medjohnson77 :
Just got the Phenom 9850BE from ups today. I find it very interesting that when I upgraded windows score that my old blacks ed. 6400+ dual core got a stock rating of 5.6 out of the box.
I wouldn't have upgraded from a 6400+, unless you spend most of your time doing Photoshop and 3DS Max. I was going to get a 9850BE in May but I think I'm going to wait until Deneb, as the 690V board doesn't support Phenom. That's the kind of Black Edition I want, a native 3.0 gigahertz 45nm 65 watt Deneb. I'm guessing on the wattage, maybe it will be 89 or 95, but I can't see it being 125 because the process improvements should bring thermals down a bit.
My wife's ASUS 690G does support B2's and she's interested, but if they don't put out a B3 bios, then I'm not going to put a B2 in either. Then again, it might be fun to see if she runs into the errata. I don't think she will and she does use graphics programs that utilize 4 cores.
If you mostly play games, you won't see much improvement because you won't get past 2.8 without fiddling around with voltage, or so the reviews say. Just saw that you did fiddle with voltage. 2.93 isn't bad, but with Deneb coming out at an expected 3.0, I can predict you'll be upgrading in December once again.
medjohnson77 :
any Ideas on what it could be. The Bios version 1802 updated right. could part of it be the 1802 is for the B2 and has the limitor on it??
I do know this from reviews. The B2 limiter in a bios does not affect the B3's. The bios ignores the limiter when a B3 is installed, as long as the bios supports a B3. If you're using a bios that doesn't support a B3, then that could lead to weird results.
Some 780G boards had voltage setups that did not support a 125 watt processor, but since you had a 6400+, your motherboard might be okay, but I read on another thread that the 125 watt X2's still only pulled 89 amps whereas the 125 watt Phenom's 9750's and 9850's pulled 100 amps, which can still be a problem.
Correct me if I'm wrong people but the info above is what I remember from the thread on the 780G, explaining what was happening. I've not had an Nvidia board beyond a cheap 405 chipset, so I'm not familiar with his SLI board's CPU support list.
Hellboy :
all im saying is a year old chip out of the box reaches 5.9 in the windows Vista Experience Index (we'll cal it VEI shall we) speed test, all though this is not ideal, it does give some sort of indication on how applications - mostly games will run...
Call me a fanboy if you want, and I'll admit the Q6600 is better in some respects, but not in all. I happen to like ATI/AMD chipsets and GPU's so I go for a total platform and am willing to take a bit of a hit on CPU performance (but read above, I'm not willing to commit to a 9850BE on a 790 board with Deneb so close).
The fact that a CPU is a year old is irrelevant. The relevant fact is that the Q6600 is based on a better C2D processor packaged as "non-native". Intel obviously knew what they were talking about when they said it wasn't a good idea to go native quad core at 65nm and AMD made a big mistake. One that's haunted them longer than the 31 stage pipeline Netburst CPU's haunted Intel. Maybe it's just that the little guy gets picked on when falling down and the big guy gets a pass when he's bullying? (i.e. the Intel OEM rebate mishegoss that is thankfully past, such that AMD can rely on that mainstream market to survive).
Ignore the Windows Experience. That's worse than 3DMark 06 as a benchmark of quality. In real world tests, I expect his experience with the 9850 will equal that of testing sites, that showed it equalled a Q6600 on some benchmarks utilizing 4 cores, but fell behind in others, especially if the benchmarks did not use 4 cores.
IMHO, we won't see most games and applications using 4 cores until sometime between December 2008 and December 2009. We probably won't see games and most applications benefiting from 64 bit until 2010. When Deneb comes out, AMD will have the native quad core all us AMD fans have waited for and it might be too late for top spot (but not for company survival -- which Intel admits is in their best interest too).
Deneb will stock at 3.0 and might overclock to 3.6 Nehalem should reach 4.0 and will have hyperthreading at the high end for 8 virtual cores. I expect that Deneb will be the budget quad core solution 2 45nm, especially the first SOI itineration. Maybe AMD will be back on top at 32nm with IBM's newest process?
Me, I'll stay an AMD fan who wants the company to survive for a total platform that I like instead of AMD plus Nvidia or Intel plus AMD/ATI. I'll want AMD to survive, and not to just lower the prices of Intel CPU's. I don't work for AMD and really wish they hadn't laid anyone off (I hated Intel for layoffs when they're on top, jobs for loyal competent employees should be for life -- call me old fashioned-- well, I am old; in my days sonny, we walked to the Computation Center in a snowstorm just to play Advent when we didn't feel like doing our BASIC homework).
Can't wait for Deneb. I hope then it beats a Q6600 and Q6700. I hope it equals or beats a Penryn. I won't expect it to beat a Nehalem. So, I'm a realist fanboy and I laud Intel for coming back from a lousy processor design to a good one that wins overall. I just haven't seen Intel come back from their business practices much yet. Maybe they'll direct them at Nvidia next time around, that seems to be a fight gearing up considering Huang's comments at Nvidia's analyst day. He even supported AMD with his comments that Intel's "Laughabee" (his words) would not match the quality of the two GPU companies.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram