking issue is something that I don't know.

As is, dual core on the desktop is a mature tech, but quad core seems to have some issues. Can't wait till it gets settled with both companies.


True, but there are a lot of reasons why one core could be broken.
It may come from the outside of the wafer. A bit of dust may have landed on that spot. There may be a slight imperfection in the wafer itself. Damage can occur in cleaning, masking or heating.
If they are selling 3X as many barcelonas and phenom quads, as they are tri or dual core phenoms, everything is fine.
We will have to wait and see.

Reply to endyen

endyen wrote :

True, but there are a lot of reasons why one core could be broken.
It may come from the outside of the wafer. A bit of dust may have landed on that spot. There may be a slight imperfection in the wafer itself. Damage can occur in cleaning, masking or heating.
If they are selling 3X as many barcelonas and phenom quads, as they are tri or dual core phenoms, everything is fine.
We will have to wait and see.



For thousands of them? In a multi-million dollar facility? Quad cores only?

------------------------------ Q6600@3510/1560 + TT BigTyphoon+Mod
8gb Kingston 800mhz
Gigabyte EP35-DS3P
XFX 8800GT/512
Reply to apache_lives
- 0 +

Please elaborate on exactly what to type into the search engine to get all these results of many people having this problem? The ones that I find link back to here, and to extremesystems. And like I said, give me exact settings that you're using, as far as bios goes. I've seen a few people talking exclusively about Windows Vista 64bit problems, and a few about Vista 32bit, which could likely be a chipset driver issue.

Hey my Machine check specifically points out CPU, Mainboard, Power supply, Memory, but it didn't start happening until after installing the the HD3870, so obviously it couldn't be the video card.

------------------------------ AMD Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition, ZeroTherm Nirvana 120 Premium CPU Cooler, MSI K9a2 Platinum bios 1.1b3 or P.0J, 4GB (2x2) Mushkin DDR2 1066 (pc8500) 5-5-5-15 2.05v RAM, Sapphire Toxic HD3870, Raidmax RX-700SS PSU, Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320gb SATA2 X
Reply to Mathos

computertech82 wrote :

Pretty good read. Very interesting. does explain the "tri" cpus coming out a bit better. That really make AMD look bad (like the OLD intel issue of the math-co error or the p4 3ghz overheat issue). But I have to give Intel credit, at least they owned up to those issues and replaced them.



It'll definitely explain the 3 core Phenom if the same core has been disabled on all of them.

Reply to rodney_ws

Mathos wrote :

Please elaborate on exactly what to type into the search engine to get all these results of many people having this problem? The ones that I find link back to here, and to extremesystems. And like I said, give me exact settings that you're using, as far as bios goes. I've seen a few people talking exclusively about Windows Vista 64bit problems, and a few about Vista 32bit, which could likely be a chipset driver issue.

Hey my Machine check specifically points out CPU, Mainboard, Power supply, Memory, but it didn't start happening until after installing the the HD3870, so obviously it couldn't be the video card.



Mathos, you bring up some very valid points. However, i will point out that my success rate has not been 0%, except for the 9600 Black Editions specifically. For work I have purchased 9600s and 9500s that have worked fine, save for one which was returned for a working replacement which has been fine. Although one of my systems at work has begun to randomly BSoD... and I am attempting to isolate why.. it could end up being the proc, yet it very well could not. I simply do not know yet. As for what I've seen online recently, the amount of posts regarding this issue have not grown significantly since I created this post. Also, other new posts I have seen simply refer back to this one, which calls credibility into question as it creates the "circular reference" problem that wiki tends to suffer from hence why it is no longer considered a valid academic source.

To adequately confirm failure rate I would need to conduct some actual valid reseach purchasing 9500s, 9600s, and 9600BEs from multiple vendors and test them under identical conditions to find out from a statistical standpoint if it is a particular model has a problem, or whether all of them have a problem. Personally, I don't have the money nor the time to conduct such an experiment. That is why I created this thread in an attempt to get THG's attention... or somebody else's that may endeavor onto such a task. I take no credit for these findings, I have simply confimed some other people's findings with my own personal experience. That, in no way, suggests a statistical liklihood that *all* phenoms are busted. I do not have the means, or the time, to come to such an encompassing conclusion.

As for my personal failure rate, it could be for several reasons. My primary suspicion is that since the first was purchased from Newegg, and the second one an RMA within two weeks from the same place (obviously)... it is possible I got a chip from the same potentially bad batch of chips. Bad luck... thats all.

As for my current configuration, I am happily running a Phenom 9500 at 2.62 ghz. It will not run Vista x64 stable at 2.62ghz, but will at 2.5ghz. Vista 32 runs completely stable at 2.62ghz and I have run the AOD stability test for 4 hours twice at this speed. I haven't yet seen a BSoD at 2.62 in Vista 32 running this 9500.

