Just got The Phenom 9850Be today!!!

[Shadow703793]

^Agreed.

 

[xx12amanxx]

Glad i could help...Good Luck!

 

[medjohnson77]

Thanks xx12,

I got amd overdrive to work. Checked the new bios updates for my Jetway HA04 extreme, and they already put A04 out for it. It is geared for crashes because of the 9850. Updating the bios was a pain in the A$$. Had to do it with a floppy and the jetway didn't come with vista 64bit drivers fort the Awdflash bios program so I had to install those before I could even get the new bios to take. All is well now and I am running on 2.5ghz stock. I tried to over clock all cores up to 209 with the 12.5 X multi and blue screen, with the 2nd processor error. I am working on clocking each core seperate now, and see if it is a bad core.

 

[enigma067]

mmmm

I have had an over the year old Q6600 running at 3Ghz with a Vista rating of 5.9.

Now im not boasting, but for the Phenoms first main release hi end chip, doesnt sound to promising...

Lets hope you get to 5.9 soon...

I wouldn't compare a Multi-Chip Module (Q6600) with a Native Quad Core (Phenom) if I were you.

The Phenom's architecture is far superior to anything Intel has out now.

Intel is good at two things; making more expensive chips and regurgitating the 8086 architecture.

I can't wait to see how expensive their 45nm chip is going to be.

http://img.tomshardware.com/forum/uk/icones/smilies/pt1cable.gif


Some people overclocked the Barcelona to 4.7Ghz under liquid cooled environment.
Barcelona like Phenom is Native Quad Core.

 

[Just_An_Engineer]

I wouldn't compare a Multi-Chip Module (Q6600) with a Native Quad Core (Phenom) if I were you.

The Phenom's architecture is far superior to anything Intel has out now.

Intel is good at two things; making more expensive chips and regurgitating the 8086 architecture.

I can't wait to see how expensive their 45nm chip is going to be.

http://img.tomshardware.com/forum/uk/icones/smilies/pt1cable.gif


Some people overclocked the Barcelona to 4.7Ghz under liquid cooled environment.
Barcelona like Phenom is Native Quad Core.

I hope you are joking because this post is like playing with matches at a gas station. You can expect to get flamed by the Intel fanboys shortly.

I have a couple of comments myself. You are correct that Intel is good at making expensive chips and reusing the x86 architecture. However, the chips Intel has been making lately are very good even if they are more expensive. Everyone, including AMD, still uses the x86 architecture for desktop CPU's.

In my opinion the native quad core design is superior to the multi-chip module that Intel currently uses. The problem is that while AMD's concept for the design was great, their execution was disappointing. Intel will be using the same conceptual design in their next processor generation and it remains to be seen if they will fare any better.

 

[MU_Engineer]

I wouldn't compare a Multi-Chip Module (Q6600) with a Native Quad Core (Phenom) if I were you.

The Phenom's architecture is far superior to anything Intel has out now.

The AMD K10 μarchitecture is on par with Intel's Core μarch. The execution cores have many of the same features and, surprise surprise, they perform pretty similarly clock-for-clock, give or take a few percent depending on the particular code you're running and the amount of cache bolted to the core.

Intel is good at two things; making more expensive chips and regurgitating the 8086 architecture.

First of all, the new ISA standard is not Intel's but AMD's x86_64. Intel had wanted to go from x86 → Itanium IA64 but AMD captured the market with their x86_64 ISA. I'm not going to argue with your second point as Intel does on average charge more for their chips than AMD does and usually has since they started making CPUs. But you did forget the thing Intel is actually REALLY REALLY GOOD at- IC photolithography process engineering. Intel is world-class in their fab and process technology. Maybe IBM can go toe-to-toe with them, but Intel beats IBM in execution of the latest fab technology to make hundreds of millions of ICs.

I can't wait to see how expensive their 45nm chip is going to be.

Probably about as expensive as equivalently-clocked Phenom X3s/X4s and Opteron x3xx CPUs, maybe a tad less.

Some people overclocked the Barcelona to 4.7Ghz under liquid cooled environment.
Barcelona like Phenom is Native Quad Core.

