Now that sounds like a pretty sweet chip with some decent OC headroom. I'd like to see it benched against a similar core2duo. Again, why the hell hasn't AMD released a Phenom dual core?
I Just tested this "faulty core 2" theory with a phenom system im working on. Unfortunately ALL of the cores have the same ceiling of 2.55 ghz. (jacked the V up to 1.55) It could just be the biostar board I have in it, but from what i can tell at least on this BE, there is no one faulty core.
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.
So I did what you said and googled "BSOD clock interrupt Phenom" and sure enough there's alot of pissed of people (even on AMD's website forum) with the same problem. Interesting...
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.
---------------
UNIX is user-friendly- it's just picky who its friends are.
DRM is slowly killing personal computing, one Sony rootkit and TPM chip at a time.
Tis sad indeed. But as you know that is life in the big city. Consumers get and are getting screwed on a daily basis due to crappy products. Just look at the products that are recalled. Unfortunately it is the customer that usually gets the $hit end of the stick............Be an informed consumer. Intell had some problems in the past and have recalled the cpu's that were the culprits you would think that if the problem was that wide spread AMD would do the same.
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
I'm not too sure about the crazy volts thing. The phenom ive got (well its not mine in 2 days, so ask questions now while i can screw with it) runs 2.5 at 1.25 V... the extra .3 of voltage only affords it 50mhz of headroom (go figure)
Thanks for the analysis ragemonkey. I'm sorry to say that I'm not surprised. AMD's processor division is no longer running a legitimate business.
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.
It sure is easy to tell the Intel inside Idiot outside croud in this thread.
It is not a masking problem, nor a design problem, or it would show up in every chip. It is not a process problem, or it would have shown up in 65 nm X2s. It is not a QC problem, or it would show up in all other product.
It is most likely a motherboard problem. It can probably be fixed with a bios update.
On the other hand, the stupidity problem that a lot of posters in this thread have, will never go away.
It sure is easy to tell the Intel inside Idiot outside croud in this thread.
It is not a masking problem, nor a design problem, or it would show up in every chip. It is not a process problem, or it would have shown up in 65 nm X2s. It is not a QC problem, or it would show up in all other product.
It is most likely a motherboard problem. It can probably be fixed with a bios update.
On the other hand, the stupidity problem that a lot of posters in this thread have, will never go away.
can you elaborate, or would that request just offend u even more?
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.
That being said, it really does smack of a reticle defect, but this should be really easy to spot/fix. Unless it's deterministic, in which case all bets are off.
Actually, now that I think of it, I think I know now *where* the issue lies. Sadly, due to the nature of my current job, I can't comment any more.
What a load of bilge, thats like saying "I know a secret, you would like to hear it, but im not telling"