CPU Reference Clock set at 238
CPU Multiplier at 11
Memory Controller Multi set at 8
HTT locked at 1.8 ghz
Memory divider set at DDR2-667, final memory speed of 792mhz ddr
Stock memory voltage
Northbridge Voltage +.05v
CPU Voltage at 1.40v
C & Q Disabled
TLB Erratum fix disabled

The CPU is cooled via a Zalman CPS9700 running at full steam
Idle temp is 27C, consistent 100% load is 38C

As for other stuff:

Gigabyte GA-MA790X-DS4 motherboard running F3 BIOS update
Phenom 9500 running at 2.62 ghz
4GB (4x1) Gskill 5-5-5-15 DDR2-800 running in ganged mode
2x150GB WD Raptor in RAID 0 -- OS and program volume
1x500GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 PMR -- Storage and Encoding volume
eVGA 8800GTS 320MB
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS Platinum
Antec Neopower 550w PSU


Reply to ragemonkey
- 0 +

Hmmm, do you still have spread spectrum enabled in bios, or is it disabled? That may allow you more stability, I know it does me. Phenom BE seems to be extremely sensitive to the frequency spikes that spread spectrum can cause. The interesting part being the places where I've seen people take screenies of the freq spike happening, show it hitting on a certain mentioned core ;). So it would be interesting to see exactly where the TLB is located on the die in relation to the rest of the processor. I know hsf cooler performance seems to have an effect on how well it OCs and how stable it runs too, as well as power dissipation. I'm running a ZT Nirvana for example. It also has an effect on what voltages you can use to OC. Which I think also seems to back up Reynods theory of a hotspot on the die.


Oh, I'd watch out OCing too far on the 790X boards. Some of them can't handle wattage over 95w. I know for sure the k9a2 CF can't run the 125w tdp processors, people have burned out the sockets on them doing so.

Thats kinda why I enjoy my k9a2 Platinum though, all the bios's up to 1.2 have a custom p states menu, instead of just multiplier selections. Takes a bit to figure out how to use, but once you figure it out, it's good for OCing controls. Well, take that back, the multiplier settings could of been done easier, but the VID and divider settings are what makes it possible.

For example, when I run at 2.7Ghz it's at 1.2625v VID, 1.248v actual. Thats with the NB/IMC running at 2.0ghz at 1.1v VID ~1.09v Actual. Thought that was the most impressive part though, considering stock volts for the NB/IMC is 1.25v. Now, at 1.25v I've got the nb/IMC up to 2.4ghz stable while running at 2.6ghz core, I think I could do 2.6nb at 1.25 as well, but didn't get a chance to try before having to figure out what was going wrong after installing the hd3870. Right now I'm back on the old standby 2600XT.

Part of my problems revolve around the Raidmax RX700SS PSU I'm using though. I think it was also partially responsible for my video card problem.

------------------------------ AMD Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition, ZeroTherm Nirvana 120 Premium CPU Cooler, MSI K9a2 Platinum bios 1.1b3 or P.0J, 4GB (2x2) Mushkin DDR2 1066 (pc8500) 5-5-5-15 2.05v RAM, Sapphire Toxic HD3870, Raidmax RX-700SS PSU, Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320gb SATA2 X
Reply to Mathos

Everybody seems to be getting their undies in a bunch about the 3-core Phenoms being "broken." Disabling a portion of a CPU die has been done for many years for various reasons and is currently being done by BOTH Intel and AMD on no small number of CPUs. I'll bring up a few notable examples:

1. For the older ones among us, the Intel 486SX was a 80486DX with a disabled FPU.
2. Many chips have some L2 cache disabled- Celerons, most Semprons, some Athlon 64s, Turions and X2s (such as every 2x512 KB Windsor), Core 2 Duos (such as every B-stepping E6300/6400 and T5500/5600), every Pentium Dual Core chip manufactured and every Celeron Dual Core chip manufactured.
3. Some chips even have a core disabled. There were a few 939 Athlon 64 3200s and 3500s made from X2 Manchester and Toledo dies with a core disabled. Many mobile Celerons are Core Duos or Core 2 Duos with a core disabled. If you want proof, look at the package specifications in the Celeron and Core/Core 2 data sheets. Note the physical dimensions of the processor's die surface- it is the same between the two.

I haven't heard anybody complaining about any of the chips above being "broken" so I don't understand why AMD is taking heat over the 3-core Phenoms other than some people haven't taken a close enough look at how CPUs are actually made and sold before hitting the "Reply" button.


Message edited by MU_Engineer on 02-24-2008 at 05:28:45 AM
------------------------------ Upcoming Overdue Build: Dual-socket workstation, ~32 GB DDR3, OS on a fast SSD, high-end GPU, all wrapped up in a huge tower case. Coming H2 2011.

Yes, I am actually still running the Pentium III 1.0B Coppermine in the picture.
Reply to MU_Engineer

^Good pint. But the fact is those Cores were DISABLED so we had no access to it in the 1st place. The point OP is making is that AMD is shipping CPUs that are DEFECTIVE, WITHOUT disabling the Core.