And people got a Skulltrail with dual QX9775s to 6 GHz under a liquid-cooled environment (that liquid was nitrogen, but it's a liquid, right? ) It really makes little difference to anybody who actually uses their computer how high somebody can get a CPU to go in a suicide shot using a grand worth of LN2 and a Vcore approaching two volts. Really the only thing that matters would be how high somebody can clock the chip on a sane Vcore using sane cooling methods, which usually means a large air-cooled heatsink or maybe water.

AMD will tell you themselves that MCMs are not bad as they are readying a 45 nm 12-core Opteron made of two 6-core dies in an MCM. The IMC might make some performance difference and the Opteron's HT bus setup vs. the Xeon's FSB setup does as well, but you can implement either using a native multi-core die or MCMs. There are advantages to a multi-core monolithic die, don't get me wrong, but they are not the end-all be-all in chip design. The implementation of buses, core-to-core communication, caches, core μarch, and other features of the chip make more of a difference than if there are two dies or one under the heat spreader.

I have a couple of comments myself. You are correct that Intel is good at making expensive chips and reusing the x86 architecture. However, the chips Intel has been making lately are very good even if they are more expensive. Everyone, including AMD, still uses the x86 architecture for desktop CPU's.

Almost everybody is using x86_64, which is a derivative of x86 but has considerable differences.

Also, x86 is an instruction set, not an architecture. An 80386DX has a *wildly* different architecture than a Core Duo but both are x86 processors. The instructions were separated from the hardware a long time ago when decoders were introduced in the first P6 chip, the 1995-era Pentium Pro. Today's "x86" cores are really much more like RISC cores rather than CISC ones like the x86 instruction set would lead you to believe.

In my opinion the native quad core design is superior to the multi-chip module that Intel currently uses. The problem is that while AMD's concept for the design was great, their execution was disappointing. Intel will be using the same conceptual design in their next processor generation and it remains to be seen if they will fare any better.[/quotems]

It will be interesting to see the Nehalem launch. It's a big change for Intel as far as a macro-architectural and platform standpoint and there are supposed to be μarch tweaks as well.

 

[Just_An_Engineer]

Almost everybody is using x86_64, which is a derivative of x86 but has considerable differences.

Also, x86 is an instruction set, not an architecture. An 80386DX has a *wildly* different architecture than a Core Duo but both are x86 processors. The instructions were separated from the hardware a long time ago when decoders were introduced in the first P6 chip, the 1995-era Pentium Pro. Today's "x86" cores are really much more like RISC cores rather than CISC ones like the x86 instruction set would lead you to believe.

It will be interesting to see the Nehalem launch. It's a big change for Intel as far as a macro-architectural and platform standpoint and there are supposed to be μarch tweaks as well.

Looks like we're just dealing with semantics here, but thanks for the correction all the same.

I too will be interested to see how Intel's first try with Nehalem goes. Part of me wants to see Nehalem be a complete failure if for no reason other than to get the Intel fanboys to stop littering the forum with threads about the impending doom of AMD. I doubt that will happen though. I think there will definitely be some glitches since it does represent a huge change in process for Intel but I don't think they will be anything too drastic.

 

[topper743]

MJ I don't see on the Jetway site where they have a 790fx chipset. I only see a 780g. Which model mb did you get? I see what Jetway claims. I just don't know if you are going to have success without the 790fx.

 

[medjohnson77]

Topper,

I have also noticed that on some of there links, sites they don't show the new HA04-extreme. It is the 790FX and I could not find what power phase it has but it seems like a quality board. I got it from the egg for $160.00 It does support the phenom 9850, they have already released a new bios for it to clear up a few issues. The bios was a pain in the A$$ to update however. It seem that I have atleast one core that will not run stable at or anything past 2.5Ghz the others vary from 2.6-2.8 stable. at 2.5Ghz I still am getting blue screens just not as often. I have talked to two others that have got there 9850s at 3.0GHz stable on air, with no bios updates for the new HA04-extreme. I almost went with Asus with the M3A but wanted to try something different. I miss the asus probe 11. I am Rma the 9850 one more time. I hope this takes care of my problems. Hopefully I will get a 9850 that can atleast run stable at 2.5Ghz and maybe I will get lucky and get one that hits 3.0ghz stable.

