Phenom Exposed! Shipping with flaky 3rd cores. - Page 2

Last message on previous page:
Try for an RMA... Sorry.

They have. It's called Athlon X2

Rage,

Thanks for posting this information. The poster who accused you of not doing your research is sorely mistaken.

Perhaps you are correct and a tri-core will be a K10 with cores 0,1, and 3 turned on. It makes you wonder when products suddenly appear on roadmaps that weren't there originally.

Please keep us updated.

What version of Windows are you running on? Also, does anybody have issues on any other version of Windows or another OS like Linux, Solaris, or BSD? It could very well be an issue with the specific version of the Windows CnQ driver or that specific version of the Windows kernel not liking the Phenom's core synchronization or something and not actually be a hardware issue at all. Popping in a Linux/BSD live CD into a computer and seeing if you get problem is a very easy way to tell if it's a software problem because there isn't ANYTHING similar between the OS, software or drivers in those OSes and Windows. If you decide to do this, a very critical error will cause a kernel oops (you'll see a black screen with some error messages) or a hard lockup (rare.) Non-critical errors will show up by using dmesg or looking in /var/log/messages and they won't affect the functioning of the system much if any as they would in Windows.

You always have to try and isolate variables in a problem to make sure it's really what you think it is. Otherwise you can jump to wrong conclusions and not really get anywhere in fixing the problem.

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

this situation is bad

its too bad that amd tried to jump to the true quad in the media first and did not do their homework

we can only hope amd turns it around

me? i can not sell these system - its sad

I think that's an unfair comment. Sure, AMD has problems and no one should buy a B2 stepping Phenom, but we can't say, without evidence, that AMD is releasing them knowingly. It could be a quality control issue at their fab, an issue with 65nm process, or a bad design to begin with. Let's look at the possibilities.

Quality control issue:

Some Phenom's that should have been marketed as triple core, with the failed core disabled, get out into the quad core market. That's a QA issue that AMD needs to address. They should replace the bad Phenom's out there or provide refunds.

An issue with the 65nm process:

AMD is gearing up to bring out 45nm early, and I think that's due to issues beyond the errata with the 65nm process. As is, I won't buy even a B3 Phenom, but will wait for 45nm. There are plenty of viable X2 CPU's for this year's upgrades. AMD made a mistake in going native quad core at 65nm as there seem to be yield issues, and there are thermal issues with Phenoms.

Bad design:

I don't think this is an issue. Native quad core has the potential to be better than Intel's initial response of two dual cores in one package. Each individual Phenom core is 17% to 25% faster than an Athlon X2 core. The design is not as innovative a "next gen" as C2D was compared to Netburst, but it's sound.

AMD did screw up with the errata, but even Intel CPU's have errata. What happened with these cores appears to me to be quality assurance issues; we already know that AMD would market triple cores and there's no reason to disable a good core to provide a CPU for a market segment that might not even exist. Triple core implies, from the get go, that there are yield issues with some Phenom's experiencing a single bad core. Perhaps it's the same core on all CPU's?

Still, I do not think that AMD willingly, and knowingly, is selling bad CPU's. They screwed up, that's all. B2 Phenom is their Netburst, but they aren't like the Chinese knowingly using lead paint in children's toys. These bad core Phenom's should have had the core disabled and been marketed as triple cores.

can you elaborate, or would that request just offend u even more?

LOL so much for a monolithic design being the "better" way to go, boy did that get old quick.

I still believe AMD has been having all sorts of issues with 65nm, considering just about all high end K8's are 90nm parts.

As for the Core2 issue, perhaps its cross talk with another part of the processor, or because of the L3 dishing out for 4 cores...

Well, I think it could be a BIOS issue or it Could be a Software Issue (Windows) that some have mentioned, if you ignore the fact that changing the CPU resolved the issue.

Well, from those 2 threads that were both started by the exact same person, I can gleen that most people are having problems on Windows Vista. Like I said I run Windows XP Pro sp3 and haven't had that issue. And since they're running on Windows Vista, they're using a hack/faulty work around to try and use AMD Overdrive.

And as far as Overdrive is concerned I won't touch it, since I've had nothing but trouble from it. It could also be a bios that doesn't have good control over the plane state settings though, I've seen a difference in stability while OCing or stock just in the k9a2 bios releases.

Blaming AMD's manufacturing problems on Vista? Cool

Same here. And I agree much respect.

While initially I have only heard the universal "TLB" issue repeated over and over with 99 percent of the repeaters having no clue what it means, It wasn't enough to sway my opinion in that the chip would be better with a new stepping. But this is enough of a legitimate case here to make me not go there. Even with the B3.