------------------------------ http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2617/3815217176_0a5be7955d_o.gif
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3553/3818083596_1a772f7162_o.gif
Reply to Shadow703793
- 0 +

Shadow703793 wrote :

^Good pint. But the fact is those Cores were DISABLED so we had no access to it in the 1st place. The point OP is making is that AMD is shipping CPUs that are DEFECTIVE, WITHOUT disabling the Core.


Got proof?
So far, all I've seen is a few noobs who cant figure out how to make the chip work.
If it were true, Intel would have thier private tech sites all over it.
People having problems? Sure, just like 8400 buyers. Does that mean it's the chip's fault? No.
Quit being such an IIIO, and stop spreading FUD.
( All phenom users are noobs, the chip isn't old enough to have any veterans)

Reply to endyen
- 0 +

apache_lives wrote :

For thousands of them? In a multi-million dollar facility? Quad cores only?


Only thousands? They have already made milions of quads. New masking, masive die on a relatively new node, a milion or two would be acceptable yields.

Reply to endyen
- 0 +

damn that sucks and man my B3 Q6600 can go up to 3.6 GHz and phenoms cant?? damn

------------------------------ Intel Quad 2 Core Q6600 @ 3.20Ghz FSB @ 356 MHz, 1.288 voltage, multiplier @ 9x
Master Cooler Eclipse cooler
GA-P35-DS3L rev 1.0 BIOS Ver F8a
2Gb Patriot Extreme memory DDR2-800 at 890
Reply to boner
- 0 +

boner wrote :

damn that sucks and man my B3 Q6600 can go up to 3.6 GHz and phenoms cant?? damn


Are you sure? Have you run throttlewatch to make sure it's not actually throttled?

Reply to endyen

endyen wrote :

Got proof?
So far, all I've seen is a few noobs who cant figure out how to make the chip work.
If it were true, Intel would have thier private tech sites all over it.
People having problems? Sure, just like 8400 buyers. Does that mean it's the chip's fault? No.
Quit being such an IIIO, and stop spreading FUD.
( All phenom users are noobs, the chip isn't old enough to have any veterans)



Wow... how hard is it to get a computer to work?

Put on anti-static wrist thingy (does anybody actually use those?)
Open ZIF socket.
Put in CPU.
Close ZIF socket.

The OP sure doesn't look like a noob to me. How many servers have you built?

(and if the Phenom is harder to install than that, then you'd have to say that it's not ready for primetime....)


Message edited by ryman554 on 02-25-2008 at 02:43:33 AM
Reply to ryman554

^Exactly. The OP went out and ACTUALLY TESTED THE CPUS AND THEN REPORTED HIS FINDINGS

 

Edit: Sorry for the all caps, only ment to make "ACTUALLY" caps.


Message edited by Shadow703793 on 02-25-2008 at 03:30:51 AM
------------------------------ http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2617/3815217176_0a5be7955d_o.gif
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3553/3818083596_1a772f7162_o.gif
Reply to Shadow703793

endyen wrote :

Got proof?
So far, all I've seen is a few noobs who cant figure out how to make the chip work.
If it were true, Intel would have thier private tech sites all over it.
People having problems? Sure, just like 8400 buyers. Does that mean it's the chip's fault? No.
Quit being such an IIIO, and stop spreading FUD.

( All phenom users are noobs, the chip isn't old enough to have any veterans)


What??!? The point is that the OP and many other had tried OCing this and had come to the same conclusion.

 

Proof?:
http://www.siliconmadness.com/2008 [...] blems.html
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=251136
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/ [...] so=R&frt=2
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forum [...] p?t=175878

 
Quote :

.

 

1.Everyone that could not OC past 2.4 or 2.5Ghz or had BSOD problems reported that their 3rd core AKA core 2 was the problem (im guessing production problem thus the reason for the Phenom x3, I bet that when the x3 shows up you%u2019ll see core 0,1 and 3 but no core 2 ). People who could not get past 2.5Ghz started running at 2.7 on all cores and 2.5 on core 2.

 

2. the 230Mhz Brick wall was created by the Bad 3rd core, people also reported that after getting the a new processor they could OC their FSB higher even if they could not get much higher on the Processor Speed. it makes sense since Memory controller is in the Processor and since they all share even the L3 Cache if on core has problem of fails it takes all them down with it.

 

I hope you all got some ideas on how to fix or better tweak your processor.
all this problems with BSOD, FSB and Processor OC are common in both AM2 and AM2+ socket. I hope the B3 stepping helps this issue since I love my Phenom at 2.8ghz it kick@$$.

dcfan60 @ Xtream Systems

 

So if the chip wasn't bad why are all these people coming to the same conclusion?

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by Shadow703793 on 02-25-2008 at 03:36:38 AM
------------------------------ http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2617/3815217176_0a5be7955d_o.gif
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3553/3818083596_1a772f7162_o.gif
Reply to Shadow703793
- 0 +

Shadow703793 wrote :

What??!? The point is that the OP and many other had tried OCing this and had come to the same conclusion.