 

[medjohnson77]

Hello Guys,

Guess what, Just got the new 9850 today and dropped her into the new Jetway board, and bingo! No problems, no blue screens, she is running at Idle at 34C at 2.5Ghz. I have not tried to overclock her yet but this is awsome. It is much more responsive at 2.5 the the 6400+be at 3.2Ghz. They must have sent me one that was just put out cuz the date on this chip is the 11th week of 2008, which more then several people have had good luck with this batch date. The stock cooler is also new because it doesn't look like like the old ones shipped with the old 2 9850's that sucked A$$! Needless to say I am happy it is about damn time!! Thanks for everyone that has tried to help me work thru this problem, but I guess it doesn't matter what help you get when you have the crappy luck of getting to crap 9850's shipped to you. In retro spec my M2N32-sli deluxe is on the offical support list for the 9850 on the AMD site. Not that it matters since I upgraded my board to the new Jetway HA04 extreme, all because of two bad 9850's. I started to question my ram, I almost ordered 4 more gb of 1066 and windows XP 64 bit. I will still get the Ram, but not the XP. Thanks everone that tried to help with this.

 

[medjohnson77]

Just brought her up to 2.6ghz no blue screen, bumped the multi up to 13x and 200 FSB

 

[xx12amanxx]

Sweet!....Now hit 3.0 and let us know!

 

[medjohnson77]

bumped the multi up to 13.5x no voltage increase and shes at 2.7ghz no blue screens, Idle at 31C but it is a little cooler out this morning.

 

[medjohnson77]

Damn, $500 dollars to lay 200sq feet of Teak this morning, or play with the new 9850?? I ve got to go to work, I ll play with this baby later.

 

[jj463rd]

Here are the supported boards for the 125 watt Phenoms on ASUS website.
M2N32-sli deluxe was not listed there though it was on AMD's site.Because the Phenom X4 9850 BE is so new sometimes I have seen the listing of supported motherboards change (some being removed as being supported from both AMD and Motherboard manufacturers).
http://support.asus.com/faq/faq.aspx?no=806B777B-858B-11F8-910B-D555F8517CA1&SLanguage=en-us.
I would have probably trusted the Asus M3A32-MVP deluxe motherboard.

Look on the left of this page where it says AMD 125 watt Phenom support under FAQ knowledge base

http://vip.asus.com/forum/topic.aspx?board_id=1&model=M3A32-MVP+DELUXE&SLanguage=en-us

I know that it is different than the one here.
http://support.asus.com/cpusupport/cpusupport.aspx?SLanguage=en-us

 

[medjohnson77]

Thanks for the info JJ,

I am sure I could drop this new 9850 in the asus M2N32-sli deluxe and not have any problems. There was atleast one bad core in the last two phenoms that was sent to me, and this one is the third the egg sent out has the 11th week date of 2008 for the batch number. The heat sink has even been revised on this new one they sent. So I am guessing that the two I got before hand sould of been made into tripple core phenoms. AT 2.5Ghz this new Phenom is way more responsive then my 6400+, at 2.7ghz which is what I have it over clocked at now it is really responsive. Mutil is set to 13.5x with no voltage increase. On the other two 9850's I had to underclock them to even get them to run, and even then would still get the 2nd processor clock error, on the Asus board or the new Jetway HA04-extreme AM2+ board. If I changed the multi at all on the other two 9850's on either board it would freeze, and I couldn't even boot into windows vista.

 

[coret]

What's really annoying is that Asus haven't gotten round to testing the X3 8750 on the board yet and giving it Bios support ... that's the chip I'm interested in for my M2N32-SLi ...

I really want that 12x multiplier...