I am definitely going to an intel quad core next time around.
While I can understand selling a chip with erratum, as a lot of them have had in the past both intel and AMD, I cannot buy a chip with a bum core. That's Bull.

It also adds weight to the reason they are marketing tri-core chips too.

While I hope AMD sorts this out and gets back in the game, they will not do it on my dime while I am sitting here with a chip that is all effed up giving me BSODs. No way man.

I'm glad I went with the 5000+be for now, and I am sure I will be much more happy with a q6600 or a q9450.
Oh well.

Must...buy...crappy...products...to...prevent...creating...monopoly!

gotta love the amd fanbois though, for without you, I sure would've paid 500$ for this awesome q6600 (B3 no less!)

thank you.

Remember, the fastest K8s are still 90nm

bye then.

Well, I'm getting a 45nm Phenom when they're out and I just spent $449 on ATI's latest card, so I have a certain loyalty to AMD during their financial difficulties. The reason I thought it most likely to be a QA issue is that they planned on releasing triple cores, which implies that a certain number of processors have bad cores. If any of them get past quality control, then that would account for a few reports of a bad second core in over clocking.

I just don't think it's intentional. Even if it's a bios or chipset problem, that brings back the days when some motherboards caused problems for AMD CPU's. Do you think that AMD will disable good working cores just to meet the price point of a promised triple core?

I guess I should feel lucky I have a 9600BE running at 2.6ghz without issue. (OC'ed through BIOS)

The BSOD the OP mentioned did rear its head when I tried to go for 2.8ghz though.

I'm currently taking a windows server 2k3 class, so I run 4 virtual machines to do my lab assignments. I havent so much as seen a hiccup in performance, a single random reboot, or BSOD.

Either I'm not pushing the virtualization hard enough, or the TLB isnt as big a problem as we have been led to believe.

Still, this system does all I ask it to, so I have no reason to cry foul. I really feel bad for those who can't even run at stock speed though.

Now, that's a biased attitude. What did you have during Netburst? Were you an Intel fan who defended spaceheater capable 31 pipeline CPU's? Or are you a disgruntled ex AMD fan who went Intel and has to diss AMD for being a disappointment?

The earliest conclusion anyone can make is that a faulty core on a quad core CPU should have been disabled and binned as one of the promised triple cores. If it's not a quality control issue, then I'd be surprised as that's the most logical explanation.

The design is an improvement over the X2, it's not radical change. The B2 errata is only important to those who virtualize. The processor is a good budget choice at stock speeds.

Sure, it's not a Q6600, but could AMD have really skipped 65nm without bleeding more cash? What they need to do is make every 65nm quad core, triple core and dual core based on the Phenom design reach it's market niche and price point without any QA issues.

When you want to look at a POS processor, you've got to examine a Smithfield. Intel's put those out in the past, but if the Phenom is a POS, it's the first for AMD.

Yes the Intel's Smithfield and all Netburst processors suck, sucked, and were as worthless then as they are now. If you would like to talk them up or dispute this fact I will post bad things about Intel P4 processors too or do you only spend your time defending $hit processors made by AMD?

I thought they weren't calling them Athlons, oh well

I thought that the new X2's were being based off of the old architectur and just clocked higer? Or maybe I am just crazy.

If they swap the CPU and the issue goes away, it's not a software issue.
If it was a software issue, the issue would remain.

If they swapped CPUs and the issue remained, it could then be motherboard or software related.

Even if you Changed the OS or Changed the Motherboard and the issue went away there could still be a CPU problem. It could just be that the other software does not use the feature causing the issue.

Thank you, that was easy.

I'm having a little problem here. I can't seem to push it.

*Attempts to push the button*

Grrr...

*Grabs sledgehammer and smashes monitor to smithereens*

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. But if you swap in an Athlon 64 X2 for a Phenom, those are two different pieces of hardware with different drivers and BIOS code used to support it. That swap made about as much sense as swapping in a NVIDIA 8800 GT in the place of a Radeon HD 3870 to see if there was a problem with the HD 3870. YOU NEED TO USE A DIFFERENT OS WITH THE EXACT SAME HARDWARE TO RULE OUT DRIVER/SOFTWARE PROBLEMS.

It could also mean that the implementation of the feature on the working setup is correct and the implementation on the non-working setup is bugged. That is why the conditions that cause the BSOD need to be identified so they can attempt to be repeated. If it is a certain call to the hardware failing and causing a BSOD and the same call using a different OS or driver does not fail, then it is the specific software setup you're using that is bugged and not the hardware.