Proof?:
http://www.siliconmadness.com/2008 [...] blems.html
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=251136
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/ [...] so=R&frt=2
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forum [...] p?t=175878

Quote :

.

1.Everyone that could not OC past 2.4 or 2.5Ghz or had BSOD problems reported that their 3rd core AKA core 2 was the problem (im guessing production problem thus the reason for the Phenom x3, I bet that when the x3 shows up you%u2019ll see core 0,1 and 3 but no core 2 ). People who could not get past 2.5Ghz started running at 2.7 on all cores and 2.5 on core 2.

2. the 230Mhz Brick wall was created by the Bad 3rd core, people also reported that after getting the a new processor they could OC their FSB higher even if they could not get much higher on the Processor Speed. it makes sense since Memory controller is in the Processor and since they all share even the L3 Cache if on core has problem of fails it takes all them down with it.

I hope you all got some ideas on how to fix or better tweak your processor.
all this problems with BSOD, FSB and Processor OC are common in both AM2 and AM2+ socket. I hope the B3 stepping helps this issue since I love my Phenom at 2.8ghz it kick@$$.

dcfan60 @ Xtream Systems

So if the chip wasn't bad why are all these people coming to the same conclusion?


You just proved my point. You said the chips were defective. With OCing YMMV. Some chips can OC better than others. Some cores on a chip can oc better than others.

As I said before, all ocers are noobs on phenom.
It's not just a question of raising the multiplier or the HTT speed.
Still haven't seen this reported in any Tech site, so no proof.
The fact that the OP couldn't get two chips to work in the same setup is a dead giveaway. At this point, they have sold ~ 1 million of these chips. We have a few hundred who are having problems. Odds are slim that 2 of 2 chips are bad. What's he doing wrong? I couldn't tell you, I'm a noob with phenoms. Do you know?
Mathos got a nice OC. It's just a little harder on an AMD chip.

Reply to endyen

@endyen

You make some very valid points, and yes... we are all newbs at OCing Phenoms. I will concede that. This is not a matter of ego, therefore, I will openly admit if my findings are skewed in one direction, or outright incorrect. You are also correct in saying that OCing a Phenom is a matter of luck. However, I think your insulting manner of saying this is a bit out of line, and degrades somewhat... the overall validity and credibility of this thread. The only thing many of us are trying to do is to get to the bottom of what may or may not be a problem. Because, in the end, that's what this is really about... getting to the root of a problem. It has nothing to do with "drinking kool aid", "fanboi-ism", "noob-ism", or anything else for that matter. Therefore, there is no need to be insulting, patronizing, or anything else. If you have nothing worthwhile to add to this thread, then I please ask you... don't contribute anything at all.

Now... this is where I will point out where you are wrong. My first Phenom 9600BE, as well as one other user on this thread, could not get the chip to run properly at *stock* speed. This had nothing to do with an OC. My second Phenom, as I posted, would run x86 Vista with no problems, but would BSoD when trying to install Vista x64. Some of the other external forum posts have shown the same problem. The problem is not simply that of not being able to OC a Phenom, that is a matter of luck or a buyer beware type of deal. The *real* problem is that some, or many, chips are shipping and not able to run reliably at stock speeds due to, in large part, the core 3 problem.

This is tiring, and I have no further interest in defending a thread whose validity speaks for itself...

Reply to ragemonkey

ragemonkey wrote :

@endyen

You make some very valid points, and yes... we are all newbs at OCing Phenoms. I will concede that. This is not a matter of ego, therefore, I will openly admit if my findings are skewed in one direction, or outright incorrect. You are also correct in saying that OCing a Phenom is a matter of luck. However, I think your insulting manner of saying this is a bit out of line, and degrades somewhat... the overall validity and credibility of this thread. The only thing many of us are trying to do is to get to the bottom of what may or may not be a problem. Because, in the end, that's what this is really about... getting to the root of a problem. It has nothing to do with "drinking kool aid", "fanboi-ism", "noob-ism", or anything else for that matter. Therefore, there is no need to be insulting, patronizing, or anything else. If you have nothing worthwhile to add to this thread, then I please ask you... don't contribute anything at all.

Now... this is where I will point out where you are wrong. My first Phenom 9600BE, as well as one other user on this thread, could not get the chip to run properly at *stock* speed. This had nothing to do with an OC. My second Phenom, as I posted, would run x86 Vista with no problems, but would BSoD when trying to install Vista x64. Some of the other external forum posts have shown the same problem. The problem is not simply that of not being able to OC a Phenom, that is a matter of luck or a buyer beware type of deal. The *real* problem is that some, or many, chips are shipping and not able to run reliably at stock speeds due to, in large part, the core 3 problem.

This is tiring, and I have no further interest in defending a thread whose validity speaks for itself...



heh on the other hand even the noobs and go and buy a Q6600 and get it easily to 3ghz withouy any effort - noob or not the Phenom is a dud for overclocking, and barely performs at stock.