 

[medjohnson77]

I have her at 2.8 and she has been running stable for several hours now no problems. Idleing at 35-38C,

I am surprised that they have not given bios support yet for that coret. That does suck! I am debating on getting the Dimond 3780 512Mb card for right now because of money being tight, I have to pick up another copy of vista 64 from the egg also, and was going to get the OCZ 1066 Ram 2 gbs kit thats ATi certified. Not sure if I should order this Dimond 3780, I believe it will not perform as well as my BFG 8800 GTS 512mb but need to get something to free up the 8800 GTS so I can get my other rig with the 6400+ and M2N32-sli back up and running. I figure I can always get the 3870x2 in a week or so and run it in crossfire with the single 3870. Anyone have exp. with the single 3870 card, how does it run games on the spider platform.

 

[coret]

From what I've seen, whether or not it's on a spider platform, the single 3870 delivers performance somewhere between the 8800gts 640mb and the 8800gt 512mb ...

To see how it stacks up, HardOCP recently did some tests with single, dual and quad crossfire... link here: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ3MCwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

To be honest, going with ATI graphics - I'd either hold off on any purchase, or at most, get a single 3870 as a stop-gap card - and wait for the new 4 series which is due out Soon™

 

[medjohnson77]

That sounds like a good Idea Coret, I thought about waiting and not getting the 3870x2 but I have heard it is beating out Nvidia's top cards right now, or aleast very competive for the cost. Getting the 3870 and just waiting kinda sucks because thats what I thought, I don't think it can beat my 8800GTS 512mb (G92) but just wanted to know if anybody has one and if it still does a good job. It is about $160 bucks on the egg, and a $15 rebate so If it does fairly well then that would be a pretty good deal. I just don't want to take a step to far back from what I have, waitin on the 4 series. I havent placed my order with the egg yet but was going to today.

 

[coret]

Well, what resolutions do you play games at?

 

[medjohnson77]

Well it depends on the game but Dawn of war which I play alot only allows 1280x1080. I am looking at getting crysis soon. And from the link you put on your post it seems that the 3870 that I just ordered of the egg, can not handle very high settings on every thing. But then again on a crazy game like crysis my 8800GTs might not handle it very well either, but will still out perform the 3870. I went with the dimond 512mb instead of the 1gb that was more expensive with the DDR3. It didn't bench very well and for the price a 3870x2 would be a much better deal.

 

[smalltime0]

If your screen only supports 1280x1080 I am relatively sure a 3870 will be able to run anything you want...

What is your screens max/native res.

 

[medjohnson77]

I have a 17" wide screen westing house, not sure what the native is i believe it is atleast 1280x1080, and a 37" Olevia LCD that is 1080p, believe the native on it is 1280x1080. It has vga and Hdmi inputs. I got this about two years ago at HHgreg and it ran me about $1600 dollars on sale.

I have overclocke the 9850 to 2.9 and seemed to run stable no blue screens. AMD Overdrive does not save settings when you shut down the computer. Since all has been running good at 2.5-2.9Ghz I went into my bios and disabled AOD and overclocked from the bios instead. I started right at a 14.5 multi and left everything else alone. Windows would not boot, and just had a black screen at 2.9Ghz. No change to Vcore, running at stock 1.30 but shows as 1.32 in my bios. So maybe thats why AOD wouldnt save settings to boot up on. Any thoughts guys??

 

[medjohnson77]

this is my score with 2.9ghz overclocked on the 9850 and my BFG 8800gts =13,062


Result Analyzer

11416 Similar systems
Your system compared to 6 similar system configurations All systems
Systems in total: 5,198,382


Your system Common system Fastest system
3DMark Score 13062 3DMarks 11600 VirtualMarks 32601 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 5241 N/A 12490
SM 3.0 Score 5860 N/A 16624
CPU Score 3921 N/A 8199
Overview

Operating system Microsoft Windows Vista Microsoft Windows Vista Microsoft Windows Vista
Processor AMD Phenom(tm) Quad Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 / 3 GHz processor


E-Commerce links in partnership withCNET.com ATI Radeon HD 3870 X2
Memory 4096 MB 2176 MB 2048 MB
Result Info


Your system Common system Fastest system
Name Untitled elmor and Kinc | ASUS EAH3870X2 TOP | ASUS P5E64 WS Pro



