What if the graphics which is controlled by the processor works well enough to leave the next 9900 or whatever their called on the shelf as their not required anymore to blind us with speed.....
Even if they didnt reach that high, intel will have a new mid range video card at no extra cost !!!!
Isnt the mid range the biggest seller.
Just-An-Engineer described how ray tracing works. I'd read about it years ago, but I'm not an engineer and am more interested in results, however they're arrived at. I gather that Intel's hoping to finally realize their dream of making a discrete GPU obsolete by integrating a ray tracing core into their CPU's. Yet, what I read was that they weren't aiming that at the high end.
If Intel's going to market GPU"s capable of ray tracing, they'll have to be capable of rasterization too, otherwise they won't sell in any transitional period. Havok and Ageia aren't as relevant to the Intel vs. Nvidia war.
Not having physics might hurt AMD but Nvidia not having a CPU will hurt them more and they'll have to integrate ray tracing into future Nvidia GPU's--unless AMD and Nvidia can convince game developers to not utilize it. What is Intel going to do then? Buy their own game studios? Bribe Microsoft into supporting it in a future DirectX?
What I'd like to see is more standardization from technology sharing and cooperative standards, rather than from Intel trying to muscle Nvidia because they can't muscle AMD at this point. The regulators won't take well to the demise of the only other viable CPU company, but they'll accept greater competition in the GPU market, because they really don't care about IGP, Swift, Larrabee or discrete GPU. All that matters in an anticompetitive action is how ethically market share is gained.
Who wants to point out the love affair between Intel and M$? Anyone? What yipsl said, and what Ive just described (no, theres no love affair between Intel and M$) The more Intel runs away from the common market, the greater mistake theyll make, if thats their intention.
---------------
Every artist is a cannibal,every poet is a thief,they all kill their inspiration then sing about their grief
Just-An-Engineer described how ray tracing works. I'd read about it years ago, but I'm not an engineer and am more interested in results, however they're arrived at. I gather that Intel's hoping to finally realize their dream of making a discrete GPU obsolete by integrating a ray tracing core into their CPU's. Yet, what I read was that they weren't aiming that at the high end.
If Intel's going to market GPU"s capable of ray tracing, they'll have to be capable of rasterization too, otherwise they won't sell in any transitional period. Havok and Ageia aren't as relevant to the Intel vs. Nvidia war.
Not having physics might hurt AMD but Nvidia not having a CPU will hurt them more and they'll have to integrate ray tracing into future Nvidia GPU's--unless AMD and Nvidia can convince game developers to not utilize it. What is Intel going to do then? Buy their own game studios? Bribe Microsoft into supporting it in a future DirectX?
What I'd like to see is more standardization from technology sharing and cooperative standards, rather than from Intel trying to muscle Nvidia because they can't muscle AMD at this point. The regulators won't take well to the demise of the only other viable CPU company, but they'll accept greater competition in the GPU market, because they really don't care about IGP, Swift, Larrabee or discrete GPU. All that matters in an anticompetitive action is how ethically market share is gained.
Lets just hope for two things. Labaree will be atleast as good as a mid range video card and standardize it with out paying much more extra..
I cant see this as being finished tho as the chipsets will get better as time progresses.. giving better bandwidth
The second is that Intel still put a graphics interface on this system ( nothings guaranteed ) such as pci express 2 or if need be 3 by then to give us a option of upgrading and also if possible a Crossfire / Sli type setup using the "Intel" card and the IGP for more power...
Now IGP is i would say 60-70 of all oem pcs from Dell etc. Even these didnt have AGP ports on some of them back in the AGP days. I remember hearing Intel sold more Video cards than Ati and Nvidia due to the onboard chipset with video.
Who remembers the Intel 740 AGP card, what a load of crap that was...The demo of the bird was good but it was knocked out by 3dfx and nvidia at the time.. Just hope Intel dont **** this one up as it could be very interesting to see what happens.
And, Id like to point out that itll be billions of dollars later before Intel sees a penny from doing this. To me, its not dollars in the bank for Intel, but more of a huge chance theyre taking, which like Rob Enderle said, didnt have to be done. Intel cant do it all, and monopolies, the courts, and M$, gane devs, nVidia, AMD, AIBS, arent going to like this "new" direction
---------------
Every artist is a cannibal,every poet is a thief,they all kill their inspiration then sing about their grief
Just-An-Engineer described how ray tracing works. I'd read about it years ago, but I'm not an engineer and am more interested in results, however they're arrived at. I gather that Intel's hoping to finally realize their dream of making a discrete GPU obsolete by integrating a ray tracing core into their CPU's. Yet, what I read was that they weren't aiming that at the high end.
If Intel's going to market GPU"s capable of ray tracing, they'll have to be capable of rasterization too, otherwise they won't sell in any transitional period. Havok and Ageia aren't as relevant to the Intel vs. Nvidia war.
Not having physics might hurt AMD but Nvidia not having a CPU will hurt them more and they'll have to integrate ray tracing into future Nvidia GPU's--unless AMD and Nvidia can convince game developers to not utilize it. What is Intel going to do then? Buy their own game studios? Bribe Microsoft into supporting it in a future DirectX?
What I'd like to see is more standardization from technology sharing and cooperative standards, rather than from Intel trying to muscle Nvidia because they can't muscle AMD at this point. The regulators won't take well to the demise of the only other viable CPU company, but they'll accept greater competition in the GPU market, because they really don't care about IGP, Swift, Larrabee or discrete GPU. All that matters in an anticompetitive action is how ethically market share is gained.