------------------------------ Q6600@3510/1560 + TT BigTyphoon+Mod
8gb Kingston 800mhz
Gigabyte EP35-DS3P
XFX 8800GT/512
Reply to apache_lives
- 0 +

endyen wrote :

Only thousands? They have already made milions of quads. New masking, masive die on a relatively new node, a milion or two would be acceptable yields.



Millions eh care to show a link to millions of K8L's since there has been a stop ship on them since last year?

Word, Playa.

Reply to spud

@endyen:

Here this might cheer you up. "My god, it's full of stars, ...I mean phenoms"

------------------------------ http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2617/3815217176_0a5be7955d_o.gif
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3553/3818083596_1a772f7162_o.gif
Reply to Shadow703793
- 0 +

spud wrote :

Millions eh care to show a link to millions of K8L's since there has been a stop ship on them since last year?

Word, Playa.



There has only been a stop ship on the Barcelona based Opterons that were supposed to go to retailers and channel partners. Other things such as super computer builders have been getting 10s of thousands of Barcelona and Agena base quad cores, regardless of the TLB errata.

The phenoms seem to sell halfway decently on sites like Newegg, and other etailers, regardless of what some intel fanatics may lead you to believe, not to mention whatever Phenoms some OEM companies are using.

------------------------------ AMD Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition, ZeroTherm Nirvana 120 Premium CPU Cooler, MSI K9a2 Platinum bios 1.1b3 or P.0J, 4GB (2x2) Mushkin DDR2 1066 (pc8500) 5-5-5-15 2.05v RAM, Sapphire Toxic HD3870, Raidmax RX-700SS PSU, Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320gb SATA2 X
Reply to Mathos

Its nice to see that this forum post was quoted in the latest THG article. I have yet to see any actual denials posted by AMD... if there are any could anyone please post a link or two??

Reply to ragemonkey

ragemonkey wrote :

Its nice to see that this forum post was quoted in the latest THG article. I have yet to see any actual denials posted by AMD... if there are any could anyone please post a link or two??



I have yet to see AMD state anything about this. Nothing, zip, nada, ziltch.

Funny thing about this endyen guy is that I think that your first chip wouldn't run at the stock 2.3GHz stable.

Quote :

Upon installing the Phenom in my system, it booted up fine without a problem. I have not OC'd the chip at all at this point, simply running it at stock settings. Once it booted into Vista, I played around with it for a bit with no issues. I then decided to do the first real test, which was to see what the Vista rating on the processor was. I clicked on the "refresh my score" link... and the testing began. During the test I got my first BSOD. The details read...

"A clock interrupt was not received on a secondary processor within an allocated time. Error 0x101"

I rebooted the system and tried again. This time the rating completed without a hitch and showed a glowing 5.9 rating for the processor. About 20 minutes later, the same error happened again.

This happens at stock speed. Any attempts to overclock either results in the BSOD or Vista wont finish booting at all.



So it is that some chips are defective. Even if it was a QA problem they were labled as quad cores that were certified by AMD to work at 2.3GHz all 4 cores, not just three. But for some strange reason their QA missed it.

What does this all mean for enthusiasts? Well first off the Phenom has no OC guarantee. Neither does the C2Q6600 but most can be OC'ed to 3GHz on air easily. So for enthusiasts it means Phenom, for now, is not the best choice. For those who got one that gives them the bad core2 it means they paid quad prices for a tri core. Thus got ripped off and should either RMA them once B3 is out(if able to) or AMD should bite the bullet and replace them.

------------------------------ http://www.steamcalculator.com/76561197970703804/camo_sig.png
Reply to jimmysmitty
- 0 +

endyen wrote :

True, but there are a lot of reasons why one core could be broken.
It may come from the outside of the wafer. A bit of dust may have landed on that spot. There may be a slight imperfection in the wafer itself. Damage can occur in cleaning, masking or heating.
If they are selling 3X as many barcelonas and phenom quads, as they are tri or dual core phenoms, everything is fine.
We will have to wait and see.

 

I never said all Phenom's have the bad logical core 2, only that some with bad cores got past QA. I really can't see AMD disabling a good core just for a market that didn't exist until they announced the triple cores. As far as it goes, I'm enthusiastic enough after reading Tom's preview to get a triple core B3 when retail arrives for the 690G board my wife's using and get one for a new 780G board to replace the budget Athlon X2 and 690V in my signature.

 

I can't see getting Shanghai in the fall if AM3 is less than 6 months later. Tom's preview of Toliman's scaling looks good to me. As for the bad core 2, Tom's has this to say:

 
Quote :


A lot of discussion has been going on in popular forums regarding a possible bug in core 2 (the third) of the Phenom processor, causing Windows blue screens even at stock speeds. The topic can be found in our forums as well as other such as Xtreme Systems, and even on AMD's forum on the company website. There are more resources on the web, including AMD statements denying knowledge of a possible malfunction.