Description
ASUS EAH3870X2 TOP 0.8ns, Air cooled, ASUS P5E64 WS Professional. Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 @ 1.98v -100*C. Silverstone 1200W PSU. Dragon F1 Extreme. Corsair Dominator DDR3.
Date May 11, 2008 22:02 CDT Apr 07, 2008 08:18 CDT
Case Not specified Not specified
Processor cooler Not specified Not specified
Graphics card cooler Not specified Not specified
Case cooler Not specified Not specified
Power supply Not specified Not specified
General Information

Operating system Microsoft Windows Vista Microsoft Windows Vista
System type 64-bit 32-bit
Motherboard manufacturer JetWay ASUSTeK Computer INC.
Motherboard model HA04 ASUS P5K WS - motherboard - ATX - iP35
€

Processor information

Processor clock 2800 MHz 5707 MHz








Physical / logical processors 1 / 4 1 / 4
Multicore 4 Processor Cores 4 Processor Cores
FSB 200 MHz 402 MHz
Display information

Graphics card XFX GeForce 8800 GTS (PCI-e, 512MB, GDDR3)

Graphics memory 512 MB 512 MB
Core clock 0.0 MHz 496.0 MHz
Memory clock 0.0 MHz 564.0 MHz
Driver name NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512 ATI Radeon HD 3870 X2
Driver version 7.15.11.6925 8.471.0.0
Driver status WHQL - FM Approved WHQL - FM Approved
Linked display adapters No No



Result details
Benchmark settings

Program Version 3DMark06 Revision 1 Build 0 3DMark06 Revision 1 Build 0
Resolution 1280x1024 1280x1024
Full Screen Anti-Aliasing None None
Texture Filtering Optimal Optimal
Vertex Shader Profile 3_0 3_0
Pixel Shader Profile 3_0 3_0
Force Full Precision No No
Disable Post-processing No No
Force Software Vertex Shaders No No
Force Software FP Filtering No No
Disable Harware Shadow Mapping No No
Colour Mipmaps No No
Repeat Count Off Off
Fixed Framerate Off Off
Main test results

3DMark Score 13062 3DMarks 32601 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 5241 12490
SM 3.0 Score 5860 16624
CPU Score 3921 8199
Test Results

Graphics Tests1 - Return to Proxycon 43.26 FPS43.26 FPS101.26 FPS101.26 FPS2 - Firefly Forest 44.1 FPS44.1 FPS106.91 FPS106.91 FPSCPU TestsCPU1 - Red Valley 1.31 FPS1.31 FPS2.65 FPS2.65 FPSCPU2 - Red Valley 1.88 FPS1.88 FPS4.06 FPS4.06 FPSHDR Tests1 - Canyon Flight (SM 3.0) 61.48 FPS61.48 FPS195.86 FPS195.86 FPS2 - Deep Freeze (SM 3.0) 55.73 FPS55.73 FPS136.62 FPS136.62 FPSFeature TestsFill Rate - Single Texturing N/AN/AN/AN/AFill Rate - Multi Texturing N/AN/AN/AN/APixel Shader N/AN/AN/AN/AVertex Shader - Simple N/AN/AN/AN/AVertex Shader - Complex N/AN/AN/AN/AShader Particles (SM 3.0) N/AN/AN/AN/APerlin Noise (SM 3.0) N/AN/AN/AN/ABatch Tests8 Triangles N/AN/AN/AN/A32 Triangles N/AN/AN/AN/A128 Triangles N/AN/AN/AN/A512 Triangles N/AN/AN/AN/A2048 Triangles N/AN/AN/A/A32768 Triangles N/AN/AN/AN/A
ORBResult AnalyzerResult Analyzer
Your Benchmark Results
Favorite Results
Single Result
All Results
Result Groups
Ungrouped ResultsORB Tools
Search Benchmark Results
Result AnalyzerAccount
Login Info
Personal Info
Product Keys
Delete AccountHelp
ORB HelpContact us
Advertise
Legal
Privacy
Copyright 2008
Futuremark® Corporation. Futuremark
YouGamers Futuremark ORB
Futuremark Games Studios

Change common system configuration x Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 AMD Phenom 9600 AMD Phenom 9500 AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2 ATI Radeon HD 3870 X2 ATI Radeon HD 3870 ATI Radeon HD 3850