Technically I didn't really explain how it works before, I just said that it has been around for a while and that I messed around with it a long time ago. Not surprisingly, there have been many advances in this field since I worked with it about 15 years ago. Here's an interesting article I dug up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6457951.stm
Supposedly you can do much more advanced lighting effects with ray tracing than you can do with rasterisation. However, everything I have read still states that rasterisation requires much less computing power than ray tracing and is much faster. Given that the latest games require an enormous amount of processing power already in order to be run at high settings, I will be a little surprised if many developers start utilizing ray tracing exclusively as it could potentially limit the potential customer base to those people who own the latest equipment.
Anytime you post something about AMD, it gets like this, like anyone buying AMD has to defend their purchase/reasons for doinng so. Too aggressive for such simple and informative things IMHO. Im sorry if Ive contributed to this as well, but like was said, this is about AMD and AMD mobos
---------------
Every artist is a cannibal,every poet is a thief,they all kill their inspiration then sing about their grief
He doesn't have to defend his purchase. I understand why he did it. Now if he went out and bought a whole new setup and went Phenom just due to preference that I would question, but then again thats his preference so it is what it is. Just why he didn't double check the support for that specific chip is beyond me.
Look just b/c a mobo will support other chips or higher chips like that one doesn't mean it will support it. My mobo can support all of the 45nm chips out so far but has yet to post support for the Q9300 b/c the microcode is different.
Yes so far your mobo has shown support for the 125w TDP Athlon X2's but not for the Phenom 9850BE since it uses more power than that old Athlon X2's.
And I double checked but a Phenom 9850BE is not supported in your mobo. Its not just b/c of the TDP its also the microcode. Each CPU has a bit different microcode even if they are almost exactally identicle. I.E. a 9850BEs microcode is a bit different than a 9750BEs so that also causes problems.
But still good luck. You may want to RMA the chip and just get a 9750BE. 100MHz and you can probably OC it the same or the 100MHz to compensate the differnce.
Either way good luck with getting it to actually work. Until a BIOS is released for full 9850BE support you wojnt have a pleasant time making it accept it.
Message edited by jimmysmitty on 04-21-2008 at 07:06:35 AM
I have RMA'd it last week, and should be getting my refund soon. I believe it was a bad core in the Phenom, and think that 1802's new bios will support it. there are several forums I have been on and some have gotten the 9850 to work with this board with no problems. Thanks for your input Jimmy.
i would love to upgrade to a quad core but i cant justify the minimal (if any even) gains going from x2 6400 blacky to x4 9850. perhaps, amd will be releasing 3ghz quad cores by summer. then we're talking.
i would love to upgrade to a quad core but i cant justify the minimal (if any even) gains going from x2 6400 blacky to x4 9850. perhaps, amd will be releasing 3ghz quad cores by summer. then we're talking.
ATM... a faster clocked Dual is more effective then a slower clocked Quad for AMD, as for the future, perhaps soon the quads will shine
I have RMA'd it last week, and should be getting my refund soon. I believe it was a bad core in the Phenom, and think that 1802's new bios will support it. there are several forums I have been on and some have gotten the 9850 to work with this board with no problems. Thanks for your input Jimmy.
Well them getting it to work might not be for the best. It might end up doing more damage and shorten the life of the mobo and CPU. Especially if the CPU is not getting the right voltage it needs to be run correctly. It might be a bad core but I have yet to hear of any people having the same problem with the B3 Phenoms as they did with the B2 Phenoms, i.e. bad third core.
I would suggest still the 9750BE still since we know for a fact that your mobo fully supports it.
I really wanted to get the 9850 and just get it to 3.0 and I would of been happy, Can this 9850 do 3.0ghz stable, yes it sure can. Can It on my mother board, that remains to be seen. My 9850 @2.5 scored higher on Benchmark 06 and vista rated it at 5.9 instead of 5.5 For right now I think I will just invest into some water cooling and two hard drives with 32mb cach and maybe a new case. Thanks for all your input guys, I was just hoping to find someone that dropped this Quad into the same mother board as I did and got it to work right.
I have RMA'd it last week, and should be getting my refund soon. I believe it was a bad core in the Phenom, and think that 1802's new bios will support it. there are several forums I have been on and some have gotten the 9850 to work with this board with no problems. Thanks for your input Jimmy.
I do not think it was a bad core in the Phenom. I think you are stubbornly refusing to accept that your board does not support that CPU. Why are you oblivious to CPU support lists?
Look, when Anandtech, Tom's or another site knowingly tries a CPU on a board that it doesn't support, just to see what happens, they acknowledge it. They did that sort of test with the B2's and various 690 chipset boards.
You aren't acknowledging facts. You keep saying that your board supports 125 watt Athlon X2's. No one disputes that. You keep saying you had a bad Phenom.
Frankly, it doesn't make you look good as an enthusiast. We all know the Phenom's don't overclock fantastically well, but we at least aren't blaming the Phenom if a board doesn't support the CPU, even where some blame AMD for lack of support.
Please don't take this personally, but I'm mystified as to why anyone would ignore the obvious and not read the documentation before installing a CPU in their board.
What are you trying to accomplish by not acknowledging your board's lack of support? I don't blame you for intentional FUD, but your claims that the 9850 works in your board ends up being FUD.
Can this 9850 do 3.0ghz stable, yes it sure can. Can It on my mother board, that remains to be seen.
It does not remain to be seen. It's clear as day. YOUR MOTHERBOARD SUPPORT PAGE DOES NOT LIST THE PHENOM 9850. Sorry for a virtual yell, but you ignore the difference between getting something to sort of work and getting something to work as intended.
Your AM2 board is in the same situation vis a vis the 9850's as the 780G boards that can't handle the voltage. Some 780G's are listed as unofficial support because they can handle stock but not overclock. Your AM2 Nvidia board might be able to handle a brief overclock but I'm quite sure the board thinks you have a B2, which leads to all sort of issues.