 

We've used three different Phenom processors in our labs, and none of them have been really good overclockers. We've had motherboard compatibility issues, but we weren't able to trace the described issues back directly to an individual core. And to me it doesn't really matter much anymore. It's really important for AMD to get its homework done right this time, and to present the highly anticipated B3 stepping, which is expected to fix the bugs and also introduce faster clock speeds. Nothing else will help to rebuild the trust that has been lost.


http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/0 [...] page2.html

 

So, I think the "bad core" is such a rare issue that it may not exist anymore than the "bad sensor" on the Wolfies. Much fanboy FUD can be disseminated on boards over one or two overclockers running into issues.

 
jimmysmitty wrote :

We don't know that as they may run into thermal issues on their 45nm. On thig is for sure they wont have HK/MG for their first 45nm stepping and is probably going to be SOI thus the thermal issues they may run into.

 

Intel already has 32nm SRAM chips working and will have the 32nm shrink of Nehalem released in November of 2009 codenamed Westmere. AMD wont have 32nm probably until 2010 since thats when IBM plans on having it and thats where AMD gets most of their process technology from.

 

Jimmy, what would you do without Intel's spin on SOI? I've been reading up on what's going on with that and IBM's SOI for 45nm is supposedly different than the one that Intel ditched for HK/MG.

 

At any rate, AMD will have IBM HK tech for their later Shanghai's and we'll see what that leads to. My secret knowledge is that it will be so radical that it will blow away all the FUD disseminated by meatbags on message boards. Nehalem will "only" have HK/MG, but AMD has found a secret design from a galaxy a long time ago and far away. Here's the source of AMD's upcoming HK tech meatbag, so eat your heart out. :kaola:

 

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg102/somervillechangeling/HK-47.jpg

 

Just how will Intel compete against the HK-47? They'd need to get a T2 or something, but can they risk Skynet?


Message edited by yipsl on 02-29-2008 at 01:24:05 AM
------------------------------ Phenom 8750, ASUS M3A78T
4 gigs Kingston DDR2 800 two 1T SAMSUNG HD103UI
Sapphire 4870x2, Sony BDU-X10S BD-ROM
Antec Neo 650 PSU Antec Nine Hundred, Acer H213H 1080p LCD
Reply to yipsl
- 0 +

ryman554 wrote :

No, the SAME core points to a weird manufacturing flaw, since hte deisgn of all four cores are identical. Or at least they should be if they did it right. If the design indeed differs, I know of a root cause, and the fix isn't pretty.



Yeah, I'm thinking that if the 3rd core is flawed, it's probably a run of B2s that had this problem during the lithography process, and they didn't catch that early enough, had them available as a quad core. Then they may have figured out the problem, and then disable it and turn it into a Phenom 8000 series.

Before I turn up the fanboyism, I would say that if they do knowingly sell bad quad cores, shame on them, and they should recall them if they want to salvage their reputation. It is a rather deceptive practice.

However, I don't think they're hiding behind the TLB bug. The TLB and "core 2 flaw" _is_ independent, and the BIOS fix (turning off the TLB) would not fix the core 2. People who can't run their Phenom 9000 series should RMA the chip. Whether they would cop to a problem... I don't know. IIRC Intel didn't really cop to the FDIV problem until publicly disclosed anyways, so if they don't cop to it until proven, well they would be doing no worse than Intel.

Now, I think that even the core 2 problem, requiring a downclock, isn't exactly a show breaker. I can hear the Intel fanboy sharpening knives now, but hear me out. With the latest Tom's article on what the Phenom 8000 series could be, there are plenty of benchmarks where the 3 core and 4 core scores are indistinguishable, or at least statistically insignificant. Majority of games aren't optimized beyond 2 cores anyways. This will only manifest as a problem when you use a properly multi-threaded app, and it's pegging all 4 cores.

Secondly, the core is downclocked, not knocked out. This means that the cores are performing differently, and there are ongoing research on heterogeneous systems, where the cores perform differently (mind you "real" heterogeneous systems tend to perform differently due to different functional unit, etc etc). So, a scheduler could use the performance counters of the CPU, find out whichever process that's memory bound and stick that process on the slow core. These processes will not suffer significantly because they tend to wait on memory anyway.

I know, cause I'm doing the graduate course on this type of research, and using a Phenom 9600 BE for simulating heterogeneous systems. When I'm done with it though, I'll probably tinker around with AOD to see whether this is the case.

Reply to calyth

yipsl, I am not just basing my thoughts of SOI @ 45nm on Intels spin, although if they were once going for it but saw there was no way for it to work better than HK/MG, I also have taken many tech classes based on semiconductor plus what turpit has posted is good info.

Hell I could ask the head of my local colleges tech dept. He could answer it easily considering he holds the patent on vacuum tube technology. Hes smart,but not a good teacher.

As far as I can tell SOI @ 45nm using the same setup as 65nm will be to thin and have more leakage causing more heat/power usage. They can thicken the areas but if they do that they will also decrease the ability to clock higher.

This is yet to be seen bit if SOI was as great as AMD stated they wouldn't be working with IBM to get a HK/MG process.

------------------------------ http://www.steamcalculator.com/76561197970703804/camo_sig.png
Reply to jimmysmitty
- 0 +

jimmysmitty wrote :

yipsl, I am not just basing my thoughts of SOI @ 45nm on Intels spin.

This is yet to be seen bit if SOI was as great as AMD stated they wouldn't be working with IBM to get a HK/MG process.



You're the expert in this field. I know quite a bit about PC's but I'm a hobbyist who works with mainframes in a data center. I know that IBM thought well of SOI a couple of years ago. It's one thing for AMD to go HK/MG at 32nm, but if they're going SOI at 45nm then turning around and redoing a second generation as HK/MG, then that makes me wonder about the first Shanghais.

So far, all we have are rumors. I'll wait and see. I've read somewhere that the SOI implemented by IBM and AMD for Shanghai will differ from the version Intel ditched, so that could very well involve thickening the areas to avoid linkage. plus increasing pipelines for higher clocks. What didn't work on Prescott might work on Phenom. I won't say it's the best route, but it might make Shanghai viable until it's all HK/MG.

------------------------------ Phenom 8750, ASUS M3A78T
4 gigs Kingston DDR2 800 two 1T SAMSUNG HD103UI
Sapphire 4870x2, Sony BDU-X10S BD-ROM
Antec Neo 650 PSU Antec Nine Hundred, Acer H213H 1080p LCD
Reply to yipsl

Yips, Intel never ditched SOI. They looked at it for using it in their processors but passed on it. They maybe manufactured some test wafers but no actual product ever was produced for profit.

------------------------------ "Like a child in his fantasy, punching holes in the walls of reality"
Reply to pausert20

mrmez wrote :

Also... seems u guys need KRAZY volts to get anything out of these chips.
1.5, 1.6 Thats INSANE

My $h!tty B3 Q6600 @ 2.7Ghz drops to ~1.05v under load and is 100% stable



You cannot compare different cpu voltage requirements for different designed CPUs being made with different processes

Reply to einheriar

well when I rma'ed my Phenom and got a replacement I could finnaly hit 3GHz but crashed. I'm currently running at 2.8GHz at 1.2875v. @ 2.9GHz I can run the Phenom at that voltage but core 2 AKA core 3 failed prime95 within the first minute while cores 0,1,&3 where able to go on. I think all Phenoms have a bad third core some are better than others though as with mine. Though my first Phenom core 2 was not the problem it was core 0 and core 2. So I do think even if you can hit 3GHz core 2 aka core 3 has a defect in it.

Oh by the way the evga is my post regaurding this topic.

------------------------------ http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/banner/631829.png
http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/banner/549389.png
Reply to blackpanther26
- 0 +

Hi,
I haven't read all the posts here but I do remember having a discussion on this forum about 3 weeks ago regarding the bad cores and the tri-core phenoms that everyone in the industry has been scratching their heads about since they were announced. Now we know why..

I recall TC "technology coordinator" I believe referred to them as "triple cripple" too funny.

So to those who are skeptical of this information, it is a well known issue and this is not rumors or innuendo, I have seen posts from phenom users on the amd forum as early as January with many users reporting the same problems.

Also a previous poster mentioned the phenom difficulty with cool and quiet, which is also well documented. Check out the AMD forums and you will find workarounds for overclocking your phenom B2's, although it is my understanding that it is a major pain in the tuckus and even then not guaranteed to work with every proc.

You're just kidding yourself if u think AMD is putting out triple cripples just because its a cool idea.

Reply to buzznut

buzznut wrote :

I recall TC "technology coordinator" I believe referred to them as "triple cripple" too funny.

So to those who are skeptical of this information, it is a well known issue and this is not rumors or innuendo, I have seen posts from phenom users on the amd forum as early as January with many users reporting the same problems.

Also a previous poster mentioned the phenom difficulty with cool and quiet, which is also well documented. Check out the AMD forums and you will find workarounds for overclocking your phenom B2's, although it is my understanding that it is a major pain in the tuckus and even then not guaranteed to work with every proc.

You're just kidding yourself if u think AMD is putting out triple cripples just because its a cool idea.




I might have said that...... :D

I think selling the processors with the bad cores shut down is good for AMD. However, I agree with others that this product isn't innovative or earth shattering, it's just going to be a cheaper Phenom with a core disabled.

If they clock higher, they'll do better in single threaded apps, that's the only hope I have for the tripple cripple, I mean core.

------------------------------ jennyh wrote: AMD break-even Q4 2009. *Gauranteed*

RabidFanboysSpreadingFalse.Info
Reply to TechnologyCoordinator

God, once the B3 stepping comes out, think how cheap the tri-cores will be!

------------------------------ Intel qx9650 @3.81GHz (10x multi) + EVGA 780i SLI mobo @381MHz FSB
2x EVGA 8800GT 512mb OC'd, OCZ DDR2 1066MHz 4gb
OCZ 850W PSU, Seagate 750GB HDD SATA 32mb cache CM Stacker 830 SE
Sound setup: FireFace 800, JBL 4328 speakers
Reply to resonance451

buzznut wrote :

Hi,
I haven't read all the posts here but I do remember having a discussion on this forum about 3 weeks ago regarding the bad cores and the tri-core phenoms that everyone in the industry has been scratching their heads about since they were announced. Now we know why..

I recall TC "technology coordinator" I believe referred to them as "triple cripple" too funny.

So to those who are skeptical of this information, it is a well known issue and this is not rumors or innuendo, I have seen posts from phenom users on the amd forum as early as January with many users reporting the same problems.

Also a previous poster mentioned the phenom difficulty with cool and quiet, which is also well documented. Check out the AMD forums and you will find workarounds for overclocking your phenom B2's, although it is my understanding that it is a major pain in the tuckus and even then not guaranteed to work with every proc.

You're just kidding yourself if u think AMD is putting out triple cripples just because its a cool idea.



Why do people think the only reason for a triple core is because 1 particular core is probelmatic/shot and this is a way of getting rid of it? surely the first explanantion that would come to mind is that the triples are just a way to make use of chips that don't get through the tests, but it could be any core at random playing up, not always the same one.

"You're just kidding yourself if u think AMD is putting out triple cripples just because its a cool idea." excuse me, but may I ask how do you KNOW that they arn't. Oh wait, it's heresay I forgot.

Reply to spoonboy

Ouchy for AMD.

------------------------------ Antec Nine Hundred, Gigabyte P35-DS3R, Intel Q6600 @ 3.2 Ghz, Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme, eVGA 8800GT 512MB, G-Skill 4GB (2x2GB) DDR2-800 4-4-4-10, Seasonic S12 ATX 650W, Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB SATA, 26" LCD Monitor (1900x1200), Windows XP Pr
Reply to deuce271
- 0 +

Gosh this thread still chugging along.. hehe..

AMD will come back in approx 2 years time and will be on par with Intel I believe..

Reply to rhysee

^May be. Intel is also trying to get in to discrete graphics market too. (see:http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/0 [...] ar_at_idf/)
NOOOOOOO! Intel is taking over the world!
:lol:


Message edited by Shadow703793 on 03-19-2008 at 12:43:29 AM
------------------------------ http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2617/3815217176_0a5be7955d_o.gif
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3553/3818083596_1a772f7162_o.gif
Reply to Shadow703793

INTEL ARE EVIL!!!

------------------------------ jennyh wrote: AMD break-even Q4 2009. *Gauranteed*

RabidFanboysSpreadingFalse.Info
Reply to TechnologyCoordinator
- 0 +

Yeah, I think we're gonna be back in the Wintel dynasty for a bit.

------------------------------ AMD Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition, ZeroTherm Nirvana 120 Premium CPU Cooler, MSI K9a2 Platinum bios 1.1b3 or P.0J, 4GB (2x2) Mushkin DDR2 1066 (pc8500) 5-5-5-15 2.05v RAM, Sapphire Toxic HD3870, Raidmax RX-700SS PSU, Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320gb SATA2 X
Reply to Mathos
- 0 +



No, only the lawyers who approved the OEM rebate program. :kaola:

I can forgive MBA's who did. Whenever anything like that is floated in a corporation, the suits go to the lawyers for insight into whether it violates any laws. Intel's lawyers dropped the ball on this one. I bet their memos are a hoot to read.


Message edited by yipsl on 03-19-2008 at 06:28:34 AM
------------------------------ Phenom 8750, ASUS M3A78T
4 gigs Kingston DDR2 800 two 1T SAMSUNG HD103UI
Sapphire 4870x2, Sony BDU-X10S BD-ROM
Antec Neo 650 PSU Antec Nine Hundred, Acer H213H 1080p LCD
Reply to yipsl

I'd say blame it on capitalism.

But it's capitalism that allowed them to give us such nice cpus but then again...

------------------------------ "Nvidia, the Way It's Meant to be PAID Played! - Corrado
*Lesbian Lover Club* - founder Assman
Reply to Evilonigiri

My Phenom runs fine at stock voltage and clocks or how it is now at 2.5GHz (200 X 12.5) at +.05V core. Prime 95 X 4 stable. I have never gotten a BSOD either. I am also running the GIGABYTE GA-MA770-DS3, but I am looking into getting a 790FX for better overclocking my limit on this board has been 2.54 stable.

Reply to decripple

^Dude this is old. Very old. And the original problem did not affect everyone just a few people. It was that the OP got a 9600 and one core would not allow for stable operation at stock clock speeds so he had to down clock it.

------------------------------ http://www.steamcalculator.com/76561197970703804/camo_sig.png
Reply to jimmysmitty

Arise Necrothread. Arriiise!!

Reply to Nonesuch
Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Phenom Exposed! Shipping with flaky 3rd cores.
Go to:

There are 1123 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them